Obama v. Cheney

[il Padrino Ute]

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

Great point. Some folks take being ignored a bit harder than others.

[YOhio]

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.

YO had to go night-night before he saw your response.

You have thus far segmented the two approaches to national security into two camps, Corner-Cutters and Rule of Law'ers. I don't see either political party as being true to the respective camps you've designated. Are the Dems Rule of Law Followers? No. The House and Senate are currently in conference to approve a war supplemental appropriation that the President will sign, probably today. This appropriation does not fund the closure of Gitmo, increases funding for Afghanistan operations and continues funding for Iraq operations. This is virtually indistinguishable from what a Republican Congress and Republican President would be doing.

Now, if the war in Iraq and Gitmo were illegal operations, then a Rule of Law'er would do what is right and immediately cease and desist. Why doesn't Obama do so? Political suicide. You may argue that he's trying to do that with Gitmo but has not received Congressional support, which is superficially true. But Obama is in a great position on that point. He can claim to be against Gitmo, but knows that Congress won't fund transition to their district. He can blame it on them, but receive the benefits of having a military run detention facility a stones throw from the coast of Florida.

So who are the Rule of Law'ers? What you might be getting at is that there is a true left wing who stand firm and principled, regardless of the political fallout. You say that they're pissed at Obama, I say that he has over 60% approval rating. These people are Code Pink. They'll never have a permanent seat at the American political table, just like the hard right won't. You call them Rule of Law'ers, I call them irrelevant.

[RobinFinderson]

Were tapes of the interrogations destroyed?

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

I've read the memos. What information in them needed to be kept secret to protect us from bad guys?

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

So a president can simply declare that a person of interest has no rights, and then it is true until month/years later the Supreme Court is able to finally render a decision? Wow.

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.

Please see the film, Taxi to the Dark Side. This documentary summarizes the facts and evidence better than I can here. The film streams for free if you have Netflix.

[RobinFinderson]

YO had to go night-night before he saw your response.

You have thus far segmented the two approaches to national security into two camps, Corner-Cutters and Rule of Law'ers. I don't see either political party as being true to the respective camps you've designated. Are the Dems Rule of Law Followers? No. The House and Senate are currently in conference to approve a war supplemental appropriation that the President will sign, probably today. This appropriation does not fund the closure of Gitmo, increases funding for Afghanistan operations and continues funding for Iraq operations. This is virtually indistinguishable from what a Republican Congress and Republican President would be doing.

Now, if the war in Iraq and Gitmo were illegal operations, then a Rule of Law'er would do what is right and immediately cease and desist. Why doesn't Obama do so? Political suicide. You may argue that he's trying to do that with Gitmo but has not received Congressional support, which is superficially true. But Obama is in a great position on that point. He can claim to be against Gitmo, but knows that Congress won't fund transition to their district. He can blame it on them, but receive the benefits of having a military run detention facility a stones throw from the coast of Florida.

So who are the Rule of Law'ers? What you might be getting at is that there is a true left wing who stand firm and principled, regardless of the political fallout. You say that they're pissed at Obama, I say that he has over 60% approval rating. These people are Code Pink. They'll never have a permanent seat at the American political table, just like the hard right won't. You call them Rule of Law'ers, I call them irrelevant.

YO, I'm only somewhat interested in what the parties actually do. I agree with you that there is rampant politicizing of issues on both sides, there is opportunism, probably some corruption, and a lot of 'cover-your-ass-ism' taking place all up and down the political food chain. Neither party, on the whole, is standing up for the Rule of Law. I'm not that interested in partisan politics.

I am interested in what CUF people think. Within these digital walls we can take sides, either for the Rule of Law or for Corner Cutting. Collectively we form a small drop in the ocean on which the political parties float. So let's make some waves here. Let's take a stand for the rule of law. Forget Code Pink. Let's be Code Blue (and red, you filthy Utes).

YO, are you a Rule of Law person or are you a Corner Cutter?

[myboynoah]

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.

What's next? The the kitchen sink?

Most of this has little to do with the issue of whether or not "enhanced techniques" constitute "torture" under U.S. law. That some enterprising folks turned in their neighbors for money is a sad story, but irrelevent. The same goes for the CIA destroying tapes or the methods used to extract information from "hardened criminals" in the the U.S.

But it looks like you've got a lot to get off your chest, so that must have been cathardic.

Robin, you're a smart guy. I've already explained one reason why many people, including past and present CIA Directors were/are against the release of the memos. It has very little to do with concerns about prosecution. Read up.

Your appeal for a trial by jury sounds more like a political witch hunt, which Cheney is very effectively turning on its head. Obama scheduled his remarks for the same day as Cheney's already scheduled speech, and then tried to speak over Cheney. Pres. Obama is now running around trying to take on Cheney. Cheney speaks, the White House reacts. This is fun to watch.

[RobinFinderson]

Robin, you're a smart guy. I've already explained one reason why many people, including past and present CIA Directors were/are against the release of the memos. It has very little to do with concerns about prosecution. Read up.

I've read the arguments. I've also read the memos. The arguments are that the classified memos contain information that would put our country at risk if it were to fall into the hands of the bad guys. This is a strong argument, if it is true. So I read the memos, and I don't see it. Can someone tell me what it is in these memos that is so secret that our national security hinges on their secrecy?

HERE is a link to the memos.

