Cheney Admits to Promoting Torture - Is It Time to Indict This Sadist Prick??

[Facial_King]

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/maybe-eric-holder-should-pay-attentio

"After he was indicted for the murder of Alexander Hamilton, vice president Aaron Burr fled to South Carolina, to hide out with his daughter. Another vice president, Spiro Agnew, kept completely silent before pleading nolo contendere on corruption charges. Former vice president Dick Cheney, on the other hand, seems proud of his criminal misadventures. On Sunday, he took to the airwaves to brag about them.

“I was a big supporter of waterboarding,” Cheney said in an appearance on ABC’s This Week on Sunday. He went on to explain that Justice Department lawyers had been instructed to write legal opinions to cover the use of this and other torture techniques after the White House had settled on them.

Section 2340A of the federal criminal code makes it an offense to torture or to conspire to torture. Violators are subject to jail terms or to death in appropriate cases, as where death results from the application of torture techniques. Prosecutors have argued that a criminal investigation into torture undertaken with the direction of the Bush White House would raise complex legal issues, and proof would be difficult. But what about cases in which an instigator openly and notoriously brags about his role in torture? Cheney told Jonathan Karl that he used his position within the National Security Council to advocate for the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques. Former CIA agent John Kiriakou and others have confirmed that when waterboarding was administered, it was only after receiving NSC clearance.

Hence, Cheney was not speaking hypothetically but admitting his involvement in the process that led to decisions to waterboard in at least three cases."

More here, of course (and Horton knows of what he speaks):
http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006558

 

[Big Poppa Pump]

I think he's pretty much untouchable.

 

[Hot Mega]

The biggest lesson of contemporary politics is it's not about the case for something as much as it is destroying the opposition case against it and making the opponent's position untenable.

Building a case against Cheney 10 times over is the easy part. This administration and DoJ can't even push back silly arguments against trying terrorists in the jurisdiction of their crimes even when the circumstance is back up by tons of precedence. How the fuck are they going to dream of trying Cheney??

They are entirely too wobbly and milquetoast in asserting their cases (for anything) and don't understand in politics that the best defense is a strong offense. If you don't start out by destroying the opposition reasoning, logic, case, etc...you can rest assured that's what they will do to you.

But wishful thinking.....

 

[lechepicha]

Yes, he's admitted to it, so he should be prosecuted.

this is one of those people i would like to die, slowly and painfuly.

 

[Boothbabe]

Let's see what kind of excuses the pro-torture FreeOnes members will come up with.

 

[PirateKing]

apparently it takes a lot to indict him. hes already shot a guy in the face, authorized torture, and said "so what?" and shrugged it off when there were no WMD"s in Iraq. like Big Poppa said, he's untouchable.

 

[GregCentauro]

I like to torture cops.

 

[PirateKing]

I like to torture cops.

is that why you made me dress up like one?

 

[Big Poppa Pump]

Let's see what kind of excuses the pro-torture FreeOnes members will come up with.

Lol. Come on Mitrebus, we're waiting :scream:

 

[Jagger69]

Dick who?

This guy just needs to go away. We never heard a word from him when he was in office....now you can't shut him up.

 

[Hot Mega]

Let's see what kind of excuses the pro-torture FreeOnes members will come up with.

"So."

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Those of us who have served honorably without torturing anyone face a far greater danger from our enemies after capture than they do from us. Most American service men know that if they are captured by these pricks they may very well be decapitated slowly on camera. How humane.

So when hippie fuckheads protested outside Camp Pendleton after attending a friend's funeral it was all I could do to keep from running over them with a Humvee.

On the bright side, Dick Cheney will not face prosecution nor will W. because they have executive protection, a prerogative granted to every former President and VP. Because no executive could accomplish anything while in office if the threat of prosecution haunted their every step. Ford pardoned Nixon and you never heard of Bush Jr. going after Clinton, did you?

Just because there's a Chicago mobster in office everyone believes what they think is justice will be coming down the line. Let me tell you, if Nobama tries to skirt around that, he'll be fair game for nearly everything he's "accomplished" since taking office.


































FLAME ON!

 

[PirateKing]

Meester Perfect, facecious, and johnnystyro are gonna be all over this thread like a couple of fat guys at an all you can eat buffet.

 

[Hot Mega]

Those of us who have served honorably without torturing anyone face a far greater danger from our enemies after capture than they do from us. Most American service men know that if they are captured by these pricks they may very well be decapitated slowly on camera. How humane.

