Cover-Up Completed

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/16/cheney/index.html

Rev asks, "Hypothetical: Republican Scott Brown becomes president in 2020. A terrorist attack happens somewhere in the midwest U.S. President Brown calls in a couple of lawyers and orders them to "legalize" internment camps for American citizens with middle-eastern roots. With plausible deniability in hand, President Brown begins rounding up a whole bunch of American Muslims and placing them in prison camps…Would this act by President Brown be legal?"

This isn't a hypothetical question. FDR already did that exact thing during WWII by putting Japanese-Americans in internment camps. The result ????????

FDR is the superstar of American progressives.

Go figure.

Actually, it was the CIA who requested legal advice on detainee interrogation techniques from the lawyers. It was only AFTER the lawyers approved the legality of the techniques that they were used.

Seriously, look it up. It's right in the memos.

And, oh yeah, don't link me to any more left-wing crap. I'm only interested in the facts.

Keep those partisan eyes closed.

You're suggesting that the CIA, not the presidential administration, requested the "legalized" torture memoes.

CHENEY: "I was a big supporter of waterboarding. I was a big supporter of the enhanced interrogation techniques…."

King must also disagree with this….

"There is not a court in the United States or in the world that does not consider waterboarding torture. The Red Cross certainly does, and it's the governing body in international law. It is certainly torture according to the UN Convention on Torture and the Geneva Conventions. The British government, America's closest Western ally, certainly believes it is torture. No legal authority of any type in the US or the world has ever doubted that waterboarding is torture. To have subjected an individual to waterboarding once is torture under US and international law. To subject someone to it 183 times is so categorically torture is it almost absurd to even write this sentence."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/cheney-i-was-a-big-supporter-of-waterboarding.html

FDR's act was illegal and later apologized for. Cheney's act has never been apologized for nor, as his most recent teevee appearance indicates, understood as an act of utter lawlessness. While not justifying FDR's actions, the U.S. had declared war, you know, Constitutionally. No AUMF.

To hold to a belief system that says it's okay to torture, even if it's only occasionally, is to deny that America governs itself by rule of law.

Also this….

"As detailed in the recent ABC News story on how top White House officials in the National Security Council discussed specific details of torture, the Bush Administration torture policy was determined by the NSC.

What ABC didn't mention is that Bush is the head of the National Security Counsel and the 2002 NSC decision memo in question, shown at the bottom of this post, signed by George W. Bush, establishes that Bush was in 2002 indeed doing his job as acting head and final decision maker of the National Security Council."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/10/95033/2181/104/493151

Here's just a piece of the NSC document….

2) Pursuant to my authority as CIC and Chief Executive of the U.S., and relying on the opinion of the DOJ dated Jan 22, 2002 (Yoo's document), and on the legal opinion rendered by the AG (Ashcroft) in his letter of Feb. 1, 2002, I hereby determine as follows:
a) I accept the legal conclusion of the DOJ and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, al Qaeda is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.

The CIC…..was George W. Bush.

There's lots more…like this….

"The torture techniques that were devised, sanctioned and implemented by the Bush Administration are widely recognized to violate the Geneva Conventions and international law, and this presented a bureacratic problem because the torture program, implemented at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and throughout a network of secret US detention centers established around the world, was massive.

The torture program was global policy, there were lots of people involved in implementing it. So, simply on a "cover your ass" basis, civil servants and people in the professional military, whomever was involved in the program in any capacity, needed the best possible legal cover…."

Why continue to deny the truth?

Mr. Sullivan MUST be right, he was able to quote Wikipedia as a source!

Wikipedia has nothing to do with it. Of course, you knew that.

The fact remains that except for a smallish band of lawless American neo-cons, no person, government or existing governmental laws consider waterboarding as anything other than criminal torture.

Would Pres. Brown be held accountable for throwing Americans that protested the amensty program or reacted to a large scale man made disaster carried out by Muslims? No because he would be reacting to hate and the prevention of additional hate. Long before 2020 the Fed. Gov. will have granted itself the power to take extreme actions to counter "hate".

"Plausible deniability." I like that, Rev. Kind of like how Americans captured that Taliban guy and left him in Pakistan to be interrogated by Pakistanis.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/16/taliban-second-commander-captured

"Mullah Barader has been in Pakistani custody for several days, with US and Pakistani intelligence officials both taking part in interrogations, according to the officials. Though Barack Obama has banned US agencies from using forms of torture such as waterboarding, Pakistani questioning techniques are frequently brutal."

