Richard Cheney defends his government

[Brainfade]

Offered without comment: http://www.aei.org/speech/100050 Some key paragraphs:

When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our President's understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.

Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn't serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.

In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people. Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters. By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public's right to know. We're informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision. Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

FWIW, I never trusted the guy, but his speech is worth a read. I am on the fence as far as torture policy goes - there is useful information to be gathered (as with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), but how far should we go? All tough damn questions.

[triam]

FWIW, I never trusted the guy, but his speech is worth a read. I am on the fence as far as torture policy goes - there is useful information to be gathered (as with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), but how far should we go? All tough damn questions.

Nothing can justify torture, and it is not that effective either.

[Ram]

I was listening to his speech yesterday and this was the line that struck me the most;

'In the War on Terror, there can be no middle ground

I am myself undecided on the the Bush Administration's policy towards detainees.

[Brainfade]

I am not sure one can make a sweeping statement

Nothing can justify torture' date=' and it is not that effective either.[/quote'] Overall - i.e., statistically speaking - you are probably right. But, think about this - the odds are very heavily against the security agencies. The terrorists have to succeed only one time to bring worldwide chaos, whereas the intelligence agencies have to succeed every time in foiling them. Some of these terrorists (and I keep using KSM as an example) are hardened to the point where nothing else will work. According to the memos, these men were progressively interrogated. Techniques such as waterboarding were not used as the first option, but were used when all other options had been exhausted. Some men do not break under other accepted methods of duress. What do you do then? Do you run the risk of failing to stop a mass genocide just so you don't torture this one individual? A gray area - for sure. I agree with Cheney on one thing - if the current administration is serious about pursuing the truth, they must release all memos. Not just selected, convenient ones that say an individual was tortured. They must release the information obtained at the culmination of specific torture events, so we know what results they yielded, if any. Otherwise, it is obvious that the goal is to be vindictive and nothing more. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/27/cracking_ksm_96198.html

[Ram]

Here's the part where I agree with Obama. Theses alternate interrogation techniques and secret detention centres lowered America's in the world as the beacon of freedom and human rights. Here's the part where I disagree with him. I think these techniques were a strong deterrent in preventing further attacks on the american mainland and helped protect Americans. Obama says torture further antagonizes Muslims against the amercians. Well, were the Muslims pro American before that? But one things for sure though. The right wing has already described obama's policy on torture as a major softening in the war against terror. If the extremists are successful in mounting even a low level terror attack against less valued target, the republicans will blame all of it on Obama.

[Ram]

Btw, talking of torture, here's an interesting video; Mp4vLBvU1bA

[kumble_rocks]

Jesus ! Liberals need to get over their stupid obsession with torture. For crying out loud , only three members of al-queeda have been tortured. Much Ado about nothing by stupid liberals .

[triam]

Jesus ! Liberals need to get over their stupid obsession with torture. For crying out loud ' date=' only three members of al-queeda have been tortured. Much Ado about nothing by stupid liberals .[/quote'] It doesnt matter, if it was three or three million, it is about the principles and drawing a line which we wont cross no matter what.

[triam]

Overall - i.e., statistically speaking - you are probably right. But, think about this - the odds are very heavily against the security agencies. The terrorists have to succeed only one time to bring worldwide chaos, whereas the intelligence agencies have to succeed every time in foiling them. Some of these terrorists (and I keep using KSM as an example) are hardened to the point where nothing else will work. According to the memos, these men were progressively interrogated. Techniques such as waterboarding were not used as the first option, but were used when all other options had been exhausted. Some men do not break under other accepted methods of duress. What do you do then? Do you run the risk of failing to stop a mass genocide just so you don't torture this one individual? A gray area - for sure. I agree with Cheney on one thing - if the current administration is serious about pursuing the truth, they must release all memos. Not just selected, convenient ones that say an individual was tortured. They must release the information obtained at the culmination of specific torture events, so we know what results they yielded, if any. Otherwise, it is obvious that the goal is to be vindictive and nothing more. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/27/cracking_ksm_96198.html

I agree the current administration should release all memos and not cherry pick. Once you justify torture it is a slippery slope, why not torture petty criminals and rapists. More over, under torture there is no way you can authenticate and if you can authenticate then it means you already know the info, if the info is good or bad, more often than not, the victim tells what the interrogator wants to hear.

