• 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: Obama Should Be Debriefing, Not Investigating

I think that those who have broken the law should be prosecuted. Cheney is one of those people. The memos that were released make this apparent. I'm curious why justice is not something people want on both sides. I know, you conservatives will tar and feather me, but it seems disingenuous after the whole Clinton thing to cry foul against people who have obviously broken the law.

Prof, please learn to post in paragraphs.

I guess if you take the side of the terrorists you can claim that our people broke these imaginary laws; but alas, the previous administration reviewed the laws that may or may not have been broken and guess what, the Attorney General at the time determined that it was okay to water board. Your emotional hysterics to protect the terrorists aside, what part of the OBVIOUS do you and other Liberals still not get?

The new Administration is more than welcome to weaken our resolve and capability by announcing to the enemy that we will now only HUG them when they are captured, but attempting to go back and divine what was illegal under the previous administration is pure hyper political BS; nothing more or less.
 
I guess my argument (favoring an investigation) boils down to two points:

1. For those who believe that an investigation was already performed & no charges were brought, I'd remind you that said "Investigation" was performed by the very same administration that is accused of committing the crimes & is therefore meaningless. (we don't trust the accused defendant to perform the criminal investigation, of his own crimes... in this country)

So the new low standard being once again set by Libruls and their Democrat allies is that in the future, new Administrations will re-define what is legal or criminal and prosecute their political opponents after the fact.

After all, what is good for Democrats when they are in charge is also good for the Republicans after they are in charge right?

2. For those who think it unpatriotic/wrong to investigate employees who may have committed heinous crimes, in our country's name.....Doesn't the same thinking excuse the worst criminal regimes of all time, for the very same reason? (ie Nazi's, North Koreans, Japanese atrocities in WWII, etc)

Once again, no one is making this claim; they are making the claim that to attempt to re-define the rules so that one can go on a political witch-hunt to impugn their political opponents in the court of public opinion using highly emotional hyperbolic blather is pretty damned stupid.

I will make a bet with you right here and now, and whoever loses will put in their signature that they were wrong and that the other was right:

After Holder and the Judicial Committee are done with their separate and similar investigations, no heinous crimes were committed by any CIA employees or their superiors.

Care to take me on? Or is this just more of the typical emotional blather lacking in substance and the spine to back it up?

This bet is open to any other hysterical Liberal on this forum making these outrageous hyperbolic claims against their countrymen on behalf of the terrorists who are still desperately wanting to murder many more of our countrymen.

To suggest that your hyperbole constitutes anything remotely patriotic requires a level of willful ignorance I just cannot comprehend. Your hysterical claim is that hard working bureaucrats in the CIA trying to save their fellow countrymen committed heinous crimes while doing their jobs trying to keep terrorists from murdering more innocents; what parallel universe is that?
 
That's the last bit of bile that i care to read from you.:2wave:

Good, because the vast pile of bile you continue to spew on this forum and attempts to impugn good Americans trying to keep you safe will continue to be answered to by me with the FACTS.

Carry on. :2wave:
 
I can't believe we are even debating over whether or not the issue at hand is debatable. Let them investigate. Unless, your scared of something.

Like many other uninformed Liberals, you continue to pretend that this hasn't already been investigated.

Like many other uninformed Liberals, you continue to ignore the FACT that the Judicial Committee is already conducting a fact finding search, aka Diane Feinstein.

Like many other uninformed Liberals, you continue to ignore the rhetoric already expressed by Obama that he does not support any new investigations and now is silent on the issue for purely hyper partisan political purposes.

Honestly, attempting a coherent debate with the highly emotional hyperbolic state of many Liberals these days is about as productive as arguing with a brick; the only difference is that a brick has substance.
 
The thing that always amazes me is that the proponents of torture always say that if we stop torturing people that terrorists are going to kill tens of thousands of people and also win the war on terrorism.

Once again we see nothing but empty headed hyperbole here; we aren't proponents of torture, but rather proponents of common sense. But as you are obviously one of those hyper emotional Liberals who would rather attack your fellow Americans for protecting and defend the terrorists trying to kill you, we expect this from you.

