The MAGNIFICIENT speech of former Vice-Pres. Dick Cheney

[Guest justme]

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.

no, I would not argue with a mirror--and you simply jumped to a single conclusion without asking the reason for the avatar.

and as for Cheney--what would make me totally "happy" is seeing him, Bush, Rice, Ashcroft and the rest of his crew thrown into jail for the things they did to this country--the illegal wiretapping, the patriot act, the new FISA act, and the other things they did to this country.

[Guest justme]

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.

BRAVO BRAVO!!!

[timcalhoun]

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.

We did not attack them on 9/11. And they are not cutting off heads for retribution or to prevent an attack. I would have loved for my nephew not to have had his legs blown off believe you me. But that is not the case.

Bottom line for me...........I would be just fine if in order to prevent a nuclear detonation in Nashville if some POS had to be roughed up a bit in order to prevent it. I'm all good with it.

[Guest jth_3s]

Does This mean nothing to you people!

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The Constitution is what our Country was founded on when we go against our Law based on FEAR created by our own government how can we expect to keep our own freedoms? The politicians have you people convinced that you must give up your rights for the safety of our country. This is exactly how harsh Dictators have come to power in the past. Look at all the rights the people have lost since 9/11. I think our country was safer before 9/11 and the trampling of our Constitution.

[timcalhoun]

Does This mean nothing to you people!

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The Constitution is what our Country was founded on when we go against our Law based on FEAR created by our own government how can we expect to keep our own freedoms? The politicians have you people convinced that you must give up your rights for the safety of our country. This is exactly how harsh Dictators have come to power in the past. Look at all the rights the people have lost since 9/11. I think our country was safer before 9/11 and the trampling of our Constitution.

We already covered this. They are not protected by the constitution nor should they be. In fact they would be the first to destroy it.

[Guest jth_3s]

We already covered this. They are not protected by the constitution nor should they be. In fact they would be the first to destroy it.

Its a Slippery Slope if they can do this to them they can do this to us. All they have to do is call you a Terrorist and BAM! you no longer have the protection of our wonderful Constitution.

Edited May 26, 2009 by jth_3s

[Guest justme]

We already covered this. They are not protected by the constitution nor should they be. In fact they would be the first to destroy it.

the soldiers/interrogators of this country ARE covered by US law and should have to abide by it--meaning Title 18 Secs. 2340/2340A

[Guest justme]

We did not attack them on 9/11. And they are not cutting off heads for retribution or to prevent an attack. I would have loved for my nephew not to have had his legs blown off believe you me. But that is not the case.

it is a tragedy that your nephew had his legs blown off. I am sorry for that.

whether "they" did or did not attack the US on 9/11 I won't go into that. I have my opinion and it isn't pretty.

Bottom line for me...........I would be just fine if in order to prevent a nuclear detonation in Nashville if some POS had to be roughed up a bit in order to prevent it. I'm all good with it.

once you start down this slope there is no turning back.

do you have any idea how easy it would be to declare an American citizen an "enemy combatant"--and thus subject them to torture and strip them of their rights under the Constitution? Think it can't happen? You are naive if you think they would not do it.

There is no evidence that what you call "terrorists" have obtained nuclear material--if they really wanted it they could get it.

[Guest justme]

Its a Slippery Slope if they can do this to them they can do this to us. All they have to do is call the a Terrorist and BAM! you no longer have the protection of our wonderful Constitution.

EXACTLY...if they can do it to them and justify it--they can just as easily do it to any one of us...

[timcalhoun]

Look justme,

you can live in the world of high ideals all you want. And I and we as a country should aspire to them, and do. However, there are times when following the letter of the law is not smart and the cost would be so great that it is not justifiable. If you really believe that it is better for a city to be destroyed rather than beat on a guy for a while then I'm glad you are not charged with our nations safety. I only hope that if you were faced with this scenario that you would have the intestinal fortitude to save thousands and put your lofty ideas aside for the greater good.

[timcalhoun]

it is a tragedy that your nephew had his legs blown off. I am sorry for that.

whether "they" did or did not attack the US on 9/11 I won't go into that. I have my opinion and it isn't pretty.

once you start down this slope there is no turning back.

do you have any idea how easy it would be to declare an American citizen an "enemy combatant"--and thus subject them to torture and strip them of their rights under the Constitution? Think it can't happen? You are naive if you think they would not do it.

There is no evidence that what you call "terrorists" have obtained nuclear material--if they really wanted it they could get it.

This is why we have a elected republic and the 2nd amendment. The power is with the people.

[Guest justme]

Look justme,

you can live in the world of high ideals all you want. And I and we as a country should aspire to them, and do. However, there are times when following the letter of the law is not smart and the cost would be so great that it is not justifiable. If you really believe that it is better for a city to be destroyed rather than beat on a guy for a while then I'm glad you are not charged with our nations safety. I only hope that if you were faced with this scenario that you would have the intestinal fortitude to save thousands and put your lofty ideas aside for the greater good.

tell yourself that when it is American citizens being beaten and tortured.

you're willing to trade the Constitution for some form of government provided "safety" and "Security"--I'm not willing to prostitute the Constitution and toss it aside in the name of "safety and security"

and you cannot provide me one instance when such interrogation methods have brought the discovery of any nuclear devices either here or elsewhere. Your faulty assumption that it is best to do it "just in case" will be the same battle cry that leads to the total annihilation of the Constitution. It is already happening--as previously stated the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, holding people--American citizens included for years without access to lawyers, or the courts, torture, kidnapping--at least two innocent people included in that, and renditions--ummm exactly HOW are we better than they again?

