Oh dick, dick, dick: Cheney on torture

The Coffee Shop
1

Cheney Pushes Senate for CIA Exemption
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 4:50 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) – Vice President Dick Cheney made an unusual personal appeal to Republican senators this week to allow CIA exemptions to a proposed ban on the torture of terror suspects in U.S. custody, according to participants in a closed-door session.

Cheney told his audience the United States doesn’t engage in torture, these participants added, even though he said the administration needed an exemption from any legislation banning ‘‘cruel, inhuman or degrading’’ treatment in case the president decided one was necessary to prevent a terrorist attack.

The vice president made his comments at a regular weekly private meeting of Senate Republican senators, according to several lawmakers who attended. Cheney often attends the meetings, a chance for the rank-and-file to discuss legislative strategy, but he rarely speaks.

In this case, the room was cleared of aides before the vice president began his remarks, said by one senator to include a reference to classified material. The officials who disclosed the events spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the confidential nature of the discussion.

‘‘The vice president’s office doesn’t have any comment on a private meeting with members of the Senate,’’ Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for Cheney, said on Friday.

The vice president drew support from at least one lawmaker, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, while Arizona Sen. John McCain dissented, officials said.

McCain, who was tortured while held as a prisoner during the Vietnam War, is the chief Senate sponsor of an anti-torture provision that has twice cleared the Senate and triggered veto threats from the White House.

Cheney’s decision to speak at the meeting underscored both his role as White House point man on the contentious issue and the importance the administration attaches to it.

The vice president made his appeal at a time Congress is struggling with the torture issue in light of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and allegations of mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The United States houses about 500 detainees at the naval base there, many of them captured in Afghanistan.

Additionally, human rights organizations contend the United States turns detainees over to other countries that it knows will use torture to try and extract intelligence information.

The Senate recently approved a provision banning the ‘‘cruel, inhuman or degrading’’ treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. The vote was 90-9, and an identical provision was added to a second measure on a voice vote on Friday.

Comparable House legislation does not include a similar provision, and it is not clear whether anti-torture language will be included in either of two large defense measures Congress hopes to send to Bush’s desk later this year.

The White House initially tried to kill the anti-torture provision while it was pending in the Senate, then switched course to lobby for an exemption in cases of ‘‘clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States.’’ The president would have to approve the exemption, and Defense Department personnel could not be involved. In addition, any activity would have to be consistent with the Constitution, federal law and U.S. treaty obligations, according to draft changes in the exemption the White House is seeking.

Cheney also has met several times with McCain, including one session that CIA Director Porter Goss attended in a secure room in the Capitol.

2

**Cheney told his audience the United States doesn’t engage in torture, these participants added, even though he said the administration needed an exemption from any legislation banning ‘‘cruel, inhuman or degrading’’ treatment in case the president decided one was necessary to prevent a terrorist attack. **

And yet the White House continues to claim that it’s made it perfectly clear that it doesn’t want to engage in torture.

3

does the states have anything like a ‘war measures act?’ that’s been invoked at least once in living memory in canada and allows for things like arbitrary detainment and etc. sort of an ‘extreme measures’ loophole.

-mike

4

That allows torture? Not that I’m aware of, despite some attempts on the Administration’s part to that effect.

5

no, not one that allows torture, just wondering if the states had any equivalent. during the FLQ crisis, trudeau implemented the war measures act and it was a huge deal, though arguably necessary given what was going on.

i think the patriot act was sort of moving in that direction, ie. allowing the government more power in the interest of nat’l security, but perhaps the key difference to me is that the canadian war measures act is by definition temporary.

anyway, not try to get sassy, just genuinely curious here.

-mike

6

** just wondering if the states had any equivalent.**

I’m not sure of a specific law that grants the government extra powers during wartime. I seem to think that there might be some about some fairly minor points, but mostly we seem to sort of play it by ear. You know, the whole “The prez’s authority must be deferred to in a time of war,” kind of thing.

Of course, there’s always martial law . . .