Fear-mongering much?

This smacks of profound irony coming from the Liberals who hysterically are clamoring our CIA has committed heinous crimes in a vacuum of reality and the facts.


The real reason Al-Queda hasn't attacked us since 9-11 is simple, thanks to the Bush Administration fear-mongering, we are still afraid of them, and we are willing to throw our morals out the window to not die at their hands. They know that attacking us won't be worth it. They won't try to attack us till we aren't afraid of them. So thank you Bush, not for torture, or Iraq, but for the true thing that made us safer, us being **** scared of Osama.

:rofl Oh my, the denial is strong with this one. This statement speaks to all I have stated about the emotional hysterics of Liberals and their Democrat pals who operate in a parallel universe from normal people.
 
Not at all. The fact that he has been fighting the release of the transcriptions of those secret meetings shows he is trying to hide something, & yes....indicates guilt.

Gotcha winning a legal battle indicates guilt, it's all clear to me.

(if these were legitimate national energy meetings....& classified info was discussed....Why won't Cheney even let REPUBLICAN Senators (with security clearance) read the minutes of those meetings?)

If Cheney was wrong about the right for the Executive branch to keep internal workings within the administration private then why did the appeals court agree with him?
 
I disagree.

Many Americans care about GW Bush.

We want him to be prosecuted for the many crimes he committed in office, some directly leading to the near collapse of our economy, some war crimes (which would call for Capital Punishment) & many other crimes against both the United States & humanity in general.

No sir........we care about GW (& D. Cheney) alright.

This is all one needs to know about the emotional hysterics of a hyper partisan political mentality that permeates the Democrat Party these days.

I think we are done taking anything you type as serious. :2wave:
 
Carville & Obama are political beings I've spent my life enforcing criminal laws. Once the facts come out about Bush's crimes, public outrage will force the politicians to deal with them.
I think when Senator Feinstein's committee releases its info on Bush admin crimes, the real outrage will start & some people will be going to prison.

This is why self proclaimed political philosophy affiliations are meaningless on this forum; your tag is moderate. Now THAT is a funny thing based on your emotional hysterics.

If you have spent your life enforcing criminal laws, I cannot imagine that you have met much success. :rofl
 
BULL****!!!

A patriot honors and respects the constitution. He expanded the powers and responsibilities of the VP way beyond the scope of the constitution. He broke the law. We know that just like we know OJ murdered his wife.

He was the de facto president in the first term. And he rolled our energy and environment policy back 50 years in back room meetings with industry cronies.

Then, when Bush decided he was the 'decider' in the second term--Cheney went rogue with a friggin walk-in safe in his office. WTF??!! Are you kidding me Dickie boy? Your job is be ready. You job is to be the president of the senate and break a tie vote. Your job is to travel abroad and help get the message out about the President's policies. What were you hiding in that safe, Dick? Evidence of numerous overt acts. Violations of federal law that make Nixon look like a *****.

The night before Obama's inauguration, the very unpatriotic asshole Cheney broke his back carrying boxes of incriminating papers out the back door.

Once again we see highly offensive, emotional hysterics and blather of people who think "because they say it is so" it is a logical substitute for reality and facts.

It is apparent that even after the people YOU and Devil voted into office do not find anything to prosecute, you will continue to spew such offensive highly emotional hysterical claims.

So if during the Democrats possibly short lived majorities in the Senate, Congress and Whitehouse, and after all their subsequent investigations are completed no prosecutions take place, will that be enough to end your offensive, farcical, hyperbolic and highly partisan rhetoric?

I am thinking the answer is no and it won't take too long to prove me right. :cool:
 
Going by history terrorists do not stop terrorizing just because their opponents are already afraid of them. They continue the attacks every single chance they get. You don 't have to believe me. Just take a look at all the bombs that went off in civilian areas due to terrorists ever since we went to Iraq.

Never try to confuse people spewing highly emotional hyperbole with the facts; it just falls on their deaf ears. :cool:
 
All these wingnuts that complain about "illegal alliens" and Presidential elections laws pertaining to who is "a natural born citizen" and unconstitutional power grabs by Obama.

