Cheney sticks it out until the bitter end. Is he a truly immoral individual?

[bascule]

Why admit you're wrong? Cheney continues to defend the use of torture against enemy combatants. It got us all sorts of useful infoz, or something!

 

And guess what, he receives round criticism in the liberal media and blogs:

 

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/08/27/cheneys-torture-memos-do-not-back-his-claim/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog

http://www.examiner.com/x-15931-Chicago-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m8d27-Cheney-To-Obama-You-Dont-Know-Dick-About-National-Security

http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m8d26-Video--Dick-Cheney-continues-to-propagate-lie-that-torture-techniques-helped-keep-us-safe

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/26/cheneys_jihad

http://blog.beliefnet.com/apagansblog/2009/08/lest-we-forget-torture-cheney-murder-and-depravity.html

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/08/americas_core_moral_baseline.php

http://www.dailynews.lk/2009/08/27/fea03.asp

http://www.newser.com/off-the-grid/post/258/torture-rules-how-much-pain-and-suffering-works-for-you.html

 

(Oh noez, da blogz! They are full of tards and angries!)

 

The common question they ask, which I think is one which has been lingering in the back of the liberal conscience for awhile is whether Cheney has some sort of moral deficiency. Is what Cheney is doing immoral? Is continuing to advocate torture immoral? I think so. How about you?

[iNow]

It's about much more than immorality. It's about a blatant disregard for our laws. We have laws for a reason, and we elect people to enforce them and make them better, not circumvent them.

[SH3RL0CK]

My thoughts on this matter are along the lines of a recent op-ed:

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/30/is_bush_lurking_in_obamaland_98092.html

 

 

From the article:

the Obama administration has - on issues both foreign and domestic - adopted as its own some of what the president's supporters refer to derisively as "Bush-era tactics."

...

 

- On anti-terrorism policies, the Bush administration was criticized by civil libertarians for its lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key approach to detaining terror suspects. Now Attorney General Eric Holder has said that, should a prisoner intend to harm the United States, "we will do all that we can to ensure that that person remains detained." The Obama Justice Department has also followed the lead of its predecessor in arguing that the 600 prisoners at Bagram air base in Afghanistan (aka "Obama's Guantanamo") may not challenge their detention in U.S. courts. And, it tried to quash a lawsuit challenging the rendition policy and warrantless wiretap program - just as the Bush Justice Department had done earlier...

 

 

Yes these appear to be wrong choices to me. However, the fact that despite the rhetoric and campaign promises and the incredible political damage this has done to the republican party overall, Obama continues these tactics is a sign of something (but I'm not sure what). I think both Cheney/Bush and Obama feel these choices are a necessary evil; maybe there is more happening behind the scenes than is publically available?

[bascule]

It's about much more than immorality. It's about a blatant disregard for our laws. We have laws for a reason, and we elect people to enforce them and make them better, not circumvent them.

 

The immorality issue is coming up as to why he'd blatantly disregard the laws to enact a failed policy, and still in 20/20 hindsight continue to defend it.

 

Something is morally wrong with the man.

[CDarwin]

My thoughts on this matter are along the lines of a recent op-ed:

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/30/is_bush_lurking_in_obamaland_98092.html

 

 

From the article:

 

Yes these appear to be wrong choices to me. However, the fact that despite the rhetoric and campaign promises and the incredible political damage this has done to the republican party overall, Obama continues these tactics is a sign of something (but I'm not sure what). I think both Cheney/Bush and Obama feel these choices are a necessary evil; maybe there is more happening behind the scenes than is publically available?

 

I like the point David Brooks has made a few times on the News Hour and on radio. Obama is doing something Bush never did, or showed any external signs of doing: trying to put his actions on a good-faith grounding in law. Where the previous administration simply ignored the law, the Obama people seem to be vocally trying to work within it. The Obama administration is looking for a legal framework in which to hold detainees indefinitely, for example, where the Bush administration simply did as it felt was necessary and covered itself with public panic.

