Renee Taylor at 8:30am May 22

Sensational, as always! Cheney was beyond compare yesterday. He is, and always will be, a true patriot. Hats off to him for publicly exposing the Chicago-thug-in-chief.

@Renee - I agree, Cheney was masterful, though he was debating a 5th-grader!

Mhicheil Daily at 8:35am May 22

We need more "bad guys" to step up and call it like it is.

Right on Kevin!

Yesterday morning after Obama stumbled and sweated his way through that terrible lying speech, I was miserable and saddened for America,... that is until Dick Cheney came on and laid down one of the finest speeches I've ever heard. That was such a thorough spanking I even thought for just a second someone in the msm would finally see what the rest of us see.

Ahh to dream. They still don't get it, but I think more and more Americans are waking up.

@Mhicheil - I'm one of "the bad guys!"

I'm with John P. - After listening to Obama (again....) it was awesome to hear someone with clarity and substance get up and say what so many of us want to. Cheney was marvelous.

@John P & Anon - Cheney's approval ratings are up. For me, it doesn't get any better than Cheney. But glad to see that his patriotism is energizing the base, and likely converting others.

Dawn Damaris Maldonado Perez at 8:48am May 22

absolutely loved it.. 'm sharing. AWESOME!

@Dawn - Thanks for the support!

Patricia Maier at 8:51am May 22

God bless you Kevin for taking a stand in what is obviouse to many voters, who chose color over experience and love for GOD and country.
My African brothers - I love, as I've dedicated my life, (as well as my husband) to helping those in Africa. With Obama, I saw new opportunity to do them until I saw Obama's contempt towards the one God of our nation.

@Patricia - Sorry you were snowed by Obama, but thankfully you have seen the light. That light he mentioned in his campaign I expect to burn him like a heat lamp by the end of his term. I have yet to see ONE good idea come from this man, and I defy anybody to name me ONE competent staff member on his team!

Absolutely brilliant!!!

I dunno Kev. Biden, for one, is pretty competent at rectal-cranial inversion.

Kevin, you said that "Obama has produced no evidence that harsh interrogation didn't work."

You may have missed this recent Senate testimony:

"Former FBI special agent Ali Soufan told a Senate subcommittee last week that his interrogation of Zubaydah using traditional methods elicited crucial information, including KSM's alleged role in 9-11."

Traditional methods: not waterboarding or other methods of torture. CIA contractors waterboarded Zubaydah after Soufan interrogated him, and they got nothing: Zubaydah shut down.

Soufan's testimony is readily available via Google or Yahoo.

Vice President Cheney's speech at the AEI contained more than a few inaccuracies, and this article on Yahoo News provides a good summary:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090521/pl_mcclatchy/3237981/printIt's one thing to say that VP Cheney made the decisions he did to protect America - I believe he did. That does not mean he made the right decisions, though, and it does not give him the right to lie.

Victor,

How many lives have to be taken through 9/11 type "man-made disasters" and how many lives have to be saved before you'll feel comfortable that enhanced interrogations work sometimes? Also, is it ok for you that Obama has reserved the right to do the exact things he finds so morally reprehensible? Waterboarding was used on only THREE people, and there is proof that they worked.

You see, it's easy to talk and live in the land of make believe like a college professor (Like Obama) It's quite different to live in the real world where mistakes happen, targets move, and real lives are at stake. I for one am thankful for people like Cheney who puts himself out there even though he now doesn't have to say a thing.

EVERY thinking person knows that "torture" sometimes doesn't work. Duh! But sometimes the stakes are so high that we have to do what it takes.

Would you rather we just shoot them on sight or cut off their heads?

@Tominator - You're causing a "flatterlanche!"

Natassja Noctis at 9:38am May 22

He's going to apologize to the Nazis for ww2!!

@my name - Biden is a genius, compared to Obama! That's what ultimately we will find out!

Ahh... now we've got a real debate going. John, well said!!

Kevin - Brilliant article as usual. Thank you for backing upCheney. I believe he has re-energized patriotic conservatives and Republicans. We might actually be able to unite as a party again. Cheney for President ?? LOL!!

@Victor - Then why doesn't Obama release the records to which Cheney alludes. I believe nothing from ObamaNation. PROVE it, and not with anecdotal evidence. Frankly I believe Cheney over you.

Mike Geller at 9:23am May 22

Funny how Cheney's poll numbers are now up. Could it be that the American public finally listened to him, rather than the media's analysis of what he said? How different things might have been if this had been happening all during the past 8 years.

@Laurie - I agree. Cheney is shining the light on the cockroaches! Let the debate rage!

Amanda Janiak Kennedy at 9:26am May 22

I just posted this to my profile to share with all my liberal friends. Kevin..you are fantastic, per usual!

Patricia Maier at 9:44am May 22

God bless you Kevin for taking a stand. For clearly this election was not for qualification, but rather, in the color of ones skin. For as my husband and I have dedicated our lives in helping those in Africa, we saw a great ability to do that even despite Obama's contempt for his country. That now, has grown into arrogance before the world. ... Read MoreSomething that grieved me deeply, not only for Americas, but for those in need in Africa. For in the heart that mocks God and is arrogant. There will be no compassion for human life.
-- Not in the womb, not at the grave, not in the nation, or for others around the world.

Vincent Kreul at 10:23am May 22

I've always liked Cheney, and not just because I'm from Wyoming.

Obama balled up in the corner bawling like the sissy he is after hearing the beat down from Cheney. Didn't you hear him bawling?

Excellent post! I think Obama is doing his best to set the Bush administration up to take the blame for the next terrorist strike.

"... Or they are being put in the same vault that holds his university records and his Kenyan birth certificate."

Those memos will never see the light of day no matter how obvious it looks like Obama is holding out on the American public. I say bravo to Cheney for putting the heat on!

Cheney was taken out of the Presidential race by the press at the start of Bush's first term and Bush and Cheney went along with it. Cheney probably did not want to be President then and he wouldn't have stood a chance last year but who knows what the electorate will demand next time around. I just hope the damage by the mulatto Pee Wee Herman can be minimized.

John P,

There is no evidence that "enhanced interrogation techniques" provide actionable intel. In fact, they are pattered after torture techniques that hostile regimes used in order extract false confessions from their prisoners.

Consider Zubaydah: regular interrogation techniques revealed that KSM was the chief architect of September 11. Waterboarding revealed nothing.

Consider al-Libi, the second terrorist to be waterboarded: the only intel he gave up was false info. In that sense, waterboarding "worked": we got the false confession that torture is designed to get.

What about KSM? According to this report from 2007, he was waterboarded once before "he started talking, and he never stopped." Was it because of the waterboarding, or was it because of the humiliation he felt at having a woman watch him? If he gave up that easily, can we honestly say that we had to do it, because no other interrogation technique would work?

I think that by the time we got KSM, the interrogators and their superiors were already accustomed to using waterboarding and had justified it as a necessary first step to get their prisoners to open up, regardless of the evidence to the contrary. I think they also wanted some payback for the terrorist whose plans led to the murder of so many of us.

I get that, and I can't say that I wouldn't have done the same thing in their shoes. For damn sure, if I could "interrogate" Osama bin Laden, I'm not sure I'd have the courage to stay my hand. I saw what happened that day, and I saw it in person. I smelled the smoke, and I will never forget.

They attacked us because we're the good guys. And being the good guys means that we don't do certain things like torturing our prisoners. It's what separates us from them.

It's a violation of our code as Americans. It's an unreliable method of gathering intel. It lowers us to the level of our enemies.

In the real world, where real lives are at stake, justifying torture as a way to save lives is morally and factually wrong.

Kevin,

You asked for proof. Testimony under oath from a first-hand participant is about as definitive as you can get. Trying to minimize it by calling it "anecdotal" is dishonest. Soufan was there. VP Cheney wasn't.

It was man vs boy when wise and proven citizen Cheney took on unproven pie in the sky Obama. No contest!

It is GREAT that Cheney is speaking up and he has nothing to gain for it. They can't dismiss him because of political reasons!
If Cheney was/is a non-issue for the libs, they would just ignore him. They want him to go away because he knows and speaks the truth.
Hearing BO yesterday sounded like a bitter angry man. He showed a little bit of who he really is, if anyone bothered to see it. It was like a child getting caught and trying to cover it up.
Cheney is a true patriot!!!
(if this comes through 2x, sorry!)

I often can say that my 9 year old son could make BO look foolish. Putting him against a most competent man like Cheney, well, as the brit boxer learned when he fought the Filipino, this boy really can fight.

Not only did this KO BO, it really KO'd the lame stream media as well. After 8 years of slandering and libeling Cheney, they have been exposed as the bias fools that they are.

It's finally good to see the real good guys (bad guys from the bad guys prospective). It's a major morale booster to true patriots that we can win this battle against these American hating lunatics.

Cheney's problem? He didn't shut up! That is what the Obama regime wants. No confrontation. That is the real sign of weakness in anything. I had teachers like that in school, questions were like kryptonite. Now other teachers welcomed the challenge because they knew their stuff and it would make their students sharper. I think Axlerod,Emmanuel, and team wanted to "Sarah Palin" Dick Cheney. Whatever anyone thinks about Cheney, does he look like he is backing down to anyone? He came out because they are trying to argue "torture" without also disclosing "results". Cheney says "Show all documents". The truth is, I do not know if Cheney is that smart, or if he knows an intellectual lighweight when he sees one. Just take one look at how the leaders of other countries are suddenly getting aggressive because they also have Obama pegged. It really is hard to hide inexperience. I had my lunch handed to me frequently in my learning years. We all go through it, but I am really nervous to have a POTUS who has not. Scary indeed.

I have been getting a kick out of the entire thing. Cheney is wonderful and I wish he had been so outspoken the entire time.

Funny, Bush is getting more airtime by the media and Obama now then they ever gave him when he was in office.

I know this may be stupid question and to all of you. Do you think this man is a puppet and if this is a new world order thing? I really would like to know. Obama doesn't appear to have all of his cylinders here. Thank you Kevin for your site! Will tell others about you!

I have a problem with the comments by Victor. Can he provide a link to the "testimony under oath"?

Also what did that person mean by "traditional techniques"?

Why is it that when the CIA briefed the President and the Congress it was stated that the other techniques were not working and that he was a tough nut to crack?

Without the links being provided why should I believe Victor?

Maggie, in my original post, I provided links to Ali Soufan via Google and Yahoo, but perhaps they weren't specific enough. This link goes directly to a transcript of Soufan's testimony:

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/statement-of-fbi-agent-ali-soufan-at-torture-hearings/By "traditional techniques", I'm referring to Soufan's description of his FBI interrogation techniques - not the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were used later.

Why was it stated that other techniques were not working? I have no idea... but I would like to know much more than we already do.

Finally, you ask why you should believe me: it's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of proof. Keep holding me to the same standard of proof that you would hold anyone else, and this debate will be the better for it.

If I cannot source my assertions, I won't make them. If I have an opinion, I'll clearly identify it as such.

Thanks.

@JohnP

Obama was not a college professor as has been claimed. He was a lecturer which is not the same thing as being a Professor.

This has come from a blog. I see no evidence there that this is a statement under oath.

Without seeing the memos that Cheney wants released then we have no way of knowing what was known and when.

This could be a situation of FBI vs. CIA rivalry so I have not way of knowing whether the statement that is made is not biased. That does not mean that I disagree, just that I do not think that this is proper source material.

Personally, I am ambivalent on the matter. If, as is stated that KSM would not talk because of the woman and he felt humiliated, then what was he holding back prior to these techniques being introduced.

These torture techniques are nothing in comparison to what is dished out in countries such as Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan to name a few countries, where they torture women by poking a broomstick up their insides.

I believe that this controversy is more harmful to the USA than it is helpful.

What other information did the CIA want? Probably the location of OBL. This is not clear from what has been written.

