On Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS, host Bob Schieffer seemed to be acting out a scene from Frost/Nixon as he questioned Vice Presdient Dick Cheney about the terrorist surveillance program: "Do you feel you went too far, Mr. Vice President, in your surveillance?...Do you -- do you believe that the president, in time of war, that anything he does is legal?"
Cheney shot back with some historical context: "I can't say that anything he does is legal. I think we do, and we have, a historic precedent of taking action that you wouldn't take in peacetime...If you hark back in our history you can look at Abraham Lincoln, who suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus in the middle of the Civil War...or FDR in World War II...when he provided for internment camps for Japanese-American citizens. Most people now look back and say that was wrong. But what we did was modest by those comparisons."
Later in the interview, Schieffer again questioned the legality of Bush Administration policies: "Let me talk to you a little bit about torture. You have said that you do not believe that waterboarding, for example, was torture...Would you do it again if you had to make those same decisions again? Because a lot of people now say that some of the things that happened here may be the reason that some of our casualties happened...because people saw the publicity of these things, the kinds of things that happened at Abu Ghraib." In fact, it was CBS News that broke the Abu Ghraib story, so by Schieffer’s logic, CBS caused American casualties by showing the pictures.
Schieffer also asked about Guantanamo Bay: "Guantanamo. You've said it should remain open, but for how long, Mr. Vice President?" Cheney replied: "Well, Guantanamo's there to hold people we believe are unlawful combatants that we captured in the war on terror, many of them members of al-Qaeda...Now, if you bring them onshore into the United States, they immediately fall heir to certain legal rights and privileges that'll create problems. And there also, I don't know many congressional districts that are eager to have 200 al-Qaeda terrorists deposited on their soil."
On December 2, Schieffer talked to four liberal authors about the incoming Obama Administration. One author, the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, who wrote "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals," said of the Bush Administration: "They were not constitutional scholars and they enacted policies that – including legalizing torture for all purposes – that really were not constitutional." Apparently Schieffer holds a similar view.
Here is a transcript of the relevant portion of the January 4 interview:
SCHIEFFER: And we're back again with the vice president. Mr. Vice President, in an interview last month with Chris Wallace over at Fox, you said that starting in 2001 the administration -- and in many cases, you personally -- kept congressional leaders fully briefed on the program to monitor America's international phone calls without a warrant. You said that the Republican and Democratic leaders were unanimous, when you briefed them, that the programs were essential and did not require further congressional action. But The New York Times has noted that Senator Rockefeller wrote you a letter in 2003 reiterating concerns that he said he had expressed at those meetings, that the programs raised profound issues and created concern regarding the direction the administration was taking. So were congressional leaders kept fully informed or were they not?
CHENEY: They were kept fully informed.
SCHIEFFER: Well, why would he have written that letter?
CHENEY: I have no idea. I know when -- what happened was the -- everybody who was in the room that day, for example, when I got the leadership down, chairman and ranking member of the Intelligence Committees, including Senator Rockefeller, and asked them if we thought they should continue -- if they thought we should continue the program, they said yes. Do we need to come to Congress to get authorization for it? They said no. And he was there. He never objected or opposed that in any way. Later on, when this became public, when The New York Times broke the story -- which, frankly, I think was an outrageous decision on their part; they were asked by the President of the United States not to on the grounds it would damage national security -- then Senator Rockefeller decided he wanted to hark back to this letter. But the fact was he couldn't even find it. He had to call my office for a copy of the letter that he allegedly had written some years before raising some questions that he had about the program. But I always-
SCHIEFFER: Well, I mean, do you-
CHENEY: I always felt it was a bit if a CYA letter. And in those crucial meetings when we sat down to debate the program and tell them about it, in fact, everybody in the room signed up to it. Nobody objected.
SCHIEFFER: Do you feel you went too far, Mr. Vice President, in your surveillance?
CHENEY: Absolutely not. I think what we did was one of the great success stories of the intelligence business in the last century. I think what the National Security Agency under General Mike Hayden, working with the CIA and at the direction of the president, was masterfully done. I think it provided crucial intelligence for us. It's one of the main reasons we've been successful in defending the country against further attacks, and I don't believe we violated anybody's civil liberties. This was all done in accordance with the president's constitutional authority under Article II of the Constitution as commander in chief, with the resolution that was passed by the Congress immediately after 9/11. And subsequently, we have gotten legislative authority signed up to last year when we passed a modified FISA statute.
SCHIEFFER: Do you -- do you believe that the president, in time of war, that anything he does is legal?
CHENEY: I can't say that anything he does is legal. I think we do, and we have, a historic precedent of taking action that you wouldn't take in peacetime but that you will take sometimes in wartime in order to do the basic job that you sign up to when you take the oath of office, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If you hark back in our history you can look at Abraham Lincoln, who suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus in the middle of the Civil War.
SCHIEFFER: But nobody thinks that that was legal.
CHENEY: Well, no. Well, it was -- certainly was in the sense he wasn't impeached. And it was a wartime measure that he took that I think today history says, yeah, that was probably a good thing to do. There have been other examples. Lyndon -- or FDR in World War II-
SCHIEFFER: Mm-hmm.
CHENEY: -when he provided for internment camps for Japanese-American citizens. Most people now look back and say that was wrong. But what we did was modest by those comparisons. And I would also emphasize that what we did, we did with the support and involvement, for example, of the Justice Department. Every single time the president reauthorized the terrorist surveillance program, which he did every 30 or 45 days, it was only after the secretary-
SCHIEFFER: Would have -- is it not true that the courts and others have now said that some of those orders that the Justice Department was putting out proved to be-
CHENEY: That was -- that was the -- those were the rules-
SCHIEFFER: -not correct?