So when hippie fuckheads protested outside Camp Pendleton after attending a friend's funeral it was all I could do to keep from running over them with a Humvee.

On the bright side, Dick Cheney will not face prosecution nor will W. because they have executive protection, a prerogative granted to every former President and VP. Because no executive could accomplish anything while in office if the threat of prosecution haunted their every step. Ford pardoned Nixon and you never heard of Bush Jr. going after Clinton, did you?

Just because there's a Chicago mobster in office everyone believes what they think is justice will be coming down the line. Let me tell you, if Nobama tries to skirt around that, he'll be fair game for nearly everything he's "accomplished" since taking office.

FLAME ON!

Most criminals inflict far greater suffering on their victims than is ever meted out against them when punished. As if Charles Manson and his clan (for example) ever faced the same suffering they brought against their victims. NEXT! (strawman argument)..

BTW, Americans captured by official government agents during these wars were treated far better than we treat our own.:2 cents:

 

[No_Man]

“I was a big supporter of waterboarding,” Cheney said in an appearance on ABC’s This Week on Sunday. He went on to explain that Justice Department lawyers had been instructed to write legal opinions to cover the use of this and other torture techniques after the White House had settled on them.

Having heard John Yoo speak on the subject and read some of his briefs, this is the key for me. Yoo's contention (or assumption) is that the White House was considering several interrogation techniques and went to the Justice Department to find out where the line lay between "aggressive interrogation" and "torture." He and the Justice Department then concluded that waterboarding was not torture, wrote an extensive legal brief defending that position, and the White House was subsequently satisfied that it could authorize such techniques without breaking the law.

If that's the case, I don't think Cheney can be touched. If you go to some of the best legal minds in the country and ask, "Is this illegal?" and they tell you, "No." it's pretty difficult to argue that there was a high crime committed.

However, if Yoo is wrong (or lying) and the White House decided it was going to use waterboarding and then subsequently went to the Justice Department and said, "We think we're doing something illegal here. Find us a legal loophole so we can defend it." then Cheney may be in hot water. Horton's article suggests Cheney admitted this, but since the section in question is a paraphrase, it's hard to determine whether or not it's accurately representing Cheney's original quote.

 

[Hot Mega]

Having heard John Yoo speak on the subject and read some of his briefs, this is the key for me. Yoo's contention (or assumption) is that the White House was considering several interrogation techniques and went to the Justice Department to find out where the line lay between "aggressive interrogation" and "torture." He and the Justice Department then concluded that waterboarding was not torture, wrote an extensive legal brief defending that position, and the White House was subsequently satisfied that it could authorize such techniques without breaking the law.

If that's the case, I don't think Cheney can be touched. If you go to some of the best legal minds in the country and ask, "Is this illegal?" and they tell you, "No." it's pretty difficult to argue that there was a high crime committed.

However, if Yoo is wrong (or lying) and the White House decided it was going to use waterboarding and then subsequently went to the Justice Department and said, "We think we're doing something illegal here. Find us a legal loophole so we can defend it." then Cheney may be in hot water. Horton's article suggests Cheney admitted this, but since the section in question is a paraphrase, it's hard to determine whether or not it's accurately representing Cheney's original quote.

The problem; there is already precedence for the establishment of act as illegal. In this case, you're merely fishing for legal language to cover against prosecution.

Why couldn't some part of the administrations DoJ rewrite an opinion on almost any law to make the articles of any act legally justifiable?

 

[Crazy4theBrat]

If Cheney were a man of honor, he would have admitted to his wrong doing and stepped down a long time ago. If you believe that, you have one person to thank. Your old buddy William Jefferson "Slick Willy" Clinton. And before some of you get started defending this lowlife, it was NOT just about a blowjob. Take a look at Hillary, and nobody would blame Clinton for chasing other skirts.

It wasn't about something as trivial as sex. It was about dishonesty. He was caught lying to a federal grand jury, impeached, disbarred, and was still so lacking in honor that he wouldn't step down. At least Nixon was man enough to resign, as he well should have.

I would also like to get this in before the lefties start flaming me and accusing me of changing the subject. If Cheney broke the law, then I, as not just a Republican, but more importantly, as an American, will be more than willing to support an indictment.

The country is more important than just protecting "our guy". If our elected officials break the law, they should be held accountable. All I can say is that if the same people who are calling for Cheney to be brought up on charges, were also defending Clinton when he broke the law, then you seriously need to examine your priorities.