The FBI techniques were valid, there is no doubt that they got information, but there was a lot more at stake. I am trying to remain neutral over the issue. I do not see that a crime has been committed. No one should be squeamish against those who are prepared to throw a child's head against a rock, or to remove a man's head. These are very hardened killers.

A blog post is not the transcript at all.

Will C-SPAN video satisfy your requirements, Maggie?

If so, here is part 1 of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee's proceedings:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=286307-1&showVid=trueAnd here is part 2, in which FBI Agent Soufan provides his testimony:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=286307-2&showVid=trueAgent Soufan is introduced at 26:16 of the proceedings: there is a checkbox that will display the transcript in sync with the video. I believe you'll find that the C-SPAN video and transcript match up quite reliably with the transcript from the blog I cited.

You mention other countries and the torture techniques: Maggie, we're not those countries. We have very specific laws, and we have signed on to several international treaties, even one famously signed by President Reagan, that explicitly ban torture. As Americans, how can there be any way that we can reconcile our values and ideals with torture?

FBI vs. CIA rivalry? I think you're fishing for excuses to defend the indefensible.

What information did CIA want? The reporting is beginning to show that CIA was under orders from VP Cheney to show a direct link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, in order to justify the war that was soon to be launched.

It's not a question of squeamishness: it's a question of American intelligence professionals using the methods and techniques that have been proven to provide reliable, actionable intelligence.

Torture was not and is not one of those reliable methods.

Kevin great job as always!! Cheney I feel is going to be a loud Voice for the Conservative Movement!

Great post!

I would think it would help this administration to keep Cheney in the news since well, their favorite thing to do is play the blame game. And their favorite people to blame (you know besides America as a country) seems to be Bush/Cheney.

@Maggie - I love your research! Keep it up...

Kevin, I came to your blog to see if you did a rant on Cheney and Obama, and am not disappointed.
I want to say I am proud to have graduated from the same high school as Cheney (although several years later).
I like seeing Cheney standing up for this country and who I admire very much, President Bush.
Thanks for getting the truth out so brilliantly. God bless you Kevin and God bless the USA.

@Victor - If I torture you, and you give me false intel. I GUARANTEE you that you will tell me the truth the next time! Frankly, if you are threatening "me and mine," killing you during torture is the LEAST worry for me. I will sleep like a baby. You libs are amazing in your righteous indignation for terrorists and total disdain for real victims.

Your evidence is anecdotal, certainly in comparison to mine. If you think I just "speculate" on everything, then you are mistaken. I get my information on many issues directly from the source. I don't claim to be Tom Clancy, but I'm no chickenhead either.

Further, I AM a genius in "human nature." I assure you that I will get more info with "the threat" of torture, than the threat of "words!"

Peddle your crap at Salon. I'm sure they will be more amenable to your take. Here, I will just call you what you are.

@Cris - Thanks Cris, and thanks for the help on other sites.

@The Mrs - Obama thinks he will play the blame game for 4 years with Obama News Network, but we will call him out. We need powerful people like Cheney doing this too!

@Nancy - Glad I didn't disappoint. Sometimes if I think something has been covered enough, I won't write about it. This needed to be said!

Thanks for the support.

@Clifton B - Agreed, Obama won't want what Cheney knows to hit the press. It will expose that torture does work. BTW that's common sense.

@Dubious - Too funny - mulatto pee wee herman! Priceless!

@Dick - Yes, he roasted ObamaNation!

@Lilly - Cheney is indeed a hero, as is Bush!

@madmath1 - your teenager is too well-equipped for Obama. I know pre-teens who would make a fool out of him!

@former - Cheney doesn't speak on conjecture, my friend. He is daring Obama to release the doc. Given "Zero's" MO, you know that if they bolstered his case, he would have released them.

@Julie - I'm glad that Cheney is getting air time and not Bush. Cheney is much more hard-nosed, and more eloquent in his debate. He's been vetted, and is essentially "bullet proof." Obama picked the wrong fight, and I hope he keeps it up.

I am so sick of liberals screaming about "morals" "values" and America is above torturing. Liberals do not think twice of ripping arms and legs off babies, sucking out their brains and leaving them in laundry rooms to die, but OH drop some water on the heads of TERRORIST, who would think nothing of decapitating us, and the liberals are yelling "we are above this, we have morals and values". Give me a break Hypocrite liberals. All GREAT Nations do not sit back and allow others to come in and attack without retaliating. Protecting and defending your Country is what makes a nation great. Obama wants us to be weak, and if he gets his wish we will eventually be taken over by another nation who see the weakness. If we want to keep our Super Power Status we MUST be tough and not a bunch of wimps like Obama and libs want us to be.

This column was one of your funniest yet Kevin. Whenever the smug BHO opens his mouth, I come her and look at your countdown, and all your hilarious pics and it lowers by bp. THANKS!

I was wondering if you have ever addressed the passport issue? I think if there is any proof that BHO is a fraud it is that there is no proof he ever had a US passport. He admits he went to Pahkistan in the 80's when American's could not get in, so he either used an English passport (which he would have as a Kenya) or an Indonesian passport since he was adopted by his stepfather. Barry Soetoro needs to be taken down, before he takes us down. When will someone expose this travesty? Wouldn't it be great if he is finally exposed as the illegal alien that he is and every stupid thing he has signed will be null and void.
We can only pray I guess.

You speak of Obama's lack of substance in his speech and obvioulsy in spite of your dislike for him you emulate his alleged lack of substance.

Don't get me wrong, I am a propogandist myself and I appreciate like work by others. But, you may want to step it up. This was a pretty lame and tired diatribe...especially the America Hating and birth certificate rehash.

Cheers!!

@MEG - Thanks for the props. There is proof that Obama is not a citizen. What real citizen spends $800K and counting on a $25 document...even on principle!

@Matt-Man - I love when KKK members enter here. All the substance you need in refuting Obama is to have run a lemonade stand...profitably. Or in his case a "kool-aid" stand.

The point of this blog was to showcase Cheney. If Obama took shrapnel, well he shouldn't have been in the way.

Only certified dolts would believe that Obama held his own against Cheney, and as I wrote, "he reserved the right to do what Bush did." I suspect you are a dolt, given your comment, so keep giving your quarters to Obama and drinking the kool-aid. I simply can't save everybody. Some head traumas are just inoperable. Extreme cases of liberalism fit the category.

Be sure to take your turd on the way out...

Kevin,

Your narrative, while entertaining, is pretty much beside the point. You're not an intelligence professional, and I'm not a terrorist. We're not playacting a scene out of "Air Force One" or "The Sum of All Fears."

"Total disdain for real victims"? Like the people whose bodies were literally pulverized in the World Trade Center? The 343 firemen who died doing nothing more than their jobs? Nine of those firefighters came from my local firehouse. Or did you mean the cops from NYPD and the Port Authority police, or maybe the EMTs?

Your caricatures might apply to someone else, but they don't apply here.

You claim my evidence is anecdotal in comparison to yours. Two points: Senate testimony from a first-person participant is not an anecdote, as you're no doubt aware; and your article contains precisely zero by way of evidence, anecdotal or otherwise. It expresses your opinion loud and clear, but it doesn't cite a single fact.

If you want to bring facts and evidence to the table, please do. You claim to get your information on many issues directly from the source: let's see some.

@Victor

since I am not an American citizen, how do I know that the testimony before the Senate is reliable.

I cannot look at anything on C-span because I have that kind of thing blocked in my browser (for a good reason) and I have download limits that prevent me from looking at videos at the present time.

I think that the point to be made here is that waterboarding is not real torture. It might be harsh treatment, but it is not REAL torture.

As it stands it looks like KSM gave in because a woman watched him and not for any other reason.

What you have not done is connect the dots between the two kinds of information that was gathered.

FBI: gathered information relating to past events.
You have not provided documentary evidence on what was gathered by the FBI, only that of a person who was disaffected. Not saying his evidence is bad or wrong either, just saying it is still in the realms of hearsay evidence.

CIA: gathered evidence relating to possible future events.

This evidence can be verified by documents that Cheney requested that they be released, but Obummer has refused to release them.

The fact remains, people from several nations died on 9/11/2001 including several Australians. Al Qaeda had declared war on the USA and these people should be treated according to conditions of war.

There are definitely other forms of torture carried out by these ME nations that are totally abhorrent. The protest over waterboarding makes left-wing Americans look like pansies because they are acting so squeamish over something that is very mild in comparison to what is carried out by these ME governments.

@Victor - You won't address the simplest of points, and if you follow this blog, you will know that I boil things down. So I ask you again: "If you wanted to kill me and I captured you, would you answer my questions with me threatening to kill you and/or your family, etc, or would you answer my questions over a latte?"

I already know the answer! Don't tell me what I already know about human nature, and what I know from "people in the know." You may not be privy, however I am, at least moreso than you.

When you can get past the intellectual "lie" and answer my question truthfully, we can have this discussion. Until then, you are just a liberal, or worse yet, a moderate trying to find common ground. Is there common ground if I want to kill your children?

I have just seen the "waterboarding" of a radio personality. At least he was willing to give it a shot. Despite the fact that he said it was torture, what I witnessed was not real torture.

I can identify with that feel when someone has tried to keep your head under water (it happened to me once in a swimming pool) and I know that choking sensation when I had to wear a stupid cap in a swimming race - it fell off and I felt like it was choking me. I understand that this person had a flashback to an earlier event in his life. However, it is not torture.

At the other site - Hot Air - posters have pointed out that Navy Seals undergo this same thing as part of their training. They asked the question, if this is putting the savages like KSM through torture, then can we say the same about techniques of training for US Navy seals?

The point to be made is the actual information that was obtained. Without the memos that Cheney has requested being released we only have half of the picture - a picture that is designed to distort the information given to the general public, and not enhance it for the truth.

Obummer should not have released any of the memos. He has caused the USA a lot of harm by the way he has been carrying on.

Dang That Good!! I posted it tweeted it and Jimmy "Jimmy Z'ed it". I hope I send you a 1,000,000 hits

thats good I mean

@Kevin. You replied to Victor, "Your evidence is anecdotal, certainly in comparison to mine." Nowhere in this discussion do you offer ANY evidence, antecdotal or otherwise. Victor is the only person who cites any sources at all. I'm ready to consider your arguments, but what are your sources and why should we trust them more than Victor's? ALSO, you say, " If I torture you, and you give me false intel. I GUARANTEE you that you will tell me the truth the next time!" Herein lies the problem with torture. Anyone but the most hardened masochist will eventually say whatever will make the torture stop, true or not. Besides this, the U.S. is a signatory to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which specifically bans acts like waterboarding. We also executed Japanese soldiers after WWII for committing that very procedure. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html What would the U.S. do if someone waterboarded American citizens? We like to talk about American exceptionalism, and rightly so. But one thing that made us exceptional was that we were ABOVE such acts. Two quotes from the first great Republican sum it up nicely: "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." "The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation."
-Abraham Lincoln. We have a choice, honor or dishonor. Let us strive for honor. Finally, let me head off the inevitable attack from you, Mr. Jackson, like the one against Matt-Man, "I love when KKK members enter here." Matt-Man's post, like mine, made absolutely no reference to race. But this seems to be the stock reply to those who disagree with you. I enjoy reading your blog, and you make some good points occasionally, but attacking everyone who holds an opinion different from your own in this fashion demonstates amply that the REAL racist here is YOU.

Big Dick doesn't have to pull any punches. You're correct...no agenda.

He handled himself very well. I also think his daughter handled herself very well while making the rounds.

Off topic, but I believe calling Biden a lier was the truth.

Cheney is the man.

@nerly - Thanks a MILLION!

@Kenneth - The stock answer?! You Democracts and liberals have been calling Republicans racist, elitists warmongers for years, when in FACT it is YOU who are exactly that. I set the record straight.

And yet again I ask you, Matt-boy, and Victor to answer the very basic question in my earlier comment. Torture is that simple. You can moralize all you want...I will torture your ass, pure and simple to protect my family and to protect America. If you are DEAD, there is no moral high ground to protect.

