Support NeoGAF

[Dan]

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.amnestyintl/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday he was offended by Amnesty International's condemnation of the United States for what it called "serious human rights violations" at Guantanamo Bay.

"For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously," he said in an interview that aired Monday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

Amnesty International was scathing last week in its criticism of the way the United States has run the detention center at its naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"We have documented that the U.S. government is a leading purveyor and practitioner of the odious human rights violation," William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said Wednesday.

On its Web site, the London, England-based human rights group says: "As evidence of torture and widespread cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment mounts, it is more urgent than ever that the U.S. government bring the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and any other facilities it is operating outside the USA into full compliance with international law and standards. The only alternative is to close them down."

The vice president said the United States has freed millions of people from oppression.

"I think the fact of the matter is, the United States has done more to advance the cause of freedom, has liberated more people from tyranny over the course of the 20th century and up to the present day than any other nation in the history of the world," he said.

"Just in this administration, we've liberated 50 million people from the Taliban in Afghanistan and from Saddam Hussein in Iraq, two terribly repressive regimes that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of their own people."

Cheney denied American wrongdoing at the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, which Amnesty International compared to a "gulag."

"Guantanamo's been operated, I think, in a very sane and sound fashion by the U.S. military. ... I think these people have been well treated, treated humanely and decently," Cheney said. "Occasionally there are allegations of mistreatment.

"But if you trace those back, in nearly every case, it turns out to come from somebody who has been inside and been released ... to their home country and now are peddling lies about how they were treated."

Schulz responded to Cheney's comments: "It doesn't matter whether he takes Amnesty International seriously.

"He doesn't take torture seriously; he doesn't take the Geneva Convention seriously; he doesn't take due process rights seriously; and he doesn't take international law seriously.

"And that is more important than whether he takes Amnesty International seriously."

On Thursday, the commander of the Guantanamo Bay detention center said an investigation had identified five incidents in which the Quran appears to have been mishandled by his personnel.

But Brig. Gen. Jay Hood said he has found "no credible evidence" that personnel at the military prison flushed a Quran in a toilet. (Full story)

On the issue of Iraq, Cheney told King that he believes the insurgency there is "in the last throes." He also predicted the fighting would end before the Bush administration leaves office. (Full story)

I know I shouldn't be surprised that this cocksucker has the nerve, but holy fuck, to just outright laugh at such allegations after we all know worse shit has went down in other foreign prisons... and then he has the gall to try and be all "even if that shit were true, we did some other stuff that was kinda good."

 

[galeninjapan]

FREEDOM, FREEDOM, FREEDOM what?

 

[Triumph]

It's kind of boring fucking with the Bush Administration anymore. It's too easy, and the majority of Americans just don't give a fuck what they do.

 

[Macam]

As always, here's the video link if anyone's interested (maybe it's just me, but I enjoy watching the lies come out more than reading...if you call that enjoyment), courtesy of C&L:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/05/30.html#a3198

I think really at this point, I can only conjure up a quote from Six Feet Under: "If there's any justice in the universe, [he]'ll be shoveling shit in Hell."

 

[Belfast]

Man, just because you do something right doesn't mean you can do something wrong. :\

 

[Shinobi]

Fuck Cheney...

 

[Rorschach]

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted yet.

I think the right wingers are finally wearing down the liberal spirit. There's nothing they can do to make the American public give half a rat's ass. I also think the Democrats aren't making enough of a fuss over the things these people getting away with. They've run away with their tails between their legs. The repubs used to make a huge stink about anything Clinton did.

Anyway, as long as dem homos don't marry, rite?

 

[Drozmight]

what a dick.

 

[Drozmight]

Also, one of the 14 characteristics of fascism.

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights – Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to ‘look the other way’ of even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

 

[D-X]

I think the fact of the matter is, the United States has done more to advance the cause of freedom, has liberated more people from tyranny over the course of the 20th century and up to the present day than any other nation in the history of the world

Maybe it's England for stepping up in 1939? Think of what the world would be like now if they hadn't. Yeah the US joined in but much later.

 

[Instigator]

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.amnestyintl/index.html

I know I shouldn't be surprised that this cocksucker has the nerve, but holy fuck, to just outright laugh at such allegations after we all know worse shit has went down in other foreign prisons... and then he has the gall to try and be all "even if that shit were true, we did some other stuff that was kinda good."

