Cheney admits to war crimes....

J

JohnnyBz00LS

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Indiana
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/cheney-confesse.html

Cheney Confesses To A War Crime

ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl gets the following out of Cheney:

KARL: Did you authorize the tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

CHENEY: I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency, in effect, came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it.

KARL: In hindsight, do you think any of those tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others went too far?

CHENEY: I don't.

KARL: And on KSM, one of those tactics, of course, widely reported was waterboarding. And that seems to be a tactic we no longer use. Even that you think was appropriate?

CHENEY: I do.

Notice that the first statement is an absolute lie, proven by the Senate report.

The decision to torture individuals was made by Bush and Cheney before the CIA ever asked for legal cover for the torture they had been ordered to commit. The torture and abuse was planned before even the January 2002 presidential memo that authorized torture:

In December 2001, more than a month before the President signed his memorandum, the Department of Defense (DoD) General Counsel’s Office had already solicited information on detainee “exploitation” from the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA), an agency whose expertise was in training American personnel to withstand interrogation techniques considered illegal under the Geneva Conventions.

But Cheney's open, proud defense of a torture technique, waterboarding, that has always and everywhere been understood as torture means he stands vulnerable to war crime prosecutions. Until he is tried, convicted and jailed, the rule of law in this country stands fatally compromised.
 
No, Cheney isn't a war criminal.
Waterboarding isn't "torture."
And I'd be proud to have been associated with waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The story is that Mohammed was especially tough, holding out over 2 minutes, where as the usual terrorist only lasts 14 seconds.

But... let's not stop at waterboarding.. Let's list some of the OTHER criminal things done to terrorists:

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

OH MY!!!! What kind of information is worth subject a sub-human to that kind of treatment!??? Oh, critical operational information that might prevent the senseless death,murder, dismemberment,and maiming of innocent civilians or military personal.


What kind of intelligence service do you think we'll have in two years after leftist idiots start prosecuting the men and women who have actively been keeping American's safe for the past seven years?
 
it's still an illegal war from the beginning, so cheney being a war criminal seperately is moot.

"UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, in September 2004, declared: "The US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter."

"Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, the Iraq war is a war that violated the Nuremberg Charter. Indeed, the Nuremberg Charter (Article 6) which is both U.S. law and international law, makes it a crime for anybody to engage in the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; ...Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan." —Article 7 of the Nuremberg Charter even specifies that "The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.""
 
Waterboarding IS torture.

Tortue, including waterboarding IS illegal.

The BuSh administration has attempted to make it legal.

The BuSh administration and specifically Dick Cheney has compromized the very principals that have made our United States the greatest country in the world.

Torture results in little, if ANY useful, actionable information.

So that leaves REVENGE the only remaining motivation for torture.

So Cal, you are endorsing REVENGE.
 
The worst torture is reading Johnny's frantically angry posts. Maybe we should let Al Qaeda read this blog.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
So Cal, you are endorsing REVENGE.
Click to expand...
No, because revenge never generates actionable intelligence information.
Waterboarding has, without causing any harm to the person.

Christopher Hitchens, a chubby, chain smoking, drinking, intellectual, writer who supported the policy of water boarding had himself subjected to the process and though he was shaken up, he was perfectly fine the moment it was over (seconds after it began.) He changed his mind on the issue after, but he was still perfectly safe during and after the process.

And mind you, waterboarding isn't the only method that is under attack from the lunatics on the left. I posted a short list of them in this thread?

Is the "attention grab" too intense for you?
What about the attention slap? Is that torture.
The belly slap, is that cruel and unusual?
What about leaving the person to stand for a long time?
Or putting them in a cold room?

It's not "Just" waterboarding that is under attack, it's all of the means of interrogation short of a cup of hot tea and asking questions with a gentle voice.
 
AhmadineJohnny doesn't care about torture tactics. He just wants his buddies in Al Qaeda to have a better chance to attack us.
 
fossten said:
AhmadineJohnny doesn't care about torture tactics. He just wants his buddies in Al Qaeda to have a better chance to attack us.
Click to expand...

I don't think he wants that.
I think he genuinely doesn't understand how or why they attack.
And I don't think he's ever had to think about what will happen to our military and intelligence capabilities once they start being prosecuted for defending this country at the urging of 'well intentioned' people like himself.
 
