Cheney Responds To CIA Docs: Pound Sand!

Cheney's response on the released CIA docs via TWS.

The documents released Monday clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda. This intelligence saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks. These detainees also, according to the documents, played a role in nearly every capture of al Qaeda members and associates since 2002. The activities of the CIA in carrying out the policies of the Bush Administration were directly responsible for defeating all efforts by al Qaeda to launch further mass casualty attacks against the United States. The people involved deserve our gratitude. They do not deserve to be the targets of political investigations or prosecutions. President Obama’s decision to allow the Justice Department to investigate and possibly prosecute CIA personnel, and his decision to remove authority for interrogation from the CIA to the White House, serves as a reminder, if any were needed, of why so many Americans have doubts about this Administration’s ability to be responsible for our nation’s security.

Comments

[Mike2Cents]

Cheney, Dick.

[SacTownMan]

Way to lay the smack down on the trolls Dick!!!

I would love to see him bitch slap Xerxes and his goons like Dead Fish and AstroButt! I'll bet he could whip Bidens ass but Biden would win the drinking contest hands down!!!

At the very least take he could take their sorry asses on a little hunting trip!!

On a more serious note we had adults watching over us from 9/11 until this past January. They kept us safe from attacks and made Al Queda look over their shoulders for Preditor drones instead of killing more innocent Americans. Now we have a bunch of socialist political ideologues that care more about their egos and their "one world" veiw than about keeping us safe.

It is not a matter of "if" we are attacked again with this bunch of asshats in charge but "when"!!!!

2010 can't come soon enough to start the purge of liberal scum infecting this nation!!!!

[J. K.]

"... and his decision to remove authority for interrogation from the CIA to the White House, ..."

Now we can stop worrying about the little stuff.

[Mike2Cents]

a more honest version:

The documents released Monday clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to torture provided the bulk of intelligence I gained about al Qaeda. My intelligence saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks. Trust me, it's true (no need to verify that) These detainees also, according to documents I helped produce, played a role in nearly every capture of al Qaeda members and associates and associates of associates, and goat herders with names we didn't like since 2002. My carrying out the policies of the Bush Administration was directly responsible for defeating all efforts by al Qaeda to launch further mass casualty attacks against the United States. Trust me, it's true (my daughter will back me up here). I deserve your gratitude. I do not deserve to be the target of a political investigation or prosecution. Maybe you could take a closer look at Scooter Libbey, instead of me? I am very worried about how history will judge me. President Obama’s decision to allow the Justice Department to investigate possible crimes and then possibly prosecute me, and his decision to remove authority for interrogation from allies of mine to a system of law, serves as a reminder, if any were needed, of why I have concerns that this Administration is willing to actually hold me accountable for my actions.

P.S. George Bush was a wimp about all of this. I'll detail all that in an upcoming book.

[Red]

The actual quote and "the more honest version" : two sides of the same coin?

[SacTownMan]

NonSense posts two times and says nothing of interest to anyone but a fellow Daily Koz troll!

Face it you were safer under Bush / Cheney than you are with Xerxes and the drunken fool sidekick you voted for!!

Just keep going back to the "Bush/Cheney are evil" crutch everytime the sheep start to question the "One's" agenda!!!

Great stragegy, should work real well just in time for the 2010 election cycle. The sheep won't notice you guy's trying to pull the "wool" over their eye yet again!!

Keep up the good work, you guys are so out of touch with the mainstream of this country it is simply beyond the pale!!

2010, say goodbye to the "progressive" movement in this country!

Time to crawl back under your rocks!!!

[mark l.]

any word yet on the prosecution of truman and curtis lemay for dropping fatman and little boy on japan?
fdr on trial for firebombing japan and dresden?

i would rather be dick cheney defending 'his' legacy at the pearly gates, than any of the above three. i love how dems believe the can decide when history begins...

the opening line from all these individual's defenses?
i did what i did because we were attacked, killing 3000 americans...

cheney's defense is that he "didn't want it to happen again", while the truman/le may/fdr defense would run something like: "we were justified by the actions of our enemy".