Take you philosophical drivel to Salon.com. I roast liberals chestnuts in here!

@Sam - Biden is a liar, and an ignoramus. Perfect addition to the Obama family!

@Kevin: When did we meet, exactly? I can't remember, but we must have, because you seem to think you know me pretty well. Somehow you divined my political affiliation, my past statements, and my views on the Republican party. The fact is you know nothing about me, so the record is definitely not "straight."
And I ask YOU again to answer the "very basic question" I asked you before. What is your evidence? You proclaim (quite noisily) that torture worked. On what basis? When? Who gave up what information? There's no fact without proof, only assertion. And why are we better off after showing the world that our pledge to honor a treaty is worthless, and that we will kill some people for committing a certain act and pat others on the back for the same act? And please, I'm really trying to understand the thinking behind advocation of torture, so calm, reasoned LOGIC, rather than passionate vitriol, would be much appreciated.

"So we get reports that America is experiencing "Cheney overload.""

SNORT! Cheney overload?!? I can't turn on the TV without seeing Obummer.

All I heard from TOTUS was, "It's not our fault!"

Obambi got pwned and they know it.

Torture - Schmorture. As Ann Coulter said " I've seen worse on Fear Factor" Wahhhh!!!!

If Obama moves these thugs to federal prisons they're going to WISH they were back at Guantanamo. 3 squares, fresh air, workout facility, cable TV... That place is state-of-the-art as prisons go.. They've all gained 20 lbs since being there. NOTHING that's been done to those guys, all 3 of them BTW, harmed, maimed, disabled, or killed them. They still have all their limbs intact, both eyeballs, all their fingernails, weren't burned, stretched or whipped.

You libs make me laugh. When you guys pull the knitting needles out of the skulls of innocent unborn babies, then you can feign outrage. Until then, no.

"As Americans, how can there be any way that we can reconcile our values and ideals with torture?"

Perhaps you should ask American Sado-Masochist club members who pay top dollar to torture for their own personal sexual pleasures.

If President Obama wants to solve his torture problem all he has to do is designate any one of his closest personal friends to the position as Dominatrix Czar to oversee torture sessions.

I wonder if Helen Thomas is available for the position?

And why are we better off after showing the world that our pledge to honor a treaty is worthless, and that we will kill some people for committing a certain act and pat others on the back for the same act? Who did we pat on the back for terrorizing US citizens? On US soil?

Ask the loved ones of the US citizens killed by terrorist acts if they give a damn about that treaty. Better yet, I ask you how many Americans' lives are the treaties worth to you? Is honoring those treaties worth so much that you, Victor and Kevin, are willing to lay down your lives and die for those treaties?

I have a gut feeling that, to you, American honor is worth the lives of many Americans, so long as they're others' lives.

As for the rest of the world, I don't give a damn about what they think about America and Americans and American honor in regards to those treaties. At the end of the day, neither the other nations of the world nor those treaties are going to save yet more Americans from being blown to bits or burnt to ash in a fiery inferno.

After all, the treaties weren't yet broken when the lives of 3000 unsuspecting people were taken at the beginning of their work day one morning New York City. In the 7-1/2 years since, as, according to you, those treaties were being broken, not one act of terrorism has been committed on US soil. Makes the treaties you're so concerned about seem worthless to me.

I can guarantee you that honoring treaties won't change the opinions or plans of those who've committed acts of terrorism and continue to plot terrorist acts against America/Americans. Honoring treaties won't make them think better of us or want to cease terrorizing Americans.

Since they're so important to you, however, I say you should be given copies of the treaties so that you can give them the honor you believe them to be worthy of. You can treasure them and keep them safe or you can wave them around proudly. Hell, as far as I'm concerned, you can twist them into a cone and then pound them up your ass. Maybe then, because you're such an honorable American, your life will be spared by those who'd otherwise wish you dead for being American and nothing else.

Living here in the real world, where life isn't fair and idealism is just another -ism, I think, instead of treaties and honor of treaties, I'll put my life in the hands of those who've protected us and kept US soil safe from terrorism for the last 7-1/2 years.

Oh, and as for proof that what you call torture worked or proof otherwise, ask your president to release the other memos, the only ones he's been asked by the CIA to release yet not the memos he and his party in Congress allowed to be released. We'll not only find out if the CIA's interrogation methods worked, we might also find out that the criteria your president used in determining which memos should and which memos shouldn't be released doesn't meet your standards of honor for Americans. I'm confident in predicting that it won't meet my standards of honor for American presidents.

CoolAunt

PS: While I'm on a roll, the pro-lifers really should stop comparing torture and terrorism to late-term abortion. You may have noticed that Cheney didn't compare them in his speech and neither have the CIA spokespeople. There's a reason for that: it's like comparing apples to oranges. This is Kevin's site and he calls the shots here but I'm letting you know that those illogical non-comparisons weaken the argument for protecting Americans from terrorism by whatever means necessary. There are those who manage to work the right to life vs right to choice issue into each and every discussion, regardless of the actual discussion topic. In other words, for some of us, reading that same, tired crap repeatedly has become torture.

@Kenneth - I meet knuckleheads like you in too many places frankly, nameless (in your case faceless...lucky me!), nevertheless always sanctimonious. Until they need the strong arm of the law or the military or whatever to come running. What you you do to save YOUR family? If the answer is what Obama would do, then thankfully, you aren't kin to me.

My family, friends, and other loved ones know that there are NO limits to what I would do protect them. That is leadership. Not this "high ground" drivel, coming from likely the most immoral president in the history of the US...including Clinton!

Kenneth...you are not worthy of further comment from me.

@Laurie & Anon - Exactly, torture schmorture!

"I defy anybody to name me ONE competent staff member on his team!"

The press secretary makes a pretty competent clown.

As for "traditional interrogation methods", which traditional methods to you refer to? The lock them in a room and take months to 'befriend' them and get into their head methods that might get you intel after it's already useless like in the 90's?

Or do you mean the beat the living hell out of them, focusing only on certain areas, then throw them in an unheated concrete cell until they talk method? I know some old Army intel and special forces guys from WWII and Vietnam, and we used to do that kind of stuff to get info alongside the usual bribes and infiltration.

The insane thing, when we take that into consideration given the current mewling, we were still the nice guys when it came to interrogation then.

@ranba - I couldn't agree more, and you'd have to torture me for my sources of intel!

Kevin is right.
When it is YOUR family all bets are off.
I too also saw the video of waterboarding. Scary but definitely not torture.
Obama's policies are guaranteed to get more Americans killed and by the way when that happens blaming it on Bush ain't gonna fly.

Wow,

My first visit here. I am impressed. I love you man, give us a hug!

Obama is a small man who has one talent ... he knows how to apply for an get a job. Albeit with a lot of help from his Chicago mob.

Now that he has the really big gig, he has no clue what to do with it. All his other 'big' jobs required nothing of him other that to occasionally show up to vote 'present' while day-dreaming 'president'.

Now that he has settled in a bit, we all can see that this fraud is not wearing any clothes ala Hans Christian Andersen.

He has met more than his match in taking on a truly big man, Dick Cheney.

When it comes to taking on Dick ... size matters. He is a much bigger man with a much bigger brain. Anything else is his wife's business.

@Hello Birdy - "You had me at 'hello'!" Dang you are FUNNY! I wish I had thought of all that before I wrote this blog!

@Kevin: Nice side-step, AGAIN. Come on, you said you had evidence. Spell it out, man. Saying that I'm not worthy of a response is just another way of saying you have no evidence.

@Anonymous: You fail to realize that those treaties you would use as toilet paper also protect Americans against torture as well. ALSO, we cannot stop terrorism on our own. We need allies and bases overseas. Otherwise we must withdraw from the world and create Fortress America, which in the "real world" is not a viable option. No, I am not naive enough to believe that taking the high road will change any would-be terrorist's mind about us, but torture won't change that mind-set either. It will only serve to make MORE of them hate us enough to try and attack us. You seem to be claiming that torture is the reason we have not suffered another attack. Isn't that a slap in the face of the thousands of brave men and women who have fought and died fighting terrorism overseas so we don't have to fight them here? If all we need is torture to protect ourselves then we are wasting precious lives and treasure fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. You should thank them instead of some expert in torture. THEY are the real reason we have not suffered another attack. I served in the military, and like all other U.S. soldiers, sailors, and airmen, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution. I don't take that lightly. As for my family, I would gladly kill anyone who tried to harm them. At the same time, I would rather have them and myself at ground-zero in a terrorist attack than give up even one freedom for which hundreds of thousands of Americans bled and died to earn and protect. So many mothers and fathers have sacrificed their sons and daughters at the alter of liberty, how can we refuse to take the same risk? If you really want to live in a country that tortures, you should consider (to again quote Lincoln), "...emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocricy." Finally, explain this contridiction. One of the fundamental tenets of the Republican party (and a darn good one) is that the power of government should be limited. And yet you advocate granting the federal government sweeping powers to negate the Bill of Rights. These concepts are irreconcilable. Do you really want to grant those powers to Obama? Really? Because to grant these powers to one president is to grant them to all, and it's just a matter of time before someone decides that torture is a good way to keep Americans in line, too. You can't have it both ways. Either you're for the Constitution or you're against it. There's no middle ground. So which side on you on?

Kenneth, I stopped after your first sentence. Those treaties that you value so greatly haven't stopped US military from being tortured. They haven't stopped the beheadings, long and - may I say "torturous?" - beheadings (more like sawing off than whacking off of heads) of US military or of non-military US citizens abroad, either.

You, apparently, live in your head, in a world where everyone does what's right and good because it's the right and good thing to do, where all people are basically good, where kindness begets kindness and where all people can be reasoned with. That's not the real world that we live in.

I think most of us lived in the world of idealism when we were young and the real world hadn't intruded into our lives too much yet. Then the real world made us grow up. Given the opportunity and provided you're not already so full of yourself that you lack the capacity for learning more, you'll one day realize and recognize your idealism in your younger days for what it is. Until then, I don't have the patience nor am I inclined to try to educate you. Get back with me in a decade or two.

CoolAunt

You hit the bulls balls on this one, smack in the middle. I may be wrong, but most Americans I figure are starting to get some gut feelings something ain't right in Dodge anymore.
I only disagree with one point of your post:
In confronting the worst president in history (and Obama ain't even finished polishing his turd)
He’s' coming close, but no cigar yet, Jimmy Carter is still a head to my way of thinking as the master touch of disaster & still champ.
By the way a truly inspired ending at end of the sentence. Got to remember this one lol.
JMO

@CoolAunt: You're right, we do not live in a perfect world. Evil exists in the world. Therefore, humans join together and create governments to protect ourselves. In order to prevent those governments from doing the very things we would have them protect us against, we establish the rule of law. Humankind battled for centuries to acheive recognition of a few basic, inalienable rights. Now, in one desperate hour you would throw them all away. How long will it take to regain them? What you advocate is chaos, the gaining of a temporary sense of security, at the cost of denying those rights to all of posterity. That in itself is evil.

I want to address the issue of abortion (please roll eyes as necessary). I would not have brought it up except that I feel that there is a connection that is being missed.

There are several abortion procedures. The knitting needles were used a long time ago. A rather painful way to dispose of a baby in my view. However, I want to address partial birth abortion because Obummer supports this extraordinarily cruel method of disposing of the unborn.

In China, where there is a one child policy, women who are pregnant and already have a child are forced to abort their infants. I address the situation of a woman who was in Australia and forced to return to China when she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy. When she returned, not only was the family punished severely, but she was forced to have the procedure where her baby's head was crushed.

Yes, in late term or partial birth abortion, they crush the infant's head. In my view I am extremely squeamish about such a procedure. The innocent child is not given the option to live but is treated to an extremely cruel death.

Compare that to waterboarding, and I can tell you that the waterboarding is nothing by comparison.

