Ron Paul tells Cheney to STFU

CNN:
(CNN) – Dick Cheney is taking criticism from at least one member of his own party over the former vice president's recent and persistent criticisms of the Obama administration's handling of national security issues.
Ron Paul, the Texas congressman and upstart 2008 presidential candidate, told CNN's Larry King Monday night Cheney is in no place to criticize Obama's handling of the war on terrorism.
"I think he had his eight years, and he's caused a lot of trouble for our country and perpetuated a war in Iraq unnecessary and wrong-headed," said Paul. "I would say it would be best he not be so critical right now."
Paul was a constant critic of the Iraq war during his unsuccessful presidential run. While he is currently not seeking a higher office, his son, Rand, is seeking the Republican nomination for Senate in Kentucky.
Paul's comments come several days after Cheney released a tough-worded statement criticizing the president's response to the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day.
"He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won't be at war," Cheney said in the statement. "He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Qaeda trained terrorists still there, we won't be at war."'
White House Communications Director Dan Pffeifer later responded the president "is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action."
----------------------------
I knew I liked Ron Paul. Haven't I been saying this since January of 2009? Hmmm...Cheney needs to shut his mouth unless he's ready to offer real alternatives to Obama's strategies. So far, all he seems to do is naysay and tell Obama to go back to his and Bush's [failed] strategies. If you want to be a real leader, admit your administration screwed up and stop trying to tell Obama to continue to do what you did, what we voted against in November '08...maybe come up with something new for once.

Waterboarding saved NO lives.

I have previously blogged about the morality and legality of waterboarding here, here, here, here, here, and here. There are other articles out there that deal with this, such as the illegality of threats of imminent death. But this post will be about the other argument I've heard: "It worked." Not true.

Even though Cheney has claimed that documents would vindicate his claim that his "enhanced interrogation techniques" [torture] saved "hundreds of thousands of lives," (a claim he later backtracked on, implicity denying that they saved a single life in reality) one of the FBI's best interrogaters has shown that, in reality, waterboarding doesn't work.

Here are some of the highlights of the article:

Former FBI Interrogator Ali Soufan testified on the use of torture before a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee and stated that the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques are "slow, ineffective, unreliable, and harmful to our efforts." Soufan was able to obtain valuable intel using techniques labeled the "informed interrogation approach", which are consistent with the Army Field Manual. His testimony is fascinating.

Soufin was the agent who first interrogated Abu Zubaydah, the man now famous for being waterboarded 83 times. Zubaydah had been badly wounded in the struggle to capture him and was almost immediately taken to a hospital. It was there that Soufin began his interrogation, and gained "important, actionable intelligence" within the first hour regarding the role Khalid Sheikh Mohammed played in the 9-11 attacks. Committee Chair Sheldon called this "one of the more significant pieces of intelligence information we've ever obtained in the war on terror."

Soon the CIA-CTC was brought in, and a private contractor instructed them to subject Zubaydah to harsh interrogation techniques. Michael Isikoff wrote that: "Agency operatives were aiming to crack him with rough and unorthodox interrogation tactics—including stripping him nude, turning down the temperature and bombarding him with loud music." Soufan told the committee that Zubaydah "shut down." Later, Soufan interrogated the man again, using Army sanctioned methods, and Zubaydah disclosed information about the alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. According to Soufan, the contractor soon reasserted control, ordering the use of "enhanced" techniques and Zubaydah shut down again. Worried, Soufan objected to his FBI superiors, and was soon ordered home by Director Mueller, who also decreed that FBI personnel should no longer participate in CIA interrogations.

Soufan's account of this interrogation contradicts the May 2005 memo from the Office of Legal Counsel which implied that this valuable information was elicited from Zubaydah as a result of the harsh interrogation techniques used. Soufan's account is deeply damaging to arguments about torture's effectiveness Dick Cheney and other Bush-era officials have been making of late.

Soufan describes his methods as follows:
The approach is based on leveraging our knowledge of a detainee's mindset, vulnerabilities, and culture together with using intelligence already known about him. The interrogator uses a combination of interpersonal, cognitive, and emotional strategies to exact the information needed. If done correctly, this approach works quickly and effectively because it outsmarts the detainee using a method that he is not trained nor able to resist.

He then critiqued the "enhanced techniques":
The Army Field Manual is not about being soft; it's about outwitting, outsmarting, and manipulating the detainee. The approach is in sharp contrast of the enhanced interrogation method that instead tries to subjugate the detainee into submission through humiliation and cruelty. The idea behind it is to force the detainee to see the interrogator as the master who controls his pain. It's merely an exercise in trying to force compliance rather than elicit cooperation. A major problem with it is it is ineffective. Al Qaeda are trained to resist torture. As shocking as these techniques are to us, their training prepares them for much worse. The torture that they would receive if caught by dictatorships, for example. In a democracy, however, there is a glass ceiling the interrogator cannot breach. And eventually, the detainee will call the interrogator's bluff..... The technique is also unreliable. We don't know whether the detainee is being truthful or just speaking to mitigate his discomfort. The technique is also slow. Waiting 180 hours as part of a sleep deprivation stage is time we cannot afford to waste in a ticking-bomb scenario.
-----

There is more in the article linked above. It's a good read. We could've gotten the information in many different ways. But no, we wanted to feel better and [torture] our detainees, getting back at them for 9/11. But we did not have to, and it was an exercise in futility.

Here is something else that has bothered me in this whole debate: the questioning of our patriotism if we have a legitimate problems with torture, even of our enemies. I personally have had my Republican credentials questioned because I didn't, and never will, support torturing our enemies.

I think this summed it up quite well for me:

Conservative pundits casually liken waterboarding to prep-school initiation, and claim that anyone who opposes prisoner abuse must simply hate America. The president himself asks us to move on. And the great number of ordinary Americans who have, in fact, expressed outrage are dismissed as members of the bloodthirsty "hard left."

The way Powell could prove his statements.

I know I've posted in the past, being quite unfriendly towards Dick Cheney.

All ugliness aside, I just plain disagree with him on where the Republican Party needs to go.

I have noticed that there is a war of sorts raging within the GOP. Cheney and Limbaugh are on one side, and Powell and McCain are on the other.

First of all, I believe all four individuals above do want to see the GOP remain Grand.

Second, all personal opinion aside, if Powell wants to actually succeed in helping the Republican Party become more "big tent" and moderate, he needs to take a page from the Democratic Party's handbook. No, I'm not talking about becoming more liberal. I'm talking about the DLC: The Democratic Leadership Committee, an independent entity responsible for the "New Democrats," namely the Clintons. Bill Clinton came from the DLC's leadership, which worked to counteract the negative image associated with Jesse Jackson Sr's Presidential run in '84 and '88. They feared the extreme left continuing their takeover of the Democratic Party.

What Powell needs, and I personally believe we need in the GOP, is our own DLC to balance the far-right. If Powell really believes that the Republican Party needs to start bringing in the moderates and social liberals (but fiscal conservatives), he needs to be part of the leadership of said committee. In other words, he needs to back up his words with actions.

CNN's Roland S. Martin has the same idea. From his article at CNN.com:
If such an organization was created, and all of a sudden you had chapters forming in states across the country, you would have the infrastructure to identify candidates to run in local and state races, and challenge the people Powell and others think are driving the party further into isolation as a largely southern and regional party.
It's clear the GOP has enormous problems in the Northeast part of the country, and with Obama winning a sizeable portion of the Hispanic vote, and the party's staunch opposition to illegal immigration, it is going to have a hell of a time in the Southwest and West. And with a fractured party, there is no better time to create an alternative that people can believe in and rally behind.

On CNN last week, senior analyst Gloria Borger said there clearly is a civil war raging within the GOP, and Powell and Cheney are on opposite sides. I chimed in that in any war, I'd trust the guy who put on a military uniform -- Powell -- rather than the guy who ran from serving our country -- Cheney.

In other words, the only way for Powell to prove his point that the party would be stronger if it reached out to moderates more would be to create this kind of organization. If his hypothesis is correct, then the party would grow exponentially, with strong moderate candidates to run for office. If he's wrong, then the worst would be that the party would continue to shift to the right, a path it is already taking.

Powell cannot lose unless he does nothing.

Why Dick Cheney sucks.

Colin Powell is still better than Dick Cheney, no matter what (drug addict, racist, uneducated* [flunked out of college, and barely passed high school, has no pertinent experience in politics whatsoever, yet is still one of the top de facto leaders of the Republican Party]) Rush Limbaugh says. Here's why: Quite simply, Dick Cheney is, well, a dick.