It happens every time there is a major tragedy--the one immediate response after a national tragedy is--you the people simply MUST give up some rights to get protection....the death knell is sounding for our freedoms in this country--and people like you are leading the charge in the name of some false sense of state provided "safety".

[Guest justme]

This is why we have a elected republic and the 2nd amendment. The power is with the people.

not with people like you advocating torture and the abrogation of the Constitution.

Look around--that elected "republic" you speak about would just as soon sell you out to the Mexican government and the special interest groups and the big corporations, and would just as soon strip every single gun owner of their firearms as look at you. So don't kid yourself into thinking this government has your best interests at heart--because they don't.

Edited May 26, 2009 by justme

[Guest justme]

Title 18 United States Code section 2340A--it applies to Americans who commit torture, even if they are overseas when they do it--at least that is how it reads to me.

( 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.

Edited May 26, 2009 by justme

[Punisher84]

not with people like you advocating torture and the abrogation of the Constitution.

I don't believe the constitution applies to foreign nationals committing crimes against the U.S.

[Guest justme]

I don't believe the constitution applies to foreign nationals committing crimes against the U.S.

No, US law does--and US law applies to way Americans treat/mistreat foreign nationals, whether the American is in the US or in a foreign nation.

[Guest justme]

I don't believe the constitution applies to foreign nationals committing crimes against the U.S.

And the issue is--if we can advocate successfully the suspension of the 8th Amendment, from which Title 18 sec 2340A is most likely derived, then we are indeed on a dangerous road. Because if we can do it to them--what stops our government from doing it to us?

[timcalhoun]

Title 18 United States Code section 2340A--it applies to Americans who commit torture, even if they are overseas when they do it--at least that is how it reads to me.

( 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.

Exactly. You just proved my point that these folks that we are talking about are not subject to 18.

[timcalhoun]

No, US law does--and US law applies to way Americans treat/mistreat foreign nationals, whether the American is in the US or in a foreign nation.

No. If you are in the military you are not subject to anything but military law. If you commit a crime in the military you do not go to any state or federal court you go to a military court.

[Guest justme]

Exactly. You just proved my point that these folks that we are talking about are not subject to 18.

can you at least take the time to read it--if the alleged OFFENDER--meaning the person who COMMITS TORTURE is a citizen of the United States, regardless of whether he/she is in the US or in a foreign land....

meaning the interrogators ARE subject to Title 18 sec 2340A

[Guest justme]

No. If you are in the military you are not subject to anything but military law. If you commit a crime in the military you do not go to any state or federal court you go to a military court.

then why was a former soldier recently convicted in federal court in Kentucky for crimes he committed while he was still a soldier?

as for military law--even the UCMJ has an article regarding mistreatment and cruelty toward those in custody....

Edited May 26, 2009 by justme

[timcalhoun]

tell yourself that when it is American citizens being beaten and tortured.

you're willing to trade the Constitution for some form of government provided "safety" and "Security"--I'm not willing to prostitute the Constitution and toss it aside in the name of "safety and security"

and you cannot provide me one instance when such interrogation methods have brought the discovery of any nuclear devices either here or elsewhere. Your faulty assumption that it is best to do it "just in case" will be the same battle cry that leads to the total annihilation of the Constitution. It is already happening--as previously stated the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, holding people--American citizens included for years without access to lawyers, or the courts, torture, kidnapping--at least two innocent people included in that, and renditions--ummm exactly HOW are we better than they again?

It happens every time there is a major tragedy--the one immediate response after a national tragedy is--you the people simply MUST give up some rights to get protection....the death knell is sounding for our freedoms in this country--and people like you are leading the charge in the name of some false sense of state provided "safety".

That is a huge leap. I don't know why you keep bringing up the constitution when it does not apply to these folks. If they were citizens it would apply. But they're not.

History is not on your side. All through our history things were done that would not meet your criteria but needed to be done and were. During the cold war, I'm sure things were done that would make your skin crawl but thankfully some had the cojones to take care of it. And it did not hurt our constitution one little bit. On the contrary it helped it survive.

[timcalhoun]

then why was a former soldier recently convicted in federal court in Kentucky for crimes he committed while he was still a soldier?

as for military law--even the UCMJ has an article regarding mistreatment and cruelty toward those in custody....

Maybe he was in the active reserve. I don't know. And I'm not sure it was a federal court.

[Guest justme]

That is a huge leap. I don't know why you keep bringing up the constitution when it does not apply to these folks. If they were citizens it would apply. But they're not.

the prohibition on torture applies to AMERICANS who commit torture...US code is derived in part from the Constitution--the laws apply to Americans who torture--read the statute.

History is not on your side. All through our history things were done that would not meet your criteria but needed to be done and were. During the cold war, I'm sure things were done that would make your skin crawl but thankfully some had the cojones to take care of it. And it did not hurt our constitution one little bit. On the contrary it helped it survive.

You mean like the "unAmerican activities committee of Congress? Like the wiretapping of citizens, and other such things? It does not take cajones to mistreat an American-it takes cajones to stand up for what we believe in and say that we are better than they are, and we won't prostitute the Constitution in order to obtain some false sense of state provided "security".

you justify the ends by the means you use to reach it...you justify any crime committed by the end result..I'm sure a certain Austrian said the same things about 70 years ago.

[Guest justme]

Maybe he was in the active reserve. I don't know. And I'm not sure it was a federal court.

does not matter--he was still on active duty at the time he allegedly committed the crimes in Iraq--and it was federal court.