[Mike2Cents]

It may well be that Cheney did what he did because he believed it was necessary,
but the more relevant question revolves around his continued insistence that there was no torture going on, or what was being done wasn't torture. That is exactly what this stuff is and exactly what he advocated for and supported.
It's interesting to me that in his statement he doesn't at all address that issue -
does he now concede that it was indeed torture?
He'd be a tad more intellectually honest to say 'I approve and support torture' - but instead he refuses to step up and say this. Cheney, etc. defending all this seem to be essentially defending torture as an effective and acceptable practice. So why won't he/they just say that...self-preservation due to the fact that it actually is against the law?
If Cheney were to find out that someone working on our behalf chopped of the fingers of someone, would he argue that "They do not deserve to be the targets of political investigations or prosecutions"?
What if they burned them on the soles of their feet? What if they cut them with a razor? What if they threatened to rape their daughters, preformed mock executions, waved a power drill around?
I imagine he would, right?
EIT??
B.S.

p.s. to sactownman - How about you face it? and if you are so sure about what you know, why are so so upset? i mean, why are "you" so "upset"!!!??? Calm down and try and make a point, rather than shoot off these punctuation spasms.

[mark l.]

sorry mike, but the standards of interogation were laid out by Cheney and countless leagal discussions, in anticipation of the dems wanting to strike back.

I can't see where the dems are going to be able to charge the guy for the codification of interogations, when they seek to use the violation of the "rules" that were put down to pen and paper to prosecute the interogators.

this fishing expedition isn't a direct assault on cheney's decisions, it is merely an end around. there wasn't one single approved technique, that wasn't floated by democrat memebers of congress, explained to them, and witnessed by others.

threatening harm is the center piece of your argument?

how many police stations across the country threaten the death penalty to a co-conspirator in the cases of capital crimes, in order to get them to turn on their accomplices?

[Mike2Cents]

Mark l.. -
Some D.A. threatening a suspect that he may face the death penalty at a trial just doesn't compare, sorry.
Any reading of the facts out so far show that there was some weird and brutal stuff going on in some of these interrogations. My point is that the argument somehow shifted from 'we don't do these things, we do not torture' to 'it's ok if we do those things, it's ok if we torture'.
Are we a nation of laws or not...it's pretty simple. There are great defenders of this principle in every branch of the government, even at the CIA, Pentagon, Justice, etc.
Not liking those laws is not an excuse for breaking them (and getting a Yoo or someone to write you a hall pass on a case by case basis isn't going to protect you from that fact in the end).
If indeed these particular interrogators were acting on their own and just misbehaving, then they deserve to prosecuted and held accountable (just like when we hold our soldiers accountable for law breaking). But if they were just doing what they were told and encouraged to do, then on that point I agree with Cheney...they shouldn't face prosecution. But in the latter case, then someone needs to be held accountable. Seeing how Cheney clearly hung Libbey out to dry re: the Plame .
incident, I'd say it's unlikely he'll man up here.
If he truly believes this is all good and fine, then he should subject himself and others to accountability...and not avoid it at the cost of some low level taking the hit.
(It is this that I most dislike about the man. I don't think he gives a sh*t about the soldiers, civilian casualties, Scooter Libbey & family, etc. He's just out to win, personally. But he knows he's losing, and that's why he can't just shut up and go away.)

[mark l.]

"Some D.A. threatening a suspect that he may face the death penalty at a trial just doesn't compare, sorry."
so that isn't a threat?

"But if they were just doing what they were told and encouraged to do, then on that point I agree with Cheney...they shouldn't face prosecution. "

so you agree that this isn't about whether laws were broken by interogators. this is the run at cheney. good luck.

"Cheney clearly hung Libbey out to dry re: the Plame"
how so? what law was broken? there were no convictions related to plame. she was irrelevant.

[mark l.]

the question I have for you mike,

what do you want to PROVE?

it is absolutely apparent that cheney is the target, why the coyness?

[mark l.]

here, let me give you an example of the difference between a search for knowledge and search to prove a pre-existing belief...

the plame case:

liberals "knew" that plame was a covert agent, and they also "knew" her identity was revealed by the wh.
in their quest to prove what they already knew, we find out that she wasn't covert, and her identity was revealed by richard armitage.

now we have an interrogation "investigation", which is simply a run at prosecution of the crimes liberals already "know" occurred.

along the way, they want to prove what they always knew about torture-it doesn't work.
they want to prove that the torture was directed by the wh, and that no ther democrat knew of the written, prescribed, methods.

like the plame case, we are just going to find out that torture works, and that democrats were 'complicit' in the prescribed interogation methods.

so in an effort to prove what libs already "know", we are just going to disprove every foundation of their beliefs, in order to get to cheney.

wonderful plan.

[mark l.]

as if on cue...

executive director of the ACLU:

"Given the information already in the public domain, it is abundantly clear to even inexpert observers that crimes were, indeed, committed, and that the Bush administration's torture program was widespread, systemic and authorized at the highest levels of government."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/opposing-view-follow-the-evidence.html

looks like someone just wants the justice department to prove, what he already "knows" to be fact.

