Cheneyboarding

May 13th, 2009, 10:50 AM EDT

via Hoffmania


Posted in Liberaland by Alan

Responses to this post...

  1. LOL.

    Posted by VegasLib
    May 13th, 2009 at 10:58 am

  2. Alan, will you be posting blog comments on Pelosi and her complicit approval of waterboarding?

    Posted by Kregg
    May 13th, 2009 at 10:58 am

  3. Please, Kregg, not before breakfast….I can handle on so many radical right talking point red herrings on an empty stomach. Why would the speaker continue to ask for an investigation if she was complicit in some obtruse way? Besides, “briefing” someone does not include their approval….and the Bush administration never asked anyone for approval…eventually, they didn’t care if the American voters cared or not…and it showed in the election.

    For a jerk that had lower approval ratings than a past German madman, Cheney keeps spewing out the bilge. His Torture Tour is almost becoming illegal for torturing us with his continued television presence. I wish he would return to rock he crawled out of after stating that he was going to retire.

    JaredfromTexas Reply:
    May 14th, 2009 at 12:50 am

    ROBERT,

    For shame…the speaker has not advocated an investigation into the torture techniques or authorization thereof (for obvious reasons). Or didn’t you know that?

    Briefing someone may not imply approval from said person…but when the person being briefed does not deny the use of the briefed interrogation techniques…it sure as hell does imply approval…wouldn’t you say?

    This just in!: Another liberal, named Robert Blair, falls victim to the left-wing spin machine. Authorities feel it’s too late to save him.

    Posted by Robert Blair
    May 13th, 2009 at 11:38 am

  4. Rob said: Besides, “briefing” someone does not include their approval….

    K: Correct, but she apparently DID approve of it, along with John F-ing Kerry. I think the whole thing will eventually go away when they examine the legal justification memos and find that they DO stand up to the law. This whole things a tempest in a tea pot when we’ve got SERIOUS problems with BO spending our inheritance.

    VegasLib Reply:
    May 13th, 2009 at 11:50 am

    DOWN WITH PELOSI AND KERRY!!! AND REID. Really. Pelosi and Kerry for liking torture and Reid for, just being Reid? Yes. No. For his shadiness. Wait. They’re all pretty shady and I don’t like it.

    GuidoVanHorn Reply:
    May 14th, 2009 at 3:08 am

    the good think Vegas is you can help us with Reid, are you legal to vote?

    VegasLib Reply:
    May 14th, 2009 at 5:18 pm

    In the process, Guido. In the process. The process ain’t an easy one, but I would vote against Reid depending on who the other person was.

    GuidoVanHorn Reply:
    May 15th, 2009 at 3:28 am

    have you had your interview yet?

    Robert Blair Reply:
    May 13th, 2009 at 11:54 am

    Keep dreaming, kid….those memoes are not going to help anyone in Washington DC or Foggy Bottom.
    and……..There you go again… “. This whole things a tempest in a tea pot when we’ve got SERIOUS problems with BO spending our inheritance.” Another radical right talking point before I’ve even finished my ceral. Please, stop the torture!!

    JaredfromTexas Reply:
    May 14th, 2009 at 12:51 am

    How ’bout adding this sugar nugget to your cheerios, Robert:

    $10 TRILLION deficit. Chew on that for a while.

    TDro319 Reply:
    May 14th, 2009 at 5:36 pm

    “$10 TRILLION deficit. Chew on that for a while.”

    Which includes these two unnecessary wars.

    JaredfromTexas Reply:
    May 14th, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    TDRO,

    You’re consistent if nothing else….

    JaredfromTexas Reply:
    May 14th, 2009 at 10:57 pm

    Which includes these two unnecessary wars.

    I’ll take out Bush’s $480B deficit (that included “these two unnecessary wars”)…that leaves Obama with $9.5 TRILLION…explain that away, TDRO…

    Oh wait…I’ll even give you the .05% decrease he’s asked his cabinet to reduce…that leaves you with a $9.499 TRILLION deficit.