CHENEY: -that we had to operate by. And the Attorney General of the United States signed off on every single one of those exceptions. The president would not extend the program without the attorney general's authorization and approval on there. In terms of all of our actions, we worked to stay close to the Office of Legal Counsel. We followed the guidance we got, which is what you're suppose to do and where you're suppose to do it.
SCHIEFFER: The-
CHENEY: There've subsequently been some controversies that -- the Supreme Court's s made some decisions that didn't agree with what we did at the time, but what we did was authorized by legal authorities that were to be the source of that kind of advice.
SCHIEFFER: Let me talk to you a little bit about torture. You have said that you do not believe that waterboarding, for example, was torture.
CHENEY: Right.
SCHIEFFER: You and members of the Cabinet sat in the White House and approved the methods of interrogation that were used by the CIA. Why would something like that reach your level, Mr. Vice President?
CHENEY: Well, because the CIA did not want to proceed without having a very clear understanding of what was authorized and what was appropriate. And they'd seen situations, I'd seen situations before, where the CIA would get out and undertake an assignment or a mission and then find that the politicians would all run for the hills, like Iran-Contra. In fact, what we had here was a situation in where the CIA was being very careful and very cautious. They had prisoners like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was the mastermind of 9/11, in custody.
SCHIEFFER: Mm-hmm.
CHENEY: They wanted to know what kind of techniques they could use going forward and still maintain consistency with the statutes and the international agreements that we're party to.
SCHIEFFER: Would you do it again if you had to make those same decisions again? Because a lot of people now say that some of the things that happened here may be the reason that some of our casualties happened-
CHENEY: Yeah.
SCHIEFFER: -because people saw the publicity of these things, the kinds of things that happened at Abu Ghraib.
CHENEY: I would absolutely do it again, Bob. I think the loss of life if there had been further mass casualty attacks against the United States over the last seven and a half years fully justifies it. Think of what would happen if there had been an attack and we hadn't taken any of these measures? Then you'd be sitting here today, you know, grilling me, saying, `Why didn't you guys do everything you could to stop it? Why didn't you find out what the enemy was planning to do? Why didn't you interfere with the attacks?'
SCHIEFFER: So you would suggest that Barack Obama continue those things?
CHENEY: I would. If he were to seek my advice -- he hasn't -- but if he were to seek my advice, I'd say, look, before you go out and start to make policy based on the campaign rhetoric we heard last year, what you need to do is to sit down and find out what we've done, find out how we did it, what the justification was for it, what kind of results it's produced, and then make a informed judgment about whether or not you want to keep these things. But I would hope he would avoid doing what others have done in the past, which is letting the campaign rhetoric guide his judgment in this absolutely crucial area. We were very careful, we did everything by the book and, in fact, we produced very significant results. And I would hope that, for the sake of the nation, that this administration and future administrations will continue those policies.
SCHIEFFER: Guantanamo. You've said it should remain open, but for how long, Mr. Vice President?
CHENEY: Well, Guantanamo's there to hold people we believe are unlawful combatants that we captured in the war on terror, many of them members of al-Qaeda. They're well treated. Their cases are reviewed annually by military commissions to see whether or not they should stay or go. We've released more than we've held. There've been hundreds who have been sent back to their home country. But the problem you've got is what do you do with the prisoners that are there? Now, if you bring them onshore into the United States, they immediately fall heir to certain legal rights and privileges that'll create problems. And there also, I don't know many congressional districts that are eager to have 200 al-Qaeda terrorists deposited on their soil.
SCHIEFFER: About 30 seconds left.
CHENEY: Yeah.
SCHIEFFER: What's next, Mr. Vice President? You're leaving government for what, about the fifth time-
CHENEY: Something like that.
SCHIEFFER: -in the last 40 years?
CHENEY: Yeah.
SCHIEFFER: Will you -- what now?
CHENEY: Well, I don't know yet. I'm looking forward to spending time with the family, obviously. We've got six grandchildren now, and I always enjoy that. We'll split our time between Washington and Wyoming. Maybe I'll write a book. I haven't made any final, firm commitments yet.
SCHIEFFER: Alright. Thank you so much, and I hope we'll have you back again.
CHENEY: I'd like to come back, Bob.
SCHIEFFER: Thank you, Mr. Vice President.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Cheney & Bob
January 5, 2009 - 14:53 ET by east tennessee johnWell, since 9-10-2001 the MSM has made it a point if not a crusade to deny we were in a battle against the jihadists. That made their criticisms of the Bush Administration "valid". As you see now, not many countries want the remaining Gitmo detainees, as bad a place as it was, when Bush was in power. No suits settled in favor of people who'e rights were "violated" by the wiretap program. Well we have Himself and the NYT to defend us now. Wonder how many secrets will be published in the next 4 years.
Funny thing...
January 5, 2009 - 20:51 ET by unkeeafThe Republicans the Left fears the most are the ones that they go to the greatest extremes to vilify. Cheney, Rove, Gingrich, etc. They simply have no shame or ethics. The fact that a majority of Americans now support liberal swine on a national level makes me very concerned for our country's future.
Like my grandmother told me: Scum is as scum does.