You can't really blame Cheney for what he did, he can not concede otherwise he'd hurt the goals of the Bush administration.

But the journalists who let him get away with those statements, that's a different matter.

 

[Macam]

Bush chimed in today with a little speech:

WASHINGTON -- President Bush called a human rights report "absurd" for criticizing the United States' detention of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and said Tuesday the allegations were made by "people who hate America."

"It's absurd. It's an absurd allegation. The United States is a country that promotes freedom around the world," Bush said of the Amnesty International report that compared Guantanamo to a Soviet-era gulag.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/31/p...&en=13f98a96daa3ad44&ei=5094&partner=homepage

 

[Drozmight]

hol-e-shit.

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause – The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe; racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists; terrorists, etc.

 

[ronito]

Reporter: "What about the allegations and proof of torture being done in our country's name?"
Bush Admin: "WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM?!!!"

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

hol-e-shit.

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause – The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe; racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists; terrorists, etc.

Can you post all the characteristics?

 

[Phoenix]

You can't really blame Cheney for what he did, he can not concede otherwise he'd hurt the goals of the Bush administration.

But the journalists who let him get away with those statements, that's a different matter.

Yes, they should set fire to him in the streets! I mean the media can certainly prevent him from making those statements.

Sad when you "can't blame the person who is involved in the crime", but "can blame the person who reports it". Sad day this is.... very sad.

 

[Drozmight]

Can you post all the characteristics?

Been getting them from here.

http://www.chetzar.com/fascism.html

 

[ronito]

Been getting them from here.

http://www.chetzar.com/fascism.html

*reads link*

OH NOES!! WE R FACISTS???!!!

 

[Phoenix]

*reads link*

OH NOES!! WE R FACISTS???!!!

According to this guys definition we are reasonably close to facist.... if his definition is actually peer-reviewed and shown to be valid

 

[DrEvil]

Theres room for you guys in Nunavut.

 

[Drozmight]

Theres room for you guys in Nunavut.

*starts packing*

But, not without my daughter!

 

[Instigator]

Yes, they should set fire to him in the streets! I mean the media can certainly prevent him from making those statements.

Sad when you "can't blame the person who is involved in the crime", but "can blame the person who reports it". Sad day this is.... very sad.

WTF? Get off your high horse.

Dick Cheney will be Dick Cheney. He's a nefarious figure with shady connections. No surprise there.

But like his boss, he seems to get a free pass with the press. I wonder what he would have to say to finally get called on it. Why does this matter? The vast majority of us will never get to talk to him. Ever. So when such a politician goes to the press, it is an attempt on his part to talk to the people. There's a certain expectation that the press will grill him when he says something untrue or outrageous, like some of us would if he were to talk to us directly.

 

[Vinzer Deling]

*reads link*

OH NOES!! WE R FACISTS???!!!

You know whats ironic? I remember a thread about how Bush Co. was infringing on the 1st. So I chimed in and mentioned how the 2nd has been screwed with for decades. One person said the 2nd is "obsolete" in modern times. We can trust our government to have a monopoly on all firearms. They can be trusted to use their authority wisely as history has proven OTHERWISE! No one bothered to defend the 2nd. But these same posters who were apathetic towards the 2nd are the same ones screaming about how Bush Co is slowly taking away our "freedom".

I can't say we don't deserve it.

 

[Legal Step]

We keep people free by locking them up in the Bush Gulag system. Cheney knows his shit.

 

[Canadian Psycho]

Theres room for you guys in Nunavut.

Not so fast. The Canadian government is a corrupt piece of shit. It's in no position to preach to anybody.

 

[Phoenix]

WTF? Get off your high horse.

Dick Cheney will be Dick Cheney. He's a nefarious figure with shady connections. No surprise there.

But like his boss, he seems to get a free pass with the press. I wonder what he would have to say to finally get called on it. Why does this matter? The vast majority of us will never get to talk to him. Ever. So when such a politician goes to the press, it is an attempt on his part to talk to the people. There's a certain expectation that the press will grill him when he says something untrue or outrageous, like some of us would if he were to talk to us directly.