[triam]

Here's the part where I agree with Obama. Theses alternate interrogation techniques and secret detention centres lowered America's in the world as the beacon of freedom and human rights. Here's the part where I disagree with him. I think these techniques were a strong deterrent in preventing further attacks on the american mainland and helped protect Americans. Obama says torture further antagonizes Muslims against the amercians. Well, were the Muslims pro American before that? But one things for sure though. The right wing has already described obama's policy on torture as a major softening in the war against terror. If the extremists are successful in mounting even a low level terror attack against less valued target, the republicans will blame all of it on Obama.

MM, why do you think torture deters anybody? brutality of the punishment will not deter the instigator from committing the crime.

[THX_1138]

Overall - i.e.' date= statistically speaking - you are probably right. But, think about this - the odds are very heavily against the security agencies. The terrorists have to succeed only one time to bring worldwide chaos, whereas the intelligence agencies have to succeed every time in foiling them. Some of these terrorists (and I keep using KSM as an example) are hardened to the point where nothing else will work. According to the memos, these men were progressively interrogated. Techniques such as waterboarding were not used as the first option, but were used when all other options had been exhausted. Some men do not break under other accepted methods of duress. What do you do then? Do you run the risk of failing to stop a mass genocide just so you don't torture this one individual? A gray area - for sure. I agree with Cheney on one thing - if the current administration is serious about pursuing the truth, they must release all memos. Not just selected, convenient ones that say an individual was tortured. They must release the information obtained at the culmination of specific torture events, so we know what results they yielded, if any. Otherwise, it is obvious that the goal is to be vindictive and nothing more. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/27/cracking_ksm_96198.html

no, he is absolutely correct. the invalidity of torture is not merely a statistical study, it is in fact the conclusion of most intelligence agencies. as for your statement about the terrorist succeeding in bringing the world to chaos, let me put it this way... i was in school on the 11th of september 2001... and i saw what happened... and the country was anything but chaotic the following day. it was united, stoic and determined... unfortunately, we rallied behind the top assh*le from shyte town.

[THX_1138]

MM' date=' why do you think torture deters anybody? brutality of the punishment will not deter the instigator from committing the crime.[/quote'] actually that has been demonstrated statistically as well: by labeling the severity of punishment as the effective opportunity cost, when the crime rate was determined as a function of the severity of punishment, there was no statistically valid correlation. i.e. you could punish people to ten years in prison and a diet of horse jizz, but it still wont deter them from crime. on the other hand, even the slightest increase in education past the high school level severely decreased the crime rate... as observed by social scientists in the inner city neighborhoods of chicago and detroit.

[Ram]

MM' date=' why do you think torture deters anybody? brutality of the punishment will not deter the instigator from committing the crime.[/quote'] When i mean deterrent, i meant the specific intelligence gathered from those interrogations would have helped prevent other attacks. But I'd like to clarify my position a little though. Per se, I am against torture. But i also strongly feel you cannot treat these terrorists like a shop-lifter down the block.

[Ram]

Jesus ! Liberals need to get over their stupid obsession with torture. For crying out loud ' date=' only three members of al-queeda have been tortured. Much Ado about nothing by stupid liberals .[/quote'] You're missing the point KR. It isnt bout isolated cases here and there. Its the culture of impunity and 'no-holds-barred' that was promoted from the office of the Defence Secretory onwards, that permeated throughout the intelligence agencies, in their handling terror suspects.

[THX_1138]

Jesus ! Liberals need to get over their stupid obsession with torture. For crying out loud ' date=' only three members of al-queeda have been tortured. Much Ado about nothing by stupid liberals .[/quote'] looks like DR has a new avatar... true, three is trivial. not withstanding that this number is incorrect when you look at the number tortured at bagram in afghanistan, or in iraq, or the extraordinary renditions, or those interrogated off the books or simply those whose nuts were fried by the CIA for laughs and giggles... how about four? is that trivial too? five? six? surely seven can be any worse... what about 15? 15 to protect 300 million... sounds like a good bargain! how about 30? 30 to protect 300 million? how about that hindu who was caught in new york in an attempt to sell stinger missiles in an elaborate scheme which was eventually deemed as entrapment? the thing is, till the day you nuts are connected a car battery and a little rag stuffed down your throat while taking it up the ****, you probably wont see understand the brutality of torture. pitifully people such as you seem to claim that if the opposition is barbaric, you have free reign to suspend the very ideals that distinguish you from the said barbarians.

