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

[HELLRAISER]

I thought dems wanted peace talks with terrorists? :dunno:

Don't torture them, talk to them.

Don't talk to them, torture them.

Make up your damn minds!

Having Progressive peace talks with terrorists is not the same thing as NeoCons funding, training and supporting terrorists in the art of torture and terrorism. Learn to make the distinction!

 

[sporty_carr]

BTW....this tag list rocks.

 

[HELLRAISER]

This thread rocks too

 

[bustybbwlover]

besides the obvious issue of we won't be prosecuting a former vp for criminal charges or crimes against humanity. he's old and, although made strong by the dark side, frail so the worst he'd get is a lowjack on his ankle and house arrest.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

BTW....this tag list rocks.

I did my part.

 

[Hot Mega]

We are dealing with an element that have cut the heads off of Americans and in one instance it was videotaped. Yet we still have yahoos here who want to follow Geneva convention guidelines.

What part of " terrorists are not a conventional enemy" do you not get?

Waterboarding has produced valuable info when dealing with these types.


Their tactics know no bounds. They should be dealt with accordingly.

We've dealt with elements within our own borders who have done that and worse.

The utter irony? Watching the same people who decried what they saw as Saddam's torture of people who's crimes or accusations they knew nothing of, videos attributed to Saddam's forces committing torture with no indication of the sort as a reason why we should spend billions of dollars stopping him...These same people say we should and virtually discuss doing the same things Saddam was accused of and when we think of doing it, "so".

Situational ethics at it's finest.

 

[Boothbabe]

I'm all for torturing terrorists. If you're not, well, I guess you're just a pussy.

My late grandfather was in the Dutch resistance during WWII and he was a witness to horrible, inhumane crimes commited by the Nazi's yet he always remained true to his principles and he absolutely refused to sink to their level and by doing so he showed true strength. He was also against using torture on terrorists and he was a stronger man then you will ever be.

 

[mrtrebus]

Yes!

 

[JakeSnake]

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

 

[Facetious]

Author, had you posted this story about cheney admitting to "promoting torture" and you did it on the grounds of becoming a good humanitarian, that would be commendable, however, since you post the story to gain some kind of imaginary political edge and / or to egg the face of your political counterparts, it becomes self serving, ya dig ?

 

[sporty_carr]

I did my part.

I just added a new tag.

Hey, we should play the tag guessing game. I bet one of your tags is darth vader.

Ooooooo this is fun! Now guess mine, guess mine!

 

[whoremaker]

My late grandfather was in the Dutch resistance during WWII and he was a witness to horrible, inhumane crimes commited by the Nazi's yet he always remained true to his principles and he absolutely refused to sink to their level and by doing so he showed true strength. He was also against using torture on terrorists and he was a stronger man then you will ever be.

There is quite a world of difference between Nazis torturing occupied residents merely for the sake of torture itself, and interrogating terrorists in order to get vital information which can save people's lives. You're comparing apples and dumptrucks.

 

[Hot Mega]

There is quite a world of difference between Nazis torturing occupied residents merely for the sake of torture itself, and interrogating terrorists in order to get vital information which can save people's lives. You're comparing apples and dumptrucks.

Or...you could simply let them sing...like Abdulmattulab and this guy...:dunno:

Captured Taliban Commander Said to Be 'Talking'

http://www.newser.com/story/81018/captured-taliban-commander-said-to-be-talking.html

 

[StanScratch]

There is quite a world of difference between Nazis torturing occupied residents merely for the sake of torture itself, and interrogating terrorists in order to get vital information which can save people's lives. You're comparing apples and dumptrucks.

The Nazis also thought they were doing it for a greater reason.

When interrogating a person for information, we look at signs. Eye, head and hand movements. Sweat. Pupil dilation. Breathing. Even the way a person sits in their chair or holds their head are very important clues. Words, their usage and their tone are quite important. In order to properly interrogate a person for believable information, this must be done in a controlled environment.
Looking for these signs is impossible during a torture session. All of the above physical tell-tail signs are useless. Even if that person is put back into a controlled environment, those signs become unreliable, as the fears of torture are still there. The little unconscious signs a true interrogator is looking for are gone practically forever.
A torturer is not looking to interrogate for new information - a torturer is looking to create information they already want. A person under the duress of torture will sell out anyone in order to get out of this session. We are not living in the world of Jack Bauer, where we can cut a guy's hand off and he will coherently give up viable information. In the real world, torture simply a barbaric act carried out by those with no understanding of the human mind.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

I think sporty carr put up the "babbling liberal nonsense" tag. Or maybe "ooooooooooooo! Sky shiny!!! Tough call.

 

[Member2019]

apparently it takes a lot to indict him. hes already shot a guy in the face

Argumentative. In fact, it was the fault of the person who was shot, his negligence, not Cheney's.

authorized torture, and said "so what?"

