Torture and the Bush Administration

[Dan Conner]

For a long time Dick Cheney has been saying that if the Obama Administration just declassified a memo of his, it would prove the value of torture and that it has yielded critical intelligence. Well, those memo were declassified. And the one memo in which Cheney said important intelligence was gathered from the high level terrorist, Abuzabidah (sp?), was a lie. CDheney lied in the memo by reporting that the above terrorist revealed that Padilla was another terrorist. That torture took place in August 2002. However, Padilla was captured by the FBI in May of 2002, three months before Abuzabidah was tortured. Cheney lied about the capture date to deceive those that read the memo. Well, it didn't work. Isn't this but another illustration of the redundant lies the American pulbic endured under the Bush Administration? How is anyone expected to believe them about most any major event they reported?

[Bob Jentges]

For a long time Dick Cheney has been saying that if the Obama Administration just declassified a memo of his, it would prove the value of torture and that it has yielded critical intelligence. Well, those memo were declassified. And the one memo in which Cheney said important intelligence was gathered from the high level terrorist, Abuzabidah (sp?), was a lie. CDheney lied in the memo by reporting that the above terrorist revealed that Padilla was another terrorist. That torture took place in August 2002. However, Padilla was captured by the FBI in May of 2002, three months before Abuzabidah was tortured. Cheney lied about the capture date to deceive those that read the memo. Well, it didn't work. Isn't this but another illustration of the redundant lies the American pulbic endured under the Bush Administration? How is anyone expected to believe them about most any major event they reported?

I would like the link to your source so I could read it in it's entirity.

In a matter related to this "Torture and the Bush Administration" thread the Obama Administration recently exonerated Yoo and Bybee regarding the so-called "torture memo's". Maybe this will put an end to the far Left calling for criminal prosecutation of Bush, Cheney, the CIA, etc., for using "enhanced interrogation" techniques under special circumstances when the security of the USA is at risk.

[Dan Conner]

I would like the link to your source so I could read it in it's entirity.

In a matter related to this "Torture and the Bush Administration" thread the Obama Administration recently exonerated Yoo and Bybee regarding the so-called "torture memo's". Maybe this will put an end to the far Left calling for criminal prosecutation of Bush, Cheney, the CIA, etc., for using "enhanced interrogation" techniques under special circumstances when the security of the USA is at risk.Bob, there you go again, making up your own facts. Yoo and Bybee were not exonerated. It's just that the DOJ declined to prosecute them. Instead, the DOJ said Yoo and Bybee used "poor judgement." That's hardly exoneration. It only means they weren't worth trying.

Dick Cheney is a criminal. In many ways, and at many times. It wasn't just torture, it was also the treasonous exposure of a CIA agent, etc. Don't give me the bureaucratic BS "enhanced interrogations." What is that? Did you hear Yoo's interpretation of it? Basically, it's anything short of causing your demise. To any reasonable person, that's torture. He was asked if cutting off a hand or arm would be considered torture, he said not. Here's but one link. You can look at many, if you just google it:

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/02/20/justice-report-cia-memo-used-by-cheney-to-justify-waterboarding-was-inaccurate.aspx

Cheney not only lied about the memo, but he lied about the timeframe in the memo. Meaning the "enhanced interrogation" failed. The regular old-fashioned interrogation methods already got the intelligence information.

Face it, Cheney was and is a "slime ball."

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, there you go again, making up your own facts. Yoo and Bybee were not exonerated. It's just that the DOJ declined to prosecute them. Instead, the DOJ said Yoo and Bybee used "poor judgement." That's hardly exoneration. It only means they weren't worth trying.

Dick Cheney is a criminal. In many ways, and at many times. It wasn't just torture, it was also the treasonous exposure of a CIA agent, etc. Don't give me the bureaucratic BS "enhanced interrogations." What is that? Did you hear Yoo's interpretation of it? Basically, it's anything short of causing your demise. To any reasonable person, that's torture. He was asked if cutting off a hand or arm would be considered torture, he said not. Here's but one link. You can look at many, if you just google it:

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/02/20/justice-report-cia-memo-used-by-cheney-to-justify-waterboarding-was-inaccurate.aspx

Cheney not only lied about the memo, but he lied about the timeframe in the memo. Meaning the "enhanced interrogation" failed. The regular old-fashioned interrogation methods already got the intelligence information.

Face it, Cheney was and is a "slime ball."

I read the Newsweek link and in the first paragraph noted the following relating to the CIA memo at issue: It "...contained 'plainly inaccurate information' that undermined it's conclusions, according to Justice Department investigators."

I am not trying to defend Cheney, he can handle that without any help from me, but the above could be read to place the blame on the CIA rather than Cheney. If you can't trust the CIA, who can you trust.:o

The Newsweek article also said Cheney has called for the release of a still classified CIA memo and another document that he says will bolster his contention that enhanced interrogation techniques yielded actionable intelligence that foiled terrorist plots against the USA. Newsweek suggests those documents might cause Cheney embarasment. I say if it is not a national security risk release them---apparrantly Cheny is prepared to address any possible embarasment they might cause him.