 

In view of results, I acknowledge, it's a largely symbolic shift. But I think its a very important one, as symbols are really what govern us in a modern democracy.

[ydoaPs]

(Oh noez, da blogz! They are full of tards and angries!)

 

my wife was 'tarded and she's a pilot now

[SH3RL0CK]

In view of results, I acknowledge, it's a largely symbolic shift. But I think its a very important one, as symbols are really what govern us in a modern democracy.

 

Well, if you are the detainee who has been tortured, I very much doubt you would very much care about the symbolism. Nor would you care very much that Guantanamo was closed if you were locked up in Bagram air force base or some other hole in the ground.

 

Also, keep in mind that it could also be said symbolism is really what governed Nazi Germany...Goring was a brilliant propagandist for the third reich.

 

The public is, rightly, repulsed by torture. Of course now that at least some of the workings of the US government (CIA, private contractors, etc.) have become known to the public Obama will give his best impression of trying to stop this for as long as he can do so. That is his play, politically, just as hiding it for as long as possible was Bush's political play. But I personally doubt he has any intentions for a real change.

 

And maybe the Bush/Obama policies are really the best ways to deal with the problem of Al Queda? It is difficult for me to imagine a radically different approach by the USA given my understanding of the current situation.

Edited September 1, 2009 by SH3RL0CK

[CDarwin]

Well, if you are the detainee who has been tortured, I very much doubt you would very much care about the symbolism. Nor would you care very much that Guantanamo was closed if you were locked up in Bagram air force base or some other hole in the ground.

 

True enough. These changes are probably more important to us than they are to the detainees, although if there is a formal legal process with periodic reviews, that offers a detainee a better shot that just being thrown in a hole.

 

Also, keep in mind that it could also be said symbolism is really what governed Nazi Germany...

 

Godwin-y. Every state is governed by symbols. The Constitution is a symbol. Law itself is a set of symbolized meanings. I don't want to press the point too far or I'll start getting anthropological-y, but human culture is at base a complex array of symbols and government is obviously just a facet of culture.

 

The public is, rightly, repulsed by torture. Of course now that at least some of the workings of the US government (CIA, private contractors, etc.) have become known to the public Obama will give his best impression of trying to stop this for as long as he can do so. That is his play, politically, just as hiding it for as long as possible was Bush's political play. But I personally doubt he has any intentions for a real change.

 

I read it the opposite way. I think Obama's intentions are constrained by political necessity. If he makes a really dramatic break from Bush era policies and an attack happens, then that would be devastating to him politically and to any hope of reform in how we treat these prisoners.

 

And maybe the Bush/Obama policies are really the best ways to deal with the problem of Al Queda?

 

If you trim off everything but what they both agree on, then that might be the case, yes.

[iNow]

Something is morally wrong with the man.

Agreed, I was just suggesting this issue is about much more than just that.

 

It sickens me a bit the reaction to this from Cheney and the right. The Attorney General is doing his job... He's trying to enforce the laws of the nation, and is merely considering investigating more fully these issues. The mere mention of the possibility of investigation causes Cheney and the righties to blast into apoplectic mode and cry out about how the investigations are partisan and put our country at risk and blah blah blah...

 

If they were so concerned about putting our country at risk, perhaps they should have made better decisions while in power and not engaged in tactics which served as the single best recruiting tool for terrorist groups and turned our allies against us.

 

It just appalls me. Apparently these people think it's a "serious mistake" and a "partisan ploy" to actually enforce the laws of our nation... I guess... well, you know... unless you're getting a blowjob. Then it's time for impeachment. I think the worst part is just how many mindless asshats buy into that same "Obama is going to get us all killed" talking point, when in reality Obama has nothing to do with his Attorney's General (Eric Holder) decision... In fact is trying to prevent Holder from performing the investigation, but cannot since the AG doesn't need Presidential permission to enforce the laws of the nation... He's simply doing the job with which he was charged.