@Kenneth
It sounds to me like you live in a fantasy world with your comments.

Why not have a good look at those M-E countries, the ones that are behind the attack on US soil - the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and a third target that was not reached. Have a really good look at the ideology behind those regimes.

When hostages are taken, whether it is US citizens, British citizens, Filipinos, Italians or Australians there is that dread because the hostage takers do not value human life. These are the people who have been conducting a campaign of terror against Israeli citizens, and who are willing to smash the skull of an infant girl on a rock because that child is a Jew. These are the citizens who are willing to blow themselves up whilst taking out as many other people as possible.

I remind you of the Bali bombings. This gets little airplay in the USA because the toll was heaviest for Australian citizens. The perpetrators were Islamists. They were pleased that they killed and maimed so many - the toll was at least 200 and included Australian citizens, Balinese workers as well as other nationals.

I remind you of the fact that in Indonesia young Christian girls were beheaded on their way to school. In Afghanistan the girls have acid thrown in their faces, and gas has been poured into their schools in an attempt to kill them.

What is so wrong with your own fantasy land is the fact that you seem to be condoning these actions, as well as the stoning of women, the hanging of gays, and a whole range of tortures that are dished out to these same M-E citizens. You talk about evil but the way in which you write suggests that you see yourself as morally superior to others as you denounce procedures that ensures that nations all around the world will become safer.

It saddens me that the left as so stupid that they cannot comprehend the danger of these Islamists. They cannot comprehend that the reason that we face this danger is not USA policy or anything to do with Bush, Clinton or even the peanut farmer, but it has to do with the desire of these people to dominate the world and establish the world wide caliphate in the name of Allah.

What is really evil in this world happens to be those who carry out abortions, including partial birth abortions and also those who allow their loved ones to die an agonizing death via dehydration and starvation. In fact what Teri Schiavo, and those like her have faced as they were forced to die was real torture. That is the real evil of this world.

Love Dick Cheney, always have. He speacks his convictions, and doesn't try to parse words to please anybody. I have a giant picture of him as my desktop wallpaper, in my opinion, a true patriot.

@Maggie: You misunderstand me, and your arguments about abortion shows the importance of what I'm trying to say. First of all, I am NOT defending terrorists, woman-beaters, gay-bashers, or abortionists. If I had no problem with these actions, why would I worry about torture? When you defend MORAL VALUES, you are making the same argument that I am. Morality is either right, or it's wrong. I say it's right, and when you invoke morality to support your arguments, you're ALSO saying that morality is right. Why am I attacked as a naive moralist, then have morality used to attack me? It's a double standard. Over and over again, people on this site use MORAL VALUES to defend their beliefs. But somehow I'm wrong when I talk about those values. If I am wrong, then what you are really saying is that those values are subjective. They don't stand on their own merits, but must be evaluated according to each situation. I believe that those values are categorical, and apply in all situations. If morality is like a coat we can put on or take off as the mood suits us, then its value is substantially lessened.

What I am REALLY defending is the Constitution. It is the very embodiment of our values as a people and a nation. If those values are valid (and I say they are)then they should guide us in all instances. Once we question the divinity of that doctrine, there is no return to absolute faith. Again, either these values are always right, or they are always wrong. I believe they are always right. We base many of our arguments against abortion on a Constitutional right to life. When we argue that the Constitution can be warped to the point where torture is right, the same train of thought can be used to warp the document to say that abortion is right. I reject both arguments on the same ground. Both of those actions are morally wrong, and the Constitution supports my view. We have abortion because certain judges have rejected the moral obligations of the Constitution, and allowing torture is the rejection of those same values.

Finally, to cite instances of cruelty on the part of terrorists and others is NOT justification of cruelty on our part. If cruelty is wrong, then it matters not one iota who inflicts that cruelty. Lack of morality on their side is no different than a lack of morality on our side. There's a never-ending chain being created here. If the correct response to cruelty is more cruelty, we must concede that a cruel act on our part justifies a cruel response from a terrorist. I just don't buy that argument.

This is a pretty sad debate people. The fact is that Cheney watched the campaign. He knew these days were coming. If there really was intelligence that showed these tactics worked he should have outed them WHEN HE ACTUALLY HAD THE POWER TO DO IT. Further, whether or not these tactics worked or not is beside the point. They're currently illegal. They were illegal when Cheney authorized them. They're illegal now. Their success or failure rate is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if we waterboarded 1 or 1000. It's illegal.

I support the notion that the Bush Administration did what they did in the best interests of the country. But these were clearly bad decisions.

What everyone forgets in their rush to torture "them" is that what you allow the government to do to anyone else will eventually be done to you. That's why we have the constitution. That's why we have laws. You don't get to just break the law because you're scared. Stop being scared. Be a man and have some courage. A soldier doesn't just get to shoot anything that moves on the battle field. There are rules. If you break the rules you get punished. Cheney broke the rules and lucky for him he won't get punished...which sets a precedent.

The funny thing is that all during the campaign the right screamed that Obama would "destroy the constitution" and now that he seems to be the only one applying it everyone is all pissed off.

Don't subscribe to the fear tactics people. This country will almost certainly be attacked again. But we don't have to violate our laws and constitution out of the fear of such an event.

I don't have any problem if the country wants to allow torture. Just make it legal. I want our politicians to follow the law. So, if the country wants to legalize it and back out of all the treaties we've signed that also ban torture then by all means, go for it. But that won't happen.

Great one. Love the way you pulled the'Junior' card. We've got to find that vault and break in one day.

@tipfilms - It is not a violation of law to do whatever is necessary to protect oneself or to discourage others from wanting to do you harm. PARTICULARLY when you are just minding your business.

Get off the Obama wagon, and into the real world. Do it before it's too late!

Well, if that's the case, I can go out and kick your butt because you offend my sensibilities. Or maybe you might commit a crime against me sometime in the future. Or maybe I can torture you because I think you might know something I need to know in defense of my family.

Obviously, I say these things to make my point and I mean no violence toward you or your family. But that is how it works. You do not get to break your own laws to protect the country. Just as police officers don't get to break laws to protect themselves or others. That's not a dream, that's the reality of this country.

Again, I offer, if you want to make these things legal, then we should do so. But they are currently illegal and should not be used without threat of prosecution. Again, I concede that the B.A. did these things in defense of the country. Since this was a time of panic and fear I think it's best to let these events slip into the past no matter what the rest of the world thinks. But they cannot continue going forward. That, my friend, is naive.

Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution:

2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.So, Tipfilms, denying terrorists due process of law does not break Constitutional law. (Why you'd want to apply the Constitution and the rights of US citizens it protects to those who would destroy America, Constitution and all, makes no sense to me, anyway.)

The US government's recent purchases of banks, financial companies, insurance companies, and auto companies is, on the other hand, flies in the face of everything the Founding Fathers were trying to protect us from when they authored the Constitution.

CoolAunt

Sure, just disregard the law. That's fine. Take all that comes with it and be prepared. Such as the warrantless wiretaps. Searches and seizures, etc. Once they can justify doing it to anyone else, they can eventually get around to justifying doing it to you.

If that's the kind of country you want, one that allows it's government to ignore the law when some anonymous person in the government deems it necessary, then that's the government you want.

But I submit that this is the weak kneed position. It's actually an incredibly uninformed and dangerous rhetoric that you seem to have succumb to hook line and sinker.

I offer you this caveat. MAKE IT LEGAL. I personally couldn't care less if the government wants to torture people. JUST MAKE IT LEGAL. Then there's no question, there's no fuzzy middle ground, no one has to get investigated and you and I don't have to have this philosophical debate over the most basic principles of our society...which is the law.

Well that's a different argument. We didn't purchase anything, we gave loans, correct? Loans that are to be paid back? Usually when you buy something, you don't have any intention of selling back to the person you bought it from for more than you paid for it. We gave loans to struggling companies and should make money on the deals. If it doesn't work out that way then some one will have screwed up.

Suspension of habeas corpus is again, a slippery slope. I doubt you can find any case law or precedent where it has actually been used in this regard. Additionally, this was not a rebellion or an invasion. On the contrary, we invaded their country.

My interest in treating these people according to our law is precedence. Once again, what the government can do to anyone in the custody of our country get away with, they can eventually do to you and me. Because there will have been established precedence for such actions. I've no problem if the government wants to torture people. Just make it legal.

Passing all of that, you still have to get by the UN Convention on Torture and the Geneva Convention, both of which we are signatories. And suspending habeas corpus still doesn't give you the clear cut right to torture them in any way. You can deny some rights, but it doesn't grant you the right to torture anyone.

The terrorists have no country, at least no nation claims them. (Which, by the way, should render the treaties inapplicable to them). The terrorists at Gitmo invaded this country, not the other way around.

Constitutional law is The Law of the land in the US. Precedent is irrelevant. (The kool-aid fog must be thick tonight.)

As for the purchase of the auto companies, banks, etc., your president did, indeed, give them our money and has since taken control of them (firing CEOs, authorizing marketing plans, redistributing dealerships, etc.) You can call that a loan but that's not a loan; that's a purchase. (hell I can call myself a car and even sleep in the garage, but that won't make me a car, either.)

Here's another one for you. A bill entitled "The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, an Act to reauthorize and reform the national service laws." http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1388/show
Mandatory volunteer work (now there's an oxymoron for you) flies in the face of Article XIII of the Bill of Rights: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Your president should be impeached. The problem with that, however, is that the Constitution states that only by Congressional vote can the president be impeached. Then, who would impeach Congress? They need to be tossed out, too, for signing into law these unConstitutional bills your president has presented to them. Traitors, all of them and all of you who defend and support them while knowing their traitorous acts.

CoolAunt

PS for Kevin: Bless your heart for having to deal with these nit-witted trolls on a daily basis.

I love how you resort to name calling when you can't win your argument. Pathetic. First, it doesn't matter whether or not the parties we're holding are party to the treaties or not. We are parties and therefore should act accordingly. Second, the people we picked up in Afghanistan were supporting the Taliban who were ruling that country. The folks we picked up in Iraq (which is a dubious conflict at best) are of a different sort and could possibly be considered to fit into a myriad of categories depending on their particular stories. I don't think you have the information to be able to say what their status is, you're just regurgitating the party line. That's actually fine with me. I'll say it again. I do not care if the country wants to torture people. Just make it legal and have at it so that there is no question.

The auto deal is very clear. The country has become the majority stakeholder in these companies AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMPANIES. Remember how those guys flew to Washington in their jets and begged for money? That means they knew what they were getting into when they asked and signed up for all that ensued. If you're paying for something, you should get some say in how it's run particularly when the project isn't going well. I would also remind you that George Bush began all of this. He gave the banks, and the auto companies the money. The current administration is continuing the policy from the last administration. That makes is a "conservative" policy....can't believe I'm saying that.

Again, if the country would rather allow these companies to go under, I'm fine with that. You get what you get.

Love your blog! You are absolutely right on!

@Kenneth

I am not a citizen of the USA. I am an Australian citizen. However, I have cousins who are USA citizens.

You are not defending the Constitution of the USA when you defend the jerks who are committed to acts of terrorism and war against the USA, Australia, Great Britain and other countries.

Cool Aunt has provided the necessary clause from your own Constitution regarding the suspension of Habeas Corpus which is relevant in this case.

KSM masterminded the attack on the WTC. That means he committed an act of war. Under the terms of your own Constitution Habeas Corpus is suspended. Also KSM is not a citizen of the USA and those rights do not apply in the first place.

There is only way way to treat those who have masterminded acts of terror. You have the death penalty in your country and that is what they deserve. These are people who do not value life. If they were freed they would continue with their activity.

I think that would be terrorists, such as the 4 who were captured in NYC should be treated as traitors to the USA. The punishment for traitors should be applied to them as well.

It seems to me that you just cannot understand the nature of the beast that is confronting the whole of the world at this time. That beast is the rise of a form of Islam that is violent - jihad. That beast is determined to bring about the world wide caliphate. There is no Mr. nice guy where these people are concerned. They interpret the Koran as it was meant to be interpreted.