Here's a list substantiating my opinion:

1. Dick Cheney is, unapologetically, a Neo-Conservative.
Cheney founded the Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative U.S. think tank whose self-stated goal is to "promote American global leadership."
2. From 1995-2000 was the CEO of Haliburton.
Cheney and Haliburton are under current investigation by the US Dept of Justice, the FBI, and the Pentagon for allegedly getting unlawful special attention for contracts during the Iraq war.
3. Disdain for the American Public that he was serving.
When told that most Americans were not happy with how the Iraq war was going, he slipped and said "so?"
4. As of 2004, Dick Cheney has received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Haliburton, while serving as Vice-President of the United States.
5. Doesn't like Free Press.
While serving as Deputy Assistant to the president in 1974-1975 under President Ford, Cheney suggested in a legal memo that the President should use the US Dept of Justice to punish the New York Times for an unfavorable article.
6. The John Yoo/Bybee memos:
Cheney advocated the revocation of many of the Bill of Rights, even for US Citizens, during the "War on Terror."
7. He shot someone in the face:
On February 11, 2006, Cheney accidentally shot Harry Whittington, a 78-year-old Texas attorney, in the face, neck, and upper torso with birdshot pellets when he turned to shoot a quail while hunting on a southern Texas ranch.
8. Advocate for Torture:
Waterboarding and "enhanced interrogation" is torture, and therefore undermines the United States' moral authority.
9. Advocate for big government:
Supported Nixon's illegal acts, and has actively pursued expansion of the President's powers, challenging Congressional Laws, including but not limited to: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Presidential Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act and the War Powers Resolution.
10. Spied on the American Public:
Part of the illegal NSA warrantless wiretap scandal, spying on US Citizens in clear violation of due process.
11. Dismal voting record during his tenure as a Congressman in 1979-1989, showing more contempt for the American Public (unless you're rich and white):

• Repeatedly voted against programs designed to provide assistance to displaced workers.
  Voted against legislation requiring factory owners to notify employees before closing their plants. Cast 10 separate votes against funding nutrition programs for children, including one vote opposing a move to protect food programs for women and infants from budget cuts.
• Repeatedly voted against maintaining funding for Head Start programs.
  Voted against a measure that granted time off for federal employees to care for sick family members.
• Voted against the Hunger Relief Act, which expanded eligibility for the federal food stamp program.
• Voted against providing mortgage assistance for low income home buyers.
• Opposed college student aid programs contained in the Higher Education Act.
• During the recession of the early 1980s, voted to block extension of unemployment benefits, including a provision that would provide health insurance for unemployed workers and their families.
• Voted against the Equal Rights Amendment.
• Voted for Ronald Reagan’s veto of the Civil Rights Restoration Act.
• Voted to limit Social Security cost-of-living adjustments for retired Americans living on fixed incomes.
• Was one of only eight members of the House to vote against renewing the Older Americans Act, which provided nutritional and other support services for elderly Americans. (If Cheney’s opposition had succeeded, the entire nutritional program would have effectively been shut down).
• Voted against limiting out-of-pocket expenses for Medicare recipients, most of whom were senior citizens. His votes were so consistently counter to the interests of the elderly that a Cox News Service headline declared, “Senior Groups Call Cheney’s Voting Record a Disaster.”
• Not only did Cheney’s votes tend toward unfairness on domestic issues, he actually voted against sanctioning South Africa’s apartheid regime for its repressive policies. He was also a vocal opponent of Nelson Mandela’s release from prison.

Torture: A Crime that Requires a Verdict

Borrowed from sojourners: http://blog.sojo.net/2009/04/17/torture-a-crime-that-requires-a-verdict/

Torture: A Crime that Requires a Verdict

by Jimmy McCarty 04-17-2009

Dear President Obama,
Thank you for making the four memos approving of and describing the torture done to children of God in our name public even though many pleaded for you not to. Thank you for letting me know that my tax dollars were used to torture those carrying God’s image. I have known we made helpless people think they were drowning for a while now, but now I know we kept some awake for almost two weeks straight. Now I know we put collars around the necks of defenseless people and slammed their heads into walls. And now I know we put people in boxes so small they couldn’t move and put insects in those boxes the prisoners thought could seriously injure them with no way of escape.

We cannot know what we need to repent of without knowing what sins we have committed. Thank you for letting me know. Now I pray that we as a nation ask for God’s forgiveness for what we, because of our fear and complacency, allowed to happen in our name and work to ensure it never happens again.

