• 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!

Cheney linked to concealment of CIA briefings

G

Gargantuan

NY Times said:
The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy.

Cheney ordered concealment of CIA briefings -- NY Times

Can we arrest him now?
I mean that, by the way :p .

He ordered the CIA to blatantly mislead the Congress of the United States, is that illegal or is not?
 
Last edited:
I think this is just the top layer of Cheney's pack of lies..Yes if he knowingly broke the law by taking congress out of the loop then charges should be filed.

Take the garbage out....then and only then will the world truely respect us.
 
I think this is just the top layer of Cheney's pack of lies..Yes if he knowingly broke the law by taking congress out of the loop then charges should be filed.

Take the garbage out....then and only then will the world truely respect us.

Exactly, as far as I know the constitution tasks the executive branch with answering to the legislative branch..

I'd like to see what the constitutionalists will say on this one.
 
Exactly, as far as I know the constitution tasks the executive branch with answering to the legislative branch..

I'd like to see what the constitutionalists will say on this one.

I think both Bush and Cheney knew if they were to have allowed that to happen there is a good chance they would have been cut off at the knees.
 
I think this is just the top layer of Cheney's pack of lies..Yes if he knowingly broke the law by taking congress out of the loop then charges should be filed.

Take the garbage out....then and only then will the world truely respect us.

Cheney should be convicted of breaking what law?

It's funny how the Libbos are still chasing this dog's tail.
 
Cheney should be convicted of breaking what law?

It's funny how the Libbos are still chasing this dog's tail.


This is what I said "Yes if he knowingly broke the law by taking congress out of the loop then charges should be filed."

Yes if he knowingly broke laws to futher his political agenda then the proper charges should be file...

The convictions comes after that:thumbs:
 
This is what I said "Yes if he knowingly broke the law by taking congress out of the loop then charges should be filed."

Yes if he knowingly broke laws to futher his political agenda then the proper charges should be file...

The convictions comes after that:thumbs:

You're assuming he broke the law. What law could he have broken?

Let's follow with some facts on this, because the whole story isn't being told.

First, Panetta's spokesman says that Panetta stands by his 15 May statement and that he never told the intelligence committes anything of the sort. If that's true, should these congressmen face charges of some sort?

CIA spokesman George Little told the Washington Independent late Wednesday that the claim that Panetta admitted his agency has misled Congress is "completely wrong." He added, "Director Panetta stands by his May 15 statement."

House Dems: Stunned about CIA - Alex Isenstadt - POLITICO.com


Second, and this one is a biggy, the letter doesn't say what CIA alledgedy hid from them. It could have been the cost for restriping the parking lot at Langley, for all we know.

You boys don't get ahead of yourselves, because those two things have to be cleared up before you can start charging Cheney with some unknown crime.
 
You're assuming he broke the law. What law could he have broken?

Let's follow with some facts on this, because the whole story isn't being told.

First, Panetta's spokesman says that Panetta stands by his 15 May statement and that he never told the intelligence committes anything of the sort. If that's true, should these congressmen face charges of some sort?




Second, and this one is a biggy, the letter doesn't say what CIA alledgedy hid from them. It could have been the cost for restriping the parking lot at Langley, for all we know.

You boys don't get ahead of yourselves, because those two things have to be cleared up before you can start charging Cheney with some unknown crime.

She said "if." Reading comprehension.... get some.
 
Exactly, as far as I know the constitution tasks the executive branch with answering to the legislative branch..

I'd like to see what the constitutionalists will say on this one.

I think the constitutionalists would say that you should read the constitution.

The executive branch does not "answer" to the legislative branch. It is a co-equal branch of government.
 
Exactly, as far as I know the constitution tasks the executive branch with answering to the legislative branch..

I'd like to see what the constitutionalists will say on this one.
Cite the section(s).
 
She said "if." Reading comprehension.... get some.

What the hell are you even talking about?


I think the constitutionalists would say that you should read the constitution.

The executive branch does not "answer" to the legislative branch. It is a co-equal branch of government.


Booya!!!
 
Before we talk about arrest we need to establish that Cheney did indeed break the law. I believe that Cheney is capable to have broken the law because he has exhibited the behaior of a guilty person trying o cover up his actions. He also had his own daughter running interference for him earlier this year. What Cheney will do is use the old tired excuse that the information was sensitive or classified and that making it public could have caused harm to the U.S. In essence usethe the old 'natinal security' card.