The Crusades happened because the Islamists were out of control. It was the only way to stop them in that Middle Ages period. However, revisionists have been doing a great snow job and they have been covering up the real facts regarding the purpose of the Crusades. (Yes, I know that everything was not perfect and for that you can blame a German prince). The Islamists are in the habit of claiming land that never belonged to them in the first place. We need to stand up to them.

@tipfilms,

you are wrong about the auto industry requesting the takeover. The White House moved in and has done what is unConstitutional.

There are bankruptcy laws in your country, just like there are bankruptcy laws in my country. I do not know your laws off the top of my head, but I do know that there are protections that can be put in place that gives companies a breathing space to allow them to raise fresh capital. The Obama Administration has meddled in the affairs of private industry.

The Obama Administration is making a shambles of the financial institutions of your country.

The Obama Administration has thrown thousands out of business without giving them compensation for the business and good will that they have built up.

The Obama Administration is doing harm to the USA and it gets worse every day.

One more point about what comprises torture, and what applies in these M-E countries. A good example is the recent arrest and jailing of an American-Iranian female reporter. She was tortured and then charged with spying. This happened in Iran.

Let me repeat this: Iran captured an American citizen and threw her into prison. Iran tortured the woman before putting her on trial for spying - a trumped up charge. Initially she was found guilty and when her case was originally heard she did not even have a right to a lawyer.

Why should these people, who are killers, who have masterminded such destructive acts as the WTC be seen as having rights of any kind?

The Geneva Convention does not apply to them. They are not signatories to the Geneva Convention.

Also, you have to show that they really were tortured, such as that which occurred on the Burma Railway and elsewhere by the Germans, Japanese and yes even the Russians. The torture endured by prisoners of war has been a lot more enduring than a few minutes of sensations.

@tipfilms - Bush is the boogeyman. Bush started the bailouts at the request of "little black Jesus." I fault him for being "played," but it was Obama who asked for this. Further, Obama has ruined America's credit!

@Maggie and CoolAunt - You too ladies are "on point." I love it! Bring on the trolls, because my peeps are prepared to deal with them!

Habeas corpus has nothing to do with torture. It is a protection against arbitrary imprisonment without being charged with a crime. Besides, habeas corpus HAS NOT BEEN SUSPENDED. Even if it had been, the Bill of Rights still applies.
I am NOT defending terrorists. If we catch them, try them and put them in jail. If we find them on the battlefield with weapons in their hands, shoot them down. All I'm saying is that we are a nation that believes in the rule of law, and ignore that rule at our own peril.
Republicans like to say they are the party of law and order. The Constitution is basis of all law in this country. DON'T VIOLATE IT.
Republicans like to say they are the party of small, limited government. DON'T GIVE THEM UNLIMITED POWER.
All of these arguments about how bad Obama is prove the point. Do you really want him to have this power? I asked this question before and nobody wants to address it.

I've just recently discovered your blog.

I do have one nit with this post. I believe Cheney does have a dog in this fight: his freedom. Never before in America have we seen an administration talk so openly about prosecuting members of the previous administration and when those high-horse officials in Spain talked about prosecuting Bush admin officials, the Obama administration failed to tell them where they could stick it.

So yes, Cheney does have a motivation for this and it is that Obama is acting like a banana republic dictator, jailing members of the former regime.

@Odysseus - That is a "nit." I said that Cheney is protecting freedom of America. But thanks for the comment!

@Kenneth - Good point on giving Obama too much power.

Maggie, I realize since you're not a citizen of this country, that you may have missed the very public and very humiliating senate hearing where the auto executives flew to Washington in their private jets at a cost of over $100,000 each to explain to the Senate how their companies were failing and to ask for help. These companies did not want to file for bankruptcy and could not get a loan elsewhere so they asked for a loan from the Government.

You cannot ignore the truth. This is not unprecedented in this country, as Chrysler did the same thing in the 80's and 90's very successfully. If you want to claim that the Bush Administration's financial policies that the current administration is continuing are bad policies, you have that right to that opinion. But at least get your facts straight.

Here's a link where two of the Big 3 Auto Execs make their case for the money they need. Notice they use the term "requesting."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLuLvCR2bYE

Maggie, I submit to you that we are a nation of laws. We don't get to "be like everyone else" and do the things that we criticize other countries for doing. We don't get to "break the law a little bit." It's just not a practical exercise in governance.

In fact, that's a childlike argument. Again, if people in this country want to go down that road, that's fine. Just make it legal. Currently, it's not legal to torture people, not even a little bit, in this country.

Actually, it was Secretary Paulson who requested the bailouts. In any case, it's extremely unfortunate that you would choose to ignore this fact and try to blame the B.A.'s policies on a different administration.

As I recall, Bush often said, "I am the decider."

Kenneth, well said. I have continually made the same argument. We cannot allow our government to suspend our rights at any point for the purpose of something "they deem important."

The Bush Administration and it's policies have eaten away at a little bit of our rights in it's efforts to protect the country. It would be difficult to regain those rights now that they have been compromised. Rights regarding privacy (with respect to your communications) and travel and others have been compromised by the likes of the Patriot Act.

We cannot panic on this issue. We must do this right so as not to affect our own liberties going forward.

On this issue, you are just a little uninformed. The Obama Administration has said repeatedly that they are not interested in Truth Commissions, and prosecution of Bush Administration officials. Obama did waffle a bit on the idea of investigating what happened to get us here. But no further investigation would be necessary in Obama's eyes.

I think the World Court would be hesitant to go after Cheney and I don't think Cheney should be prosecuted, nor do I think he will be prosecuted. The people of the Bush Administration did what they did in defense of the country. I do not think we can treat them as criminals for this even though some of what they did was criminal.

To refocus the debate, let's review:

Kevin: "Cheney has no dog in this fight, no agenda."

Yes, Cheney has a definite agenda, as his daughter stated:
"...I think as we watched in those very first days and week after President Obama came into office, ...when he suggested in the Oval Office he would be open to the prosecution of former Bush officials, including those who weren't political appointees potentially, really made my dad realize that this was just fundamentally wrong, and he had to speak out."

And Cheney does have a dog in this fight:
"WASHINGTON, May 23 (UPI) -- Former US VP Dick Cheney is actively shopping for a book deal amid his blitz of speeches & television appearances, publishing sources said. Cheney doesn't need the money but is eager to give a full account of his life in politics to combat his many critics"

Kevin again: "He speaks with eloquence & passion—backed with substance!"

The substance wasn't very accurate, though:
"WASHINGTON — Former VP Cheney's defense of the Bush policies for interrogating suspected terrorists contained omissions, exaggerations & misstatements. ... In a statement April 21, DNI Blair said ...The bottom line is that these techniques hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us & they are not essential to our national security. A top-secret 2004 CIA inspector general's investigation found no conclusive proof that information gained from aggressive interrogations helped thwart any 'specific imminent attacks,' according to one of four Bush-era memos that the Justice Department released last month. FBI Director Mueller told Vanity Fair magazine in December that he didn't think that the techniques disrupted any attacks."

CIA & FBI agree: aggressive interrogation techniques did not help thwart attacks.

A final quote: "Obama has produced no evidence that harsh interrogation didn't work"

Yes he did. So did the Bush Administration: the CIA IG's 2004 investigation. Statements by Blair & Mueller. FBI Agent Soufan's Senate testimony. Solid evidence that enhanced interrogation techniques didn't work.

Why hasn't the President released the memos that Cheney asked for? Look to the article:
"...the decision to withhold the documents was announced by the CIA, which said that it was obliged to do so by a 2003 executive order issued by former President Bush prohibiting the release of materials that are the subject of lawsuits."

Ask yourself: why would Cheney file a FOIA request for documents that he knew could not be released?

What's the debate about?
* actionable intel & the best ways of gathering it;
* adhering to our Constitution, laws & obligations;
* evidence. If Cheney had supporting evidence, it would have leaked a long time ago;
* how we conduct ourselves during wartime;
* how we treat prisoners;
* the fact that torture is not effective for gathering intel;
* the fact that we've prosecuted waterboarding as a war crime in the past;
* our actions - not anyone else's.

What is it not about?
* abortion;
* Ann Coulter or anyone else's opinion on what torture is;
* auto company bailouts;
* defending terrorists;
* habeas corpus - Kenneth has explained why clearly;
* protection, self-defense, or threatening "me and mine";
* SERE school, where soldiers are taught to resist techniques like waterboarding;
* what terrorists have done: if it were, would we be justified in sawing off our captives' heads?

So if Kevin decides that this debate should continue, let's keep it on point, and let's focus on facts.

@Victor
except you have one point wrong which is on topic:

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION

Let me get this clear, I have not mentioned other forms of abortion here. I have mentioned one type where the baby's head is crushed.

I want you to address this particular point because it is relevant when it comes to comparing what should be done with a mass murderer.

Also, I what is acceptable as far as gathering intel in this case is that a technique that brought no harm to the person was used.

The waterboarding of the radio personality showed slight discomfort. The guy was a total wuss in that he gave up so quickly. However, what was wrong with that example happened to be that he had in his past almost drowned and he had a flashback. As soon as it stopped he was fine.

In the case of KSM he had admitted to masterminding the WTC effort and to a few other things, but more information, considering that he was a top operative had not been extracted from him. This I think is the important point. The CIA required intel that would reveal the whereabouts of certain individuals as well as other information that has not been released.

The prisoners in Gitmo are well treated. They do not undergo the deprivations that occurred during WW2.

Without the memos being released the effectiveness of the procedure cannot be verified.

As to the prosecution of waterboarding I am at the point now that I want to see the evidence that this was prosecuted. I have heard this statement being made but I have not seen any evidence that anyone was prosecuted for waterboarding. They were prosecuted for other forms of torture.

Perhaps you have not heard about what took place on the Burma Railway. The prisoners were treated in a shocking fashion. Perhaps you have not seen or heard of the torture techniques used in the prisoner of war camps in Germany, where people were locked up until they died.

Habeas Corpus does not apply to those foreign nationals who were involved in the attacks upon the WTC, the USS Cole and other attacks. The fact of reading them their rights is totally absurd.

I repeat in those same M-E countries people are given real forms of torture including flogging for minor crimes. Women are tortured by have broom handles rammed up their insides, and they are raped as well.

Waterboarding might rough the person up but it is not torture by any stretch of the imagination.

You would have a case for complaint if these people had been placed upon the rack. Otherwise you should just get over it.

btw I had read about the meeting. As for the corporate jets, well maybe you should get as upset with Nancy Pelosi and the way she wants to be taken to California, before pouring scorn on others. You should also consider the way that "the corporate jet" was used to fly between Washington and Chicago all for the sake of a dinner.....

However, that meeting was not for the executives to ask Washington to take over their companies at all.

When there is a bankruptcy situation there are processes that are laid down. The Obama Administration has gone outside of all of those processes and has been interfering in an unprecedented fashion.

The only conclusion to make is that Obama is in fact a communist and he could not care less about the interests of Americans. He has already shown that he does not have a clue about economics, and he has no clue about foreign policy except to be an appeaser.

