The MAGNIFICIENT speech of former Vice-Pres. Dick Cheney

[Punisher84]

It is always painfully obvious who has read too many books and who has fought for something.

Is torture nice? Nope. Is it right? It's a gray area. If we do it should we expect it to be done to us? Yup.

Here's what you fail to understand either in your youth, arrogance, or lack of knowledge about what war really is. We use techniques like waterboarding and sleep deprivation. They beat, whip, cane, and do God only knows what else to our men and women that they capture. Then they behead them.

I don't get people like you, just as I assume you'll respond with you don't get people like me, but I think you're just very naive.

[timcalhoun]

Lets take this further--lets take it domestically for a moment--LE for example is "charged with preserving peace and order"--why not unrestrain them and let them use torture to gain confessions and obtain information? Why not, for example, simply allow LE, both local/federal/state to waterboard suspects, use cramped boxes that don't allow the person to sit down/stand up, deprivation of light and food, beatings, use of dogs, along with chemical interrogation--I mean hey, they are charged with "protecting" the people--so take off the restraints from them and let them go about beating and torturing people to gain confessions?

Are you willing to give up YOUR 8th Amendment protection? How about your 4th? 5th? Are you willing to allow your government to use the same tactics on our own people? They can do it to them--they can do it to us..there is no difference in it, torture is torture.

First we are not talking about a confession. We are talking about doing what is necessary to save many lives. So your LE analogy is not valid.

They are not citizen of the US and are not afforded the protection of the constitution. Furthermore, if they were US citizens you wave you right when you commit treason.

[timcalhoun]

it is called torture--T O R T U R E...hurting a defenseless and physically unarmed person is a damn sight different than defending your home from a violent attack, or against a serial killer, or home invasion/drug dealers, and so on.

I'm willing to defend my physical self/family. I am unwilling to sacrifice the higher ideals that this country was founded on in order to obtain some false feeling of state provided "safety". While some of you seem perfectly willing to sacrifice the Constitutional ideals in the name of safety and security...

hurting a home invader who kicks in your door and pulls a gun on you in the middle of the night is NOT the same thing as torturing a person into confessing to some crime. But some of you seem perfectly willing to surrender the Constitution in the name of "national security" or under the pretense of obtaining some feeling of state provided "safety" or "security".

Again, the constitution does not apply to these people. They are enemy combatants.

[Guest justme]

It is always painfully obvious who has read too many books and who has fought for something.

what we should all be fighting for is the preservation of the Constitution.

Is torture nice? Nope. Is it right? It's a gray area. If we do it should we expect it to be done to us? Yup.

how are we better than they if we sink to their level? we become what we claim to fight.

Here's what you fail to understand either in your youth, arrogance, or lack of knowledge about what war really is. We use techniques like waterboarding and sleep deprivation. They beat, whip, cane, and do God only knows what else to our men and women that they capture. Then they behead them.

no, I understand fine. I am neither arrogant, nor do I have a lack of knowledge, and I am not that young. It is called TORTURE.

I don't get people like you, just as I assume you'll respond with you don't get people like me, but I think you're just very naive.

I'm not naive--and yes, I don't get people like you either--you justify the ends by the means...you justify torture and then complain when incidents like that happen to us--and bewail them as evil for hurting an American...

[Guest justme]

Again, the constitution does not apply to these people. They are enemy combatants.

and who decided they were "enemy combatants"? while the Constitution applies to Americans--our people should be bound by American law--which makes torture ILLEGAL.

[Punisher84]

I'm not naive--and yes, I don't get people like you either--you justify the ends by the means...you justify torture and then complain when incidents like that happen to us--and bewail them as evil for hurting an American...

Actually as much as I hate it I don't. If you join the military and are caught or captured in combat you can't really expect the enemy to treat you well. I recently read an article where they asked a Vietnam vet who was tortured by the viet cong how he felt about torture or "enhanced interrogation techniques" he said he was for it.