    Posted by Kregg
    May 13th, 2009 at 11:43 am

  5. Rob said: Another radical right talking point before I’ve even finished my ceral. Please, stop the torture!!

    K: You have just demonstrated the problem over waterboarding. YOU have decided that something as simple as a blog post about the economy is TORTURE. This is why we need precise legal definitions of terms that can be relied on before we go tossing them around and making accusations. Bushco did the responsible thing and sought FOUR legal opinions before they embarked on wringing info from three foreign combatants. Thats laudable, IMO.

    VegasLib Reply:
    May 13th, 2009 at 12:21 pm

    You don’t know that Bushco really sought FOUR legal opinions just like you don’t know that he didn’t ORDER ‘lawyers’ to come up with FOUR ‘legal’ opinion memos. Sorry Kregg. You just don’t know, but you DID trust THE GOVERNMENT to influence your opinion, that it is legal.

    Kregg Reply:
    May 13th, 2009 at 12:26 pm

    Vegas said: You don’t know that Bushco really sought FOUR legal opinions just like you don’t know that he didn’t ORDER ‘lawyers’ to come up with FOUR ‘legal’ opinion memos.

    K: Ahh, a LEFT wing conspiracy nut! I’m all for placing each and every one of those legal opinions out in the open – away from all political influence – and have them examined for their correctness. So far, no one wants to do this. I still maintain that under unbiased examination they will stand the test of valid legal advice and will prove to be reliable.

    VegasLib Reply:
    May 13th, 2009 at 12:39 pm

    See below. If we sign a treaty we agree that it is true. No?

    Brush me off as a ‘left wing conspiracy nut’ and maintain your denial. Just don’t tell me that I shouldn’t trust governmnet when for the last eight years YOU trusted the government to define for YOU what torture is. YOU gave the government that power.

    Kregg Reply:
    May 13th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

    Vegas said: Brush me off as a ‘left wing conspiracy nut’ and maintain your denial.

    K: Do you have any proof that Bushco ordered favorable memos?

    V: Just don’t tell me that I shouldn’t trust governmnet when for the last eight years YOU trusted the government to define for YOU what torture is. YOU gave the government that power.

    K: Have I posted ANYTHING that said these memos should not be made public and scrutinized by non-politicized experts in the law? Funny, I thought I’d JUST POSTED that they should be examined…

    VegasLib Reply:
    May 13th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    Kregg: “Do you have any proof that Bushco ordered favorable memos?”

    No. Just like you can’t assure me they didn’t.

    —–

    K: “Have I posted ANYTHING that said these memos should not be made public and scrutinized by non-politicized experts in the law? Funny, I thought I’d JUST POSTED that they should be examined…”

    Examined they SHOULD be then and if you don’t think that trying to examine these memos to see if there was any wrongdoing there is ’siding with the terrorists’, then I applaud that. Cause there’s many on your side that just wanna leave this alone and that say that if you invesigate this it’s ’siding with the terrorists.’

    Kregg Reply:
    May 13th, 2009 at 10:59 pm

    Vegas said: Cause there’s many on your side that just wanna leave this alone and that say that if you invesigate this it’s ’siding with the terrorists.’

    K: I say examine them publicly from a non-political bias and go from there. There are many on your side who will consider such an unbiased investigation as unnecessary since they’ve already convicted the man.

    Posted by Kregg
    May 13th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

  6. This is why we need precise legal definitions of terms that can be relied on before we go tossing them around and making accusations.

    Ask, and ye shall receive:

    UN Convention Against Torture
    Part I, Article 1.1

    For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

    So, let’s take waterboarding for example. It is an:

    act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession

    So, it is torture. According to the UN Convention to which we are legally bound.

    Kregg Reply:
    May 13th, 2009 at 12:23 pm

    Um: So, it is torture. According to the UN Convention to which we are legally bound.

    K: Um, I have no trouble agreeing that we are bound by UN treaty to do nothing more than ask nicely. However, I do not place breaking a UN treaty on the same plane as breaking one of our own laws.