Calabrio said:
I don't think he wants that.
I think he genuinely doesn't understand how or why they attack.
And I don't think he's ever had to think about what will happen to our military and intelligence capabilities once they start being prosecuted for defending this country at the urging of 'well intentioned' people like himself.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter. The end result is the same - he's a domestic enemy. I call 'em as I see 'em.
 
I think all the lefties around here think that Al Qa'ida is an afternoon tea and literary discussion society. The rest of us know that it's a group of barbarians who seek the destruction of the USA and all Christianity. Fight them where they are or fight them here. I'd rather that we fight them where THEY are.
KS
 
cammerfe said:
I think all the lefties around here think that Al Qa'ida is an afternoon tea and literary discussion society. The rest of us know that it's a group of barbarians who seek the destruction of the USA and all Christianity. Fight them where they are or fight them here. I'd rather that we fight them where THEY are.
KS
Click to expand...

Well, if pouring water over the head of a fat terrorist who won't cooperate might provide even a single piece of evidence or information that could prevent another attack on a civilian or military target, or just provide operational information... I'm all for it.

Waterboarding is scary and uncomfortable. It was also used on a very limited scale. It isn't torture. And terrorist are not protected under the Geneva convention.

The outrage here comes from the blame American first idiots who live in a very small Utopian bubble that is perilously close to being popped by the same things they seek to protect.
 
Water boarding is not a pleasant feeling. When done properly, it scares the hell out of you, even if you KNOW they won't let you drown on the running water.

It's part of most Special Forces members training nowadays. No all branches' SF operators were put through it in the past though, but from what my buddies are telling me, it's not just the S.E.A.L Operators that go through it anymore.

It's not physically abusive (unless the interrogator lets you practically drown on the water entering your nasal cavities), but it is an outstanding mental... motivator. I'm not calling it physical torture by any means, but it is emotionally damaging, especially if you think you ARE going to drown.

As far as what it would do to an innocent person (that KNEW he wasn't going through it for training purposes)... I don't know... Has it been done to innocent people? I'm sure. After all, the technique has been around since what, the 1500's? Has it been performed on innocent people at GB? ~shrugs~
 
Liberals are always the first to cry foul at the prospect that one "innocent" terrorist might get a little wawa in his wittle nosey, while at the same time they blithely gloss over 3,000 innocent Americans slaughtered on 9/11 and 4,000 soldiers that have been killed by these terrorist thugs.

I suppose we shouldn't take prisoners at all. Just shoot them out of hand, right?

We're in a war, get over it.
 
We shouldn't be concerned with the rights of those who blatantly are not concerned with the rights of others, foreign or domestic.
 
KD00LS said:
We shouldn't be concerned with the rights of those who blatantly are not concerned with the rights of others, foreign or domestic.
Click to expand...

Yup, but then we wouldn't be the democracy loving United States;)


________

At least our prisoners survive. Even when US troops do survive torture they get shot in the back of the head when they think its over anyway.
 
hrmwrm said:
"UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, in September 2004, declared: "The US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter."
Click to expand...

So he claims that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. Wouldn't be the first time he is wrong. What law is being violated anyhow? The UN charter was not a law, but a charter. A law (that is applicable) needs to be cited or that claim is simply smoke and mirrors.

A charter can contain laws, but a charter is not, by definition, law. And any law cited needs to have the action and/or country in question be under the jurisdiction of that law. What international laws are we under the jurisdiction of?

"Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, the Iraq war is a war that violated the Nuremberg Charter. Indeed, the Nuremberg Charter (Article 6) which is both U.S. law and international law, makes it a crime for anybody to engage in the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; ...Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan." —Article 7 of the Nuremberg Charter even specifies that "The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.""
Click to expand...
This is a bit of a red herring and mischaracterization of the Nuremberg Charter. Here is the text of article 6 of the Nuremberg Charter:
The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to m Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.