Most are just fine with ignoring serious lawbreaking by Cheney.

Are there any true Conservatives in this forum?

What irony watching people like you type about wingnuts. :doh
 
We aren't talking about the Constitutional political remedy of impeachment here. We are talking about the criminal charge of War Crimes which is a very different matter & can mean death to the convicted.

Any wonder why Cheney wants that investigation stopped?;)
(his neck is quite literally on the line)

I know, let's get the terrorists we treated so badly to testify against Cheney and fill the jury with terrorists who have been so badly treated by our troops! After all, they are the most honest people on the planet!

Justice for the terrorists!! :rofl
 
Gotcha winning a legal battle indicates guilt, it's all clear to me.
In this case it does.



If Cheney was wrong about the right for the Executive branch to keep internal workings within the administration private then why did the appeals court agree with him?
I believe the decision was based on a technicality & is under appeal but I compliment your argument here. It is a good one that would require some research on my part to refute your point, which was a good one.:applaud




BTW.....Any reaction to this charge from Sen. McCain?

Bush admin distorted McCain’s views on torture

Raw Story Update: Bush admin distorted McCain’s views on torture
 
Last edited:
Do any Cheney appologists ever think that maybe just maybe that Cheney does just two things in his life: 1- try to deflect any acivitythat wouldpoint to his criminal behavior while he ws VEEP; 2- Expell bird shot into his friends faces while he is"hunting"

Yet another trite hyperbolic claim that those who defend the TRUTH and FACTS are nothing more than Cheney apologists; will you be okay then with me claiming that you are a terrorist apologist?

Much like Devils desperate rhetoric which claims that it wasn't the terrorists and insurgents wanting to disrupt Democracy that killed those 3,000 troops, it was Bush and Cheney!

I mean, anyone with even half a brain has to look at such blather and just shake their head in wonder. :roll:
 
US Law: 113c § 2340
As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

US Law: 113c § 2340

Now waterboarding is torture. The threat of being drowned to death is very real. It tricks the body into the effects of drowning by building up carbon dioxide in the lungs. The person feels the effects of drowning. So yes that would fit the definition of C and D. Also we have prosecuted waterboarding in the US and abroad.

To give you an example in 83 a texas sheriff, James Parker and his deputies were prosecuted for waterboaring suspects to get false confessions. US Assistant Attorney Scott Woodward stated: the prisoners who were subjected to waterboarding were not "model citizens," but they were still "victims" of torture.

The sheriff and his deputies were convicted and sent to prison.

Waterboarding is torture plain and simple. There's nothing subjective about it we've prosecuted it and have considered it to be torture. We prosecuted one of our own soldiers for doing it to a vietcong during the war and we prosecuted the japanese for doing it.

Once again certain members on the forum are mistaking laws for the treatment of CITIZENS within the US and the actions of the CIA on FOREIGN soil OUTSIDE of the US against non-uniformed enemy combatants.

Now I know it is a deliberate and willful attempt to project US laws on foreign actions, but it continues to BEG the question why FACTS continue to elude your emotion filled hyperbolic blathering.

Citing the case of a US Sheriff doesn't make your argument any more credible. Citing the OBVIOUS war crimes of the Japanese who were DEFEATED after starting a WORLD WAR hardly supports your wild eyed assertions.

Citing the case of a US soldier who was found to have violated the Army manual hardly supports your wild eyed assertions.

Now please explain to me what part of the actions of the CIA on FOREIGN soil OUTSIDE of the US against non-uniformed enemy combatants/terrorists with the blessing of their C in C and the benefit of legal briefings of the Attorney General suggesting the specific application of certain methods under strict supervision to ensure the safety of their captives was permitted continues to elude you?

It also begs this logical question, however, it is readily apparent that logic does not have a place for such hyper partisan highly emotional Liberals; why are you so desperate to impugn fellow Americans who were trying to save our fellow citizens lives from further attacks after the events of 9-11?
 
Again you seem to miss the other parts of the definition including threats to one's life.

No it's the threat of imminent death IE a mock execution, if threatening one's life were a crime then one could never insinuate to a murder suspect that if they don't confess they're going to get the needle.