1) Not all press events are 'question' events
2) If you watch a press event you will notice that the speaker picks whose questions they want to answer
3) The speaker can (and usually does) give a nonsense answer to a question they don't want to answer and move on


So what are they supposed to do, rope him up and force him to answer the questions?

 

[human5892]

Dick Cheney am cry

 

[Instigator]

1) Not all press events are 'question' events
2) If you watch a press event you will notice that the speaker picks whose questions they want to answer
3) The speaker can (and usually does) give a nonsense answer to a question they don't want to answer and move on


So what are they supposed to do, rope him up and force him to answer the questions?

Larry King Live is not a press event, it's an interview. He can ask all the questions he wants until Dick Cheney leaves the studio. The same goes for all those political shows on Sunday morning. If the politician docks the question, you say that he didn't answer it. If he claims he did, just rephrase the question and make it so simple he has to answer yes or no OR dance around the issue asking other questions leading to the original and you'll hopefully get a clearer answer. It will probably still be BS, but at least, they really tried to get an answer out of him.

I can admit Larry King is perhaps not the proper venue for agressive questioning but those political shows are. Cheney is still pretty slick, but his boss isn't and seeing the rare times he really gets interviewed on issues is sad. He just recites the same long platitudes he memorized earlier and when journalists try to cut in the crap, he just begs them 'to let him finish'.

 

[iapetus]

Been getting them from here.

http://www.chetzar.com/fascism.html

I can only assume that list was deliberately written to portray the US as a fascist state, and has no grounding in reality.

 

[Phoenix]

Larry King Live is not a press event, it's an interview. He can ask all the questions he wants until Dick Cheney leaves the studio.

You aren't very familiar with the Larry King Live setup then. LKL is a studio format where the questions are generally known and its not a confrontational show, else people wouldn't come on.

I pulled the transcript of the piece of the interview that deals with Amnesty

KING: Amnesty International condemns the United States. How do you react?

D. CHENEY: I don't take them seriously?

KING: Not at all?

D. CHENEY: No. I -- frankly, I was offended by it. I think the fact of the matter is, the United States has done more to advance the cause of freedom, has liberated more people from tyranny over the course of the 20th century and up to the present day than any other nation in the history of the world. Think about what we did in World War I, World War II, throughout the Cold War. Just in this administration, we've liberated 50 million people from the Taliban in Afghanistan and from Saddam Hussein in Iraq, two terribly oppressive regimes that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of their own people. For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously.

KING: They specifically said, though, it was Guantanamo. They compared it to a gulag.

D. CHENEY: Not true. Guantanamo's been operated, I think, in a very sane and sound fashion by the U.S. military. Remember who's down there. These are people that were picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan and other places in the global war on terror. These are individuals who have been actively involved as the enemy, if you will, trying to kill Americans. That we need to have a place where we can keep them. In a sense, when you're at war, you keep prisoners of war until the war is over with.

We've also been able to derive significant amounts of intelligence from them that helped us understand better the organization and the adversary we face and helped us gather the kind of information that makes it possible for us to defend the United States against further attacks. And what we're doing down there has, I think, been done perfectly appropriately. I think these people have been well treated, treated humanely and decently.

Occasionally there are allegations of mistreatment. But if you trace those back, in nearly every case, it turns out to come from somebody who had been inside and been released by to their home country and now are peddling lies about how they were treated.

So what more would you do at this point?

I can admit Larry King is perhaps not the proper venue for agressive questioning but those political shows are. Cheney is still pretty slick, but his boss isn't and seeing the rare times he really gets interviewed on issues is sad. He just recites the same long platitudes he memorized earlier and when journalists try to cut in the crap, he just begs them 'to let him finish'.

LKL is definitely not the venue for aggressive questioning. I'm not sure what other political shows Cheney has been on addressing this topic, but you've gotten me interested so give me a list so I can pull up the transcripts.

 

[iapetus]

So what are they supposed to do, rope him up and force him to answer the questions?