@Maggie: You still don't seem to get it, so let's try a little analogy. Another aspect of protecting your family is to provide for them financially. They need food, clothing, and shelter or they will die. You can get a job and trade your wages for those necessities. But you could forego the job and just steal from other people, or you could stand on the corner and sell drugs. The vast majority of people get a job. Why? Because stealing is WRONG, selling drugs is WRONG. These actions violate our MORAL VALUES and this is reflected in the LAWS we make against crime. The end result is the same, your family eats, has clothes, and a place to live. But one way is RIGHT and the other is WRONG. Now, many people will say that they WOULD steal or sell drugs before they would let their family starve. But if you did that, wouldn't you expect to be punished if you got caught? Would you ask for the law to be changed? No, because you know the law is in place for a good reason, to protect society. And now that you've been caught and put in jail, what happens to your family? Are you still protecting them? No, you're in jail and your family starves. You might say you did the wrong thing for the right reason, but you still did something wrong. You could also say that other people steal much more, or sell harder drugs, but is that really justification for your actions? No, because stealing and selling drugs are ALWAYS the wrong things to do.
Torture is the same way. It is against the law because it VIOLATES OUR MORAL CODE. If it did not, it would not be illegal in the first place. No matter what reason you give for doing it, it is still wrong. And no matter how many "other people do worse" examples you come up with, it's the wrong thing to do.
Now let's go back to the analogy. Those are not your only two options. If you can't find a job, you don't HAVE to steal or sell drugs. You could ask friends or other family members for help. You could ask your church for help. You could go to the food stamp office. The point is, you have a CHOICE, and if you steal or sell drugs then your choice was bad. Period.
Our choices in the torture debate are not limited to torture and be safe on the one hand, or not torture and get attacked on the other. We have other options, ones that are not in conflict with the Constitution.
One more point: Some here have accused me of affecting an air of superiority because I make arguments on the basis of moral values. Well, these are not just my values. The Constitution reflects those values because they are shared by the vast majority of Americans, or else we wouldn't have put them there or we would have passed amendments to alter it. I'm not saying that I'm superior to anyone. I AM saying that the U.S. is superior to the terrorists.
Finally: We are at war, but this war is not just about bombs, rockets, guns, or even buckets of water. It is a war of IDEAS and IDEOLOGY. Their ideology says human life has little or no value, and ours says human life is precious. If we adopt their view for reasons of expediency, they win, because their main goal is to destroy our freedoms. THEY HATE US BECAUSE WE ARE FREE. If we destroy our own freedoms because they attack us, we've simply done their job for them.

Tipfilms, I won my argument with you. You argued that your prez remains true to the US Constitution and I provided you proof that he's violated the Constitution.

Further, I provided you proof that the Constitution does not protect the rights of the terrorists at Gitmo. They are not POWs of any wars between nations. They are not POWs and are therefore not protected by treaties. They are international criminals and a threat to our nation's safety and sovereignty and are therefore not protected by legal rights per the US Constitution.

I did make a mistake in my previous comment to you. In my haste to be done with you, I stated that all the terrorists at Gitmo were picked up in the US. That's only partially correct as they were picked up in the US and also in various European and Mid East nations. However, in the hopes that repetition will break through the kool-aid barrier, I repeat that the prisoners at Gitmo are not POWs.

As for calling you a nitwit, that wasn't a resort of any type. It was an observation. True to nitwittery, you don't know when to stop. (Nancy Pelosi's face comes to mind at this moment. Why would that be?)

As for me, I have a low tolerance for bullshit and I don't suffer nitwits well, so I'm done. I learned months ago that arguing with an Obamabot is like, well, it's like trying to get Pelosi to admit that she lied. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink if he's already been satiated with kool-aid.

So, ta-ta. You can call it a victory if you want. Whatever. And I can go sleep out in the garage and call myself a car.

See you one day in the bread lines.

CoolAunt

Hey, Kevin. I have a graphic I'd like to send to you. Should I send it to the gmail address on the site's home page? --Thanks!

CoolAunt

Victor, I would also add that from my recollection, Obama only said that he would be open to an "investigation" of Bush officials. He never said he'd be open to "prosecution." That's Liz Cheney trying to pump up her case. The Obama Administration has said repeatedly they are not interested in looking back. However, the President doesn't not control who and who isn't investigated. That is Congress obligation to make those decisions.

@tipfilms - Are you always this relentless in the pursuit of ignorance? Why spend taxpayer money to investigate patriotism?

Finally--I am considering blocking you if you continue this thread--it is the responsibility of POTUS to do whatever is necessary to protect Americans. He can authorize ANYTHING to do so, including the use of atomic weapons.

If we find out there is a nuclear weapon somewhere in the US, it would be TREASON for the president NOT to do all that is necessary to find it.

Go find another playground or subject, or I will delete your messages.

You won't convince true conservatives of you viewpoint, so either agree to disagree or get banned. This is my playground.

Waterboarding is effectively drowning a person. If you don't think drowning is torturous you're not being rational. In any case, it is against the law. It doesn't matter how effective it was, it's illegal. You people need to put your money where your mouths are. If you're so satisfied with the use of harsh interrogation, write to your legislators and have them MAKE IT LAW. Then there's no discussion.

Have the guts to tell the world that we don't care what treaties we've signed or what our own laws state. Say to the world that we believe we should have the right to use these tactics in times that who ever is running the country deems necessary. Then there's no cause for conversation, investigations and looking back. We will simply allow our government to do what other governments call torture in efforts to get intelligence.

@Victor - Same warning I gave tifilms. This discussion is dead. You haven't proven any points, and you won't convince this audience of your views. You have stated your case ad nauseum. I won't allow you any more posts on this subject.

Uh-oh, Gestapo's here. Agree or else!

@Kenneth - No more Gestapo than the four liberal sites I've been kicked off. Further, you and your cohorts are repeating the same crap. You've made your point, are not changing any minds. I say, enough said!

I like good discourse, even when I don't necessarily agree. However my points are clear and irrefutable, despite the 3rd-grade attempts.

Trust me...I have been cordial to you, Victor, and tipfilms. But if it continues, I would really get nasty, and frankly no need to.

You guys seem reasonable. I don't care if you agree with my view or not, but I'm done with the discussion.

I have lots of other blogs, perhaps you agree with something there...or not!

just one more point on this subject:

Waterboarding is not drowning. There is a sensation of drowning but that sensation does not make it drowning.

I can relate two incidents regarding being in a situation where I could have drowned - I was not even close to drowning I should add. In the first incident someone put her foot on my head in the deep end of a swimming pool. It was an awful moment. The second incident occurred when the silly cap I had to wear in a swimming race came off and hung around my neck, almost choking me. I flipped the cap and lost the race. I did not drown but the sensations in that incident were horrible.

Just looking at what was filmed regarding that radio personality I could never conclude that this was drowning.

The whole argument regarding waterboarding is so stupid because it is not torture, and as far as I am aware it was not one of the techniques that were prosecuted after the second world war.

BTW I could not read the mumblings of Kenneth. The text is just too hard to read, so I am totally ignoring all of those comments.

None of these people addressed the real kinds of torture that occurred during the second world war and they seemed to be squeamish in an hypocritical way about addressing the torture involved in two situations that occur in the USA to American citizens:
(1) partial birth abortion where the baby's head is crushed. That is torture.
(2) the starvation and dehydration of helpless and vulnerable citizens until they die.

It is total hypocrisy to make these claims about the rights of men who are so willing to commit mass murder, and at the same time ignore the plight of the most vulnerable of human beings in the USA.

@Kevin: I'm sorry you got kicked off of those liberal sites. I'm even more sorry you feel compelled to do the same thing, mostly because I feel like the best arguments (as well as the truth) come out of an open, back-and-forth discussion. I debate on the collegiate level and am forced to defend both sides of many issues. I learn more about those issues on sites that allow this free-play exchange of ideas than I do in any other kind of research that I do. I thought I had found a really great site to accomplish this, but sadly I guess I will have to find another. No hard feelings, man, I did learn a lot from this discussion, just sorry to see it end.

...that was so perfect!

Thanks

Hey Kevin. I apologize for feeding the trolls. I lose all common sense sometimes and take their bait.

Anyway, I apologize for throwing fuel on the fire. I'm sorry.

CoolAunt

Your intelligence level is well below any level of conscience so I'm not too concerned about what you think of me or anyone else. The idea that because I stand for the laws of our nation that this makes me an "obamanot" is as laughable as your non existent logic.

If you must be the winner, then you can be...in your own mind. You can be a legend there, too.

You offered no proof of the things you say you offered, but rather, you offered a somewhat uneducated opinion.

But the Obama Administration has implied that these folks are Prisoners of War. They are not 'international criminals" they were caught on the battle field. This is why some of them will be tried in MIlitary Tribunals. Here's a quote from Obama's Speech at the National Archives the other day:

"As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again."

See that, you have to listen to the words, which I notice you don't do much. He says, "like other prisoners of war." In legal means, he likens Al Qaeda captvies to other prisoners of war we have captured on the battle field.

Additionally, since I realize you're not very familiar with the law, in this country, and I'm not sure in which country you live, we do not have one set of laws for one set of people and another for others with which we come into contact.

In this country, we have one set of laws. We apply those law to everyone who goes through our system of justice. This would imply that our laws to apply in some sense to captives at Gitmo. The President has acknowledged this and the Bush Administration also acknowledge this as it attempted to begin closing down Gitmo. The question is which laws we have that will apply to which terrorists. In order to get through this we may have to create new laws just for the most hardened terrorists. Others will be sent through our court system, like the terrorists that arrived in NY this week to be tried in NY's Southern District Court.

I remain, your faithful favorite nitwit!

Yes, Kevin, I thought everyone was having a good time, despite the insults. I like being a minority....if you know what I mean. It's just more fun that way. But I agree you have some very stubborn and hard headed readers who would not be swayed from the dark side.

Thanks for allowing it go as long as you did.

Yes, a true patriot...who deferred military service 5 times because he would rather send soldiers to the battlefield than fight along side them. I'm not saying you have to serve in the military to love your country but he loves money and power more than his country. He'll do whatever inflates his bank account without a thought of you or anyone else.

Kevin,

You're right: technically, I have not proved a thing. An FBI agent and his Director have. So has the CIA, and so has the Director of National Intelligence.

Technically, all I've done is assemble their information in response to your still unfounded claim.

In response? The same type of reply that your Governor has recently provided. Instead of putting facts on the table and offering a contest of competing ideas, close the discussion. Offer vaguely-worded talk about secession. Take your marbles and go home.

Whatever happened to "These colors don't run?" and "America, love it or leave it?"

Your country needs you, Kevin. It needs me, too... as well as Cool Aunt, tipfilms, Kenneth and everyone else who has voiced an opinion here.

We're obviously never going to agree all the time, but that is irrelevant. We're going to talk, debate, use our minds and try to convince each other that we're right... and that's what makes this country the exceptional place it is.

I may peek in from time to time, and you and everyone else here are cordially invited to express your opinion on the blogs I manage.

Victor

@Victor,

the FBI have not proved anything. Also, the memos that Obama will not release could provide a lot more information on the subject.

From what I have managed to read (at least what is legible and readable) there are discrepancies in all of the accounts.

FYI there were 2 Australian citizens who were held at Guantanamo Bay. The first to be released was a man of Pakistani origin. It has never really been explained what he was doing in the wrong place a the wrong time. I tend not to believe taquiyya.

The second man was David Hicks and he was discovered with the Taliban. Quite frankly I have had no sympathy for Hicks or what was his plight. As far as I am concerned he could have remained in Guantanamo and I would not have cared one jot because he was a traitor to my country.

The whole situation always was tricky and it remains very tricky. What has emerged is that detainees that have returned to their country of origin have gone back to their jihad occupation. Some of them have managed to blow themselves up and have killed others, including a Yemeni-American at the same time.

Their detention did not deter their determination to cause harm to others. Bringing them into the USA would be a big mistake too. If they were placed in the USA prison system then there is a double potential for them to continue what is already happening - conversion to Islam that leads to homegrown terror cells and homegrown terror. It is better to nip it in the bud.

@J - I wonder how many deferments you would take, if asked to fight for this country. I suspect they would have to pry your latte from you warm well-manicured hands!

You liberal trolls will find it tough in here, but keep coming. Maybe you will actually learn something! LMBO

Kevin,

Not to belabor the point, but there is a completely different dynamic in speaking out to protect your freedom from incarceration than there is in speaking out for America's freedom. We all expect Cheney to do the latter. I believe this is an example of the former.

Besides, the real point I was making (and hoping you'd comment on) was that Obama is acting like "El Presidente" by going after the members of the previous regime.

