Dick Cheney and the "Little Guy"

More Red Meat (0.00 / 0)

Keep throwing it out, Friedman.  Oh, and you and Olbermann: now that's a pair!

What about those 60 -- 70 civilians killed in another non-surgical strike the other day -- the one Obama apologized for?  While that doesn't sit side-by-side with "torture" I'll bet the survivors, families, etc., ....well, figure the rest out yourself.

Good job.  Keep dishing it out.

---

by: E. Redding @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 16:06:01 PM CDT

I am hoping that as our ground forces increase in Afghanistan (4.00 / 1)

 - along with extra precision air power - that these non-surgical strikes will decrease.  Once we have more CCT teams on the ground with planes that are able to deliver a precision payload, strikes like this should cease to exist.  And you're right - that doesn't sit side-by-side with torture.  At least to my knowledge, I haven't heard anyone (especially the president or the VP) stating that the mass bombings are necessary and should continue.

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

---

by: Chris LeJeune @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 16:28:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think you may be wrong about that (4.00 / 1)

airstrike. Something tells me that the Taliban set that one up. Well that and I have a feeling that they manipulated some numbers as well. AQ and Co will fake claims of abuse as well. What do we do?  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 16:52:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Then.... (0.00 / 0)

Something tells me that the Taliban set that one up. Well that and I have a feeling that they manipulated some numbers as well.

Then our President should not have apologized for something we were probably not guilty of.  His acceptance of responsibility for the slaughter will further inflame hatred against the U.S. by those who are simply reading headlines in the Middle East.

And I believe you're correct, Fred: AQ conjures up lots of lies in their attempt to disparage the U.S. in the eyes of the world.  Perhaps our administration should be a bit more vocal and adept in "handling" those accusations correctly.

---

by: E. Redding @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 18:48:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh yeah (0.00 / 0)

AQ runs a well funded, highly sophisticated organization and also happens to have a workable gameplan. It also doesn't help one bit that there is a seemingly bipartisan view that AQ is a two-bit operation run by a bunch of poor, Thirld World "Rag-heads". It's like Washington DC doesn't find it humanly possible that AQ is capable of running disinfo ops or deliberately creating civilian casualties in a manner that can be easily blamed on the US. Well, Washington DC probably didn't think AQ was capable of pulling off something the magnitude of 9/11 either. OOPS!  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 20:41:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Keep in mind that Karzai is playing to win his upcoming election while (0.00 / 0)

Obamas are trying to get that jerk and the weakly give me more money Zadari to work together against the Taliban. Don't really think that even Solomon would have a real solution to that one.

PS: The bombings began in 2007 and are SOP for now.

Also, the Taliban is driving around in US Humvees that were taken from private contractors...those delivering them and the ones that are being manufactured in Pakistan [a Bushie 'top secret' legacy]

Was it Zadari that said OBL is dead and it was the USA that blew Tora Bora the other day. While Karzai denies any corruption in the Afghan government.

Check out Omar's latest comments. Gotta think that the up-tick in Pakistan is related to the weakness of both governments and the need for more poppy-to-heroin processing plants and heroin storage that generally takes place in Pakistan among other things.  

---

by: deMeme @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 17:26:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Albeit (0.00 / 0)

I think Brandon is dead wrong about rendition. Rendition basically proves that we support corrupt, tyrannical regimes such as Egypt and Uzbekistan. Support for tyrannical regimes is a much bigger recruiting bonanza for anti-US fighters than waterboarding 3 people or GITMO ever were. On the other hand, if we are going to keep supporting tyrannical regimes, we might as well get something out of the deal right?  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 21:57:14 PM CDT

I didn't say I was a fan of rendition. (0.00 / 0)

I just said my priority was accountability for the American citizens who specifically authorized "enhanced interrogation techniques," to include waterboarding.

---

by: Brandon Friedman @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 22:26:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (0.00 / 0)

I guess my main concern here is that the press is spinning this in a manner that will leave many Americans with misconceptions.

---

by: FredUSMC @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 22:53:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I mean (0.00 / 0)

I agree with you that we shouldn't torture and we both know good and well that refusing to engage in torture does not equal us being soft on AQ. But at the same end, I think we should make perfectly clear that we are refusing to torture because it is below OUR standards, not because AQ has any inherent rights. We need to start killing lots and lots more AQ types and devise plans to get at them wherever they are. If we have to use targeted assassination, then so be it. And no more arresting AQ either. Unless AQ members specifically wave a white flag of surrender, I say they are fair game for termination. Although I must admit that I find it rather ironic that we found a way to engage in harsh interrogation techniques and still be soft on AQ.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 23:19:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I mean (0.00 / 0)

we should be talking about rendition right now, especially considering that we are considering giving some 100 Yemeni detainees back to Saudi Arabia, a move that also maxes out on the stupid scale. At least when we send AQ types to Uzbekistan, we are likely to never see or hear from them again.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Fri May 08, 2009 at 22:02:56 PM CDT

For Fred USMC and E. Redding (4.00 / 1)

I have to assume since you are making the 'it was justified argument' then you have no objections to fully transparent investigations from an independent counsel so the American public can make a fully informed decision on whether it wants to legalize a practice that is morally unacceptable in the US, and condemned in the international community.

Of course if that leads to prosecutions, since darn it, it is and was a crime under US law, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

I also like the 'torture enthusiast' label.  It is an accurate description of the viewpoint.

Nice job on the interview, Brandon.

---

by: vkfletch @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 13:21:54 PM CDT

Please advise... (0.00 / 0)

Let us know specifically what U.S. laws were broken regarding the "enhanced interrogation" techniques.  Remember that these were opined by the Attorney General to be legal and key members of Congress were briefed (Think: Pelosi....)

There "may" be laws under the Geneva Convention that could be adjudicated by The Hague though.  But since you brought it up, tell me what specific U.S. laws were broken.  I don't think Congress has come up with any.  But surely, you'd know.

---

by: E. Redding @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 14:12:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Smart guy (4.00 / 2)

TITLE 18 U.S. Code § 2340A. Oh, and here is some jurisprudence specifically on waterboarding.

We are a nation of laws, not a nation of men, so it doesn't matter that the Attorney General approved it, that doesn't make it legal. If the Attorney General opined that it was legal for someone to kill their spouse over adultery, it doesn't make it legal. Also, there is still nothing to indicate that Pelosi or anyone else in congress were briefed on waterboarding in advance. Before following the right-wing noise machine maybe you should investigate for yourself.

I'm on twitter.

---

by: Richard Allen Smith @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 14:59:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We are not (0.00 / 0)

entirely a nation of laws, actually. We also happen to have a little thing called DISCRETION. If you get pulled over by the police for speeding, you are supposed to get a ticket. However, say you are pulled over by the police for speeding when you are driving a pregnant woman to the hospital. Chances are you will not receive a ticket and the police may even be kind enough to escort you to the hospital, inspite of the fact that you broke the law.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 15:21:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Discretion (4.00 / 1)

doesn't change the fact that a person broke the law.

I'm on twitter.

---

by: Richard Allen Smith @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 15:30:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So you would (0.00 / 0)

be OK with us rounding up illegal immigrants and deporting them, correct? They broke the law.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 16:03:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, (0.00 / 0)

but I wouldn't argue that they didn't break the law.

I'm on twitter.

---

by: Richard Allen Smith @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 16:04:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My point exactly. (0.00 / 0)

Needless to say, it is kind of hard to take those pushing hardest for prosecutions seriously when many of them turn around and refuse to endorse enforcement immigration laws, especially given that our current situation regarding border security and immigration poses a serious threat to our National Security.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 17:20:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

funny, (0.00 / 0)

I was under the impression that all the 9/11 hijackers entered the country legally. Unless you were deliberately attempting to make  xenophobic comment.

I'm on twitter.

---

by: Richard Allen Smith @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 18:58:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Xenephobic comment? (0.00 / 0)

Not hardly. AQ has been scoping our borders for sometime now and has almost certainly established connections with "coyote" smugglers. Besides, I was referring to both the Mexican border and Canadian border and am not against honest immigration in the slightest.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 19:30:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

references? (0.00 / 0)

I'm on twitter.

---

by: Richard Allen Smith @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 19:45:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Michael Scheuer (0.00 / 0)

"Marching Towards Hell: America and Islam after Iraq"

"Imperial Hubris"

Rob Schultheis: "Hunting Bin Laden: How al Qaeda is Winning the War on Terror."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/...

http://www.jamestown.org/singl...

I also happen to know people who live near the southern border and not everyone who comes over that border is Hispanic. There was also the time we got lucky with Ahmed Resham crossing the US-Canadian border.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 19:55:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As far as (0.00 / 0)

the 9/11 Hijackers go, I am not sure exactly how all of them got in here. I do know several of them came in on the Saudi visa program, and that hasn't been fixed either.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 19:31:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I can tell you that none of them came by way of your northern border! (0.00 / 0)

And, the next US pol to suggest that they did needs to be seriously and publically reprimanded because we are getting tired of explaining the same facts over and over again. Geesh.

---

by: Elizabeth Miller @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 14:16:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ahmed Resham (0.00 / 0)

did come by way of Canada though. Lucky for us, the border patrol got him.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 15:41:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes...that was a very good day. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Elizabeth Miller @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 16:25:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Title 18..... (0.00 / 0)

Hey Rock, oh excuse me, Richard, I don't understand all the hoopla from the other natives below about your posting of Title 18, Part 1.... stuff.  And perhaps you don't even realize it yourself, but your Title 18 reference is irrelevant to the point I was making way above.

Title 18 doesn't deal with punishing those who made opinions regarding the legality of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.  And those are the ones you really want to go after (due to your political agenda).  It does, however, apply to those who knowingly tortured without legal justification.  You'll have to find something else to jail Cheney with.

I'd like to write and be more specific, but no one will read this anyway -- so many postings already on this old topic....

---

by: E. Redding @ Mon May 11, 2009 at 16:49:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not a lawyer and don't claim to be... (4.00 / 1)

A thank you goes to Richard for the US code citation below.  Some more information can be found on the "Torture and the Law" page of Amnesty International.  Even if you don't like the source, they have a good breakdown of how the law is applied across the different categories (i.e.torture/rendition), and if there are any exceptions in which they can be used (hint: the answer is no).

http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-...

Has the United States accepted the obligations set forth in the Convention against Torture?
The United States ratified the Convention against Torture in October 1994. The Convention entered into force for the United States on November 20, 1994.

And here's from a US report :

What statements has the United States government made about its compliance with the guidelines set forth by the Convention?
As a party to the Convention, the United States is required to submit periodic reports describing its compliance with the Convention to the Committee against Torture. Following are excerpts from the Initial Report the United States submitted to the Committee against Torture in 1999 (CAT/C/28/Add.5) that pertain to questions such as "Is torture a crime in the US?" and "What remedies are available?" (Read the entire report)

Excerpts from the Report

6. Torture is prohibited by law throughout the United States. It is categorically denounced as a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority. Every act constituting torture under the Convention constitutes a criminal offence under the law of the United States. No official of the Government, federal, state or local, civilian or military, is authorized to commit or to instruct anyone else to commit torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in any form. No exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification of torture. United States law contains no provision permitting otherwise prohibited acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to be employed on grounds of exigent circumstances (for example, during a "state of public emergency") or on orders from a superior officer or public authority, and the protective mechanisms of an independent judiciary are not subject to suspension. The United States is committed to the full and effective implementation of its obligations under the Convention throughout its territory. [p. 5]

---

by: vkfletch @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 11:57:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

the post above was supposed to go after E. Redding's above... (4.00 / 1)

somehow I ended up in the wrong place again.

Since I am down here...

I do not accept that you can equate torture with speeding with a pregnant woman or even immigration issues.  

---

by: vkfletch @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 12:02:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Last I checked (0.00 / 0)

A. Anything resembling torture on our part has been banned.

B. We are continuing to support corrupt, tyrannical regimes, especially in the Middle East.

C. Support for tyrannical, corrupt regimes was a much bigger cause for anti-American sentiment than a few waterboardings ever were.

Now, considering the fact that anything resembling torture has been banned but at the same end, we are still involved in supporting corrupt, tyrannical regimes, why should I view all this investigation talk as anything other than a thinly veiled attempt at winning political brownie points?  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Sat May 09, 2009 at 14:54:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

but.. (4.00 / 1)

a.  Anything resembling torture on our part has been banned

but no one but low level military personnel have been held accountable, particularly not the people who formulated the policies.

b.We are continuing to support corrupt, tyrannical regimes, especially in the Middle East.

and this would be an excuse to break the law, How?

c.Support for tyrannical, corrupt regimes was a much bigger cause for anti-American sentiment than a few waterboardings ever were.

It's been more than a few waterboardings, please check using the Google...

and...please consider the illogic of waging a war to win hearts and minds and subsequently using torture as a policy.  There is a direct contradiction there.

Now, considering the fact that anything resembling torture has been banned but at the same end, we are still involved in supporting corrupt, tyrannical regimes, why should I view all this investigation talk as anything other than a thinly veiled attempt at winning political brownie points?  

Because there are huge constitutional issues at stake here, including whether or not we are going to allow the fundamental balance of power between our branches of government to be permanently skewed towards the executive.

---

by: vkfletch @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 12:12:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The "torture" problem (0.00 / 0)

has been solved. The problem with continued support for corrupt ME regimes has not been solved. So before we go running around trying to have investigations regarding a problem we have already solved, how about we take steps to solve a problem that still exists and does alot more to hurt our attempts at winning hearts and minds than waterboarding 3 people ever did? At the same end, I have a perfectly viable alternative to "torturing" AQ types that we can all live with. How about we just start killing lots and lots of them? We clearly haven't been doing enough of that and just because we shouldn't torture doesn't mean we shouldn't kill lots of AQ members.

As for prosecutions and trials, until I am convinced that there would be no partisanship whatsoever and that such an event would not draw attention away from more pressing issues, than I am saying NO WAY.    

---

by: FredUSMC @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 16:15:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good Luck (0.00 / 0)

with the declaring the problem solved and expecting it to go away anytime soon thing.

Oh, and on the non-partisan thing...maybe you could go to Spain...they started some investigative proceedings, I don't remember exactly how that played out, or if it is finished or not.  

The link I have here is from the Huffington Post...hold your nose, and  check it out anyway, Fred.  It makes a good point about some of our flag officers laying the responsibly for insurgent recruitment at tortures door ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora told Congress, "There are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq - as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat - are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo." Providing impunity to those who ordered the torture will be the third recruiting tool.

If the United States refuses to investigate now, it will be more likely that some future administration will repeat this scenario. The use of torture should be purged from our system, much like we eradicated slavery.

---

by: vkfletch @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 20:38:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

First of all (0.00 / 0)

I do not need to be lectured by Western Europe on how to handle the AQ/Wahhabi problem. By and large, they have done an absolutely horrible job at that. Second, I highly doubt that AG and GITMO were the number one recruiting tool for AQ and Co. AQ and Co. were getting recruits long before AG ever happened. I think I already know what the major recruiters for AQ and co are and they are not AG or GITMO.

---

by: FredUSMC @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 20:57:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Matthew Alexander (0.00 / 0)

would beg to differ.

I'm on twitter.

---

by: Richard Allen Smith @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 21:09:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah but (0.00 / 0)

I seem to remember him saying that is what he was told by those he interrogated. He did say that, didn't he?  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 21:11:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let's Face (0.00 / 0)

the facts here. AQ was around before AG. The Taliban existed before AG. Ansar al Islam and Abu Musab al Zarqawi existed before AG. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood existed before AG. The Saudi religous establishment existed long, long before AG and the Wahhabis have been slaughtering infidels and the Shia since at least 1802. I mean let's not be naive here, bin Laden is anything but a bad apple of the Saudi religious establishment, an establishment that also happened to create the Taliban and Zawahiri has been rolling with Islamists since at least 1981.

Now, there also happens to be a view floating around the Muslim world that the United States is in cuhoots with Wahhabism to destroy Islam, a view that is especially prominent among the Shia. Likewise, the Arabs have a history of being on the receiving end of real occupation from European nations and we also happen to be perceived as supporting corrupt and tyrannical regimes in the ME, a perception that is not exactly devoid of reality. Our current relationship with Israel doesn't exactly help either, but many, many more Arabs are oppressed by Arab tyrants vice Israel.

Now, will I deny the fact that AG set us back and hurt our cause. Hell no I won't. Nor will I lose sleep over the fact that harsh interrogation techniques have been banned as I was never for them. But at the same end, the whole myth that AQ and the Wahhabis were but a fringe who suddenly became huge after AG is just that, A MYTH. A myth just like the one that claims that our relations in the Middle East were perfectly fine  before AG and GITMO. No they weren't.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 22:27:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Needless to say, (0.00 / 0)

I am happy that we have banned anything resembling torture and personally do not think that it helped our cause. On the other hand however, the whole idea that the Middle East(including AQ) is going to suddenly like us over this is simply wrong.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Sun May 10, 2009 at 20:59:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Re: Dick Cheney and the "Little Guy" / I promoted this issue on Gen. Wes Clark's blog: (0.00 / 0)

http://securingamerica.com/ccn...

VIDEO: Brandon Friedman of VoteVets.org on how Cheney has "left out the troops."

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on May 11, 2009 - 3:43am.

---

by: Mitch Dworkin @ Mon May 11, 2009 at 02:53:53 AM CDT