The ends don't always justify the means, but sometimes they do and the cold hard fact of life is very much what Jack Nicholson said in a few good men. "You don't want to know what I do, you don't want the truth."

[Guest justme]

First we are not talking about a confession. We are talking about doing what is necessary to save many lives. So your LE analogy is not valid.

no my LE analogy is quite valid--because one could argue that to get a confession from a criminal could "save many lives"...by getting a violent criminal off the streets...so it is very valid.

They are not citizen of the US and are not afforded the protection of the constitution. Furthermore, if they were US citizens you wave you right when you commit treason.

No, but they are afforded the Convention on the treatment of war prisoners under the Geneva Convention...

Committing treason does not automatically wave your rights under the Constitution. You might want it to-but it does not.

[TripleDigitRide]

They are enemy combatants, but not "lawful" enemy combatants. That's why our governemnt claims these terrorists do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions.

[Daniel]

JustMe is right IMO.

I did not treat a single man, woman, or child (they are people just as we are) I detained in a way which would discredit me, my unit, the army or the United States. I can not say the same for instances I witnessed. I follow the rules, regulations, and laws of war. I also use my moral compass to guide me. I would never torture an enemy regardless of their suspected deeds.

I would think the religious out of you would have different views.

[timcalhoun]

They are enemy combatants, but not "lawful" enemy combatants. That's why our governemnt claims these terrorists do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions.

+1

Also, the Geneva Convention is very vague as to what is actually torture. Historically, the US opinion of what is and is not torture has varied greatly all the while adhering to the rules set by the Geneva Convention.

Edited May 25, 2009 by timcalhoun

[timcalhoun]

no my LE analogy is quite valid--because one could argue that to get a confession from a criminal could "save many lives"...by getting a violent criminal off the streets...so it is very valid.

No, but they are afforded the Convention on the treatment of war prisoners under the Geneva Convention...

Committing treason does not automatically wave your rights under the Constitution. You might want it to-but it does not.

But again the criminal in the US is protected by the constitution and the terrorist is not. Again not valid.

Well, the punishment for treason is still up to and including death and I'm not sure how many more rights you can loose when you are dead.

[Guest tnvolfan]

Not to change the subject, but Justme, I can't help but read your comments while I'm viewing your avatar, which is the flag of the former USSR. This tells me that you admire a failed system, and one that tortured and killed many, many thousands, especially under Stalin. If you despise torture so much, why do you "fly the flag" of a country where no human rights existed???

[Guest justme]

They are enemy combatants, but not "lawful" enemy combatants. That's why our governemnt claims these terrorists do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions.

and yet special forces uses the same guerrilla warfare tactics--setting booby traps, intel gathering, and so on...

what makes a combatant lawful as opposed to unlawful? one could argue that an insurgent is exactly that--an insurgent. The same as it would be if the US was invaded by a foreign power...would we then become unlawful combatants in such a situation if our people used guerrilla war tactics against an invading army here in the US?

[Guest justme]

Not to change the subject, but Justme, I can't help but read your comments while I'm viewing your avatar, which is the flag of the former USSR. This tells me that you admire a failed system, and one that tortured and killed many, many thousands, especially under Stalin. If you despise torture so much, why do you "fly the flag" of a country where no human rights existed???

actually no--I do not admire the USSR..my avatar is a statement about the condition this country is in--the "your papers are not in order" state of this nation....the you shall give up your rights in order to have some state approved form of protection...the state this nation is in just sickens me.

my avatar has told you nothing--because you only see the obvious flag of the USSR and automatically leap to the most obvious conclusion without taking the time to ask if there is a deeper meaning behind it?

[Guest justme]

But again the criminal in the US is protected by the constitution and the terrorist is not. Again not valid.

Title 18 Sec. 2340 United States Code:

As used in this chapter—

(1) “torture†means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering†means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

( the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

© the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3) “United States†means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

Sec 2340A:

(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. ( Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if— (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or

(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

© Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

I see absolutely NO distinction made between someone we label as a "terrorist" and a normal, average run of the mill joe who has been tortured by LE, or the military.

