Obama v. Cheney

[il Padrino Ute]

What is Leftist about either of those things? Leftist politics have to do with pursuing more egalitarian means of distributing wealth and privilege. These views are not particularly Leftist. These issues have to do with competing views on how to protect our national security, but it is isn't the Right vs. the Left. It is Rule of Law people vs. Corner Cutters. Obama is distancing the country from the Corner Cutting mentality because a lot of people think that is a long term recipe for disaster. There are centrists and right-wingers who agree.

Those on the left want to hang Bush and Cheney. Releasing classified memos was a step in that direction.

[RobinFinderson]

You're making a point that really doesn't need to be made. Right and left are near useless as political distinctions, rather they refer to policies espoused by the two major parties.

Oops. I was confused. For a lot of people 'Left-wing politics' continues to mean what I said.

So you're making the argument you made the other day, that this is primarily political. Personally, I would guess that it is based on a genuine belief that these actions are best for national security. Is there a way to know who is right?

The real left-wing is pissed at Obama.

[RobinFinderson]

Those on the left want to hang Bush and Cheney. Releasing classified memos was a step in that direction.

Well, what if they broke the law? Are we Rule-of-Law people or Corner-Cutters?

Edit: Someone should get one of those old 'Cougars Don't Cut Corners' signs they put all over the lawns at BYU and send it to Judge Bybee.

[il Padrino Ute]

Well, what if they broke the law? Are we Rule-of-Law people or Corner-Cutters?

As YO said (and you acknowledged) it's about politics, not law.

[RobinFinderson]

As YO said (and you acknowledged) it's about politics, not law.

The two are not mutually exclusive. I can't imagine a situation where pursuing a president or former-administration person wouldn't be political, but can't it also be a matter of law and order?

[il Padrino Ute]

The two are not mutually exclusive. I can't imagine a situation where pursuing a president or former-administration person wouldn't be political, but can't it also be a matter of law and order?

So, you're saying that the left want to go after Bush/Cheney for legal reasons?

Why are you asking me this when it's the same answer YO gave? You were fine with his answer.

[RobinFinderson]

So, you're saying that the left want to go after Bush/Cheney for legal reasons?

Why are you asking me this when it's the same answer YO gave? You were fine with his answer.

I asked YO the same question, in a slightly different way. I wasn't fine with his answer. I pointed out that we see the problem differently, and then I asked how we could know who is right? He hasn't responded.

I'm not saying anything. I'm asking a simple question -- Shouldn't everyone be subject to the rule of law, even if it is political?

I'm not sure it is political for Obama. I accept that it is political for some people. I think we should enforce the law whether it is political or not.

[il Padrino Ute]

I asked YO the same question, in a slightly different way. I wasn't fine with his answer. I pointed out that we see the problem differently, and then I asked how we could know who is right? He hasn't responded.

I'm not saying anything. I'm asking a simple question -- Shouldn't everyone be subject to the rule of law, even if it is political?

I'm not sure it is political for Obama. I accept that it is political for some people. I think we should enforce the law whether it is political or not.

Yes, everyone should be subject to the law. But the reasons behind the left for wanting to go after Bush/Cheney is political. I'm sure even you can see that. And if we're going to go after the last administration, we need to include everyone involved, Repubs and Dems.

As for Obama, it is political. He's a politician. He has backed off because of politics. He doesn't want to be seen as the one who made the country less safe.

[RobinFinderson]

Yes, everyone should be subject to the law. But the reasons behind the left for wanting to go after Bush/Cheney is political. I'm sure even you can see that. And if we're going to go after the last administration, we need to include everyone involved, Repubs and Dems.

Well I agree with you that we need to include everyone involved in breaking the law, regardless of party.

As for Obama, it is political. He's a politician. He has backed off because of politics. He doesn't want to be seen as the one who made the country less safe.

Some people get into politics because they a.) like it. b.) want to serve the public. and c). have the skills to do the job well.

For other politics is a means of diverting privileges to friends.

Just calling someone a 'politician' is not enough to determine if s/he is in the first or second category.

[il Padrino Ute]

Well I agree with you that we need to include everyone involved in breaking the law, regardless of party.



Some people get into politics because they a.) like it. b.) want to serve the public. and c). have the skills to do the job well.

For other politics is a means of diverting privileges to friends.