MSM = PR firm for the Democrat Party
A Wyoming Homeboy
January 5, 2009 - 14:52 ET by Bassnote_1Vice President Cheney is an amazing man. I loved him as our Congressman, and the job he did as our Secretary of Defense. I would love to see him serve as our Commander in Chief. His "mission first" attitude would set the world on its ear and give all the libs apoplexy.
Rock on, Mr. Vice President - you've done Wyoming proud!
That which does not kill me had best render me incapable of returning fire.
Thank You Vice President
January 5, 2009 - 16:25 ET by Scuba DudeThank You Vice President Cheney.
Bassnote, the only thing I hold against him as SecDef is that he cancelled the SR-71 and ordered all tooling for the plane to be destroyed. I think that plane can still perform recon that a satellite can't.
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong. : )
Confidence oozes.
January 5, 2009 - 14:55 ET by danhatCheney always sounds confident. His responses are always pointed and crip.
www.reasonandsanity.com
...thought matters
++++++++++++++++
Normally I don't root for the disease. But in your case I am willing to make and exception.
But, because it makes sense,
January 5, 2009 - 15:12 ET by mattmBut, because it makes sense, it's over the heads of the typical cBS viewer (and host), and is definitely outside the realm of understandability of the Oprah-Obama crowd.
Dick Cheney Rules!! All
January 5, 2009 - 15:00 ET by rimskyDick Cheney Rules!! All the best to you Mr. Vice President! Enjoy the fly fishing out there in Wyoming. Thank You for all you've done.
God Bless Ya, VP Cheney! I
January 5, 2009 - 15:03 ET by thebutlerdiditGod Bless Ya, VP Cheney! I will miss you, and I appreciate the fact you are not a weinie lib who worries about how murderers are feewing. Am I the only one who fantasizes about water-boarding a few people who seem to have forgotten what terrorists do to our people?? They don't know torture, if they saw real torture they'd all fall out dead with a heart-attack.
This is why........
January 5, 2009 - 15:15 ET by connman......the honorable Dick Cheney is undoubtedly our finest VP to have ever served his country. He has never wavered, never flip flopped always direct never evasive. I watched that interview yesterday morning and then switched to Harry Reid on MTP. NB should run these interviews side by side so the world can see the difference in a man who holds himself fully accountable to one who does not.
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit."
-Aristotle
Libs and their torture fantasies
January 5, 2009 - 16:35 ET by needle"if they saw real torture they'd all fall out dead with a heart-attack."
I am not so sure. I suspect that quite a number of Libs have tortured fantasies that know no bounds when it comes to Cheney, Rove, Bush, etc.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
I'm going to miss Dick Cheney
January 5, 2009 - 15:12 ET by BlondeAnd his lovely wife Lynn, too.
Remember her takedown of Wolf Blitzer?
I truly wish VP Cheney's health had permitted him to run for the White House, but perhaps after a bit of fly-fishing and book-writing, he'll become bored and decide to step in and lead the conservatives (and better yet, the RNC) out of the darkness of Obamaworld.
Not going to miss him
January 5, 2009 - 15:34 ET by Smoking HotSome Americans want this man prosecuted for war crimes. I'd be happy if some of our elected representatives would take it upon themselves to undo his legacy of unwarranted surveillance and simulated drowning. I'm not optimistic. Cheney definitely got the buy-in he needed to do his business without fear of reprisal. As he has said before, and as the evidence bears out, the Democratic leadership was in on it. That's the fact of the matter no matter how different, how pure fanatical Democrats claim their party is.
Cheney does make an interesting point here with regard to the difference between legal and permissible. Is this a new standard of presidential behavior? Regardless of what you do, if you aren't impeached, no matter how illegal your actions are, they're acceptable. I think that statement would get the Nixonian seal of approval.
Smoking hot sounds like
January 5, 2009 - 15:39 ET by bassndudeSmoking hot sounds like they have something to hide. If it is permissible, it is, by defination, legal. Mostly the ones that want him prosecuted are living in SF Ca. I dont know anyone with any common sense that sayes they want him prosecuted for war crimes. Besides, the VP dont set policy, dude/dudet.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Some Americans want this
January 5, 2009 - 15:48 ET by BDSome Americans want this man prosecuted for war crimes.
I'd be happy if some of our elected representatives would take it upon themselves to undo his legacy of unwarranted surveillance and simulated drowning.
Cheney definitely got the buy-in he needed to do his business without fear of reprisal.
if you aren't impeached, no matter how illegal your actions are
Still not going to miss him
January 5, 2009 - 16:35 ET by Smoking HotYour point is that some people like these are idiots I presume?
They do have opinions different than yours on the legality of certain interrogation tactics, I presume.
How do you presume to collect intelligence in time of war?
Without resorting to illegal activities. Simulated drowning, waterboarding, is illegal. My opinion. I'm not a lawyer, nor an interrogator, but it's not a hard case to make.
Repriasal? From whom? KSM?
Reprisal from Constitution-loving, treaty-abiding members of the legislative branch.
What is your appreciation of the Geneva Conventions policy towards justifiable repriasal?
Is this even relevant? When did AQ defy the Fourth Amendment? When did AQ engage in illegal interrogation techniques against members of our civilian population or armed forces?
What is your appreciation for Matthew 5:43-48?
Please proivde a rationale for your supposed assertion that illegal activities occurred.