[Mike2Cents]

Mark -

You want to equate a suspect in court being 'threatened' with facing the death penalty at a public trial with the threat during secret interrogations of your family being raped or killed?
No, of course you don't.

As for Libbey, his conviction for obstruction was directly related to an attempt to cover up the intentional leak of the identity of a covert CIA agent for political reasons...very few people seriously dispute that's what went on here. I actually don't think it was all that big a deal, but it was done...and folks lied about it. Cheney could have stepped up and accepted responsibility for the role he did play in all of it (maybe resigned, maybe just weathered a few weeks a even lower poll ratings) - but instead he let his loyal aide Libbey twist himself into a bad place over it. And it's just word play to say 'there were no convictions related to Plame.'.

"so you agree that this isn't about whether laws were broken by interogators. this is the run at cheney. good luck."
No, I say that is exactly what is about - whether or not laws were indeed broken. As for a 'run at Cheney', I concede that I feel he played a significant role in all of this - maybe an investigation would reveal I'm wrong about that.
But as for being coy, back to my original and main point -
Is Cheney saying "'we don't do these things, we do not torture' or 'it's ok if we do those things, it's ok if we torture'? He is the one being coy.
I also feel it's irrelevant whether these tactics were 'effective' Many nations have very 'effective' systems for dealing with security and civil issues...and we still find many of those systems abhorrent. (And as I read somewhere yesterday, robbing a bank is an effective way of getting money - it is still illegal.)

In just re-reading Cheney's statement I was wondering if based on the fact the Bush himself dismantled these policies in late 2004...at that point did Cheny also have and express 'doubts about (the Bush) Administration’s ability to be responsible for our nation’s security."?
No, because again - for him this is all political and all about him winning a policy argument in an effort to protect his own skin and legacy. So now and then he has to come out the cave to make some dark pronouncement about Obama and the Democrats.

Lastly, even if there were to be convictions related to this stuff, I don't think anyone should go to jail, etc. I accept that much of what was done was done in the fever of a moment and in most cases resulted from many folks truly concerned about what to do. But that does not mean we can't now reflect on all that and look into where we did the right thing...and where we didn't.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Geeze Mikey, please stop pretending that you give a crap about law and such. Damn you people get to be annoying with your BDS.......

[Mike2Cents]

Wow, Wahoo - you sure know how to just put someone in their place.
When will I stop pretending...and when I do, will I even know?

[mark l.]

"But that does not mean we can't now reflect on all that and look into where we did the right thing...and where we didn't."

if you think the motivation behind this was for the purpose of 'reflection' and looking "where we did the right thing" you must be one of the people who gave away their bank account info to get to that 50 million dollars in nigeria.

i have no problems with those who are seeking the truth, but there aren't any real truth seekers. this is straight up vengance.

we need a special investigation for prosecution?

the laws are on the book, and the incidents are documented. prosecute the guilty, thru standard court actions, and then see if you can turn them on the people above them in favor of lighter sentencing. the wh is organizing a lynch mob, to render their own justice.

my one caveat:
if the wh loses the house in 2010, they will have set the tone for more investigations. the only difference is that they will be on the receiving end of the subpoenae. this whole thing is a travesty, committed for pure political gain.

I'll repeat:
we have laws and we have the documentation. prosecute the guilty, first, then if there is more evidence, proceed with the orginal plan of 'get cheney'.

this investigation isn't about

[mark l.]

"Lastly, even if there were to be convictions related to this stuff, I don't think anyone should go to jail"

nice touch. we just want to look, but no one will get hurt?

Sorry, if an interogator went outside the predetermined scope of the bush admin, they need to do time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Passaro

"Passaro was charged on June 17, 2004. He was the first civilian to be charged in connection with in Iraq and Afghanistan and the first American charged under the USA Patriot Act, which extended the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts to include certain violations of the law committed by military contractors overseas.[3] Wali had voluntarily turned himself in at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan on June 13, 2003 after learning that he was wanted for questioning in connections with rocket attacks against the base.[2]

During the trial, much of the court record was placed under seal for security reasons and several agents testified in disguise using fictitious names.[4]

Prosecutors charged that Passaro ordered soldiers not to allow Wali to sleep, limited his access to food and water and subjected him to two consecutive nights of interrogation and beatings. Witnesses testified that during one session Passaro, while wearing combat boots, kicked Wali in the groin hard enough to lift him off the ground, threw Wali to the ground, beat Wali on the arms and legs with a heavy Maglite flashlight, and that Passaro also vigorously thrust a flashlight into Wali's abdomen.[5][6] After the second night of beatings, Wali begged the soldiers to kill him and moaned a phrase that meant, "I'm dying." Wali died on his fourth day in custody. He repeatedly denied any involvement in the rocket attacks.[6]

a good first start, achieved thru standard law enforcement and the patriot act.

do you think this was a result of cheney's plans?