[SH3RL0CK]

I read it the opposite way. I think Obama's intentions are constrained by political necessity. If he makes a really dramatic break from Bush era policies and an attack happens, then that would be devastating to him politically and to any hope of reform in how we treat these prisoners.

 

Now that is something I had not fully considered...but if an attack (at least on US soil) happens, he will probably take the blame anyway so I'm not sure this slow process serves him any better.

[CaptainPanic]

It's about much more than immorality. It's about a blatant disregard for our laws. We have laws for a reason, and we elect people to enforce them and make them better, not circumvent them.

 

Which is why Cheney is clearly immoral. In a democratic government, a politician represents the people. The people, almost without exception, are in favor of human rights. Cheney goes straight against this very elementary right, and claims that it's necessary to torture people.

[Pangloss]

Frustration is understandable, but I think upset people should consider a longer view on this. There are long-term benefits of having him come out in public. The making of history is a process -- he's going on record, and that record won't disappear. Eventually the history books will assess this, and he won't be writing them. Scholars and historians will look it over objectively, weigh his opinion and his perspective (as is only fair), and look at the opposing evidence, and make an accurate determination of everything that happened.

 

Any drama injected into this process is pointless, and is really more about current politics. My advice: People should worry less about next November and spend more time listening to people's concerns and questioning why Congress seems to find it so hard to address them. THAT's how you stop the wrong people from coming to power.

[bascule]

History is being made right now. I hope to see Cheney prosecuted out of all of this. The past administration did many unjust things, and torture is certainly at the top of the list. I want justice.

[bombus]

Apparently 1 in 50 people are sociopaths, and sociopaths, uninhibited by morals or sympathy often get to the top in their careers.

 

I think Cheney, Rumsfield and Bolton may be sociopaths.

[iNow]

Frustration is understandable, but I think upset people should consider a longer view on this.

<...>

Any drama injected into this process is pointless, and is really more about current politics.

 

IMO, the "long view" is that laws need to mean something.

[The Bear's Key]

The immorality issue is coming up as to why he'd blatantly disregard the laws to enact a failed policy, and still in 20/20 hindsight continue to defend it.

 

Something is morally wrong with the man.

Obviously someone in the media thinks so. Wow. Just read paragraph 8, beginning with "A far darker explanation..."

 

It's a Time article written by Michael Duffy. I'd like to know exactly what motivated him to insert that little piece of "what if". Although I'd hardly be surprised if that were Cheney's goal.

[Pangloss]

IMO Duffy is showing bias and helping Democrats lay a little ground work of their own, so they can accuse Cheney and the far right of conniving to prejudge. Not that he's wrong, that's exactly what the GOP will do. But he's using positive descriptions for Dems and negative descriptions for Repubs, speaking about Obama officials with smart and attentive words while using phrases like "darker explanation", "set up" and "gambit" when referring to Repubs and Cheney.

 

In my opinion Democrats would do exactly the same thing (wrt blame for a future attack) if the shoe were on the other foot.

[bascule]

If the shoe were on the other foot, the Republicans would be prosecuting Clinton for lying about a blowjob (under OATH!) oh wait, sorry, that already happened. Meanwhile the Democrats sat on their hands while the previous administration employed torture against our prisoners.

 

The fact that anything is happening at all on this front frankly amazes me.

[The Bear's Key]

IMO Duffy is showing bias and helping Democrats lay a little ground work of their own, so they can accuse Cheney and the far right of conniving to prejudge. Not that he's wrong, that's exactly what the GOP will do. But he's using positive descriptions for Dems and negative descriptions for Repubs, speaking about Obama officials with smart and attentive words while using phrases like "darker explanation", "set up" and "gambit" when referring to Repubs and Cheney.

The biased (or anti) part is obvious. What caught me off guard is that severe implication's appearance in a considerably mainstream print, without the journalist even assigning its origin to some unknown Joe as back-up. You know, to fend off trouble down the road.

 

Just surprising is all.