Paxman: Mr Lewis says, I, that is Mr Lewis, told him what we had decided about Marriott and why. He, that is you, exploded. Simply moving the governor was politically unpalatable, it sounded indecisive, it would be seen as a fudge. If I did not change my mind and suspend Marriott, he would have to consider overruling me. You can't both be right...
Howard: Mr Marriott was not suspended. I was entitled to express my views, I was entitled to be consulted-
Paxman: (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him?
Howard: I was not entitled to instruct Derek Lewis and I did not instruct him
Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?
Howard: The truth of the matter is that Mr Marriott was not suspended
Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?
Howard: I did not overrule Derek Lewis
Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?
Howard: I took advice on what I could or could not do-
Paxman: (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him, Mr Howard?
Howard: And I acted scrupulously in accordance with that advice, I did not overrule Derek Lewis
Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?
Howard: I did not overrule Derek Lewis, Mr Marriott was not suspended
Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?
Howard: I have accounted for my decision to dismiss Derek Lewis in great detail before the House of Commons
Paxman: I note you are not answering the question whether you threatened to overrule him
Howard: The important aspect of this which is very clear to bear in mind, is this-
Paxman: (Interrupting) I'm sorry I'm going to be frightfully rude but, I'm sorry, it's a straight yes or no question, it's a straight yes or no answer
Howard: You can put the question and I will give you an answer
Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?
Howard: I discussed this matter with Derek Lewis, I gave him the benefit of my opinion, I gave him the benefit of my opinion in strong language, but I did not instruct him, because I was not entitled to instruct him, I was entitled to express my opinion, and that is what I did
Paxman: With respect, that is not answering the question of whether you threatened to overrule him
Howard: It's dealing with the relevant point, which is what I was entitled to do and what I was not entitled to do, and I have dealt with this in detail before the House of Commons and before the select committee
Paxman: With respect you haven't answered the question whether you threatened to overrule him
Howard: Well, you see, the question is what was I entitled to do and what was I not entitled to do. I was not entitled to instruct him and I did not do that.

Did you threaten to overrule him?

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

Been getting them from here.

http://www.chetzar.com/fascism.html

I'm going to (hopefully not naively) go on an assumption that he made those in a fashion that would look the worst toward the bush administration.

I really hope I'm right.

That being said, this administration is still retarded.

 

[Phoenix]

Paxman: Mr Lewis says, I, that is Mr Lewis, told him what we had decided about Marriott and why. He, that is you, exploded. Simply moving the governor was politically unpalatable, it sounded indecisive, it would be seen as a fudge. If I did not change my mind and suspend Marriott, he would have to consider overruling me. You can't both be right...
Howard: Mr Marriott was not suspended. I was entitled to express my views, I was entitled to be consulted-
Paxman: (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him?
Howard: I was not entitled to instruct Derek Lewis and I did not instruct him
Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?
Howard: The truth of the matter is that Mr Marriott was not suspended
Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?
Howard: I did not overrule Derek Lewis
Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?
Howard: I took advice on what I could or could not do-
Paxman: (Interrupting) Did you threaten to overrule him, Mr Howard?
Howard: And I acted scrupulously in accordance with that advice, I did not overrule Derek Lewis
Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?
Howard: I did not overrule Derek Lewis, Mr Marriott was not suspended
Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?
Howard: I have accounted for my decision to dismiss Derek Lewis in great detail before the House of Commons
Paxman: I note you are not answering the question whether you threatened to overrule him
Howard: The important aspect of this which is very clear to bear in mind, is this-
Paxman: (Interrupting) I'm sorry I'm going to be frightfully rude but, I'm sorry, it's a straight yes or no question, it's a straight yes or no answer
Howard: You can put the question and I will give you an answer
Paxman: Did you threaten to overrule him?
Howard: I discussed this matter with Derek Lewis, I gave him the benefit of my opinion, I gave him the benefit of my opinion in strong language, but I did not instruct him, because I was not entitled to instruct him, I was entitled to express my opinion, and that is what I did
Paxman: With respect, that is not answering the question of whether you threatened to overrule him
Howard: It's dealing with the relevant point, which is what I was entitled to do and what I was not entitled to do, and I have dealt with this in detail before the House of Commons and before the select committee
Paxman: With respect you haven't answered the question whether you threatened to overrule him
Howard: Well, you see, the question is what was I entitled to do and what was I not entitled to do. I was not entitled to instruct him and I did not do that.

Did you threaten to overrule him?