[mark l.]

the argument that is being put foward is like charging lbj for the my lai massacres.

[Mike2Cents]

"prosecute the guilty" -
Well the idea is usually to prosecute the accused...to see if they are guilty.

Mark -
I appreciate the response.
And the sympathy for all the $ I lost to the Nigerians.

Forgetting Cheney for a moment (as hard as that is for me to do) -
I just wanna emphasize that for me the point of all this is (or should be) getting a real answer to the torture question. Does anyone not think we crossed the line...should we have...should we do so again? Should the American people have the opp to see what in fact did occur?

If LBJ had indeed been actively encouraging a policy and strategy that resulted in Mai Lai...sure.
Was massacring villagers a specifically approved tactic, discussed, legal memos sought?
No, so it's not analogous.

Just because investigations are often politically motivated, that dems/repubs tend to be hypocritical as far as when they desire or decry one...doesn't mean it ain't sometimes worthy and worth while.

[mark l.]

"I just wanna emphasize that for me the point of all this is (or should be) getting a real answer to the torture question."

i agree. we have a legal sytem capable of doing so, already in place.

rather than pursuuing the investigation thru these channels, a heavily partisan wh is the way to go?

if you were interested in a fair and honest investigation, i would reccommend following thru with the fair and honest arbiters of justice.

I'll find the link, but many of the cases being cited have already been reviewed by federal prosecutors and with the exception of passaro, there was a sense that most of the other 'incidents' did not rise to criminal offenses.

to call upon the charges that the aclu director made...

"abundantly clear to even inexpert observers that crimes were, indeed, committed, and that the Bush administration's torture program was widespread, systemic and authorized at the highest levels of government"

widespread? we know, everyone knows we had a detention facility called gitmo.
sytemic? there were countless legal back and forths trying to figure out how far we could go. if anything, the policy was "systematic".
authorized? water boarding yes. beating with a maglite? no.

the policy was reviewed by congress and the supreme court, with either being allowed to make changes, but BOTH refusing.

there was so much complicity in the interogations procedures at all levels in BOTH parties, that it would be like seperating medium and long grain rice. possible? yes...if given 20 years on investigations. practical? no.

nanacy pelois has already committed an act similar to perjury in reagrds to what she knew. if she was under oath when she made her previous statements, she would have earned a scooter libby level conviction.

if the invstigation proceeds, would it be fair to shield members of congress, for what they knew?

[mark l.]

the timeline on this is too much for coincidence...

april 21, obama offers that there is nothign to be gained.

this weekend lieberman, who is against this idea of a justice dept investigation pans the idea of reconciliation.

monday, the obama admin goes back to pre 4/21 policy.

the wh needed lieberman for reconcilation, and when he told them "no", finally, they wanted to continue with something they said they were going to pass on?

the timing of this suggests that they have lost 'big time' on healthcare and are trying to salvage themselves with the libs.

if lieberman goes to bat against this investigation, it will wind up doing more damage to the wh, than had they decided to let it go. it is a pr disaster for the obama admin.

this is one of

[Mike2Cents]

Granted, the ACLU quote is over the top and typical of agenda focused institutions (I'm sure there are many on the other side making equally predictable statements).
And sure, ideally this gets pursued via a legal system immune from the accusation of being motivated by 'partisan politics' - but where exactly do find such purity these days, both real or imagined?
SCOTUS? Justice Dept.(you mention federal prosecutors)?
Or should we just accept that a legal and ethical reconciliation with these matters is impossible so we'll just trust Cheney, or Obama, or Panetta or Tenet?
As it stand now, it seems the SP has been given very narrow and clearly defined instructions - so perhaps too much hand wringing over whether we are 'looking forward' or not (and one could argue that ignoring the errors of the past doesn't exactly allow moving forward).
AS for reading into the 'timing' etc...that the WH wanted a CIA investigation because they lost traction on health care? well folks can connect just about any dots when they try hard enough.
These debates are hard enough to have without needing to suspect a political motivation for every single action that occurs.