http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090204/pl_politico/18390 His comments about Guantanamo Bay kind of struck a nerve in me. Last thing I want is a terrorist attack on US! Maybe he's just being a grumpy old man. Thoughts? BTW, I'm not supporting or rejecting this article so don't fling mud at me.
I am less worried now than I was before. Cheney has a horrible track record as far as being right about these things. Step after step in the war against terror, and the war in Iraq, Cheney has been wrong almost every single time. His track record is horrible. Furthermore he's presenting false alternatives. He talks about people who are more concerned with reading rights to terrorists than protecting our nation. That's a laugh. Reading rights to suspects never prevented anyone from protecting the U.S. Crime isn't worse on the streets because police have to read rights. It's a stupid thing for Cheney to say, and may help to show why he's been wrong so much of the time.
Citizen Dick Cheney still being self-righteous about his tenure and critical of the Admin that now occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.. I'm not surprised. You have better luck finding a member of the Utah Jazz that doesn't flop than to find introspection in Dick Cheney.
I by no means necessarily agree with Cheney. But there is a HUGE difference between criminals and terrorists. Im sorry you can't see that. Anyone who participates in terrorist activities deserve NO RIGHTS period. I am not lumping suspected terrorist and proven terrorists into one category. What I am saying is if there is proof a person has participated in terrorist activities, then his case should not be dismissed because it was collected in an unappropriate manner. This is why they CAN NOT be tried in the US.
Cheney's Right [rquoter] And the left can't stand it. After eight years, or maybe seven, in which the left seemed to be rooting for catastrophe -- in Iraq, in the economy, in the war on terror -- they're getting a taste of their own medicine. Did Democrats want to see the economy go belly up in 2004, when the biggest story every month leading up to the election was the jobs numbers? In late 2006, when the violence in Iraq was at its worst, Anbar had been written off as a lost cause, and President Bush began entertaining a surge of forces, did Democrats want to see the administration fail? When reports first emerged of wiretapping, harsh interrogations, and extraordinary rendition, did the left not wish to see these policies backfire by undermining support for American policies among our allies? It seemed that way on the right, even if Democrats really did have what they believed to be the best interests of America at heart. Likewise during the 2008 election, when the economic collapse seemed to be the final nail in the coffin of Republican rule -- for many on the right it seemed as if the Obama campaign had sold America short. Now former Vice President Cheney is on the record saying that the war on terror policies put in place by the Bush administration cannot be discarded without consequence. Of course, this is precisely why those policies were implemented in the first place -- the widely held view inside the Bush administration that in order to keep Americans safe, terrorists detained on the battlefield needed to be denied certain legal protections and exposed to more rigorous methods of intelligence collection than had been employed before. For the left, it is an article of faith that these policies are unnecessary, that they are the product of a "false choice" as Obama famously said during his inaugural. Obama and the left accused the Bush administration of violating domestic and international law, of betraying the principles upon which the republic was founded, and of making America less safe. The tables have now turned. The idea that Cheney wishes to be vindicated by a terrorist attack is absurd, but this is the paranoid idea now spreading across the left. Cheney says in the interview, “When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry." If Obama and the left are correct that the Bush administration accepted a false choice between principle and security, then they have nothing to worry about. But if they are wrong, and there is a terrorist attack, this will be the narrative on the right, and it is a narrative that I have absolutely no doubt will return the Republican party to power. I'd much rather see Obama succeed, and so would Cheney. But no one should expect Republicans to bite their tongues as Obama dismantles the policies that effectively kept this country safe since the attacks of September 11.[/rquoter]
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm. Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, dear. Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away. Homer: Oh, how does it work? Lisa: It doesn't work. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: It's just a stupid rock. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you? [Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money] Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock. [Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]
Thanks Dick. Leon and Jimmy will make sure Barack never misses a PDB even if he is on a presidential vacation in a ranch.
All humans are born with certain rights. That's the American way. I'm sorry you disagree with that. If there is proof that the person is a terrorist there should be no problem giving them a trial. If there isn't proof then we don't know they are a terrorist to begin with. I understand they aren't going to regular criminal courts of law in all cases, and they don't have to be apprehended using the same guidelines. I'm glad that you aren't lumping suspected and proven terrorists in the same category. I will say the blind Sheik was the head of a terrorist plot that bombed the WTC. He was tried according to our legal guidelines, and given the rights of everyone else in our criminal system. He is rotting in jail. OBL was the head of a terrorist plot that bombed our WTC. He is nowhere to be found. I don't think giving people rights or not is what makes capturing and punishing terrorists successful or unsuccessful. Again Cheney has been wrong time and time again in the war on terror, the war in Iraq. He has zero credibility.
The article like Cheney gets it wrong time and time again. The left isn't taking it on faith that torture or stronger interrogation isn't needed to find out information. We are using evidence from people who were actually involved in interrogation. Time and again it has been shown that the stronger interrogation tactics did several things. 1. The harsher interrogation tactics put a halt to gaining useful information. 2. The harsher interrogation tactics caused others to join in attacks and put American servicemen in harms way. 3. The harsher interrogation tactics hurt America's standing with it's allies in the war on terror. We know that other interrogation tactics that follow the geneva conventions and army manual did gather us information that was useful, got results, and was more effective than torture or harsher tactics. All of that is ignored by the article, Cheney, and Cheney/torture supporters like basso.
i can't find it right now, but there was an interview w/ the guy who actually waterboarded KSM- said it broke him in 35 seconds, and the info he gave has been invaluable. but then, perhaps your point was that waterboarding isn't torture?
There was an interview with someone else who said that was all BS. That the information they got from KSM was gotten using other techniques and that once they started waterboarding they stopped getting good information. Waterboarding is most definitely torture. That info was posted in previous threads about the subject.