The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.​

Here is what Article 1 says:
In pursuance of the Agreement signed on the 8th day of August 1945 by the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there shall be established an International Military Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal'') for the just and prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis.
Article 2.
​

The Nuremberg Charter is not at all applicable to to the war in Iraq for a number of reasons:
  • The Charter was limited in scope to crimes committed during WW2. It does not have any jusrisdiction today (unless people who committed war crimes during WW2 were to surface).
  • The Charter does not establish any laws. It says certian actions constitute war crimes, but those actions had already occurred when this charter was written. The actions it claims are war crimes were not illegal (under this charter) when committed as there was no law governing those actions. Since those actions constitute the entire scope of the Charter and it's jurisdictions, no rules are established that would apply to the same actions in a different context.
  • The Charter only had any jurisdiction over European Axis powers in WW2. America was an Allied power and nothing it ever did, is doing or will do is covered by this charter.
 
i was told by an ex-special opps that, i don't recall exactly how he said it, but he made it sound like they, as part of their training that they were "waterboarded"
 
topher5150 said:
i was told by an ex-special opps that,
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "ex-special ops". Once you're a member of this small community, you're always a member of it, active, retired, or dead

topher5150 said:
i don't recall exactly how he said it, but he made it sound like they, as part of their training that they were "waterboarded"
Click to expand...

That's what I heard too from this guy too: ;)


Frogman said:
Water boarding is not a pleasant feeling. When done properly, it scares the hell out of you, even if you KNOW they won't let you drown on the running water.

It's part of most Special Forces members training nowadays. No all branches' SF operators were put through it in the past though, but from what my buddies are telling me, it's not just the S.E.A.L Operators that go through it anymore.

It's not physically abusive (unless the interrogator lets you practically drown on the water entering your nasal cavities), but it is an outstanding mental... motivator. I'm not calling it physical torture by any means, but it is emotionally damaging, especially if you think you ARE going to drown.

As far as what it would do to an innocent person (that KNEW he wasn't going through it for training purposes)... I don't know... Has it been done to innocent people? I'm sure. After all, the technique has been around since what, the 1500's? Has it been performed on innocent people at GB? ~shrugs~
Click to expand...
 
is the u.s. a part of the united nations or not? if they are, then the charter is a binding law on them, just as it is any country to be a part of it. so, what law? let's start here.

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1 To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2 To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3 To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4 To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.



so, let's pay attention to 1 here.
iraq invaded kuwait. so they got kicked back. that was a reasonable course of action.
next, came 9/11. here again, if you follow bushes administration carefully, iraq was a target again. except the intelligence didn't stand up. so afghanistan was targeted. i'll pass on this as well.

then on some flaky intelligence, the bush administration tried getting back into iraq, which was set to just go ahead, but was resolved to bring it to the u.n. , at which point it was rejected. so, not happy with that, the bush administration went ahead anyways, and then to make sure there was complicity, asked nations for a coalition of the willing.

now, re-read part 1. afghanistan may have fallen under military force, but the claims made for iraq were rejected. and the rejection came from other intelligewnce sources which knew there were no wmd's within iraq. so what was the rush to run into iraq?
from an american standpoint, i can understand the reasoning, but from an international standpoint, it was grandstanding. there was no need to go into iraq at all.

you will cite international peace and security as the reason, but that was what the invasion of afghanistan was for, wasn't it?


and i guess not so much the charter, but the priciples laid out for international law.


Principles of the
Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950
No. 82
Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal. Adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, 1950.
Introductory note: Under General Assembly Resolution 177 (II), paragraph (a), the International Law Commission was directed to "formulate the principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal." In the course of the consideration of this subject, the question arose as to whether or not the Commission should ascertain to what extent the principles contained in the Charter and judgment constituted principles of international law. The conclusion was that since the Nuremberg Principles had been affirmed by the General Assembly, the task entrusted to the Commission was not to express any appreciation of these principles as principles of international law but merely to formulate them. The text below was adopted by the Commission at its second session. The Report of the Commission also contains commentaries on the principles (see Yearbook of the Intemational Law Commission, 1950, Vol. II, pp. 374-378).
Authentic text: English Text published in Report of the International Law Commission Covering its Second Session, 5 June-29 Duly 1950, Document A/1316, pp. 11-14.

Principle I
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
Principle II
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Principle V
Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.
Principle Vl
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
Crimes against peace:
Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.



just because it happened after ww2 doesn't mean the principles aren't still applicable today.
after all, wasn't that part of what saddam was hung for?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 418 (members: 1, guests: 417)
Back
Top