You will not be able to badger the VP of the US in that manner. Its not going to happen I can assure you

 

[iapetus]

You will not be able to badger the VP of the US in that manner. Its not going to happen I can assure you

This is because US politicians are utter pussies who are terrified of being put on the spot and actually having to justify the shit they do. Not that ours aren't just as bad - just they haven't got the media whipped the way Bush & co have.

 

[Dan]

This is because US politicians are utter pussies who are terrified of being put on the spot and actually having to justify the shit they do. Not that ours aren't just as bad - just they haven't got the media whipped the way Bush & co have.

It's not just the politicians. Bush supporters (aka half the fucking country) would be absolutely up in arms over an interview like that. This country's so screwed up, you wouldn't even get public support over such aggressive questioning of high ranking figures.

 

[Phoenix]

This is because US politicians are utter pussies who are terrified of being put on the spot and actually having to justify the shit they do. Not that ours aren't just as bad - just they haven't got the media whipped the way Bush & co have.

Its not just this current administration, the US press just doesn't badger the executive branch on national television. It just doesn't happen, they like having viewers. Nevertheless, it would be a pointless exchange to sit there and keep asking the same question over and over and over again and having the guy not answer it. The Paxman, Howard segment you posted was an utter waste of time - the question of whether or not he threatened to overrule was never even answered.

 

[DrEvil]

Not so fast. The Canadian government is a corrupt piece of shit. It's in no position to preach to anybody.

Maybe so, but at least our leader doesnt preach war and uber-extreme patriotism.

 

[TheOMan]

Its not just this current administration, the US press just doesn't badger the executive branch on national television. It just doesn't happen, they like having viewers. Nevertheless, it would be a pointless exchange to sit there and keep asking the same question over and over and over again and having the guy not answer it. The Paxman, Howard segment you posted was an utter waste of time - the question of whether or not he threatened to overrule was never even answered.

I think the fact that after being asked the question numerous times and it not being answered in itself answered the question. I think the interviewer was trying to make this *painfully* obvious.

 

[Phoenix]

I think the fact that after being asked the question numerous times and it not being answered in itself answered the question. I think the interviewer was trying to make this *painfully* obvious.

The question is - do you think this would be useful?

Interviewer: Do you have actual evidence of WMD in Iraq?
Administration: We had some satellite stuff that suggested it?
Interviewer: Do you have actual evidence of WMD in Iraq?
Adminstration: We have some stuff that suggests that he might want yellow cake
Interviewer: Do you have actual evidence of WMD in Iraq?
Administration: Iraq is a huge country, but we know it must be there because we sold him some
Interviewer: Do you have actual evidence of WMD in Iraq?
Administration: We know that these aluminum tubes can be used for it
Interviewer: Do you have actual evidence of WMD in Iraq?
Administration: We know he's been trying to get it from intercepted communications
Interviewer: Do you have actual evidence of WMD in Iraq?
Administration: We have this movie of them trying to hide the weapons from the inspectors last time
Interviewer: Do you have actual evidence of WMD in Iraq?
Administration: I think the issue here is what all of our intelligence suggests...


Would that change what anyone thought about whether or not there were WMDs in Iraq?

 

[Dilbert]

According to this guys definition we are reasonably close to facist.... if his definition is actually peer-reviewed and shown to be valid

I certainly hope you were kidding when you typed this. If you were serious, it was a very cheap way out of the argument.

Without going through the list from the other web page point by point, the number "fourteen" immediately brings to mind Umberto Eco's essay "Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways Of Looking At A Blackshirt." This essay was first published in the New York Review of Books on June 22, 1995, then reproduced in Utne Reader, November-December 1995, and is now available on the Web at http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html. Eco was analyzing several fascist cultures to try to find commonalities between them, which he labeled "Ur-Fascism." His list:

1. The cult of tradition.
2. The rejection of modernism.
3. Irrationalism.
4. Action for action’s sake.
5. Disagreement is treason.
6. Fear of difference.
7. Appeal to a frustrated middle class.
8. Obsession with a plot.
9, Humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.
10. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy.
11. Life is eternal warfare.
12. Contempt for the weak.
13. Against ‘rotten’ parliamentary governments.
14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.

This source, along with many others, is documented in this essay by David Neiwert -- in particular, sections II and III.

People who say that the United States is fascist NOW are clearly wrong. People who deny that recent developments in our political and social culture are steps in the direction of fascism aren't paying attention.