 

[No_Man]

The problem; there is already precedence for the establishment of act as illegal. In this case, you're merely fishing for legal language to cover against prosecution.

Why couldn't some part of the administrations DoJ rewrite an opinion on almost any law to make the articles of any act legally justifiable?

When? As far as I know, there have been plenty of professional opinions that it's torture, plenty of other nations who consider it torture, even a U.N. request that it be eliminated as an interrogation technique because it's torture. However, there is not one federal law or legal precedent, nor any international law, that specifically states that waterboarding is torture.

And that's the key. If the White House called it torture, did it anyway, and then tried to find a way to defend it, then Cheney is in a legal quandary. They're basically saying, "We think this is the way the law should be read, and we admit to breaking it... but now we're changing our minds because we don't want to be prosecuted." At the very least, that's going to get him indicted.

However, if the White House called it "enhanced" or "aggressive" interrogation, confirmed with the DoJ that they were right, and then did it, then there's not much legal basis for an indictment. They didn't believe they broke the law then. They don't believe they broke the law now. And they have a stack of legal briefs and a team of lawyers backing them up. The chances of an indictment are slim to none.

 

[Hot Mega]

When? As far as I know, there have been plenty of professional opinions that it's torture, plenty of other nations who consider it torture, even a U.N. request that it be eliminated as an interrogation technique because it's torture. However, there is not one federal law or legal precedent, nor any international law, that specifically states that waterboarding is torture.

And that's the key. If the White House called it torture, did it anyway, and then tried to find a way to defend it, then Cheney is in a legal quandary. They're basically saying, "We think this is the way the law should be read, and we admit to breaking it... but now we're changing our minds because we don't want to be prosecuted." At the very least, that's going to get him indicted.

However, if the White House called it "enhanced" or "aggressive" interrogation, confirmed with the DoJ that they were right, and then did it, then there's not much legal basis for an indictment. They didn't believe they broke the law then. They don't believe they broke the law now. And they have a stack of legal briefs and a team of lawyers backing them up. The chances of an indictment are slim to none.

Under The Torture Act, "torture" is defined as "the intentional infliction of “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” upon a person within the defendant’s custody or control.[28] To be “severe,” any mental pain or suffering resulting from torture must be “prolonged.” Does The Torture Act need to specify every method by which "the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering" be accomplished?? That would be impractical. As impractical as attempting to spell out every possible way to murder someone in order to make a charge of murder stick.

Beyond that, Cheney's clearest, most basic problem is the US State department characterizes the act as torture when committed by other nations. That is.. game, set, match; check-mate, 00:00 or how ever else one can put end of story.

 

[~~whimsy~~]

We put a dog collar on them, parade them around, humiliate them; people cry foul.

We strap them to a table, drip some water on them, and maybe keep them from food, sleep, and in extreme temperature conditions all while a doctor is around in case something should go afoul. People still cry foul, we are considered barbaric for using methods, of which we are trying out best to not be cruel or severe with them.

All while if we get caught by them, they will torture us severely, beat us, and chop our heads off. They are called misunderstood and we simply just aren't understanding their culture.

In the meantime, save that whole bullshit argument of if we torture them we are no better than they are. That is such a shitty cop-out it isn't even funny. We aren't torturing them for days and then videotaping us brutally cutting their heads off and mailing it to Al Jazeera to show them what we will do, to make a point of, more is to come if you don't listen to us.

In fact, we are dripping water on their foreheads for hours at a time, just so we can save the chance of being labeled horrible.

I mean, we are arresting our own men for doing what they train for, all because they killed a suspect, of which said suspect organized suicide bombings and road bombings, was taken out of the picture. All because this ******* terrorist son of a bitch was unarmed.

Jeez. We might as well just bend over and kiss our asses goodbye. No wonder we aren't getting anywhere. Between arresting our own men, putting terrorists through civilian court, shutting down our POW prison, and shitting on our own selves in the name of sensitivity towards these misunderstood towel heads who would not think twice, or hesitate, in slitting our throats in the name of Allah or videotape our beheadings.

Torture? The only torture I see is having to put up with this fight a sensitive war bullshit of don't kill the enemy, they are just misunderstood when they bomb innocent women and children in public!

Heck, once they were caught, they are living better than when they were in the middle of a battle zone and/or living in caves. If we want to drip some water on their foreheads while asking questions the only thing they should say aside from information is thank you for giving us a place to stay and giving us a shower.

Torture. Don't know what torture is.