Just calling someone a 'politician' is not enough to determine if s/he is in the first or second category.

People go into politics for the reasons you stated. Then they become politicians and from that point, it's all about political expediency. That there are no term limits other than the White House is proof of that.

[myboynoah]

I really do not know what they could have done differently. Viewing the matter legalistically, the captured enemy combatants were not entitled to Geneva Convention protections, and yet the Bush administration gave those to them (or a very close approximation of them -- I am not 100% sure). The Bush people got legal opinions which, as far as I know, are well within the realm of reasonable jurisprudential thought. Only a Kool-Aid drinker can read those opinions as tortured (no pun intended) or result-oriented or dishonest legal reasoning. Excerpt:

Section 2340A provides that "[w]hoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life." (9) Section 2340(1) defines "torture" as "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control."

(Emphasis added.) Looking at the italicized language, it seems to me that torture is a specific intent crime (I am not a white collar lawyer -- mabe UtahDan can help here) so that means the interrogators had to intend to "inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering" by their acts. Acting with advice of counsel and with a well-defined plan to elicit information from key Al Queda people, I think the interrogators have a pretty good argument that they intended to elicit information, not to inflict such pain or suffering. This would be a tough case for prosecutors.

Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the "Blind Sheikh" who was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, wrote this:

To state the matter plainly, the CIA interrogators did not inflict severe pain and had no intention of doing so. The law of the United States holds that, even where an actor does inflict severe pain, there is still no torture unless it was his objective to do so. It doesn’t matter what the average person might think the “logical” result of the action would be; it matters what specifically was in the mind of the alleged torturer — if his motive was not to torture, it is not torture.

Anyone with the time and energy (and the masochistic tendencies) can read the torture memo here. It is no fig leaf.

Thank you for raising this. I doubt the vast majority of people on this board, or in the U.S. for that matter, have even bothered to read the memos and the DOJ's justification (or argument for going forward) for the enhanced interrogation measures. It is enlightening concerning what the law says and how the Bush Administration worked to stay within in the law.

The measures, while making some people uneasy and those being interrogated very uncomfortable, did not constitute torture under the law. Throwing out intent, it would be difficult to argue that even waterboarding (given the strict conditions under which it was carried out) could be construed as inflicting "severe physical or mental pain or suffering."

Sadly, as Liz Cheney has pointed out, by releasing the memos, Pres. Obama has let our enemies know our limits. That was as far as we could possibly go, and now that has been taken away from us. Future captured terrorists will know our limits and be able to withold information free of fear of the unknown.

Well, we can always lecture them on our "fidelity to our values." That should lead to some interesting conversations.

[RobinFinderson]

Thank you for raising this. I doubt the vast majority of people on this board, or in the U.S. for that matter, have even bothered to read the memos and the DOJ's justification (or argument for going forward) for the enhanced interrogation measures. It is enlightening concerning what the law says and how the Bush Administration worked to stay within in the law.

The measures, while making some people uneasy and those being interrogated very uncomfortable, did not constitute torture under the law. Throwing out intent, it would be difficult to argue that even waterboarding (given the strict conditions under which it was carried out) could be construed as inflicting "severe physical or mental pain or suffering."

Sadly, as Liz Cheney has pointed out, by releasing the memos, Pres. Obama has let our enemies know our limits. That was as far as we could possibly go, and now that has been taken away from us. Future captured terrorists will know our limits and be able to withold information free of fear of the unknown.

Well, we can always lecture them on our "fidelity to our values." That should lead to some interesting conversations.

OK... so no laws were broken. Fine. Then why did they destroy tapes of the interrogations? Why are people protesting the release of these memos? Why did the administration go to such great lengths to insist for so long that it wasn't waterboarding? Why did the administration fire military personal who, upon examining the interrogation techniques used at Gitmo, wrote their own memos stating they were concerned that the interrogation techniques being employed had crossed the line into the area of torture? If there is obviously no crime, then why are people afraid of a trial that would prove people's innocence once and for all? Why don't we use these techniques against hardened criminals with useful information here in the U.S.? And the issue of Geneva Rights is significant. Our government argued that the detainees didn't have Geneva Rights because they were not soldiers fighting for a government, an argument that the Supreme Court eventually rejected, and which Congress had to patch up with a BandAid in order to make past illegal behavior retroactively legal (how did THAT work??). Ironically, the techniques used to gather the detainees ensured that many of them were 100% innocent people who had never been involved in terrorism, but had been swept up in an overly broad net. People were turning in their enemies for money. So there were innocent citizens who were subjected to these treatments and detained indefinitely without trial. No Geneva rights?