But in general, I don’t think there’s much in place by way of actual legal exceptions during war. And it should be remembered that not only is the US bound by it’s own laws, but also by treaties which it’s signed with other nations. (Which is probably a pretty good reason any secret prisons in Eastern Europe aren’t just morally reprehensible, but also illegal.)

7

What’s so hard to understand? The adminitration doesn’t want to torture anyone, they just want to do cruel, inhuman, and degrading things to people.

8

More neo-con insanity, really.

Armytriguy has mentioned that he believes there’s a difference between torture and “cruel, inhuman, and degrading,” conditions, I think. I would love to hear from him what constitutes torture, and what only constitutes cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, and if he really expects us to believe that people running a secret prison somewhere are going to recognize and respect the difference.

9

Have you heard a political speech lately? All of them are cruel, inhuman, and degrading to people.

11

Actually Bush does violence to the English language every time he opens his mouth :slight_smile:
.

12

Well I haven’t exactly said what I felt was the difference between torture and “cruel, inhuman, and degrading,” conditions,. I will tell you what I think “torture” is and I would bet a months pay the US does not do any of these.

Medical experimentation

Crucifixion

Hammering nails into the fingers and hands

Amputating sex organs or breasts with an electric carving knife

Spraying insecticides into a victim’s eyes

Branding with a hot iron

Committing rape while the victim’s spouse is forced to watch

Pouring boiling water into the victim’s rectum

Nailing the tongue to a wooden board

Extracting teeth with pliers

Using bees and scorpions to sting naked children in front of their parents

These were some of the ways Saddam treated his prisoners. And by the way there was no oversight agency reporting on what was going on either as Ken seems to think is a must.

13

It is good, however, that Dick wants to reserve the right for the CIA to do these things. You never know when cutting the balls off a would-be terrorist could come in handy.

14

What’s the point of defending values if you don’t violate those values?

DUH!

15

armytri:

google “The Tuskegee Syphilis Study.”

-mike
.

16

I am actually familiar with that “experiment gone bad.” I remember when president Clinton made the formal apology back in the late 1990’s and we also studied it in grad school. I am not sure of the relevance to the thread however. If its to make the point that the government made a huge moral and ethical mistake you will get no argument from me. It was a horrible incient.

17

**These were some of the ways Saddam treated his prisoners. And by the way there was no oversight agency reporting on what was going on either as Ken seems to think is a must. **

You did not really just give me the “But what about Saddam?” argument, did you?

You’re smart enough to know that your post is completely meaningless. I’d appreciate it if you actually took the time to answer my question. What’s the difference between torture and “cruel, inhumane, and degrading” treatment? Where’s the line between them? What possible reason is there to think that the people running secret prisons can recognize or will respect that line? How in the world do you think it’s possible to ban torturing a prisoner if you allow cruel, degrading, and inhumane treatment?

18

What do all the things on that list have in common?

Other than they nicely fit the definition of torture, they also happen to be “cruel, inhuman, and degrading” . Where’s the line drawn? What’s cruel? Slapping someone? Maybe. Or ripping their balls off?

19

Would you consider shoving a glowstick up someones ass torture? Or is it just another friday night in the barracks?

20

“What’s the difference between torture and “cruel, inhumane, and degrading” treatment? Where’s the line between them?”

This is the real question. Is ripping pages from a Koran torture? I’d say not. Is it degrading and possibly cruel? I’d say it could be depending on the detainee. There are obvious things that are over the line like cutting off fingers or savage beatings, but it’s the actions that hover right around the line that are more difficult. It’s clearly demeaning to call someone a “motherfucker”, but is that something that we have to ban? Is it torture? How do you allow interogators to apply stress in a session without crossing a line? And who has the final say for what is ok, and what crosses that line? Clearly the majority of interogation is accomplished through simple question and answer session and by building a relationship with the detainee, which takes a long time, which is why intel folks feel like we need the ability to hold people for an extended period of time. But in those situations when more stress is called for, there needs to be some protection for those that apply that stress in a responsible manner. If everything that might be considered offensive is ruled out, we’re tying our own hands behind our backs, I think needlessly. Here’s the definition as per the UN Convention Against Torture:

“For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”

21

Only if its your ass fruitcake.