Actually, this is disturbing. No need to try to drum up other non-sense, this is actually disturbing on his own. Waterboarding is torture, and I have never said otherwise.

I only took issue with people who extended the word "torture" to whatever they wanted to politically fit. If that was the case, then even Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, etc... could be easily accused as well.

and shrugged it off when there were no WMD"s in Iraq.

Actually, there were WMDs in Iraq. At points, the US stated there were no WMDs in Iraq back in 1990 and 1995 as well. And we looked like asses in 1991 and 1996.

Unfortunately the US found nothing but trace elements in 2003. So it was just a reversal in how much we looked liked asses. Too bad the world didn't unite after 1991 and put forth a consistent strain on Iraq, instead of being selfish in their own interests.

Maybe Iraq would have be much different today.

like Big Poppa said, he's untouchable.

I don't think so. The question is how the courts will find it illegal and in what locales. People think this is a simple open'n closed case.

Cheney is not the only Executive official to have ordered "waterboarding," and I'm not just talking about the W. administration, there has been worse. The question is when, where and how. So far it has occurred on foreign soil, just like in the past. Had it happened on US soil, Cheney could very well be in serious trouble.

I mean, it was just a few decades ago that it wasn't illegal for the US President to order the assassination of a foreign leader. That finally became illegal under President Ford. But it took the actual law to change that.

The point here is that with each new incident, the law changes. People act like Cheney is the only Executive official to have ever been a part of these acts. Although he will likely be the last.

 

[whoremaker]

Or...you could simply let them sing...like Abdulmattulab and this guy...:dunno:


Captured Taliban Commander Said to Be 'Talking'


http://www.newser.com/story/81018/captured-taliban-commander-said-to-be-talking.html

Hardly what I was referring to.

When interrogating a person for information, we look at signs. Eye, head and hand movements. Sweat. Pupil dilation. Breathing. Even the way a person sits in their chair or holds their head are very important clues. Words, their usage and their tone are quite important. In order to properly interrogate a person for believable information, this must be done in a controlled environment.
Looking for these signs is impossible during a torture session. All of the above physical tell-tail signs are useless. Even if that person is put back into a controlled environment, those signs become unreliable, as the fears of torture are still there. The little unconscious signs a true interrogator is looking for are gone practically forever.
A torturer is not looking to interrogate for new information - a torturer is looking to create information they already want. A person under the duress of torture will sell out anyone in order to get out of this session. We are not living in the world of Jack Bauer, where we can cut a guy's hand off and he will coherently give up viable information. In the real world, torture simply a barbaric act carried out by those with no understanding of the human mind.

Thanks for the needless explanation of body language and non-verbal communication, both concepts which I am familiar with, but aren't relevant here. We're talking about fanatical, war crazed zealots, not rational, calm test subjects. Just as with the Nazi example, big difference.

 

[Member2019]

The thing about the American experiment ...

There is quite a world of difference between Nazis torturing occupied residents merely for the sake of torture itself, and interrogating terrorists in order to get vital information which can save people's lives. You're comparing apples and dumptrucks.

Yes, there is a difference between citizens of a nation and enemy combatants. But it still doesn't make it right and excusable.

The only good news is that the US is enacting laws to prevent this in the future. It doesn't do anything for the past. But it does prevent much of this in the future.

That's the thing about the American experiment. Due process isn't always about fair in the present. It's about preventing issues in the future.

Whether we're talking about interment camps for US citizens or waterboarding foreign nationals. Rights will be violated, it has happened before. The best we can do is prevent it in the future.

Sad, but that's typically what happens.

Although do remember that the rights of private citizens are not the same as those who are prisoners of war. I do tire of people forgetting that. No, prisoners of war should never be waterboarded, regardless of whether or not they are fighting on behalf of a state that is recognized or not. But they are not private citizens.

If you haven't noticed, Obama hasn't forgotten that part. Prisoners of war exist because they would otherwise still be combatants against the citizens of civilized nations if they were not caged to prevent them from doing so. Reality.

 

[PirateKing]

Argumentative. In fact, it was the fault of the person who was shot, his negligence, not Cheney's.

Actually, there were WMDs in Iraq. At points, the US stated there were no WMDs in Iraq back in 1990 and 1995 as well. And we looked like asses in 1991 and 1996. Unfortunately the US found nothing but trace elements in 2003. So it was just a reversal in how much we looked liked asses. Too bad the world didn't unite after 1991 and put forth a consistent strain on Iraq, instead of being selfish in their own interests.

pure conjecture on both accounts. Wheres the proof that justifies the invasion of Iraq? Trace elements......:1orglaugh.

 

[Skyraider22]

Well he should pay but we all know he will walk so that is that:hatsoff: