Report on Cheney Shows Why We Need The Truth

Ad Nauseum.... (0.00 / 0)

What else is there to say.

Apparently Jon Soltz is looking for a story, and this non-issue (at least in the minds of mainstream Americans) is the best available.  

The President isn't pursuing this, neither is Congress nor anyone in Justice.  However, the blogosphere (on the left) is hot on this.  Does anyone notice a message here?

"Send a message to our allies" .....

"Send a message to our allies" by creating Cheney scenarios and investigating them!  Huh!!  Yes, Jon, this is a political issue!

---

by: E. Redding @ Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 16:36:46 PM CDT

For me it is first a moral and ethical issue... (4.00 / 1)

Don't think that anyone is creating "Cheney scenarios", unless it is Cheney himself.

Cheney is admitting his and others' complicity in both the use of torture [not the euphemistic 'enhanced interrogation methods'] and the total failure of intel used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Let us not forget the use of 'extraordinary rendition'. While rendition is legal, that form of rendition used is illegal.

There are those who put honor first and that is a more difficult road. The majority doesn't want to be proven wrong for decisions made by those they elected and supported. This includes the media who went along without investigative reporting. It would also help if the citizenry was better educated so that they wouldn't buy into stupidity.

The whole majority response is like a dysfunctional family that survives by denying such things as substance, physical, and/or sexual abuse. Denial doesn't mean it is real, it just means that you choose not to deal with it.

Then, there are those who just don't believe we will ever get the truth. The Warren Commission, Watergate, Iran-Contra, 9-11...

The wisdom of our Founding Fathers created the Judicial branch to help make those decisions based on law realizing that the majority is not always right. Remember that the DoJ and Gozales who memoed supporting opinions after the fact are not part of Judiciary Branch.

Ignoring these issues is political. Obama is wrong. If for no other reason, we need history to be written correctly. Certainly not the type of history that W's brother Neil sells in those text books of his... Or other 'alternative' histories...

Personally, I don't want those who are responsible necessarily made to walk the plank. Given their egos, shaming them with the truth of their actions and damning them in the history books would be justice. Others would like to see them hanged from the yard arm.

PS: Obama needs to get rid of all the contractors who manage to skate while profiteering.

---

by: deMeme @ Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 18:59:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where to begin... in answering you (0.00 / 0)

Well written reply, dee.  But the herring in the folded newspaper is beginning to smell...

Did you notice that the current rage on the left is NOT (much)  to get Bush or Gonzales any more?  Do you notice that the current rage against Cheney began when he openly and vociferously began his defense of 2003 policies in the media?  Do the mental math.

IF there were mistakes, they were policy decisions vetted by the AG, right or wrong.  Criminality requires malicious intent and breaking specific laws.  The "laws" in question are cloudy, and again, had been vetted.

None of this helps my case against the left, because the banana court has already decided -- against the wishes of the Prez, Congress, and the American people.  Guess I shouldn't feel so defeated after all.  

---

by: E. Redding @ Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 19:22:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The rotting elephant carcass in your thinking is the fact that the (0.00 / 0)

interrogation techniques that appear at this time to have been authorized by Cheney were torture and do not fall into any gray area.

They were being used long before the infamous memos were solicited from the Bush appointees employed in the Executive Branch to justify their use.

Your arguments against your arch enemy "the left", those who believe that the truth shall set us free no matter how painful, is based on untruths.

---

by: deMeme @ Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 20:36:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

really? (0.00 / 0)

Apparently Jon Soltz is looking for a story, and this non-issue (at least in the minds of mainstream Americans) is the best available.

Wrong.

I'm on twitter.

---

by: Richard Allen Smith @ Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 19:26:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not really (0.00 / 0)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...

According to the poll, sixty-two percent of Americans do not think Congress should hold hearings to investigate the administration's treatment of detainees. Only a third of Americans thinks Congress should investigate. That's the same proportion as thought so in February.

Given the psychology of polling, as well as two different results with two different polls, and who is to say Mr. Redding is wrong? Or who is to say you are wrong? Or for that matter, whom is to say that you aren't both wrong? Albeit the poll you posted did state that 58 percent of those whom have actually been following the story were not in favor of an investigation. So........

---

by: FredUSMC @ Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 22:49:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Really. (0.00 / 0)

Don't get me wrong, OK.  I don't approve of unlawful interrogation techniques, now or then.   And I've got to give you credit on your link above, even though 51% is easily within a margin of statistical error, as they say.

Your link also showed this:

Another question finds 55% of respondents saying that "harsh interrogation techniques" were justified for terrorism suspects, compared to 36% against.

It's interesting to consider that this poll used the phrase "harsh interrogation techniques" instead of the much simpler "torture," and how this can possibly affect a result. The ABC/Washington Post poll, which found a similar number for investigations of "the way terrorism suspects were treated," also had only a near-even split on whether "torture" was justified.

As you can see, this issue is all over the map, and I stand by my comment that mainstream Americans are simply not fired up by this, except when asked to reply in polls.

To think: this is all because 3 terrorists (KSM, the USS Cole bomber, and another who wanted more of us dead immediately) were waterboarded 6 years ago!  

---

by: E. Redding @ Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 17:08:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmmm (0.00 / 0)

First - we absolutely have to send the message to the Muslim world that to the degree that we did torture, we fully investigated how those tactics came to be employed (including how it may have been hidden at the time), and held accountable those who were at fault.  

Who is this mysterious Muslim world you speak of? Last I checked, there is no monolithic entity known as the Muslim world. Although if we mean the Saudis, the Muslim Brotherhood, or the other Arab tyrants, then the case for an investigation in that regard is unbelievably weak, if not outright appeasement.

Second - We have to send the message to our allies that when we violate international law (as General Petraeus has said), we fully investigate and hold people accountable. If we can't make good on our agreements in the Geneva Conventions, then it severely and adversely affects the trust of the world to uphold our other agreements.  

From what I read of the Geneva conventions, al Qaeda were unlawful combatants.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Does AQ meet the above criteria? I don't think so.

There is also this, as much of AQ could also be classified as mercenaries:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/We...

Article 47 -- Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

So, we pretty much did hold up our agreement in that regard. Besides, exactly who are our allies? Most of the real potential allies I can think of(Shia, Russians, Serbs) could care less about International Law. And why should they?

Further, it hurts our ability to build coalitions in the future, when going to war is truly in our national security interests (unlike Iraq).  It's always somewhat en vogue to bash the international community, but the fact of the matter is that we need the nations of the world to trust us, especially if we're to ensure that future conflicts don't fall just on the shoulders of our troops.

We have been doing a pretty good job of that without the use of torture, thank you very much. Continuinally pissing off the Russians? Bombing the Serbs? Being buddy-buddy with Saudi Arabia?  Common sense would say that in a war, you look for allies that will take the fight to the enemy. And if I were Shia, Russian, or Serb, "Why would I trust the US in regards to fighting Wahhabi Islamists, given the fact that it appears that the US is in bed with the Kings of Wahhabism(Saudi Arabia?"  The torture is a pretty much a moot point on that one, as the Russians, Serbs, and Shia militias have all been know to torture.

Now, if this argument were to be framed differently, like torture is below OUR standards, as Americans we have to be BETTER than the rest of the world, torture accomplishes nothing and we can get equal or better results without it, or even raise a debate about torture in regards to US law, then the argument would make alot more sense. Unfortunately that didn't seem to happen here.

---

by: FredUSMC @ Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 01:19:28 AM CDT