 

[Dilbert]

Would that change what anyone thought about whether or not there were WMDs in Iraq?

The point would be to change their mind about the honesty and motivations of the Bush Administration.

 

[Instigator]

Oh Phoenix, I think there are better ways to corner a politician.

Interviewer: Amnesty International claims Guantanamo Bay is run like a gulag. What do you have to say about this?

Cheney bot: That's nonsense. America is all about freedom. We're the nation who freed the most people in human history. Guantanamo is run by professionals, it's no resort, but we're doing our very best to treat the detainees there with the minimum of dignity and doing so while gathering valuable intelligence aimed at... Blah blah blah.

Interviewer: With all due respect, there are not the first ones to make accusations of abuses. Human Rights Watch among others also have. These are the same organizations that reported abuses in Iraq under Saddam, abuses well documented and even confirmed after the US invasion. How are they wrong now?

Cheney bot: If they didn't make it up, they probably got their information from detainees we let go and then they were lied to by the same detainees.

Interviewer: But Guantanamo Bay is in a secured military base off US shores, off limits to the press, the Geneva Convention is not applied and detainees are held there indefinitely, are you saying it is your word against theirs (Amnesty International?

Cheney bot: Yes.

Interviewer: Would you say 9-11 and the war on terror has changed the way America does war and gathers intelligence?

Cheney bot:Absolutely. The WTC was brought down by a pre-9-11 mindset that allowed such a tragedy to happen. It was important to introduce important reforms such as the Patriot Act, the new Homeland Security or to prevent having terrorist havens like Afghanistan was, before we liberated them. All those changes are still works in progress, but we've been able to protect America and no other terrorist acts were pepertrated on US soil since then

Interviewer: Do you think your administration does everything it can to protect the country.

Cheney bot: No doubt about it. We can't rest on our laurels and we must continue to be ever so vigilant and be able to identify threats and neutralize them. The last thing we want are terrorists to acquire weapons of mass destruction and use it on us. It is of vital importance to stop them at all cost.

Interviewer: If you detained someone who you believed was part of a group about to use a dirty bomb in a US city, would you use every mean at your disposal to interogate him, including torture?

Cheney bot: Huh... Torture is not... acceptable. But rest assured if the security of the country depended on it, we'd get to the bottom of it.

Interviewer: So there are limits to what you would do.

Cheney bot:I guess so.

 

[Phoenix]

You assume these guys don't know how to get out of an argument they know they will lose. They are politicians, they know how to be needlessly vague in an impromptu manner. They pick their side and argue from the strength that their side is necessarily correct.

Unfortunately your argument doesn't actually CORNER a politician because it is still depends on what is actually defined as torture, so he can say that we don't torture anyone and depending on what the international law definition of torture is - he may be 100% correct. So unfortunately you haven't proved your case with that example.

 

[Phoenix]

I certainly hope you were kidding when you typed this. If you were serious, it was a very cheap way out of the argument.

Dude I'm a law student, finding quick ways out of arguments based on their substance is a requirement

 

[Instigator]

You assume these guys don't know how to get out of an argument they know they will lose. They are politicians, they know how to be needlessly vague in an impromptu manner. They pick their side and argue from the strength that their side is necessarily correct.

Unfortunately your argument doesn't actually CORNER a politician because it is still depends on what is actually defined as torture, so he can say that we don't torture anyone and depending on what the international law definition of torture is - he may be 100% correct. So unfortunately you haven't proved your case with that example.

Yes it does. The definition hardly matters because he wouldn't admit to using torture anyway. You could point out how they redefinied interrogation procedures and apply 'physical pressure' but he wouldn't call it torture.

It still corners him because it forces him to make a hard choice and the previous questions lead him to it.

 

[Phoenix]

Yes it does. The definition hardly matters because he wouldn't admit to using torture anyway. You could point out how they redefinied interrogation procedures and apply 'physical pressure' but he wouldn't call it torture.

It still corners him because it forces him to make a hard choice and the previous questions lead him to it.

1) How does that lead him to it? The questions are not leading in a chained manner. You could start with

"Interviewer: If you detained someone who you believed was part of a group about to use a dirty bomb in a US city, would you use every mean at your disposal to interogate him, including torture? "

and get the same response. Nothing in the prior questions seeds Cheney bot to make a particular answer in any way.


