• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dick Cheney Would Torture Again

Your beliefs have no value. The law is what counts and after investigation by two DOJ's they say no laws were broken, Laws during wartime and peace time can differ, Perhaps that's the source of your confusion.

We know what the real crime was that Bush and Cheney committed, they had an "R" by their names.
 
We know what the real crime was that Bush and Cheney committed, they had an "R" by their names.
In fact those with a D after their names were in on it as well. And don't forget the present Attorney General..
 

How the Fourth Amendment applies at or near the border has been a very tricky question for a long time, even before 9/11. It involves our concept of national sovereignty, although the current President does not give a damn about that. (Neither do the many RINO's who serve as his butt boys, for that matter.)

The Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches and seizures by U.S. officials in foreign countries where an alien is involved. So, evidence obtained by U.S. agents during the warrantless search of an alien's home in Mexico was not barred by the Fourth Amendment, as it would have been if made in the U.S. under the same conditions. See U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquides, 494 U.S. 259 (1990). And at the border or its functional equivalent--e.g. a nearby point within the U.S. where several routes leading to the border converge--the Fourth Amendment does not apply either to non-citizens or citizens.

When the emergency is severe enough, the old line by a Supreme Court justice that "the Constitution of the U.S. was not a suicide pact" comes into play. Even open race discrimination may be permitted, as it was when the Court upheld President Roosevelt's executive order relocating persons of Japanese ancestry away from the West Coast after Pearl Harbor. By the way, anyone who thinks there was no good reason to do that might want to read about the several Japanese submarines that operated along that coast during December, 1941. Merchant ships were attacked right outside the harbors at Portland, Oregon and Santa Cruz, California and had to beach themselves to escape sinking. A submarine fired a number of shells from its deck gun at oil tanks near the shore north of Santa Barbara.

They might also want to read about a Japanese pilot who had crash-landed on a small plantation island after being hit while attacking Pearl Harbor. This remote island--which the Japanese mistakenly thought was uninhabited--had been designated as a place for planes that could not make it back to their carriers to ditch. They were to radio a sub cruising nearby to arrange to be picked up. Most of the several hundred inhabitants were native Hawaiians, but a handful were Japanese. Several of the Japanese the pilot first encountered refused to help him, and in the meantime, one of the Hawaiians, suspecting trouble, smartly took the radio out of the plane and hid it. But the Japanese who ran the general store and his wife befriended the pilot, put him up at their house, and treated him to home cooking. They soon found out who he was and what had happened.

But they were the only ones. Because there was only a single radio on the island and reception was spotty, it was more than a day before the other locals learned of the attack and made sense of the mysterious crash-landing. All this time the pilot had become more and more desperate to retrieve his radio. Finally, as the islanders were assembled for their weekly festivity, he pulled his small pistol and loudly demanded to know who had it. And the storekeeper, who had the only other firearm on the island, a shotgun, threw in with him and started waving the weapon around. But when the threatening pilot tried to grab one of the women, her burly husband overpowered him, beating his head against a stone wall and finishing him with his fishing knife. The storekeeper, seeing his desperate attempt to help Japan had failed, then shot and killed himself.

President Roosevelt of course knew about all these incidents. He also knew that in addition to the several hundred Japanese agents the FBI was trailing in Hawaii, Japanese communities near Seattle, on Terminal Island near L.A. harbor, and in other places included a small number of agents who were passing military information to Tokyo. All this puts his decision about relocation and internment in a little different light.
 
We are not that far off in disagreement, but I suspect there is not enough nations willing to go along with this. My evidence is the results of the trial by absentia in Malaysia and how little Canada, Spain, Britain, Germany, and Switzerland (let alone the US itself) refused to comply with the court's determinations.

There was no trial by abstention by Malaysia. There was a mock trial by private individuals in Malaysia. No country on Earth, including Malaysia, recognized it.
 
There was no trial by abstention by Malaysia. There was a mock trial by private individuals in Malaysia. No country on Earth, including Malaysia, recognized it.

I agree, I was using it to make a point about the likelihood of being able to have a trial in other than mock terms. And even if it happens to occur somewhere other than mock terms, it is unlikely that most other nations would recognize the results from.

Bottom line, I do not see enough nations willing to go forward with something meaningful. The "mock" trial by abstention in Malaysia seemed reasonable to use.
 
If you're referring to the Patriot Act, it was Congress which enacted that, and the President who signed it when it was presented to him. Nothing in the Constitution gives the Vice-President any legislative power.



I have no idea what you are referring to. It's very much alive and well and is used every day. Although there is no positive grant in the Constitution of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the Suspension Clause, Art. I, sec. 9, cl. 2, prohibits it from being suspended "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

In Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), the Supreme Court even went so far as to hold that the unlawful combatants being detained at Guantanamo enjoyed this constitutional protection. The Court did not actually hold they had a right to file habeas petitions in U.S. courts, but instead it has allowed the right to satisfied through Combatant Status Review Tribunals, which are held at Guantanamo.