Edited May 25, 2009 by justme

[TripleDigitRide]

I wonder if they try truth serum during these interrogations.

[Guest justme]

I wonder if they try truth serum during these interrogations.

I would say that chemical interrogation has most likely been used...

[Guest justme]

+1

Also, the Geneva Convention is very vague as to what is actually torture. Historically, the US opinion of what is and is not torture has varied greatly all the while adhering to the rules set by the Geneva Convention.

The Convention relative to the treatment of war prisoners is not vague:

Article 17

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.

Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the

Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

[Guest justme]

+1

Also, the Geneva Convention is very vague as to what is actually torture. Historically, the US opinion of what is and is not torture has varied greatly all the while adhering to the rules set by the Geneva Convention.

If the Geneva Convention isn't plain enough for some of you-then how about Title 18 Secs. 2340 and 2340A United States Code? I gave it to you on page 4 of this discussion?

Edited May 25, 2009 by justme

[timcalhoun]

If the Geneva Convention isn't plain enough for some of you-then how about Title 18 Secs. 2340 and 2340A United States Code? I gave it to you on page 4 of this discussion?

Title 18 is for crime and criminal proceedings in the US and has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The only legal course enemy combatants are subject to is a military tribunal.

[Guest tnvolfan]

JUSTME -- you impress me as someone who would agrue with a mirror! I don't jump to conclusions, but I can't help but form opinions when people wave stuff in front of me! Anyway, we will have to agree to disgree on this one. Cheney can't do anything but speak nowadays anyway, so that should make you happy.

[timcalhoun]

The Convention relative to the treatment of war prisoners is not vague:

Article 17

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.

Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the

Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

That is the 4th convention. And yes it seems pretty specific and depending on what year it was and what convention we were adhering too and what struggles we were in at the time the policy of what could be done has always changed weather or not in the opinion of some would call it a violation. That is just a fact. And while as a nation we of course agree with these principles we have never fully complied with them at all times. Nor should we. And if you believe we have I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

Moreover, this does not apply to these vermon. They are not under the convention.

[Guest CK1]

WATERBOARD CHENEY!

we can ask him if the iraq war was just so the company he was CEO for before he was vp (halliburton) could make billions off the backs of dead young americans (sadly, including a few of my close friends)... or was driving up oil prices to the highest point in history also part of his awesome plan!?

we can find out why all the defense funding he pushed through wasn't able to help us even get the right country when tracking and NOT catching bin laden!?

then we can ask why since he was so good at keeping us safe, what's his excuse for why he messed up that one day in september 2001 in new york!?

why was he hardly seen or heard for 8 years and now on tv every other minute now that his policies are being shown to the american people as the false BS it actually was and is in danger of going down in history as a tyrannical war criminal!?

is it because his policies did serious damage to our country, and in mine and many other people's point of view (including the UN) he is a war criminal running the tactic of offense as defense, a preemptive strike before he's arrested and tried for his crimes!???

the mans pathology is disgusting... he never served our country or anyone but himself, good riddance, he can shut the hell up.

Edited May 26, 2009 by CK1

[Guest justme]

Title 18 is for crime and criminal proceedings in the US and has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The only legal course enemy combatants are subject to is a military tribunal.

Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life. ( Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if— (1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or

(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

if the person committing the crime of torture is an American national regardless of whether he/she/they commit the crime here or in Afghanistan--they are still subject to United States law.

[Guest justme]

That is the 4th convention. And yes it seems pretty specific and depending on what year it was and what convention we were adhering too and what struggles we were in at the time the policy of what could be done has always changed weather or not in the opinion of some would call it a violation. That is just a fact. And while as a nation we of course agree with these principles we have never fully complied with them at all times. Nor should we. And if you believe we have I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

Moreover, this does not apply to these vermon. They are not under the convention.

then let us not complain from now on when an American citizen is kidnapped and tortured in a foreign country--because many of you here are supporting the exact SAME thing. You simply have a double standard of who it should apply to and under the conditions it should apply.