That wasn't my point. Cheney in the interview provides cover for illegal presidental behavior by pointing out the president, Lincoln, FDR, Bush43, and whomever else he may have been thinking of, was never impeached. I'm asking if that's good enough. Can we comfortably shift from telling our president to not break the law to telling our president to not get impeached for breaking the law? Clearly Cheney doesn't think anything the Bush administration did was illegal, or at least he's too clever to incriminate himself in the context of a national interview... which makes me wonder... what if he did? What if he had said, "Yes, the fourth ammendment was getting in the way of good intel. We had to ignore it. Same with the Geneva Convention outlawing torture. We did it, we were proud to do it. Furthermore, here's a list of prominent Democrat leaders who signed off on all of it." It sounds a little like a missing scene from A Few Good Men.
Breaking News
January 5, 2009 - 17:01 ET by choselife3xSmoking Fart stunned onlookers today with one of the most shocking displays of consummate stupidity ever witnessed outside of a journalist's cubicle.
In a humiliating revelation of his utter lack of any rational thought whatsoever, he claimed that our country should forgive and turn the other cheek while Islamic fascists kill innocent people at their own sweet will.
Stupendously Idiotic Person of the Week quote.
"When did AQ engage in illegal interrogation techniques against us?" --Smoking Fart
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
I could quote other scripture
January 5, 2009 - 17:13 ET by Smoking HotMaybe you would rather we follow the advice in sura 2:191? Which would you rather we model our behavior on?
Smoking Fart
January 5, 2009 - 17:24 ET by choselife3xRev. 19:11-16
YAHWEH is a warrior.
If a man burst into your house and proceeded to hack your children to pieces would you turn your cheek?
Your argument is ludicrous.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
3x...,I think Smoking Pot is
January 5, 2009 - 19:44 ET by the struggler3x...,I think Smoking Pot is that newsgirl on MSNBC,Davy Schuster.She's trolling over here at NB.
Ahhhhh....good catch. In
January 5, 2009 - 20:06 ET by choselife3xAhhhhh....good catch.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Smoking hot said
January 5, 2009 - 17:08 ET by bassndudeWhat is your appreciation of the Geneva Conventions policy towards justifiable repriasal?
Is this even relevant? When did AQ defy the Fourth Amendment? When did AQ engage in illegal interrogation techniques against members of our civilian population or armed forces?
What are you smoking??? Cutting off heads and stripping off a persons cloths and taking their personal belongings is not a violation of the 4th amendment?????? That is legal interrogation techinques? Where were their warrants? Who issued them? Were you just born yesterday?? Your argument is flawed from the beginning.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Americans. Americans. Americans.
January 5, 2009 - 17:25 ET by Smoking HotAQ is an outlaw, unAmerican organization. As such I would not expect them to follow our laws. I would expect our government and elected representatives to adhere to our laws.
I'm not concerned with AQ except to point out for justified reprisal you should probably have some kind of initial transgression you are reacting to in a similar fashion. You bomb London indiscrimiately, we bomb Dresden indiscrimiately. Again, murky here on the legalities of it, but see if you can follow along: They flew planes into our buildings and in response we give the NSA access to who knows how much raw domestic communcation, most of it having nothing whatsoever to do with AQ anything. They flew planes into our buildings, so we fire up the waterboard in violation of domestic law and international treaty. No, I don't see how justified reprisal fits here. BD brought it up. Ask him what he meant by that.
Smoking (something) Hot, are you 12 years old?
January 5, 2009 - 17:37 ET by R D HelmThey flew planes into our buildings and in response we give the NSA access to who knows how much raw domestic communcation.
No, they were given access to international communications between people who were in communications with those with possible connections to Islamic terrorists. You know, the kind who might just be planning an attack on this country of some kind. This was not, in any way, "domestic spying."
Bill and Al were the ones who wanted the government to record every single electronic communication in this country, not George Bush and Dick Cheney.
In case you haven't noticed, the GWOT is an international conflict, one that has been raging for 1400 years. The camel-washers flying planes into our buildings was but a miniscule part of that overall conflict.
A conflict, btw, that despite our successes in Iraq and Afghanistan, is going rather badly for the civilized world overall.
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -Because enough is enough.
Where Smoking Fart got his name
January 5, 2009 - 17:45 ET by choselife3xhttp://newsbusters.o...
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Childlike trust in our government
January 5, 2009 - 18:01 ET by Smoking HotIs not one of my qualities. Google AT&T NSA and read up. Wired has been pretty on top of this.
Or perhaps they THINK they
January 5, 2009 - 18:04 ET by BDOr perhaps they THINK they are really up on this.
Smoking (something) Hot,
January 5, 2009 - 18:19 ET by R D HelmI am a dues-paying, card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party, and have been for many years. I trust government about as far as I could throw it.
However, I also understand that the conflict we now find ourselves in (thank you, Jimmy Carter) could turn an a dime in the space of about two seconds.
All it would take for that to happen is for those who wish to do us harm to sneak a nuclear device into this country and detonate it.
In an environment such as that, I am willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt in that their surveillance activities are limited to international communications between potential terrorists.
I do not give a flying fornication if one of the parties involved in said communication is warming a bench in the town square of East Bumblejerk, Iowa.
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -Because enough is enough.
But childlike arguments
January 5, 2009 - 18:32 ET by ckc1227But childlike arguments are your specialty.
There are probably a billion phone calls made in this country....per day. Think about that for awhile.
"Libs never let you down. You don't have to talk to one very long before the stupid comes out."