Memos don't determine whether the law was broken. Juries do.

[il Padrino Ute]

Then why did they destroy tapes of the interrogations?

Were tapes of the interrogations destroyed?

Then why did they destroy tapes of the interrogations?

People protested the release of the memos and subsequent photos of the interrogation to help keep our troops safe from the bad guys.

Why did the administration go to such great lengths to insist for so long that it wasn't waterboarding? Why did the administration fire military personal who, upon examining the interrogation techniques used at Gitmo, wrote their own memos stating they were concerned that the interrogation techniques being employed had crossed the line into the area of torture? If there is obviously no crime, then why are people afraid of a trial that would prove people's innocence once and for all?

Dunno. Ask Pelosi, she knew about it but didn't do anything to stop it.

Why don't we use these techniques against hardened criminals with useful information here in the U.S.? And the issue of Geneva Rights is significant. Our government argued that the detainees didn't have Geneva Rights because they were not soldiers fighting for a government, an argument that the Supreme Court eventually rejected, and which Congress had to patch up with a BandAid in order to make past illegal behavior retroactively legal (how did THAT work??).

The Supreme Court determined that they were under the protection of the Geneva Convention after the fact. At the time, they weren't protected.

Ironically, the techniques used to gather the detainees ensured that many of them were 100% innocent people who had never been involved in terrorism, but had been swept up in an overly broad net. People were turning in their enemies for money. So there were innocent citizens who were subjected to these treatments and detained indefinitely without trial. No Geneva rights?

Link? I'm not saying it didn't happen, I haven't heard about this. Still, if this did happen, is it the fault of the Bush Administration or the people who were turning in their enemies for money? People will do things to get money.

Memos don't determine whether the law was broken. Juries do.

Correct, and that brings us back to why I believe the memos were released for political reasons, not for legal reasons.

[The Wankster]

The funny bit about all of this is the fact that Cheney is calling for the records to be opened and available for everyone to have a look see. Now the Dems want to call up a *truth* panel?

I think it's a great idea for Pelosi to get her wet dream of this *truth* panel, she might get more than she wishes, though, and get her own ass exposed for the lying sack she is.

Obama seems a smart feller, this is one he cannot win, he needs to quit going on TV all the time trying to shift blame, please, for once, just do something, anything, and let us see what you have done without the need for you to get more face time just announcing what you are intending to do.

Close Gitmo, quit torturing, or whatever you want to call it, sit down with Iran, hell sit down with Bin Laden, but please just do something without announcing to the world, on tv, what you are trying to do.

In the immortal words of the most recognizable brand on the planet, JUST DO IT!!!

[Goatnapper'96]

I like what Jim Geraghty said:

Today, Dick Cheney said:

Being the first vice president who had also served as secretary of defense, naturally my duties tended toward national security. I focused on those challenges day to day, mostly free from the usual political distractions. I had the advantage of being a vice president content with the responsibilities I had, and going about my work with no higher ambition. Today, I’m an even freer man. Your kind invitation brings me here as a private citizen — a career in politics behind me, no elections to win or lose, and no favor to seek.

Mind you, this is the man who, as vice president, responded to a comment about his policy positions being unpopular with "So?"

Dick Cheney isn't running for anything. He doesn't have to worry about approval ratings, or tailor his remarks to a focus group or polling demographics or anything. He essentially has nothing to lose, and this makes him very different from John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Alan Keyes, or any of the tomato cans Obama knocked over in the Democratic Senate primary. Also note that Obama is used to campaigning, but this isn't a campaign; there is no ballot between Obama and Cheney.

Dick is the anti-politician. He is a physically and mentally tough SOB who represented a state that puts a high priority on being tough, well that and protecting the petroleum industry - both admirable human traits and goals no doubt! If I were a politician he would be my role model. I think Idaho would vote for a Dick as long as he never gets caught in any toe tapping dances at some seedy midwestern airport.

Cheney's total indifference toward the militant lefties is a big reason why they dislike him so.

I also bet Dick has a soft spot in he heart for Cougars, I saw no ring on his daughters hand....ROWRR!