Matthew Alexander dissects Cheney's speech on Gitmo and torture and more....
By John Amato Sunday May 24, 2009 8:54amMatthew Alexander, a senior interrogator from Iraq actually analyzes Cheney's speech and rebukes most of what Cheney said.
Let me dissect former Vice President Dick Cheney's speech on National Security using this model and my interrogation skills.
First, VP Cheney said, "This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately...it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. He further stated, "It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so." That is simply untrue. Anyone who served in Iraq, and veterans on both sides of the aisle have made this argument, knows that the foreign fighters did not come to Iraq en masse until after the revelations of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. I heard this from captured foreign fighters day in and day out when I was supervising interrogations in Iraq. What the former Vice President didn't say is the fact that the dislike of our policies in the Middle East were not enough to make thousands of Muslim men pick up arms against us before these revelations. Torture and abuse became Al Qaida's number one recruiting tool and cost us American lives.
Secondly, the former Vice President, in saying that waterboarding is not torture, never mentions the fact that it was the United States and its Allies, during the Tokyo Trials, that helped convict a Japanese soldier for war crimes for waterboarding one of Jimmie Doolittle's Raiders. Have our morals and values changed in fifty years? He also did not mention that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln both prohibited their troops from torturing prisoners of war. Washington specifically used the term "injure" -- no mention of severe mental or physical pain...read on
Login or Register to post comments.
Obviously we need investigations on torture because so many Americans don't seem to be able to define it (anything that would cause Hannity to wet himself) and when it is appropriate (never with possible exceptions for Sean).
I would say we need investigations if only to see who aided and abetted the torture.
Afterall, I tend to believe queen nancy about her "briefings," (she wears thongs), but believing is not the same as knowing. republicans seem to be counting on lack of investigations so they can sling all kinds of accusations around.
I remember this conservative fundie acting shocked asking me, "Surely you don't believe in evolution!"
I answered, "No I don't believe in evolution, I accept it; it's a science not a religion, and don't call me Shirley."
Having an investigation--one in which there is a truly independent fact-finder--is the only way to expose everything that happened to the light of day: who wrote which policies and at whose direction, how they pitched them back to Bush or whomever in order to justify their use, who knew before torture was taking place or likely would be, and who condoned it after it did. Frmr. Sen. Bob Graham has some pretty extensive notes, apparently, and he's been forthcoming about that. These should be accessed (and, if necessary, subpoenaed).
I don't care if anyone is implicated or, if they are, who they are. Clearly, torture was the policy of this country's previous administration, and clearly some powerful people in both parties knew about it. When? Under what circumstances? As part of duties for the intelligence committees or congressional leadership? Were they sworn to secrecy, given congressional rules about classified information? It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that someone like Pelosi (or any other leadership member, majority or minority) would know. Would they have been prosecuted for revealing what they'd learned? I don't know.
The only way to know what happened is to expose everything. I don't believe that will happen unless someone like Obama (who I assume was too new to Congress to have been involved) and Eric Holder appoint too ideologically dissimilar people to work together at getting to the bottom of this. A "911-style" commission will simply result in another whitewash.
....bro.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wyp909mQPM
Chaineeeeee wouldn't have stopped the laser.
Gitmo was vivesected?
The entire war was fought over an event that had nothing to do with Iraq. I think most of us can agree with that. When did Osamma turn into Saddam? In the words of George Carlin, "These people don't investigate themselves." That's true throughout time as even the biggest corporate/political criminals get away with a slap on the wrist. The country knows these people are responsible for thousands and thousands of deaths throughout the entire world yet they get 5-star resort style jail condos.
...............coup de tat involving Prescott Bush (oven-maker to Hitler). No prosecutions, and ever since then, including the Kennedys and Dr. King, no prosecutions. Just proves 'law' is only for the peóns not for Mr. Big.
John McCain said the same thing on Fox News last Thursday right after Cheney's speech.
A 'Venus flytrap' to suck in the bad guys for easy extermination.
Or at the very least it was a good opportunity for blood letting and hardening the troops, and not forgetting the wet behind the ears TLA officials, for the greater GWOT.
And the little matter of the misappropriated $125 billion (GAO figures) that was squandered or misplaced in Iraq, supposedly for reconstruction.
Unfortunately, the only kind yer gonna git is some kinda scuzzy, 'non-partisan' piece of shit like the 9-11, or the Iran-Contra, or the Warren Commissions, the primary purposes of which were to pour oil on the waters of national discord.
A Lee-Hamilton commission is not gonna get at the real problems or the real malefactors, and a non-Lee-Hamilton commission--with subpoena power--is never gonna get established. Nobody wants a truth commission, because exposing the truth is in nobody's interest who is now or is ever prospectively gonna be in power.
Any effort to hold the Pukes/Busheviks to transparency anc accountability will doubtless be doubled back on the next regime to retire. That's Mr. Obama, in case you're curious. Nobody in the Obama regime, even at this early date, wants their machinations opened up to this kind of scrutiny. Because they are already and certainly in violation of the Constitution adn treaties, too.
So nuthing's gonna happen...just like with Nixon...
Whenever Cheney claims torture techniques are 'effective' congress, law enforcement, and the MSM need to break down what he means. I know that there shouldn't be any argument about whether torture is justified or not, it doesn't matter. Torture is illegal, all these other discussions are pointless... except this one, about what Cheney means when he says 'effective' because it goes to motive.
Breaking someone with torture gets the victim to say whatever you want them to say. Not necessarily the truth. I'd like to hear congress or an interviewer ask either Cheney or one of his apologists, why we were so intent on getting these people to break, rather than getting them to cooperate. Broken people give broken data.
Using the 'breaking' method, it exposes the 'ticking time-bomb' scenario as a complete crock because if I and a detainee are in a room and somehow I have info that a mass attack is imminent and even more unlikely I KNOW that the detainee has information to stop it (this is one of the flaws in the scenario: we know for a fact that the detainee we want to torture has the info we need) can you think of anything more counterproductive than to have that detainee know how much he can hurt me by keeping quiet or lying because I've just tried to drown him?
So the question to Cheney is why are you so adamant to utilize an interrogation technique that is not only illegal but will only end up giving you broken info?
Some of the people who are headed to all of the recreational areas probably needed to get away just to get away from these discusssions on torture and Guantamano. Others haven't given it much thought or actually support torture, illegal invasions, the lying and the general rightwing neocon fascist nazi corporatist agenda. Those are the ones who have no respect for those that have died for our country and we are supposed to be honoring this weekend. They are the worst examples of what our constitution represents.
Nobody with any brains at all is listening, much less believing the proven habitual liar Dickhead.
i always wondered if cheney/BUSH used revealed torture as astrategy. a mouse trap effect in iraq. they wanted to prolong/delay the iraq occupation causing a dependency and the ability to cause other conflict. it also had a cause and effect for some americans and insurgents. this thought can probably be said to be far fetched. i just feel BUSH/cheney and neocons had plans that would have included iran and neighboring arab countries. with controversy regarding WMD there was a movement to question the
iraq occupation. i believe it was strategy to justify/prolong occupation.
On Friday's episode of "Now" on PBS, they spoke to returned Saudi militants in their "terrorist rehab program". About seven minutes in, one man says he went to Iraq only "after seeing the photos from Abu Ghraid and Gitmo".
I'll try to save the clip.
Washington and Abraham Lincoln both prohibited their troops from torturing prisoners of war. Washington specifically used the term "injure"...
That America is long dead and buried. Money (and the power money buys) became the new 'god', and since then...
Login or Register to post comments.