AQ is an outlaw, unAmerican
January 5, 2009 - 17:54 ET by BDAQ is an outlaw, unAmerican organization.
As such I would not expect them to follow our laws.
I would expect our government and elected representatives to adhere to our laws.
I'm not concerned with AQ except to point out for justified reprisal you should probably have some kind of initial transgression
They flew planes into our buildings and in response we give the NSA access to who knows how much raw domestic communcation, most of it having nothing whatsoever to do with AQ anything.
They flew planes into our buildings, so we fire up the waterboard in violation of domestic law and international treaty.
I know what BD meant. And I
January 5, 2009 - 17:56 ET by bassndudeI know what BD meant. And I am still looking for the part where waterboarding is considered torture. And just which international treaty calls waterboarding the violation you say it is. And if flying a few planes into a building and killing 3000 american citizens is trivial to you, it is not to me. I will use any means I have avilable to obtain information to save American lives. ANY MEANS.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
"They flew planes into our
January 5, 2009 - 18:22 ET by ckc1227"They flew planes into our buildings, so we fire up the waterboard in violation of domestic law and international treaty."
Ahh yes, they kill 3,000 civilians, we waterboard 3. Oh, the horror. What were we thinking?
"Libs never let you down. You don't have to talk to one very long before the stupid comes out."
Without resorting to
January 5, 2009 - 17:22 ET by BDWithout resorting to illegal activities. Simulated drowning, waterboarding, is illegal. My opinion. I'm not a lawyer, nor an interrogator, but it's not a hard case to make.
Reprisal from Constitution-loving, treaty-abiding members of the legislative branch.
Is this even relevant? When did AQ defy the Fourth Amendment? When did AQ engage in illegal interrogation techniques against members of our civilian population or armed forces?
What is your appreciation for Matthew 5:43-48?
Focus, focus...
January 5, 2009 - 17:50 ET by Smoking HotI'm not following you. I have no interest in exhaustively deliniating what is and isn't illegal in the context of war. People go to West Point for that kind of thing. Waterboarding, simulated drowning, is illegal. One issue, not too difficult to comprehend. That's what was mentioned by Bob S. in the interview. Challenge me about the rest of whatever you're talking about when I claim to have an informed opinion on them. Waterboarding troops in training may be physically the same act, but these guys are volunteers, and it is a simulated exercise. Doubly simulated drowing. All actors know it. Not the same, not even comparable past the physical set up.
Constitutional - 4th amendment. Uncontitutional - unwarranted surveillance of domestic communication. It happened. Crazy stuff. Illegal too.
Illegal interogations? How about summary executions of both civilians and military personnel who captured them.
Focus, focus.
We have no idea whether the troops captured by AQ have been tortured or
not (unless you count beheading as torture - which I guess I sorta do),
just that when we found their bodies they have been grossly disfigured.
So we ought to start torturing just in case? Better safe than sorry? I don't like that argument.
People go to West Point for
January 5, 2009 - 18:01 ET by BDPeople go to West Point for that kind of thing.
Waterboarding, simulated drowning, is illegal.
Challenge me about the rest of whatever you're talking about when I claim to have an informed opinion on them.
Constitutional - 4th amendment. Uncontitutional - unwarranted surveillance of domestic communication. It happened. Crazy stuff. Illegal too.
Illegal interogations? How about summary executions of both civilians and military personnel who captured them.
Focus, focus.
We have no idea whether the troops captured by AQ have been tortured ornot (unless you count beheading as torture - which I guess I sorta do),just that when we found their bodies they have been grossly disfigured.
So we ought to start torturing just in case? Better safe than sorry? I don't like that argument.
Please cite...
January 5, 2009 - 18:17 ET by Smoking HotPlease refer to justifiable repriasal argument.
Please cite relevant competant legal authority who used the "justifiable repriasal" argument to justify waterboarding in the current WOT. Extra points for not mentioning John Yoo or Alberto Gonzales.
Here's a competant legal authority to support my position.
They torture, so we torture. Am I summing up your argument concisely?
Do you KNOW what was surveilled? How do you know it?
Good grief, man, read the link. The DOJ sent the defense attorney proof of illegal spying. Then they tried to put the cat back in the bag. Real Mayberry stuff here. Funny and illegal.
Please cite relevant
January 5, 2009 - 18:35 ET by BDPlease cite relevant competant legal authority who used the "justifiable repriasal" argument to justify waterboarding in the current WOT. Extra points for not mentioning John Yoo or Alberto Gonzales.
They torture, so we torture. Am I summing up your argument concisely?
Good grief, man, read the link. The DOJ sent the defense attorney proof of illegal spying.
Then they tried to put the cat back in the bag.
I also don't trust everyone on the internet
January 5, 2009 - 18:46 ET by Smoking HotAre you published somewhere in print, BD? Can you cite anyone who is that can formulate an argument similar to yours? I gave you a link, and I think it's only fair to request the same of you.
Published?
January 6, 2009 - 12:06 ET by BDWhy yes I am, but not on this subject.
Can someone formulate an article similar to what I have said, most certainly. Anyone who attended the Command and General Staff officers Course (CGSC) and still has the books can actually even read the portion of the Military Law block of instruction that deals with the Law of Land Warfare.
I recall this block of instruction very well because while it said the Conventions authorized invidual combatants to employ legitimate repriasals if their enemy is not adhering to the Law of Land warfare.
It further stated that DOD policy was the the authority to employ Legitimate repriasals was the reserved to the president in his role as Commander in Chief.
In other words, as a combatant commander the Geneva Conventions would be fine with the CENTCOM Commander to suthorize a legitimate repriasal but the US policy is that he would have to actually seek approval from the President.
Regarding your very nice link. As most people who spend much time on this page can tell you, I do not chase links. I TRY to not post them either as a policy. What you get from me is MY thought - not a series of pages of other peoples thoughts. That way the debate is unencombered.
On chasing links
January 6, 2009 - 13:56 ET by Smoking HotI include links in my posts to support what I'm writing lest someone attempt to accuse me of imagining things. You asked for proof, and I give you a link, and then you tell me you're not going to read it. So be it. This is the internet and there is a lot of crap out there. I'm sure you're avoiding much of it with that policy. But with regard to debate, I'm not satisfied with two people spouting their own unsupported opinions. I've Googled around looking for someone else who could lay out an argument similar to yours and found nothing of note. That puts it in one of two categories: underpublicised truth or fringe theory. And that's where this ends I suppose.
It will never end, Smoking Fart
January 6, 2009 - 16:14 ET by choselife3xBecause you are a fool. A fool who insists we should fight by Marquis of Queensbury rules against an enemy who burns villages, rapes women, and straps explosives to children. We should politely ask them questions while they brutalise, mutilate and behead whomsoever they please. You are a chuckleheaded buffoon who deserves to fall into their hands.
Go look at what your friends did in India last month. They tortured the people in that hotel. And for what, to extract information? Those people were TOURISTS. Which means those sweet, peaceful Muslims had no reason whatsoever to do that. Unless it was for the sheer pleasure of inflicting pain. Which makes them sadists.
But hey, by all means, let US follow the rules of civilised warfare while THEY firebomb civilians. That makes so much sense. It is positively humane to allow them to mass murder indiscriminately while our hands are firmly bound by red tape. Yeah, right thing to do.
Go get the leash and take your mom for a walk. Leave the discussion to the grownups.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
You asked for proof, and I
January 6, 2009 - 17:13 ET by BDYou asked for proof, and I give you a link,
But with regard to debate, I'm not satisfied with two people spouting their own unsupported opinions.
RE:Good grief, man, read the link.
January 5, 2009 - 23:58 ET by SnocrashI actually read the link, and what I gather from it, the Intercept Program worked as it is supposed to. The lawyer "wronged" in this story received/made phone calls from/to "Saudi-based director for the charity (Al-Haramain) named Soliman al-Buthi." The article goes on to mention that the above mentioned charity was on a U.S. Treasury terror watchlist. The article is unclear as to the point of origin of the calls. In order to conclude that the call was monitored illegally, you would have to assume that the guys suing for $1,000,000 USD each were the point of origin. I can think of a million reasons why they would want to lie about that, can't you?
When in doubt, follow the money.
What is your appreciation
January 5, 2009 - 17:43 ET by Dan The Man 2What is your appreciation for Matthew 5:43-48?
And what is yours for Numbers 31
7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. [a]
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Seems there is a justification for war after all.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
That's the old testament,
January 5, 2009 - 17:53 ET by Smoking Hotand I'm not Jewish.
That's it, I have to do it
January 5, 2009 - 18:37 ET by choselife3xSmoking Fart hunched over the keyboard, typing furiously. Glancing at the clock, he decided he had time for one more asinine observation before his mother got home from her walk.
He was supposed to be at the grocery store, but after spending half the day unclogging her toilet he felt he deserved a little time at Newsbusters.
Unbeknownst to Smoking Fart, his mother had arrived home early. Sensing a presence in her supposedly empty house, she crept silently to her bedroom door. She burst into the room, barking loudly.
Smoking Fart jumped up and screamed like a girl. Unfortunately, he also lost bladder control, effectively ruining his best pair of expensive orthopedic shoes. He burst into tears and fled sobbing.
"I'm going to go join Al Qaeda, that'll show you!" he wailed.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
I'm sorry you had to do it too
January 5, 2009 - 18:49 ET by Smoking HotAre you done embarassing yourself today?
Good evening Smoking Hot
January 5, 2009 - 19:02 ET by cocodrieSlow down, I'm concerned for your safety. All that twisting and spinning must have nade you very dizzy. If you pass out you could hit your face on your keyboard and put your eye out. Slow down.
Smoking Fart
January 5, 2009 - 19:22 ET by choselife3xLit the crack pipe and sighed. What his mother didn't know wouldn't hurt her. "Screw her vet bill" he thought.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
and I'm not Jewish And
January 5, 2009 - 19:11 ET by Dan The Man 2and I'm not Jewish
And apparently not Christian either or even remotely understand scripture you are trying to quote. But I guess you stayed at a Holiday Jihad Express last night? Hasta La Vista Baby.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
What is your appreciation
January 5, 2009 - 19:05 ET by Dan The Man 2This is what happens when you double post.
"When did AQ engage in
January 5, 2009 - 18:05 ET by ckc1227"When did AQ engage in illegal interrogation techniques against members of our civilian population or armed forces?"
You're kidding, right? I bet they wish they had been waterboarded instead. Sad thing is, you aren't kidding. And right on cue, my sig speaks truth to power once again, lol.
"Libs never let you down. You don't have to talk to one very long before the stupid comes out."
You're right, Smoking (something) Hot. We shouldn't be spying.
January 5, 2009 - 16:40 ET by R D HelmAfter all, us using our vastly superior intelligenge-gathering capabilities to keep tabs on bunch of 7th Century, bass-ackward illiterates who want to kill every man, woman and child in this country just isn't faaaaaaaaaair, is it?
Tell ya what, why don't we just stop any and all electronic surveillance of our potential enemies right now, and just bury our heads in the sand and wait.
That way, when the next attack occurs, you and your friends can all sit around, fire up another fatty, and start bitching and whining ad nauseam about just exactly why it is that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney failed to see the attack coming, and were thus unable to protect us from it.
BTW-A big reason you aren't posting here at NB in either German or Japanese is due in large part to the fact that this country engaged in vast radio and electronic surveillance of our enemies in WW II.
For one of several hundred examples, the Japanese move against Midway Island was thwarted mostly due to the fact that we intercepted and decoded their radio transmissions.
Yeah, that's right. We actually spied on them.
Had anyone then suggested such activities required a warrant, they would have been laughed at, and there is a good chance such an idiot would have been arrested and tried as a subversive in the employ of our enemies.
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -Because enough is enough.
Don't have the time to reply in full
January 5, 2009 - 16:42 ET by Smoking HotBut you're not really replying to me, more like a caricature of me, so that's ok.
No time to respond? Must be time to wash Osama's camels.
January 5, 2009 - 17:25 ET by R D HelmAnd I was responding to you directly, unless you are in the midst of an out-of-body experience of some kind.
After all, it was you who popped a post in here suggesting that actually spying on those who wish to do us harm should be illegal, not me.
If people like you have your way and it ever does become illegal for those charged with protecting us in a time of war from eves dropping on our enemies, we might as well go ahead and surrender now and get it over with.
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -Because enough is enough.
Do I smell another Carter Reference here....directed at SH
January 5, 2009 - 18:34 ET by UtherpendWe tried playing by Carters rules in the 70's SH, and look where that got us. Iran lost to Islamist Terrorists, Afghanistan invaded by the soviets, and all because Carter pulled all our intelligence people out of the foriegn countries to be "FAIR". Sorry buddy but that type of thinking in a time of crisis or war will insure a countries defeat. Look at the mess Washington and our military has had to deal with over the years after Carter.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you."
I sincerely hope you are not
January 5, 2009 - 16:26 ET by thebutlerdiditI sincerely hope you are not a man, SH. You come across as a weinie. As for water-boarding, do some history, it is nothing compared to what is considered real torture around the world. Do you realize that our soldiers go through this very thing? And it is by far not the worst thing they experience. When they did Khalid SM, they were able to get 90% of the info they had regarding AQ for about a 3 yr period. I hope if the country gets attacked again, people like you can explain why it isn't a good idea to interrogate terorrists.
<<Checks pants...>>
January 5, 2009 - 16:43 ET by Smoking HotYep, still a man. I'll do the reading if you provide the links, but that goes both ways. You can start here.
"Yep, still a man." Now,
January 5, 2009 - 17:11 ET by bassndude"Yep, still a man." Now, I bet that term, "man" is one you use very loosely, uh?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Uh, how old are you that you think that's funny...
January 5, 2009 - 17:30 ET by Smoking Hotrather than insipid?
You may have a penis, but I
January 5, 2009 - 19:36 ET by thebutlerdiditYou may have a penis, but I am positive you are a pu$$y.
my apologies to all here who
January 5, 2009 - 19:44 ET by thebutlerdiditmy apologies to all here who I know I don't usually act like this, but this is a bad subject for me, and I hate these whiny terrorist sympathizers.
Bob Schieffer: Useful Idiot to America's Enemies
January 5, 2009 - 15:27 ET by R D Helm"Do you feel you went too far, Mr. Vice President, in your surveillance?...
Right, Bob. I'm pretty sure had we suffered a post 9/11 attack of some kind, you would have been among the first to plop yourself down in front of the nearest TV camera and immediately start asking if more could have been done to have prevented it.
I can't help but notice also, Bob, that you and your fellow corrupt MSM compadres had absolutely nothing whatsoever to say when Bill Clinton and his sidekick Al Gore were planning to use government surveillance mechanisms to record just about every electronically-generated communication that originated anywhere in this country.
Where was all your bellyaching and hand-wringing over the legality of that?
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -Because enough is enough.
"Do you feel you went too far, Mr. Vice President, in your....
January 5, 2009 - 15:37 ET by Prester John....surveillance?"
ANSWER: No further than than the surveillance of Martin Luther King by Robert F. Kennedy, Bob.
I love it
January 5, 2009 - 15:55 ET by choselife3xNot a single 'you know'.
God Bless You, Mr. Cheney
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
CL3X--you know--
January 5, 2009 - 16:15 ET by misterbillYou know, a lot of uh fans, er viewers, um I mean watchers of um the uh show, you know, would um, not even er, have, you know, noticed!!!
I am not a Bush fan, but I have said this before and I repeat--everything he did, dealing with Iraq has worked to our safety. If it was not for a whining MSM and support from bleeding heart liberals, Prez Bush could have achieved what the surge achieved a hell of a lot sooner. I am also such a freakin conspiracy nut that I believe the weapons of mass destruction were of a chemical nature and reside in another mideast nation at this time.
I would not trust, on a personal basis, Dick Cheney, as far as I can throw him, but I am convinced that he too, made all his War on Terror decisions based on the safety of the USA.
I appreciate the ability to have been able to go to sleep at night feeling as safe as possible.
Amen to all that, misterbill
January 5, 2009 - 16:43 ET by choselife3xOnly vacillators who don't intend to stand 100% by what they say use the phrase, 'you know'.
You could call it my 'BS litmus test'.
I appreciate that Cheney only says what he means and he doesn't compromise his position to be popular with treasonous morons like Schieffer.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
choselife3x
January 5, 2009 - 16:56 ET by misterbillI may surprise you with this-- I am now pro abortion. All victims must be over 25 years of age and be pro-abortion. Special rights will be granted those who have been actively involved in an abortion. They have the right to be first on the list.They are responsible for my change of heart. They confused me on what the definition of murder is.
Oh yes, and serial killers should never be given a death sentence. Rehab is the way to go.......
but---YOU KNOW--that's just one old man's opinion.
We probably shouldn't
January 5, 2009 - 17:09 ET by choselife3xGo there, as this is my hot button issue.
If I ever meet someone who performs abortions, (and I know it) I don't know if I'll be able to control the urge to abort said person's breathing ability. Seriously.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Amen, girlfriend. I know I
January 5, 2009 - 19:54 ET by thebutlerdiditAmen, girlfriend. I know I have said it ad naseum, but if you have seen one performed, in person, and it doesn't make a life-changing impression on you, then I don't want to know you.
TBDI
January 5, 2009 - 20:29 ET by choselife3xAnyone who would murder an unborn baby does not deserve to breathe good air.
Special circle of hell just waiting.
My only comfort is knowing those innocent souls go straight to God.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
I agree. I have said before,
January 5, 2009 - 20:39 ET by thebutlerdiditI agree. I have said before, I wasn't pro, neccessarily when I was young, but I went with a neighbor who had decided to have one to support her, because she had no one else. She and I both had a MAJOR epiphany at that time. I was more despondent than she was, I think, and that's been 22 years. I get sick just thinking about it.
Cl3x
January 6, 2009 - 10:57 ET by sherylsimsI still can't get over that you are able to do this on a Blackberry...
DON'T make me repeat repeat myself myself!
BFF
January 6, 2009 - 11:09 ET by choselife3xYou'll notice most of my posts are short. My thumbs get tired.
Wait till I get a computer, gonna be some troll THUMPIN goin on.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
I know what you mean. I
January 6, 2009 - 12:09 ET by BDI know what you mean. I read this page while sitting in conference rooms prior and after meetings. I have sore thumbs quite often. it is nice on the weekend that I can dispnse with the BB.
BD
January 6, 2009 - 12:37 ET by choselife3xI saw Smoking Fart was logged on earlier, but seemed disinclined to say anything this time. I think he's still nursing that sucking chest wound you inflicted on him. :-o
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Probably needs a little
January 6, 2009 - 12:45 ET by sherylsimsProbably needs a little ointment on that gaping hole of a chest wound. That should make it all better.
Sheryl
January 6, 2009 - 13:30 ET by choselife3xBFF! What happened to your sweet tagline?
(personally, I liked my suggestion best.
Go ahead, take my gun. I kill liberals with my thumbs, anyway.)
Oh yeah, Sheryl is a bad@ss!
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
BFF
January 6, 2009 - 13:41 ET by sherylsimsI noticed that it was no longer linking to the amazing display of computer dexterity that I exhibited, so in trying to fix it I think I sprained my computer (or maybe just my brain) and finally gave up and now it is being punished by being forced to reside in my mouse until I figure out what to do with it.
WWSD (what would Sarah do?)
ROFL!
January 6, 2009 - 14:02 ET by choselife3xWWSD! Free will be SO jealous of that one!
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Funny that that is the
January 6, 2009 - 10:52 ET by red_dragon311Funny that that is the same reason some douche bag lib vegans give for not eatung a hamburger, IE the Skinny Bitch Cookbook, "...evr see what goes on in a slaughterouse, you'd stop eating meat too"
FINALY A REAL CANDIATE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!
http://zod2008.com/index.htm
misterbill
January 5, 2009 - 21:50 ET by NorthCoasterI guess that's what would be called a late term abortion.
25 years late, at a minimum!
I think you slid that one under the radar.
Would rehab for serial killers be comprised of multiple near death experiences?
Bob Schieffer asserts:
January 5, 2009 - 16:17 ET by TEBob Schieffer asserts: "Because a lot of people now say that some of the things that happened here may be the reason that some of our casualties happened...because people saw the publicity of these things, the kinds of things that happened at Abu Ghraib."
"[A] lot of people now say ..."? Translation for "a lot of people": a handful of militant leftists like Bob Schieffer and the rest of the Washington press corps.
Schieffer is delusional if he believes that Muslims need...
January 5, 2009 - 17:14 ET by ThalpySchieffer is delusional if he believes that Muslims need motivation to continue their unending jihad. Muslims have been beheading unbelievers for centuries. If it takes waterboarding to get them to talk, so be it. Is Bob Schieffer necessary?
The true Jihadist will
January 5, 2009 - 18:46 ET by UtherpendThe true Jihadist will invent a situation or an enemy to furter their own agenda, hasn't that become apparent over the last 20 years?? If it isn't the Israelies it is the Jews, then America, then Europe, and in the end anyone who is not one of their "kind".
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you."
Cheney/Bolton
January 5, 2009 - 22:27 ET by bigtimerCheney/Bolton 2012
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
CBS = see BS
January 6, 2009 - 01:36 ET by ScandimanHey Schieffer, is anything you do journalism?