Kevin,

Does your reply to J mean that people who chose deferments did a bad thing?

If so, what does that say about VP Cheney's choices during Vietnam?

@Winston - Thanks for the compliment!

@Odysseus - Obama "reserves the right" to go after the previous regime, as it suits his agenda. However he "may show mercy", as any GOD can do!

@Victor - My point on deferments is we don't know the reason for deferments for Cheney. He may very well have "skipped" Nam...much like Kerry who did it by GOING to Nam.

However all that said, there is little doubt about whom the true patriot is of the two. Comprende?

@Odysseus: I listened to Cheney's speech and not for one moment did I think he was doing a CYA for himself. I really, truly felt he was speaking out to protect his country. On the other hand, Obama's speech went from east to west to north and back to east again. He's a guy that surely says all the things people want to hear, all at the same time. What kind of leadership is that?

@TipFilms: I do like your suggestion to change the law to allow for Enhanced Interrogation Techniques being used. I'd be all for that. I'm one American that cares more about America's protection than what Europe or the rest of the world thinks of our efforts to keep ourselves safe.

When it comes to deferments during youth, my opinion is the same as
youthful indiscretions. When someone is an elder statesman, what he/she did in his 20's does not mean much unless he/she is still having same issues(i.e. alcoholism, drugs, habitual perjury,etc.)in their adulthood. Someone who was in the military and served will have more moral weight, but I allow that decisions of youth are mostly seperate.

Kevin, I thought you were an intelligent debater on this. Comparing Cheney's deferment of service no matter what the reason to Kerry actually going into Vietnam and getting shot at whether he ran toward or ran away from the bullets is absurd. That's Kool-Aid drinking at a minimum and probably most solidly the purest form of foolishness. You're better than that and saying such things really decreases your credibility.

I agree with you on almost nothing. But I agree that people like you have a place in this debate. This country needs it's conservatives and it's liberals. This country needs people on both sides of the issues to speak and think rationally, not just spout whatever Rush says is fashionable.

@former bond trader

That's all fine and dandy. But conservatives and Rush routinely bash someone like Kerry for actually serving in Nam and discount his service over with respect to those who avoided service for whatever reason. That position is indefensible. Further, people on the left can't assassinate McCain's character as a pilot because he was considered to be a bottom of the batch. He was still a pilot and regardless of why he got shot down, he got shot down. His service should not be disparaged nor disrespected in any way and neither should Kerry's.

@Laurie

The reason Obama's speech sounded so all over the map for you is because it represented the Constitution of these United States. This is not a conversation that has been frequently referred to in your party over the previous administration. But trust me, it is the conversation we should be having.

It's a bitter pill to have to hear that we have to follow the laws of our country no matter who we're applying them to, I get that. But, we can change the laws of this country to fit our needs. But we must follow the law. Obama said that in his speech. It was very succinct and very clear.

The fact that all of you can make these arguments in an open and free arena proves the point. Our Constitution is still the best framework of any civilized country in the world. It does not allow for the laws of another entity or nation to supersede our sovereignty as a nation.

Whatever you want to call it, torturing or enhancing, saved American lives, protected our freedoms and secured the Constitution.

Obama is using political expediency and poll gathering to ruin patriotic Americans. If he starts down this path he has to remember that someday he too will be out of office and the same thing can be done to him.

Sir RonB

@tip films
I agree that you do not disparage people because of military. You cannot, however give someone a greenlight on issues because of their military service. I am a conservative who did not want McCain to run because I thought there were better candidates. I also did not think much of Kerry, seperate from his respected stint in Vietnam. Also, Obama's youthful indiscretions are of little use to me to judge his current character.

@ Ron B

You don't have any proof that any lives were saved as a result of anyone's torture. This is the debate. This is a claim by the very vice president that swore to us that Iraq had WMD so I think I'll take any thing he states as fact with a grain of salt. Cheney knew this would come up when he was still in office. If Bush hadn't signed into law the laws that prevent all these memos from coming out Cheney would have outed them himself. He knows the CIA can't release the memos now and is just politicking for his own benefit.

The new administration has the same goals in mind for keeping this country safe...it just proposes to do this legally, versus doing it in a cavalier manner.

@ former bond trader

lol...well said. I cannot be mad at that....lol

@tipfilms
"You don't have any proof that any lives were saved as a result of anyone's torture. This is the debate."

And because Obama won't release the documents now you too have no proof that they were not any lives saved. So why does this president release half the evidence. Only that evidence that supports his leftist agenda. As far as WMD's. Give me two years and I could hide, ship or destroy anything incriminating too. How quickly you forget that this information came from the Clinton Administration.

Bush did not release any CIA documents because it did not serve any purpose. Obama released them and it served his purpose but how quickly it turned against him when several democrats got caught up in the "what did they know when."

The new administration is full of law breakers. Starting with all of the tax cheaters (which are laws). So how is that being cavalier. I do not fell safer because my enemy is emboldened now and knows what to look for if captured. I tell you if I were a commander on the ground right now I would not take any enemy combatant into custody. He would be shot on the field. If he is not in uniform and part of a national army he is not afforded protection under the Geneva convention.

Time-honored conservative rhetoric:

"National Socialists say: Legality is that which does the German people good; illegality is that which harms the German people." - Wilhelm Frick, Nazi Minister of the Interior

Discussion of matters affecting our existence and that of the nation must cease altogether. Anyone who dares to question the rightness of the National Socialist outlook will be branded as a traitor." - Fritz Sauckel, Nazi Governor of Thuringia

"Everyone in Germany is a National Socialist - the few outside the party are either lunatics or idiots." - Adolph Hitler

None of the pro-torture arguments here reflect original thinking. These theories were worked out decades ago by Germany's greatest conservative thinkers.

@tipfilms - You mistake that we are debating. There is no debate...I am right! Indulge yourself as you wish.

@time honored conservative - Welcome! Not that history will be a lesson to liberals!

@Everyone: I was relaxing, watching the Nascar race, and just witnessed a very poignent moment. They stopped the race, shut down all the cars, and observered a moment of silence in honor of some true heroes, those who fell protecting this great country of ours. I have a proposal to make: How about we stop attacking each other for a while and simply pay homage to the greastest of Americans?

"This we'll defend!"
"Semper fi!"
"Honor, courage,commitment!"
"Service before self!"
"Semper paratus!"

God bless the USA!

Landthatilove

FTA:
Obama has produced no evidence that harsh interrogation didn't work. However, he has implied that he may have been able to coax critical information out of our enemies—maybe?


Coincidentally, the documents are unavailable—ObamaSpeak for "the documents are being altered so that I won't look like a liar. If not doctored, they will be destroyed." Or they are being put in the same vault that holds his university records and his Kenyan birth certificate.


America is fortunate to have true a patriot, a real "bad guy" like Cheney to confront the evil that now occupies the White House. I love the irony this time of the bad guy winning and sticking it to "the man." I also like that America is finally exposing who "the man" really is.

@Kenneth - God bless the American military, those who fought and died for this country. And let's remember our own loved ones, whom we were blessed to know!

BillE3

Another great one from Kevin. I enjoy reading his work. I also enjoy listening to Zo.

@Revnant Dream - I had Carter #1, until the last couple of weeks! Read some of my "Day Old Bread" or search The Black Sphere blog and Carter and you will find my musings on that worthless son of a motherless goat!

I guess the "Kenneth" minute just ended!

buddywlkr

In comparing the two speeches, Obama looks like a novice against a professional. The man can deliver a speech with polish , but the content is completely lacking. His statement, "the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained" is completely without merit. Where does he get the data to support this conclusion? The answer is, of course, that he doesn't; he just makes it up. We are supposed to believe that Muslim terrorists who behead their prisoners with dull knives, cut out their tongues and gouge out their eyes, are supposed to be enraged when guards hold detainees in cold cells or put a caterpillar in their cell? And what about another of Obama's statements: "Rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security." Are we supposed to believe that bringing the detainees to American soil and then releasing them if courts do not convict them makes us safer? Does putting them in American prisons -- already being used by Muslim activists to poison the minds of prisoners -- make us safer?

Worst of all, for Obama to somehow reason that Bush and his people trashed the Constitution with Guantanamo is absurd. Bush and his advisers followed the law as it has existed through our entire history, and then was sabotaged by a liberal wing of the Supreme Court making up rights for terrorists that had never before existed. So for Obama to insist that this was all illegal from the start is nothing more than scoring cheap political points with no regard for the security of our nation.

Again, the reason the rest of the intelligence cannot be released is because of a 2003 Bush Law that disallows the release of such intelligence. The Obama Administration released the documents that were legal to release....I admit that there has to be some political motivation there and I'm fine with that. To the victor goes the spoils. But Cheney was in the administration that wrote the law prohibiting the release of the information he wishes to have released. He is fully aware that it's never going to happen under current law. But, as always, the law should make an exception to Cheney.

The reason the current Administration cites Gitmo as having made us less safe is because Al Qaeda members who have been captured and questioned have noted it as the reason they joined the cause. You can choose to believe them or not, that's entirely up to you.

Finally, I would point out that both Cheney (who was not a constitutional scholar) and Obama (who is a constitutional scholar) have seen the full intelligence. The fact that Cheney who has been discredited more than once on intelligence issues goes against Obama on the legality of these issues does not make Cheney a completely reliable source on these matters. He is also politicking.

Cheney is a brilliant mind. He has had more national security and intelligence experience than anyone else on the table at this point. But he has also made some glaring miscalculations that are not coming back to bite him and possibly hurt his legacy. This is why he fights. I'm ok with that. The debate helps the country because it forces the President to properly explain his motives and it forces him to at least listen to ideas from the other side wether or not he agrees with them.

...and by the way Kevin, you can be right all you want....you're a legend in your own mind...lol.

@tipfilms - Nice try! "..to the victor go the spoils." Only present half the argument (torture doesn't work), then pretend that the info that disproves your theory doesn't exist (to the victor!)

I may be a legend in my own mind, but YOU are reading MY blog. I have NO interest in you, "legend."

Kevin, I think you could use a bit of a laugh.
1st car off assembly line after general motors became "government motors"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yNJIsbzAHc

God Bless you.

Obama is full of theory, full of shi...t, and Cheney faces the reality of the real world head on. Obama sees an Utopian world that only exist in dilusional dreamers. Dreamers are good, but not good presidents.

Kevin,

It's not "half the argument" to assert that torture doesn't work: it's one of two positions in the debate.

We can't pretend that evidence to the contrary doesn't exist, because no one on this thread, including yourself, has produced any evidence in support of your position. Talk about a one-sided debate!

Once again: put some cards on the table. Offer some evidence for us to examine. I've shown you mine - why not show me yours?

@Victor - I told you that this discussion is over. It's not a one-sided debate because there is no debate. Torture works! And if it didn't Obama would have released EVIDENCE to the contrary. Sort of like not releasing his birth certificate!

I don't need to put cards on the table. Obama said that torture doesn't work. I KNOW that's a lie, and so do you. Cheney said there is EVIDENCE, and Obama has it. Amazingly Obama won't present it.

You have shown NOTHING, and yet you beam with pride at your ignorance! Incredulous. You appear to actually have a brain, yet I find your logic equivalent to that of a simian.

Why don't you take a little survey of the "troop", and ask them if they would tell something, if there was torture or threat thereof?

I promise you, your next comment won't stay on this blog. If you won't admit to the truth in a discussion, then find another playground.

@Kenneth and Victor - If evidence or sourcing is what you need, here it is from an unlikely source.

NYT via MSNBC

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/

Admiral Blair: national intelligence director

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country”

Notice that the first memo on Thursday told the truth...and the subsequent memo covered the liberal bases by asserting "The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means". Sure it includes the Obama Adminstration talking points, after the first memo gave the wrong message(the truth)...hurting America's reputation...no benefit, blah, blah, blah. Come on, it worked, it helped, why can no one even admit it.