[Pangloss]

If the shoe were on the other foot, the Republicans would be prosecuting Clinton for lying about a blowjob (under OATH!) oh wait, sorry, that already happened. Meanwhile the Democrats sat on their hands while the previous administration employed torture against our prisoners.

 

The fact that anything is happening at all on this front frankly amazes me.

 

Bill Clinton was not prosecuted, he was impeached, which is a political process. He was not investigated by the Bush Justice Department. His deception was manifestly obvious and recorded on camera, but in the end there was no "justice" for this "crime" (probably because most sane people felt the punishment didn't fit the crime).

 

The world did not come to an end. Though certainly many on the right were similarly "amazed".

 

I suppose one could try and make a case that the illegal activities of the Bush administration (if they were illegal) might have been prevented had justice been carried out in Clinton's case, but all that proves is that partisanship begets partisanship.

 

My response to "two can play at that game" is: "Fine -- you two play."

Edited September 4, 2009 by Pangloss

[iNow]

A DoJ investigation into torture is also a political process, and if investigations are allowed for fellatio, then investigations should be allowed for torture and potentially serious breaches of law.

 

I facepalm every time you equate investigating a blowjob with investigating the torture of prisoners in direct contrast to the Geneva Convention, and how you try to brush it all aside as mere political theater.

 

I say again.... The long view is that our laws need to mean something.

[bascule]

Yeah, I'm a bit confused as well. I see a rather stark contrast here. We have the DoJ wanting to prosecute the previous administration, while not in office, for authorizing torture. On the flip side was a witchhunt against a sitting president, over matters that were comparatively trivial, and worse, focused on intimate details of his private life rather than anything he did in office (well, except for certain things he did "in office" if you know what I mean )

 

In this case, an investigation is justified. Will it inevitably turn into a "partisan" affair? I don't know or care. Any investigation is better than the previous administration getting away with torture.

[iNow]

I thought this was an interesting piece:

 

 

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20090902_sheppard.html

Cheney Is Wrong: There Is Precedent for the Torture Investigation

 

Vice President Cheney has complained that the Attorney General's new investigation of alleged torture during the Bush Administration is unprecedented. Cheney says that such an investigation is merely political, criminalizing a disagreement between Presidents over policy. He claims that no administration has investigated its predecessors' crimes, and that it is wrong for the Obama Administration to break tradition.

 

Yet, as Cheney well knows, the United States has previously investigated criminal acts by officials, even White House officials. Indeed, such investigations – and the resulting prosecutions – are the duty of the White House.

 

<...>

 

Cheney argues that this investigation poses a new risk to our government. No U.S. president has overseen the investigation and – as Cheney predicts – the prosecution of the agents or officers of a prior administration. He sees this as a new precedent, and a bad one.

 

Yet Cheney is wrong. There are precedents. Moreover, there is a reason why there are so few: Most administrations investigate themselves, something the Bush Administration refused to do.

 

<...>

 

The President is the Chief Executive, responsible for enforcing all the laws. That the laws were broken on the orders of a predecessor can be no excuse for not investigating their violation, and may be no excuse for not prosecuting if violations are found.

 

<...>

 

This is not a question of policy. Even if there were no precedents at all, it would make no difference. Crimes are crimes...

 

 

 

Now, I will say it again, since it's such an important point. The long view is that the laws in our country have to mean something.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Pangloss
copied from removed post

[Pangloss]

Some off-topic posts have been removed from this thread. In the interest of stellar harmony I've also removed some of my own opinions that may have fueled the digression. Let's move on. Thanks.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Pangloss

[DJBruce]

An interesting idea to consider is that if Cheney legitimately reasons that the policies of the previous administration although possibly illegal were justified by the fact that they helped protect a large portion of the population then he is actually showing a very high level of moral development and reason. As he is seeing that it is necessary to break the social contract in order to protect the rights of the most, which is the fifth out of six stages in Kohlberg's theory.

 

Whether the actions Cheney took were illegal or not if he justified them with the logic, "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" then he is actually showing a very high level of morality. So the question becomes is this his actually reasoning or is he just lieing to cover his butt.