There has been a great deal of nashing of teeth over the "waterboarding" technique. But it is my understanding it was only used on three detainees. If you look at the names of those three and the accusations against them (some since admitted) I think it is an open question as to whether or not it was justified. As far as I know, when asked about whether it might use it in a very special situation like the so-called "ticking time bomb" I do not recall the present Administration qiving an unqualified NO answer to that question.

I think it is wrong for you to call Cheney "a criminal". As far as I know he has not been convicted of any crime. By the "treasonous exposure of a CIA agent" I expect you are referring to the Valorie Plame incident. Without getting into her CIA status, I beleive Assistant Secratary of State Richard Armitage (sp) admitted it was he that told reporter Robert Novak about Plame's alledged involvement.

Regarding your objection to my use of the word "exonerated", without getting into a word defination battle I think the word means something to the effect of being cleared from an accusation. I think the Holder DOJ said what Yoo and Bybee did constituted "poor judgement", not something criminally prosecutable.

I took your advice and conducted a Google search as well as Yahoo search.
I typed in "Yoo and Bybee exoneration" and received countless hits with the word exonerated in bold print in the hit. Obviously I did not read all of them, but I picked two you might approve of---MPR and NEWSHOUR. They used "no misconduct" in their articles. If you prefer "no misconduct" to "exonerated" it's fine with me.

I heard the U.S. Senate, on a voice vote, voted to renew the Bush Patriot Act for another year. It now goes to the U.S. House for a vote. How do you think the House will vote, and why?

[Dan Conner]

I read the Newsweek link and in the first paragraph noted the following relating to the CIA memo at issue: It "...contained 'plainly inaccurate information' that undermined it's conclusions, according to Justice Department investigators."

I am not trying to defend Cheney, he can handle that without any help from me, but the above could be read to place the blame on the CIA rather than Cheney. If you can't trust the CIA, who can you trust.:o

The Newsweek article also said Cheney has called for the release of a still classified CIA memo and another document that he says will bolster his contention that enhanced interrogation techniques yielded actionable intelligence that foiled terrorist plots against the USA. Newsweek suggests those documents might cause Cheney embarasment. I say if it is not a national security risk release them---apparrantly Cheny is prepared to address any possible embarasment they might cause him.

There has been a great deal of nashing of teeth over the "waterboarding" technique. But it is my understanding it was only used on three detainees. If you look at the names of those three and the accusations against them (some since admitted) I think it is an open question as to whether or not it was justified. As far as I know, when asked about whether it might use it in a very special situation like the so-called "ticking time bomb" I do not recall the present Administration qiving an unqualified NO answer to that question.

I think it is wrong for you to call Cheney "a criminal". As far as I know he has not been convicted of any crime. By the "treasonous exposure of a CIA agent" I expect you are referring to the Valorie Plame incident. Without getting into her CIA status, I beleive Assistant Secratary of State Richard Armitage (sp) admitted it was he that told reporter Robert Novak about Plame's alledged involvement.

Regarding your objection to my use of the word "exonerated", without getting into a word defination battle I think the word means something to the effect of being cleared from an accusation. I think the Holder DOJ said what Yoo and Bybee did constituted "poor judgement", not something criminally prosecutable.

I took your advice and conducted a Google search as well as Yahoo search.
I typed in "Yoo and Bybee exoneration" and received countless hits with the word exonerated in bold print in the hit. Obviously I did not read all of them, but I picked two you might approve of---MPR and NEWSHOUR. They used "no misconduct" in their articles. If you prefer "no misconduct" to "exonerated" it's fine with me.

I heard the U.S. Senate, on a voice vote, voted to renew the Bush Patriot Act for another year. It now goes to the U.S. House for a vote. How do you think the House will vote, and why?Bob, Cheney did lie. He said Padilla was apprehended because of Abuzibadah (sp?). However, that was absolutely IMPOSSIBLE. Padilla was apprehended before he was tortured. The timeline and chronology made Cheney's only evidence that it worked, UNTRUE! Now, we can argue intent, but the efffect of it wa that Dick Cheney told a lie! His defense of the value and gained intelligence of torture was worthless. It seems that all that matters in this case.

My question is, why do you spend so much futile time and energy defending and pardoning Cheney and you condemn Obama without any basis? There's obvious bias showing through.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, Cheney did lie. He said Padilla was apprehended because of Abuzibadah (sp?). However, that was absolutely IMPOSSIBLE. Padilla was apprehended before he was tortured. The timeline and chronology made Cheney's only evidence that it worked, UNTRUE! Now, we can argue intent, but the efffect of it wa that Dick Cheney told a lie! His defense of the value and gained intelligence of torture was worthless. It seems that all that matters in this case.

My question is, why do you spend so much futile time and energy defending and pardoning Cheney and you condemn Obama without any basis? There's obvious bias showing through.