[myboynoah]

I've read the arguments. I've also read the memos. The arguments are that the classified memos contain information that would put our country at risk if it were to fall into the hands of the bad guys. This is a strong argument, if it is true. So I read the memos, and I don't see it. Can someone tell me what it is in these memos that is so secret that our national security hinges on their secrecy?

HERE is a link to the memos.

One reason:

The memos reveal the limit to which we were willing to go (and may have been willing to go in the future) in extracting information from our enemies. Those enemies now know where the line is, hence they can train for the line. Beforehand, they may have thought we would not cross certain lines, but the enhanced techniques put them off guard, as in, "Oh my, these weak Americans may actually be willing to kill me!"

They now know that won't happen. In fact, we'll have a doctor and psychologist on hand to make sure of it.

Just hold out folks, the waterboarding will end eventually, and you'll still be alive. The Americans really are as weak-kneed as we thought. They call it "fidelity to their values."

[RobinFinderson]

One reason:

The memos reveal the limit to which we were willing to go (and may have been willing to go in the future) in extracting information from our enemies. Those enemies now know where the line is, hence they can train for the line. Beforehand, they may have thought we would not cross certain lines, but the enhanced techniques put them off guard, as in, "Oh my, these weak Americans may actually be willing to kill me!"

They now know that won't happen. In fact, we'll have a doctor and psychologist on hand to make sure of it.

Just hold out folks, the waterboarding will end eventually, and you'll still be alive. The Americans really are as weak-kneed as we thought. They call it "fidelity to their values."

What is the difference between a mock execution and inducing the sense that "Oh my, these weak American may actually be willing to kill me!"

FYI, mock executions are torture.

[The Wankster]

So just exactly how far should we as Americans be willing to allow our Gov't. to go to prevent another 9-11?

When dealing with this type of Human Excrement, just exactly how far is too far? Sounds like waterboarding was just too much for those liberal pussies to handle, must not have had anyone killed or suffering from 9-11.

I suppose our *moral* values will keep us from doing the real nasty work necessary to keep it from happening again.

Meanwhile we will keep getting those videos of americans, etc.. beheaded, and drug thru the streeets while the poor misunderstood taliban mock us.

I love the part about how our enemies are *emboldened* by us doing these more enhanced forms of interrogation. Sure they are, they are just jumping for the chance to get waterboarded, or mock executed.

[RobinFinderson]

So just exactly how far should we as Americans be willing to allow our Gov't. to go to prevent another 9-11?

When dealing with this type of Human Excrement, just exactly how far is too far? Sounds like waterboarding was just too much for those liberal pussies to handle, must not have had anyone killed or suffering from 9-11.

I suppose our *moral* values will keep us from doing the real nasty work necessary to keep it from happening again.

Was Jesus Christ a 'liberal pussy?'

[happyone]

Coming from one who is to right of political spectrum, my main problem with the "inhanced interogation techniques" in that the information you get with them in inheritently unreliable. You put enough physical pressure on someone they will tell you what you they think you want to hear.

That said if there is time sensitive information that you need and there is no other way to get it, sometimes it is the only way to get it in time, the 24 hrs scenario. I thiink those instances are very few and very far between.

It should never be a general use technique and should be used in very controlled situations.

They information gotten that way should never be admissable in court.

[il Padrino Ute]

Were tapes of the interrogations destroyed?

Ok, so the head of the ACLU claims that it had been known for months that tapes had been destroyed, yet doesn't offer proof that they had been destroyed.

1 point for me.

I've read the memos. What information in them needed to be kept secret to protect us from bad guys?

I will admit that I came to the conclusion that they needed to be kept secret based on Obama deciding that the photos he wanted to release would put troops in danger. I reached that conclusion because the memos and photos are all a part of the same incidents. I'll concede to you on that.

1 point for you.

So a president can simply declare that a person of interest has no rights, and then it is true until month/years later the Supreme Court is able to finally render a decision? Wow.

Yep. That's what happened. Until the Supreme Court ruled on it, a terrorist was not protected by the Geneva Convention.

1 point for me.

Please see the film, Taxi to the Dark Side. This documentary summarizes the facts and evidence better than I can here. The film streams for free if you have Netflix.

You want me to watch a documentary made by a left-wing director?

0 points to you for not wanting a balanced look at this and 0 points to me for not watching it.

It looks like I win, 2-1.

[il Padrino Ute]

Was Jesus Christ a 'liberal pussy?'

No, he wasn't.

I believe Christ believes in mercy, but I also believe that he believes in justice. Mercy should never outweigh justice, otherwise, there is no justice.

[myboynoah]

FYI, mock executions are torture.

According to who?

[RobinFinderson]

Ok, so the head of the ACLU claims that it had been known for months that tapes had been destroyed, yet doesn't offer proof that they had been destroyed.

1 point for me.

How about this 'evidence':

Dec. 8, 2007 | WASHINGTON -- CIA director Michael Hayden said in a statement to employees on Thursday that the agency was seeking to protect its own by destroying at least two videotapes depicting the brutal interrogations of suspected terrorists. If the tapes became public, Hayden warned, it could expose the identities of interrogators employed by the agency. The tapes were recorded in 2002, but Hayden said the agency decided to destroy them in 2005 because the footage could expose the interrogators and their families to "retaliation from al-Qaida and its sympathizers."

Notice... the tapes were recorded in 2002.