See, if they 'torture' him, Obama can deny responsibility. The Pakistanis did it. We didn't know. If we knew that was going on, we wouldn't have left him in Pakistan. That's how it works. And, yes, it is rather chicken$4!+ of Obama to do things this way. We all know the score. We all know the game, including you.

So it is also rather chicken$4!+ of you to address the 'torture' issue in this manner. But chicken$4!+ is just about what I've come to expect in these quarters.

From your link…

"Mullah Barader, the Taliban's powerful second in command, has been captured in the Pakistani city of Karachi,
……
Barader was seized in a secret joint operation by Pakistani and US intelligence forces, according to US government officials quoted in the New York Times."

He was captured inside Pakistan. The Guardian link sets forward NO evidence that torture is being carried out….and neither do you.

And it's interesting to see your characterization of those who think torture is barbaric and immoral as …chickensh*t. You must have been a blast in the 6th grade, huh?

Instead of governing, because he was too disinterested or too lazy, Chimpy and his Chimps spent most of their 8 years constructing plausible deniability edifices for their many eff-ups and crimes. That's what you get when you vote a Republican into office. They simply do not believe in government or governance….so when they are elected, they destroy everything they put their hand to…..and shout that 'I told you government is the problem.'

No, what's chickensh*t is that we can be damned certain the Dick Cheney-approved interrogation tactics are being carried out by the Pakistanis – otherwise, why wouldn't Americans be doing ALL – instead of half of – the interrogating?

All on Barack Obama's watch. As are indefinite detentions at Guantanamo and rendition. Plausible deniability, indeed.

Chickensh*t.

Since the purpose of the torture issue is to prosecute Bush and Cheney I propose we try them for gross incompetence and include the executives of Exxon, Mobile and the other heads of U.S. oil companies. The left repeatedly stated the reason for the Iraq war was to enrich U.S. big oil and their running dogs. Anyone that followed the recent oil field auctions realizes U.S. big oil was the big loser. so we have spent billions in IRAQ to enrich U.S. oil fat cats and their lackeys and have nothing to show for it . If that isnt gross incompetence what is?

Rev,
You've ignored what I said twice. Both times I was stating facts. The end.

""Barader was seized in a secret joint operation by Pakistani and US intelligence forces, according to US government officials quoted in the New York Times."
He was captured inside Pakistan."

Um, Reverend, shouldn't you be calling Obama a unilateral chickenhawk wingnut international war criminal for waging war inside Pakistan with no authority from Congress ?????? All those drone strikes and U.S. soldiers inside Pakistan. Shouldn't you be calling for Obama's impeachment and trial for war crimes ???? Where is THAT post, Mr. Anti-war Liberal ?

Or is it "different" because it's Obama ?

Bush started the drone attacks inside Pakistan. Obama has continued and expanded them.

I've stated, unequivocally, that Obama's Af-Pak escalation is the wrong course.

Obama, however, has not defrauded the American public and Congress by lying us into some war-of-choice for the sake of the military-industrial complex and big oil.

Barack Obama voted for every war funding bill that crossed his desk until he ran in the Democrat primary for President against Hillary Clinton.

If, as you claim, Iraq is "some war-of-choice for the sake of the military-industrial complex and big oil," Obama's in on it.

Chickensh*t.

Bush didn't lie us into war in Afghanistan. I think even you could agree to that, so your answer is merely a diversion. I guess I have to ask the question again.

Is Obama a unilateral chickenhawk wingnut international war criminal who should be impeached and sent to prison for attacking Pakistan, a country we have no Congressional authority to wage war in ?

Think hard, and try to stay focused this time.

Also, that "war for oil" nonsense is about as weak and tired as it gets. It ranks down there with calling the Tea Partiers racists. Try to elevate your game a little.

Some Partyers are racists.

Obama has continued Bush's policies inside Pakistan. But I'm positive that actions by Bush which were not wrong or impeachable…..will be wrong and impeachable for Obama once the wingers retake Congress.

The reason we occupied Afghanistan with our military, was in preparation for the Iraq attack and occupation which would follow. The Taliban was routed and driven out by a small group of our finest soldiers in short order. The rest was a march to Baghdad. PNAC signees got their wish……remove Saddam and set up permanent military bases inside Iraq from which the U.S. could "project it's power" over the oil rich region.

Wingers still think Bush-Cheney were all about protecting Americans.

Rev says, "Some Partiers are racist."

You don't know that, but out of hundreds of thousands of people, there probably ARE a few racists, as there would be in any large group. I've even heard the President of the United States make racist statements ("typical white person"). Your claim that the Tea Partiers are racist is a despicable lie, but I've come to expect that from you.

And I still didn't hear an answer to my question about Obama.