2) Why would saying "we don't condone torture" be a hard choice? He's said it more than once already in several interviews. The administration has come out many times and said that torture was out of the question, though I'm sure if you look on the books at what they DO allow, you and I might call it torture. Not to mention that some detainees are not held in facilities on US soil and we make no statements about what happens in those facilities.

 

[Instigator]

1) How does that lead him to it? The questions are not leading in a chained manner. You could start with

"Interviewer: If you detained someone who you believed was part of a group about to use a dirty bomb in a US city, would you use every mean at your disposal to interogate him, including torture? "

and get the same response. Nothing in the prior questions seeds Cheney bot to make a particular answer in any way.


2) Why would saying "we don't condone torture" be a hard choice? He's said it more than once already in several interviews. The administration has come out many times and said that torture was out of the question, though I'm sure if you look on the books at what they DO allow, you and I might call it torture. Not to mention that some detainees are not held in facilities on US soil and we make no statements about what happens in those facilities.

What you and I call torture doesn't matter, not condoning it publicly is usually the way to go, otherwise admitting it is like opening a pandora's box, not too smart in terms of public relations.

But if you are in an extreme scenario, in an era of hysteria, I'm not sure everyone would discard extreme methods for their safety. I don't think this administration views the danger to that degree, it's more of an opportunity for impunity in their case, but the public constantly held in fear with vague alerts might very well feel otherwise.

Politicians don't like hypotheticals, but if he chooses to be lead to that question, he's forced to put his resolve into doubt in the eyes of some in fear of appearing like a tyrant to many.

 

[Phoenix]

What you and I call torture doesn't matter, not condoning it publicly is usually the way to go, otherwise admitting it is like opening a pandora's box, not too smart in terms of public relations.

But if you are in an extreme scenario, in an era of hysteria, I'm not sure everyone would discard extreme methods for their safety. I don't think this administration views the danger to that degree, it's more of an opportunity for impunity in their case, but the public constantly held in fear with vague alerts might very well feel otherwise.

Politicians don't like hypotheticals, but if he chooses to be lead to that question, he's forced to put his resolve into doubt in the eyes of some in fear of appearing like a tyrant to many.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the United States government has on occasion authorized the torture of people to get information which seemingly could not be derived any other way. I also have absolutely no doubt in my mind that those same people involved in the authorization of those acts lied, or told half-truths in order to not admit publicly that the government condones that behavior.

I have other absolute feelings that I'm sure the government would deny:

* we would bomb a structure where we knew civilians were located in if it meant killing a high value target that we didn't think we would ever get another opportunity to kill

* we would participate materially or 'in good faith' to plot or support the assasination of certain leaders, intellectuals, etc in the world

* government officials will knowingly line their pockets based on insider information on various topics related to energy policy, social policy, government contracting, etc.

* the government would willing test certain things on its own citizens without notice if it felt the need were great enough

etc.

There are certain things that I have absolute confidence that the US government would do and deny. It is in the nature of politics to do these things, even though they are wrong - but these people are the ones who have done wrong and have "gotten away" with things. These people are damn near impossible to catch unless you have an inside track - fitting that Deep Throat is uncovered today, because that's the kind of leak you'd need. The press back in the day was completely powerless to ask anything other than stupid 'out of the box' questions until Deep Throat put them on the right path with the right evidence to actually force an answer and investigation of the executive branch. Without that evidence, asking a whole bunch of questions is a purely masturbatory experience... you'll feel good at the end of it, but you don't really accomplish anything meaningful.

 

[Dilbert]

Without that evidence, asking a whole bunch of questions is a purely masturbatory experience... you'll feel good at the end of it, but you don't really accomplish anything meaningful.

As much as that is probably true in a pragmatic sense, it sounds like you are saying that ANY government is unaccountable to its people. The media serves as a proxy voice for the people, and is supposed to ask the questions which Joe and Jane Public would ask themselves, if given the opportunity. If those questions can be easily dodged or answered with lies, then what recourse do ANY of us have to serve as a check on governmental power?

You are dangerously close to saying that truth doesn't matter, and I'm surprised you'd take that position.

 

[Matlock]

er hell