The other conditions are met making it torture.

I see no evidence for that.

Not just extortion but civil rights violations.

lol they are not entitled to Constitutional protections, if they were they must all be released for denying them their right to a speedy trial.

All this stemmed from his use of waterboarding.

Huh? The use of waterboarding =/= a mock execution nor the use of psychotropic drugs.

You also forget that in 1898 Maj Edwin Glenn was court martialed and convicted of the crime of torture for waterboarding people in the phillippines.

Provide the name of the case and a link to the ruling.

None of this changes the fact that he was prosecuted for waterboarding and torturing the prisoner.

Prove it, so far none of the sources even mention the soldier in questions name let alone the name of the court case to see what he was actually charged with, for all we know he could have been charged with conduct unbecoming, all I have seen is that he got a discharge, none of the sources even say whether it was a dishonorable discharge.

We're talking US Law now again I posted what the US law definition of torture is and waterboarding falls into torture under our laws.

No it doesn't as the definition is entirely subjective, I don't consider waterboarding to be severe and it certainly does not fall under the definition of a mock execution or the use of psychotropic drugs.


And yet it was a component of it. Beatings have occured at Baghram and Gitmo along with Abu Ghraib.

I'm aware of beatings at Abu Ghraib in which the persons responsible have received a court martial, provide evidence for the rest of your assertions.


There have been 100 homicides that we know of with around 20 being investigated. Again just the facts.

Prove it, in fact prove that even a single homicide of a detainee took place.
 
I guess if you take the side of the terrorists you can claim that our people broke these imaginary laws

For some one who mentions the "TRUTH" so often, you do not hesitate to keep repeating this lie.
 
This doesn't tell me anything. How exactly did the CIA reveal her name where's the context. Anoynymous sources with no information regarding it. Have anything more concrete?

It says right there, and it explains the context, it was an accidental disclosure but a disclosure none the less, thus once outed whether intentionally or not you can't be outed again. Fact of the matter is is that Cheney had absolutely 0 to do with her being outed, infact more circumstantial evidence points to Wilson than it does to Cheney being the one who first leaked the name to the press while he was trying to peddle his pack of lies about the Nigerian uranium case long since debunked, and Armitage has already come clean. Fact is Wilson and Plame are both proven liars and have 0 credibility.
 
Fact of the matter is is that Cheney had absolutely 0 to do with her being outed,

No......The fact of the matter is that Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury regarding this matter & therefore, since he was Cheney's chief of staff, it is reasonable to assume that Libby's perjury was to protect his boss, D. Cheney. For you to make the above claim is totally baseless & merely your biased opinion.
 
For some one who mentions the "TRUTH" so often, you do not hesitate to keep repeating this lie.

It is an OPINION which can hardly meet the criteria of what constitutes a lie. Obviously you have no concept of what a lie is as it appears to be a state of mind with you.

Please explain to me whose purpose these hyper partisan efforts to impugn the members of the previous administration and CIA operatives, and how re-investigating what has already been investigated, and that which is being currently investigated by an oversight committee in private serve if not the terrorists?

Please explain to me how the continual efforts to erode the perceptions of members of our CIA who are trying to protect US citizens from thugs and despots do not serve the terrorists?

To be quite honest, this entire Liberal Democrat generated partisan debate which serves to only weaken our resolve to deal with these terrorists only serves to encourage the terrorists. So, although it is my OPINION, my opinion is born out by the FACTS are they not?

I will be happy to entertain changing my OPINION if you can express a coherent argument for what all this hand wrenching false one sided hyperbolic rhetoric about "perceived" moralities and false claims of crimes perpetrated will serve to protect us from terrorists in the future.

While you are at it, also explain how this is NOT an ideological political issue between Conservatives and Liberals and how the Liberal hyperbolic rhetoric is not hyper partisan in nature and merely intended to impugn their political enemies in the court of public opinion and will result in nothing more than recriminations and no indictments.

If after NO indictments are served, are you willing to admit you were merely acting in a partisan manner and wrong? I am betting you and the others making these farcical claims of morality will not.
 
Back
Top Bottom