[kumble_rocks]

looks like DR has a new avatar... true, three is trivial. not withstanding that this number is incorrect when you look at the number tortured at bagram in afghanistan, or in iraq, or the extraordinary renditions, or those interrogated off the books or simply those whose nuts were fried by the CIA for laughs and giggles... how about four? is that trivial too? five? six? surely seven can be any worse... what about 15? 15 to protect 300 million... sounds like a good bargain! how about 30? 30 to protect 300 million? how about that hindu who was caught in new york in an attempt to sell stinger missiles in an elaborate scheme which was eventually deemed as entrapment? the thing is, till the day you nuts are connected a car battery and a little rag stuffed down your throat while taking it up the ****, you probably wont see understand the brutality of torture. pitifully people such as you seem to claim that if the opposition is barbaric, you have free reign to suspend the very ideals that distinguish you from the said barbarians.

Listen kiddo ,you represent the same filth that far left hate mongers like Keith Dobbermann from MSNBC represent . I have neither the time , nor the patience and the inclination to indulge in a debate with twenty something kids like yourself who will routinely indulge in ma- behen galli galouch at the slightest pretext. And doesn't the irony escape you . You should be the last person talking about principles. Most posters here like MM ,Lurker, Cricaddict etc are decent folks who will never indulge in abuse-fest and who will never indulge in personal attack even if the posts contradict their thought process . The same cannot be said about you. You are not averse to bringing family members when you indulge in your infamous abuse-fest. You have been banned upteen number of times for that. And till the day you pick up arms and stand guard, you will never understand . Easy for you sit in your ivory tower and pass judgment about others.Easy to talk about principles when you are stoned immaculately in college campuses. And yes , you come from country of origin that does torture even petty criminals . So , may I suggest you do something about that instead of shedding crocodile tears for 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh.And one more thing , till the day your nuts along with your head get's beheaded by some freak show , you probably won't understand the futility of extending geneva conventions to animals.... And for the record I would never endorse torture for civilians. So , Al-queeda and other terrorists are the only exception. And I am as liberal was one can be without attaching myself to any party . So don't you dare club me with DR and other idealogues from both sides . I dislike their ideology both left and right..

[kumble_rocks]

You're missing the point KR. It isnt bout isolated cases here and there. Its the culture of impunity and 'no-holds-barred' that was promoted from the office of the Defence Secretory onwards' date=' that permeated throughout the intelligence agencies, in their handling terror suspects.[/quote'] We have been through this before MM. Why don't you so something about torture that happens in Police cells all over India ? You will have my support and of others as well , because police brutality is a genuine problem in India. Here, three al-queeda members including 9-11 mastermind khalid Sheikh got tortured. No point in extending geneva conventions to these thugs.

[triam]

We have been through this before MM. Why don't you so something about torture that happens in Police cells all over India ? You will have my support and of others as well ' date=' because police brutality is a genuine problem in India. Here, three al-queeda members including 9-11 mastermind khalid Sheikh got tortured. No point in extending geneva conventions to these thugs.[/quote'] Police brutality in India is bad and of course something needs to be done regards that. But that doesnt justify this act anyways. First of all torture is ineffective, second of all it is morally wrong, and third of all whoever does that loses the moral high ground and there is no difference between the two sections.

[The Outsider]

We have been through this before MM. Why don't you so something about torture that happens in Police cells all over India ? You will have my support and of others as well ' date=' because police brutality is a genuine problem in India. Here, three al-queeda members including 9-11 mastermind khalid Sheikh got tortured. No point in extending geneva conventions to these thugs.[/quote'] I don't understand this logic at all - what has police brutality in India have to do with the topic under discussion here? It's not that I or MM or anyone is spending valuable time and resources fighting the torture by US forces and doing nothing about the human rights violations by Indian forces. We are just typing a few words condemning torture by the US and would do so and have done so about brutality by Indian police as well. If I was donating $ICF 100,000 to an organization fighting torture by the US and giving only $ICF 5,000 to an organization in India, you would have a point.

[Lurker]

I have to say I concur with KR. My understanding, initially anyway, was that waterboarding was done on all and sundry. But the moment I heard it was only 3 it became a much ado about nothing as far as I am concerned. And yes it is against human dignity and what US stands for. But I could also tell you of 10 different things that are against human dignity and what USA stands for...and all I would have to do is rake in 1 topic, Immigration.