Taking your last paragraph first, as I said in my post #4, "I am not trying to defend Cheney...". Also, I admit disagreeing with many of President Obama's policies, but to say I do that "without any basis" I think is unrealistic. More polls every day seem to suggest the majority of people disagree with many, if not most of President Obama's policies.

Admittedly I have not researched the chronology of when Abu Zubaydah was, as you say "tortured", and/or when Padilla was "apprehended" in relation to that "torture, or if as you claim Cheney said Abu Zubaydah's "torture" led to Padilla being apprehended. I do not recall either being addressed in the Newsweek link you provided. I do not intend to look further.

But for the sake of this discussion only, lets accept what you say as fact. What evidence can you provide that Cheney's claim was a "lie" i.e. an intentionally false statement? Maybe Cheney said what he said based on information given to him by the CIA, which the DOJ said contained "...plainly inaccurate information...". Or maybe Cheney simply misspoke---something politicians admit they do often. I think the word "lie" (like hate) is thrown out way too loosley in contemporary politicial discourse!

The Padilla incident was just one of the issues, and in my opinion a minor one, in the overall picture. Although you certainly did not have to, I wish you had addressed paragraphs 3 through 6 of my post #4. I considered those paragraphs the crux of my post.

Now back to your last paragraph. If their is "...obvious bias showing through" I respectfully suggest it is a two way street!

[Dan Conner]

Taking your last paragraph first, as I said in my post #4, "I am not trying to defend Cheney...". Also, I admit disagreeing with many of President Obama's policies, but to say I do that "without any basis" I think is unrealistic. More polls every day seem to suggest the majority of people disagree with many, if not most of President Obama's policies.

Admittedly I have not researched the chronology of when Abu Zubaydah was, as you say "tortured", and/or when Padilla was "apprehended" in relation to that "torture, or if as you claim Cheney said Abu Zubaydah's "torture" led to Padilla being apprehended. I do not recall either being addressed in the Newsweek link you provided. I do not intend to look further.

But for the sake of this discussion only, lets accept what you say as fact. What evidence can you provide that Cheney's claim was a "lie" i.e. an intentionally false statement? Maybe Cheney said what he said based on information given to him by the CIA, which the DOJ said contained "...plainly inaccurate information...". Or maybe Cheney simply misspoke---something politicians admit they do often. I think the word "lie" (like hate) is thrown out way too loosley in contemporary politicial discourse!

The Padilla incident was just one of the issues, and in my opinion a minor one, in the overall picture. Although you certainly did not have to, I wish you had addressed paragraphs 3 through 6 of my post #4. I considered those paragraphs the crux of my post.

Now back to your last paragraph. If their is "...obvious bias showing through" I respectfully suggest it is a two way street!You, like me are free to disagree with Obama or Bush's policies. However, you have insinuated all sorts of bad things about Obama, beyond political policy. I believe they refer to his character, but I have yet never heard or read why or what. Why do you find him so objectionable? Bob, you refer to polls, but I'm not talking about polls. I'm talking about you. You make many accusations, but somehow blame polls. What are your personal problems with him. If you were such a fervent believer in polls, you would be sitting in a country with the Government option health insurance by now. Almost 60& of the people favor the Government option.

Well, without evidence, let me say that using the wrong year could easily have been a typo. Anyone can make that mistake. However, to claim the arrest of one potential terrorist as the result of the torture of another, that hadn't happened yet is lying. If it was physically impossible to happen, then what else could Cheney have done, but lied? He didn't just mix up dates he fabricated an event. The occurence of one didn't follow the other. That's not a mistake, that's lying. Remember, it was Cheney who personally presented the case to Pres. Bush to authorize the use of torture (enhanced interrogations). That authorization happened especially for Abu.... Since Padilla was already captured, Cheney would have known that. What's left but an intentional lie?

[Bob Jentges]

However, you have insinuated all sorts of bad things about Obama, beyond political policy. I believe they refer to his character, but I have yet never heard or read why or what. Why do you find him so objectionable?...What are your personal problems with him.

Name some!

As I have said before in this Forum, I have nothing against President Obama personally, I have never met him---I simply disagree with many of his policies.

With respect to the final paragraph of your post, I have nothing to add to my post #6.

[Dan Conner]

Name some!

As I have said before in this Forum, I have nothing against President Obama personally, I have never met him---I simply disagree with many of his policies.

With respect to the final paragraph of your post, I have nothing to add to my post #6.And why don't you have anything to add to the last paragraph? Cheney plainly lied. Certainly, he could remember that one event didn't follow the other. He certainly could remember that he didn't discuss exposing Valerie Plame with his felon aid.

[Bob Jentges]

And why don't you have anything to add to the last paragraph?

Because I said all I have to say about the issue in my post#6 When one has said all they have to say on something, there is nothing more for them do say!

[Dan Conner]

Because I said all I have to say about the issue in my post#6 When one has said all they have to say on something, there is nothing more for them do say!I'm sorry Bob, but I believe you are prejudiced against race, unions, government, taxes, and most any cause that doesn't directly benefit you. That's too bad.