Anybody today who does not know that Dick Cheney actually ran the WH and Junior just signed the papers must be fairly young, too young to have remembered how it really worked in those days.

The NDAA amendment did in fact nullify Habeas Corpus, and the rest of your specious claims are nonsense. When the moniker "terrorism" is invoked by the government, Habeas no longer applies.

Are you a student of John Yoo's?
 
I'll take the easy question first: he will never be VP again because no one has ever held that job twice (second terms under the same POTUS don't count). I'm among those who believe enhanced interrogations were significant in disabling AQ and, ultimately, in bringing justice to bin Laden. Beyond that, every country, including ours, would use harsh methods if they were the difference between victory and defeat.

You must have meant in modern times:

Two U. S. Vice Presidents each served under two Presidents.

George Clinton was Thomas Jefferson's second Vice President and James Madison's first Vice President.

John C. Calhoun was John Quincy Adams' Vice President and Andrew Jackson's first Vice President.

Have any vice presidents served under two different presidents


As far as waterboarding is concerned, they should have just used drones. Apparently, killing with drones is acceptable while waterboarding "torture" is not!
In addition to terrorist suspects, innocent civilians have been killed by drones.
 
Anybody today who does not know that Dick Cheney actually ran the WH and Junior just signed the papers must be fairly young, too young to have remembered how it really worked in those days.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support this claim?
 
If he authorized the mass torture of liberals what fault would there be in that idea?
 
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support this claim?

I must qualify that statement with "only for the perceptive and curious who were living in those times"
 
Dick Cheney is the white Osama bin Laden.
 
I must qualify that statement with "only for the perceptive and curious who were living in those times"

You were asked the question out of curiosity. Can you can come up with any facts or are you just sharing a belief?
 
You were asked the question out of curiosity. Can you can come up with any facts or are you just sharing a belief?

I lived through those times, and I was paying attention to current events. People made jokes about Dick telling Dubya what to do. It's not a fresh thought for me. And of course I'm not saying that Dick told Dubya what tie to wear in the morning or anything like that.

Cheney drove the policy and Dubya was just happy to be there. Dubya did bring us Part D of Medicare though. Cheney too cruel for that. ;)

Yes, I admit I'm reading between the lines. I've never even visited the White House.
 
I lived through those times, and I was paying attention to current events. People made jokes about Dick telling Dubya what to do. It's not a fresh thought for me. And of course I'm not saying that Dick told Dubya what tie to wear in the morning or anything like that.

Cheney drove the policy and Dubya was just happy to be there. Dubya did bring us Part D of Medicare though. Cheney too cruel for that. ;)

Yes, I admit I'm reading between the lines. I've never even visited the White House.
So you have nothing.
 
As opposed to the people on other planets, I suppose. I don't give two hoots in hell what uninformed people think about that, or anything else. I'm sure many of the people who believe the U.S. engaged in torture also believe Elvis is still alive.

More aptly, those that believe that US did not torture (which would be a very small number of the naive, the disingenuous and those that believe the US can do no wrong) would also believe in Santa Claus. Enjoy your coal.
 
Look here's my thing, the US clearly tortured people and what I wish people would do is acknowledge that and if you want to say that's justified you know what I'm cooler with that than people blindly denying the obvious for partisan reasons.

When I first joined this site, a lot of people were saying "the US doesn't torture." But when the former VP Dick Cheney says we did, who will argue that anymore?

Really... are people still arguing the US didn't engage in torture???
 
Obama said it was unproductive to "look backwards." As it's already been said over and over... DC doesn't hold politicians responsible.

After Obama and Holder backed off, a bipartisan panel found indisputable evidence that torture occurred. The mainstream news media didn't report it though. The report ironically concluded that the overall US media is incapable of properly handling a discussion on torture because it's large in scope. Viewers of left wing and right wing media get entirely different slants on the same news stories...

Detainee Treatment | Task Force On Detainee Treatment
The Report of The Constitution Project's Task Force on Detainee Treatment




In fact Eric Holder and the DOJ investigated these 'torture' charges in 2012 and found no evidence of any wrongdoing or illegalities. Just a few days ago they said they would not re-open the investigation. Justice Department will not reopen torture inquiry

The Bush Administration did not 'shop around' for Holder's opinion or his decision. Holder is also a Democrat hack, not a Republican hack.

See above, particularly regarding the 'informed' part.

Sounds like a great movie script. Do I see Tom Hanks in the starring role?
 
Obama said it was unproductive to "look backwards." As it's already been said over and over... DC doesn't hold politicians responsible.

After Obama and Holder backed off, a bipartisan panel found indisputable evidence that torture occurred. The mainstream news media didn't report it though. The report ironically concluded that the overall US media is incapable of properly handling a discussion on torture because it's large in scope. Viewers of left wing and right wing media get entirely different slants on the same news stories...

Detainee Treatment | Task Force On Detainee Treatment
The Report of The Constitution Project's Task Force on Detainee Treatment
Thanks for that but I've never hears of the participants nor am aware of their political leanings.
 
Back
Top Bottom