Thank you also for vowing that we will never do this again. As a Christian I know God declares these actions completely sinful. There is no theological or ethical justification for torturing another human being. In doing so we demonstrated that we place our faith not in God, or some abstract notion of justice or liberty, but in violence and power. These foundations will not sustain us. Those who live by the sword die by it, and I am now afraid that we have lived by torture so long that we will also die by torture. We must never torture again, and we must work to make amends for the sins we have already committed.

I am not in complete agreement with what you have said, however. You have said no one will be held accountable for the acts of torture because they were approved by the justice department. While I understand the premise of your reasoning, I think it is wrong.

Perhaps those interrogators who physically administered the acts of torture were following orders, but those who gave them were not. They made a decision to pervert justice. Those in the know have not apologized for their conduct or admitted it was wrong; in fact they have vehemently defended it. What they did was illegal according to multiple international treaties and laws. We have prosecuted people from other nations for doing the exact same things we did. We cannot sweep this under the rug. While it may be deemed unnecessary, or impractical, to prosecute all involved from the top down, someone must be held responsible. Those officials that perverted our previously agreed upon notions of justice must be held responsible.

There must be an independent commission of inquiry into the actions of the Bush administration. Everyone, from former President Bush and former Vice-president Dick Cheney down to the justice department, who made the decisions to approve of torture must be brought before the American public and be held responsible. It is the only way the rest of the world will believe we have discarded these evil methods and know we are no longer a nation that tortures. Not to do so is to be complicit in the cover-up of the ways we have sinned and the perpetuation of that reputation of us throughout the world.

It is a sad day in American history. May God have mercy on us.

Cheney defends Administration

Paul Begala's commentary at Cnn.com talked about Dick Cheney's recent interview with CNN--the first post administration interview granted--and has put the hypocrisy of our previous administration in a great--albeit a little harsher than I would--manner. I'm just going to repost part of the commentary here, but if you want to read the entire thing, click here.

Cheney says U.S. can torture but can't heal.
Dick Cheney has finally found the limits of government power.

According to recently released legal memos from the Bush-Cheney administration, the former vice president believes that the federal government can ignore the First Amendment and suppress free speech and freedom of the press as part of its "war on terror."

An October 23, 2001, memo from Justice Department lawyers John C. Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty said, "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully."

Former Vice PresidentCheney also believes, according to these same memos, that the federal government can send troops to burst into the homes of American citizens without a search warrant, despite the Fourth Amendment's protection against such unreasonable searches. He believes that the federal government has the right to arrest an American citizen on American soil and hold him in prison without charges. He believes that the federal government can listen in on your phone conversations without a court order.

Cheney believes that the federal government can ignore the Geneva Conventions, binding treaties largely written by the United States, signed by the president and ratified by the Senate. He believes that the federal government can commit torture, despite laws and treaties making torture a crime.

As the Washington Post reported, "Starting in January, 2002, Cheney turned his attention to the practical business of crushing a captive's will to resist. The vice president's office played a central role in shattering limits on coercion of prisoners in U.S. custody, commissioning and defending legal opinions that the Bush administration has since portrayed as the initiatives, months later, of lower-ranking officials."

The newspaper said, "Cheney and his allies ... did not originate every idea to rewrite or reinterpret the law, but fresh accounts from participants show that they translated muscular theories, from Yoo and others, into the operational language of government."
In fact, Yoo has said the federal government has the power to grab your young son and crush his private parts if the president thinks that will help the "war on terror."

Think I'm kidding? Here's the verbatim exchange from a debate between Yoo and Notre Dame professor Doug Cassel:
Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty ...
Cassel: Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo ...
Yoo: I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that.

...If the government can censor the free press, restrict free speech, listen in on your private conversations, burst into your home, take you away, hold you in prison without charges and torture you, it raises an interesting question: What on Earth does Dick Cheney think the federal government can't do?

Thanks to John King, we now know: Cheney believes that the government cannot help with health care, improve education or wean America off Middle East oil. I'm not kidding.

Cheney, whose authoritarian impulses run deep, is suddenly worried that the federal government might become too powerful under President Obama.

"I worry a lot," he told King, "that they're using the current set of economic difficulties to try to justify a massive expansion in the government, and much more authority for the government over the private sector. I don't think that's good. I don't think that's going to solve the problem."

...Set aside the hypocrisy of the Bush-Cheney Medicare prescription drug entitlement, the greatest expansion of the federal role in health care since President Lyndon B. Johnson...

...Cheney is comfortable with a government that has the authority to torture, imprison, censor and kill. Just not a government that has the capacity and compassion to write a health insurance policy or take on Big Oil.