    K: Are you as upset over Saddam breaking UN treaties as you are over the US breaking this treaty to gain information?

    Um Cara Reply:
    May 13th, 2009 at 1:01 pm

    However, I do not place breaking a UN treaty on the same plane as breaking one of our own laws.

    Then you need to WIKI ‘treaties’, we are breaking our own laws when we violate treaties we have entered.

    American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law.

    Cheney should have had the US exit this treaty when he intended to not follow it.

    Are you as upset over Saddam breaking UN treaties as you are over the US breaking this treaty to gain information?

    Obviously. Was that a serious question?

    Kregg Reply:
    May 13th, 2009 at 1:06 pm

    K prv: However, I do not place breaking a UN treaty on the same plane as breaking one of our own laws.

    Um said: Then you need to WIKI ‘treaties’, we are breaking our own laws when we violate treaties we have entered.

    U: American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law.

    K: So, then, if they become part of our federal law was Bush legally bound to enter Iraq and remove Saddam for breaking ‘international accords’?

    U: Cheney should have had the US exit this treaty when he intended to not follow it.

    K: I would agree…

    K prv: Are you as upset over Saddam breaking UN treaties as you are over the US breaking this treaty to gain information?

    U: Obviously. Was that a serious question?

    K: No. ;-)

    Um Cara Reply:
    May 13th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    So, then, if they become part of our federal law was Bush legally bound to enter Iraq and remove Saddam for breaking ‘international accords’?

    I doubt that Bush was personally responsible, no.

    Is there some specific language you have seen that would make President Bush personally responsible for removing the head of state of Iraq for Iraq’s failure to follow international accords?

    Kregg Reply:
    May 13th, 2009 at 10:47 pm

    K prv: So, then, if they become part of our federal law was Bush legally bound to enter Iraq and remove Saddam for breaking ‘international accords’?

    Um said: I doubt that Bush was personally responsible, no. Is there some specific language you have seen that would make President Bush personally responsible for removing the head of state of Iraq for Iraq’s failure to follow international accords?

    K: Let me rephrase it unambiguously: Since UN treaties essentially become as Law to the US (your research) would, then, The US be legally bound to attack Iraq for it’s violation of UN treaties and resolutions?

    EricG Reply:
    May 13th, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    Conservatives always claim the UN is something they don’t have to respect or listen to but we still pay the UN dues and not a single neo-conservative ever suggested we leave the UN as a political platform. It’s just more hypocrisy. The GOP wants to stay in the UN but ignore the treaties and laws we signed.

    One or the other. We stand for human rights on our own as an independent nation or we stand with the United Nations. Conservatives present to logical answer to this question. They seem to want to be part of the international community but only as a dictator / big dog.

    Kregg Reply:
    May 13th, 2009 at 1:07 pm

    The Eric said: not a single neo-conservative ever suggested we leave the UN as a political platform.

    K: You’ve not heard of the John Birch Society, then?

    GuidoVanHorn Reply:
    May 14th, 2009 at 3:11 am

    that’s true Eric…the John Birch Society wants to leave the UN, abolish all free trade agreements etc…

    but why would we expect Eric to vet any of his “facts” before he spouts them off.

    Posted by Um Cara
    May 13th, 2009 at 12:13 pm

  7. So, let’s take waterboarding a police interrogation for example. It is an:

    act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession

    So, it is torture. According to the UN Convention to which we are legally bound.

    Posted by pino
    May 13th, 2009 at 7:34 pm

  8. Obviously. Was that a serious question?

    I don’t believe you.

    Posted by pino
    May 13th, 2009 at 7:35 pm

  9. not a single neo-conservative ever suggested we leave the UN as a political platform.

    I suggest we leave the UN.

    part of the international community but only as a dictator / big dog.

    That’s how the world sees us. We are the backstop for every-freakin-body.

    Posted by pino
    May 13th, 2009 at 7:37 pm