No one wants to cause harm to their own country. I would hope that Cheney did not tell the CIA to do or not to do something just so that he could cover up something that the adiministration he was serving was doing.

At this point I would say that Cheney has the poor character to harm his country if it means helpng himself but I do not think that we havethe information yet to proof that.
 
Last edited:
Feinstein suggests CIA concealment broke law - Yahoo! News

Six months into Barack Obama's presidency, twin investigations may be on the horizon into Bush-era policies in the war on terror.

Two senators including the head of the intelligence committee suggested Sunday that the prior administration broke the law by concealing a CIA counter-terrorism program from Congress.

The assertion that Vice President Dick Cheney ordered the concealment came amid word that Attorney General Eric Holder is contemplating opening a criminal probe of possible CIA torture.
 
Cheney ordered concealment of CIA briefings -- NY Times

Can we arrest him now?
I mean that, by the way :p .

He ordered the CIA to blatantly mislead the Congress of the United States, is that illegal or is not?

No actually it's not illegal for the President or the Vic President to order the CIA not to release certain items to Congress it falls under Ex. Priv. and has been going on for allot longer then Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney.

So get over it folks, the Dems can scream to high water and their is nothing they can do about it unless they want to go and re-write US Code 50.
 
Call Feinstein, ask him what statute was violated, and then get back to me.

Ahh you would look a tad better if you understood the Gender of Sen. Feinstein he is a she and she is the Head of the Senate Intel. Committtie but I do agree with you she has no idea what she is talking about her and Speaker Pelosi need to go back and read US Code 50 before they make more fools of themselfs.
 
No actually it's not illegal for the President or the Vic President to order the CIA not to release certain items to Congress it falls under Ex. Priv. and has been going on for allot longer then Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney.

So get over it folks, the Dems can scream to high water and their is nothing they can do about it unless they want to go and re-write US Code 50.

Perhaps they do?
 
Perhaps they do?

Well then it would fall under the United States Supreme Court to order such thing and this will never happen US Codes are passed by Congress and can't be undone unless they go thru the Court System.

Beside do you know what US Code 50 is and what would happen if Congress tried to re-write US Code 50.
 
Well then it would fall under the United States Supreme Court to order such thing and this will never happen US Codes are passed by Congress and can't be undone unless they go thru the Court System.

Beside do you know what US Code 50 is and what would happen if Congress tried to re-write US Code 50.

I looked at a small portion of it, but truthfully, I do not know what section has bearing on your statement.
 
Ahh you would look a tad better if you understood the Gender of Sen. Feinstein he is a she and she is the Head of the Senate Intel. Committtie but I do agree with you she has no idea what she is talking about her and Speaker Pelosi need to go back and read US Code 50 before they make more fools of themselfs.

I am indeed a dumbass, I was thinking of Feingold.

Perhaps they do?

Even if they did, it wouldn't make anything that happened before the revision an ex post facto violation.
 
Even if they did, it wouldn't make anything that happened before the revision an ex post facto violation.

Well, not legally. But I can see it being recorded in history that various events before such a change caused the change to be made...
 
Well, not legally. But I can see it being recorded in history that various events before such a change caused the change to be made...

Wouldn't that be true though? Sorry, I dunno really whether or not you're implying that it would be a bad thing...:doh

I'll be really, really impressed if anyone ever get punished over this stuff.. But still, isn't the suggestion, and the suspicion, enough to further compound people's almost universally damning opinions of Bush/Cheney? (in an international rather than national sense - I know some Americans think Bush was pretty good). Regardless of what Americans make of it all, most of the rest of us are probably going to pass their own judgement whether or not any law changes or rappearances of any real evidence actually take place.
 
This is so pathetic, and so typical of Democrats.

Let's see, the economy is growing worse by the minute, unemployment is about to exceed 10 percent (it already has, but Obama is cooking the numbers), California is bankrupt, Gitmo isn't going anywhere, the stimulus isn't working, nationized healthcare is not striking a cord with people, approval numbers are dropping.....

It's time for a diversionary tactic! Let's start bitching about Bush and Cheney again. Yeah!
 
Exactly, as far as I know the constitution tasks the executive branch with answering to the legislative branch..

I'd like to see what the constitutionalists will say on this one.
That the Executive branch does not answer to the legislative branch?
 
Back
Top Bottom