Gen. Michael V. Hayden: former director of the CIA

“the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work.”

Notice the rebuttal says "Several news accounts, including one in the New York Times last week...". Notice the lack of specifics to say it didn't work.

Here is a Washington Post article describing what the MSM hasn't reported about what was released in the memos.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002818.html

The bottom line declassify and release the full memos. Or is there something that needs to be hidden, for fear of egg on face.

Oh and Kevin, this site is great...intellectually stimulating and lots of fun. So glad someone is giving the reality of these situations. Keep it Up!

@notentitled - Thanks for the compliment. Your comments on the torture issue are spot on, and what I have been attempting to translate into "chimpanzee" for the liberals on here! I guess my chimpanzee is a bit rusty or I will need to brush the cobwebs off my Cro-Magnum.

Please check out older blogs, so I can respond to something more than this blog!

I must say that I am not upset with Victor, Kenneth, and tipfilms, though I have begun deleting their comments, as they are "more of the same." They are passionate people ridiculously wrong. I do need a good laugh from time to time, thus the over-indulgence!

Again thanks for the visit, the comment, and the support!

@nonentitled

Again, rather than take the word of the man who swore to us that Iraq had WMD, consider the words of the FBI interrogator who ACTUALLY DID THE INTERROGATIONS. Here's his op/ed from the same unlikely source you found your story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html

@tipfilms - Obviously, everyone who doesn't agree with your reasoning or position is a liar or disingenuous. Soufan is the sayer of truth and everyone else is just off their rockers...please.

You do understand that Admiral Blair is Obama's National Intelligence Director, right? And how do WMDs play into this discussion?

Again, declassify and release the full memos.

And by the way, having a liberal article on the NYT is not unlikely.

@nonentitled

"unlikely" was a play on your words from your post.

Not everyone I disagree with is a liar or disingenuous but that mantra does ring true for most people on this board including Kevin.

Just because Admiral Blair made it into the administration doesn't mean he is infallible, which was made painfully clear by his comments.

I like Soufan's credibility because he actually did the work as opposed to Cheney's satellite account of someone else's work.

Finally, if you don't know how Cheney's claim about Iraq's WMD fits in, my explaining it would do no good. But what I like about your argument is that you posted a source for your comments.

@notentitled - WMDs are what are known as subterfuge. You'd have to be an IDIOT to believe that torture doesn't work. And teenage boys won't date "loose" girls. I won't have a discussion where the acknowledge the obvious truth. There are your WMDs, aka smoke and mirrors!

@tipfilms - The whole point of sourcing the position is to show that one can find both sides of the story and multiple people backing each side of the debate. And I think that all sources should be considered credible until proven otherwise.

I ask why was the request to have the documents declassifed rejected? With the split on credible sources and only half the memos, I don't think the debate can end without full disclosure.

And as for the WMDs, that was a case made to go to war...not to use enhanced interrogation techniques.

Kevin, I enjoyed your post. It was informative and humorous.

I was disgusted by the arrogance of certain "guests" who went on and on and on and on, then, thinking we had not heard enough from them, entered another comment following the one they just made, sometimes several in a row.

Is that a "repeat a lie often enough and they will believe it" kind of thing?

Kevin is too kind.

On my blog you would be welcomed to make your point...once.

The second time you made the SAME point it would be clear that you were not confident in your first effort so you just repeated yourself, and thus you would be deleted.

tipfilms and your ilk: You started out stimulating...you became boring.

@tipfilms - I'm a liar? This coming from the guy who said that I'm a legend in my own mind, yet he can't see to find anything better to do that to frequent my blog?

If you stay any longer, I will have to presume you to be like most liberals, who have no job, come to visit for a few days, and continue to stay eating all my food! I know your type.

At this point, I have you here as "court jester." I don't expect you to admit that torture works, period. Despite that fact that you could ask the other animals at the zoo their take, you likely can't find a friend.

I know you think we are in a battle of wits, though I find you what I like a call a wit of the nit kind. But even a nitwit knows when to say "uncle."

If you think calling me a liar will get me riled up at you, then you don't know me very well. I bet you are used to "wowing" your friends with that fake intelligence? It just doesn't work on people in the know.

@Joe - You won't see any more of their idiotic comments. And thanks for the comments and support Joe. Too bad some people can't just enjoy the "read", but some likely watch Seinfeld and consider rewriting the scripts after each episode!

@nonentitled

First, Kevin, I was not calling you a liar, I was commenting on how the board thinks I am a liar, using nonentitled's quote from his first post. Please don't be offended. No one here is lying, people are presenting ideas and positions.

When I mention WMD, I mention it because that was the event that facilitated Cheney losing his credibility. Cheney almost solely made the case for the Iraq War within the Administration. He pushed that intelligence farther than it could have gone on it's own and sold it to the American people. He was wrong.

Finally, the Bush administration wrote the laws which do not allow the release of the "full story" which is kind of a bummer. So, we may never get the full truth. Both the President AND the Vice President know this. Also, check out this little juicy executive order Bush wrote just before leaving office:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Bush_dials_back_Watergateera_reforms_on_0314.html

@tipfilms - To set the record straight:

1) I only implied that you believe other people that do not agree with your viewpoint are considered liars or disingenuous, i.e. not you (and it was the second post). I am not saying you are a liar, just confused.

2) I did not use Chenney as a source therefore his credibility should not be in question as it relates to sourcing.

3) The executive order that you claim prevents the entire truth from being known, is not pausible since we have released memos that eliminted only the outcome of such tactics. The President still has the authority to release the full memos, if he were so inclined.

How could he have released only the redacted version of the memos if your ascertian is true? Why will he not release the full memos? We still don't have the answer to that question nor the memos.

@nonentitled

Ummm...ok, I'll be confused if that helps. But no, I don't think others are liars. Again, we're exchanging ideas, positions and platforms here and I'm in the minority so I'm likely to disagree with much but surprisingly, not all.

You actually do source Cheney, albiet inadvertently, since he really is the only person from the right, other than Rush asserting that these tactics worked. I simply submit that his credibility is that of a person who wants to be right so that he is not wrong twice on such a big issue. He was wrong on WMD in Iraq no matter what the reason. And, if Obama gets his way, Cheney would be on the wrong side of history again and be wrong on torture as well.

Remember, Obama released memos pertaining to the gathering of intelligence. Cheney actually wants some of the intelligence released which would, in his eyes, proved that he got actionable intelligence after torturing terrorists. It's legal to release the memos offering legal positions on the legality of Enhanced Interrogation Tactics, but apparently not legal to release the actual intelligence gathered by using such means. That intelligence and Obama's supposed inability to release it is supposedly covered by some mysterious law that was signed into action during the Bush Administration.

I agree with you all on this: release it all and let the country decide. I think the voters are all adults and if the country decides that E.I.T. worked (and again, I do not believe they do worked as effectively as we've been led to believe by Cheney) and that we should have it available to us in times of panic then we should. If voters don't want it that would also be evident. That would quiet this whole debate, now wouldn't it?

@nonentitled

Oh yes, you do also source DNI Blair, I just wanted to acknowledge that.

@Kevin - Ok, Ok I give. I really feel for you and what you deal with on a regular basis. I originally thought that your comment "I guess my chimpanzee is a bit rusty or I will need to brush the cobwebs off my Cro-Magnum" was a funny line and for me now it's just the truth.

There seeems to be no reasoning or logic that can be used in the defense of obvious thoughts, positions or principles.

You said "Please check out older blogs, so I can respond to something more than this blog!" - What would you suggest?

Maybe I will stick to just reading your brilliant articles and stay out of the fray...hard to convert hearts and minds.

Like trying to teach physics to a brick wall on crack.

Still love the site and the articles, again kudoos!

@tipfilm - I source human nature. I asked all my friends if they would spill beans with or without torture, and even the "wackos" (Dems) said they would! All the proof I need!

@notentitled - Don't give up. I think they are just baiting you. Read "The Intervention." It is easier to do a Google search on The Black Sphere and Intervention to find it. I think you will get a chuckle or two.

@ The Black Sphere

You asked your friends for proof that they would give up information if tortured? So that means it works? Kevin, John McCain was tortured...for years and he gave up nothing. These people are similarly trained...and told that if they die they will get 72 virgins (or whatever it is) and that their families will be well cared for. That's is motivation to die, not to give up information, don't you think?

@tipfilms - You need to read more about McCain. He cracked. Perhaps not in the way that is reported, but he admits that EVERYBODY cracks, under torture. Look this is a stupid discussion. People talk when tortured, and they don't when there is not possibility of it.

There is a saying in the "torture business" that there are things much worse than death. How about I "torture" you by threatening to kill your children or your spouse. How about your mother. Torture comes in MANY forms, i.e. outing as gay, or torturing somebody with information (aka extortion). This is the most time I've spent on a subject for no reason, and this is the last answer I will leave. ALL other posts on this subject will be deleted. This subject for me is closed.

I have read at least 2 stories from Viet vets who were captured and spent time as prisoners of war. This is the latest from the CNN site:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/05/22/torture.christian/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Please note this former POW says that waterboarding is not torture.

I have an analogy that might help. Being a woman, and a mother, my analogy is that of giving birth. Most women talk about the pain of their labour. However, the pain is in fact relative. Let me explain this a bit better. The contractions of childbirth are very, very strong, but as soon as the baby is born all is usually forgotten. The strength of the contractions does not mean that it is pain as others experience pain e.g. try having a sewing needle in the knew and you will know pain, or try having a fractured coccyx and you will know the difference :)

What is torture to some such as the wuss on the radio is not torture to others. Hence some of us see these techniques as not being torture, whereas others keeping talking up the techniques as though they are torture.

There are many points that have been made, but some of the points are really ridiculous, especially the talk about your Constitution and law. The fact remains that a liberal SCOTUS is not interpreting the Constitution, or the laws of the land, or even examining precedent, which is how the law of any country is supposed to operate, what they are doing is creating new laws through the judiciary. Any shredding of your Constitution and the undermining of your rights is happening in the judiciary, in particular the Supreme Court. It was not being done at the White House level, until Obummer stepped into the role of POTUS. Since January your Constitution has been gradually ripped to shreds, just like Obummer promised.

The release of the memos was a disgraceful act. One person claimed that Cheney, by making the request to release the other memos is being self-serving. However, that is wrong because the real self-serving action was the release of secret information that should have not been released in the first place. This same person chided Cheney saying that he could have leaked the memos prior to stepping down from the White House. This is very wrong.

When someone is cleared to see Top Secret information, and if that person is caught leaking that information, either to the press or to those considered to be the enemy e.g. China, Russia, Iran etc then that person can be charged with treason. If Cheney had chosen to leak those memos that he now wants declassified, then he would have committed an act of treason. I submit that it is aka Obama who has in fact committed an act of treason by releasing the memos in the first place.

What aka Obama has done is to further weaken the position of the USA. The proof of this is the way that North Korea and Iran have sent clear messages about their nuclear intentions.

I believe Sandy Berger is currently reviewing the interrogation documents.

@chip - Too funny! I hope they sanitize them in the medicinal sense, as you never know where he will hide them!

This was a great thread... although rather tedious. Too many people coming into a battle of wits unarmed.

@ The Black Sphere

Just interested in your reaction, Kevin.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/petraeus-close-gitmo/interrogations/?cid=cs:headline7

@Laurie - I agree, I let the discussion rage way too long! Problem with Liberals is they can't accept "human nature" as an answer. If they believe themselves to be armed with "facts", be they anecdotal or easily disproved, they still take you down the worm hole. I don't discuss that with them. I cut to the quick, and they always end up avoiding the answer or running. When they are disingenuous and won't answer my simple questions, then I know which one I'm dealing with, though I find both idiots frankly.

OMG Kev....make them stop....please.

@Lilith - I am not deleting their comments from this post, so no worries! :-)

@Laurie - I think, in this instance, Cheney protecting himself and protecting America are one in the same.

So true Odysseus!