Hello:

He's trying to save his own a$$.

Did he, Donald Rumsfeld and the dufuf use torture to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq, or did he only do it to keep us safe, like he SAYS?

Evidence is mounting that under Cheney's direction, "enhanced interrogation" was not used exclusively to PREVENT imminent acts of terror or collect actionable intelligence, the aims that he constantly emphasizes, but to INVENT evidence that would link al-Qaida with Saddam Hussein and connect the late Iraqi dictator to the 9/11 attacks.

Hmm. That would be a crime, wouldn't it? But, vise is too smart for that. Isn't he? Stay tuned.

excon

Are you of the beliefe that anyone involved in knowing about and/or hiding the ehnanced interrogations is guilty of a crime? If so, what crime?

Is anyone who "lied" about it guilty of a crime? If so, what crime?

Is anyone who gave an opinion that it was okay to do guilty of a crime? If so, what crime?

Is anyone who wrote a memo on the subject guilty of a crime? If so, what crime?

And are all the people involved trying to save their a$$? If so, from what?

Also, how many people were these techniques use on? How many times were these techniques used on each of the people? WHAT were the techniques actually used?

I know, I know, none of that is important. The actual facts around the case are immaterial. You've made up your mind and the actual FACTS about what people have done or not done, what crimes they might have committed or not... none of that is of any import. YOU have come to the conclusion that they TORTURED people and they're ALL guilty, and NOTHING is going to convince you otherwise.

I'm surprised that you haven't implicated Condi Rice in all of this. After all, she was National Security Advisor under Bush during the first term. I'm sure she knew where and how the information from KSM was obtained. It would be part of her job to know. But I guess only Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove can be considered "Old White Rich men", and therefore only THEY are subject to your scorn.

Elliot

You are referring to Duelfer book Hide and Seek: The Search for Truth in Iraq as being reported by Robert Windrem, a former journalist for NBC(the Obama news network) .

He claims that Cheney's office requested that an Iraqi prisoner be interrogated because this prisoner had knowledge of Saddam's links to AQ.

The prisoner was Muhammed Khudayr al-Dulaymi ;head of the M-14 section of Mukhabarat ;Saddam's brutal security agency .His responsibilities were chemical weapons and contacts with terrorist groups. One who may be called the worse of the worse ;and someone who should have been aggressively questioned .
Khudayr would've been someone trained to resist normal routine interrogations .Under tea and crumpet questioning Khudayr denied everything.

It is my opinion that Duelfer's Report on WMD was flawed and incomplete . He bugged out of Iraq before his work was complete because Zarqawi was targeting him and Saddam's people with knowledge of the WMD program.He in fact admitted that the investigation could not be completed due to the security situation.

We know that Duelfer's conclusions were incomplete because General Sada ;second in command of the Iraqi Air Force confirmed that Iraqi planes flew much of the Iraqi WMD materials to Syrian before the war began. We also know that Russian convoys were transporting WMD out of the country as the war began.

He cited testimony from Naji Sabri, the Iraqi Foreign Minister who claimed there was no movement of Iraqi WMD to Syria . But he also admitted that he had a relationship with Sabri and he just accepted what he said even though Duelfer later admitted that Sabri had nothing to do with any WMD programs at any time. “His statements on WMD from an intelligence perspective would have been irrelevant,” Duelfer writes in his book.


Until they grant Cheney's request to release the documents he requests I'll have no choice but to assume this whole exercise is nothing more than a Stalinist purge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

you are refering to Duelfer book Hide and Seek: The Search for Truth in Iraq as being reported by Robert Windrem, a former journalist for NBC(the Obama news network) .

---

It's "National Barack Company".

Not to be confused with "American Barack Compay", "Central Barack Service", or "Public Barack Service".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Are you of the beliefe that anyone involved in knowing about and/or hiding the ehnanced interrogations is guilty of a crime? If so, what crime?

Is anyone who "lied" about it guilty of a crime? If so, what crime?

Is anyone who gave an opinion that it was okay to do guilty of a crime? If so, what crime?

Is anyone who wrote a memo on the subject guilty of a crime? If so, what crime?

And are all the people involved trying to save their a$$? If so, from what?

The actual facts around the case are immaterial. You've made up your mind and the actual FACTS about what people have done or not done, what crimes they might have committed or not... none of that is of any import.

---

Hello Elliot:

After all this time, you should know that I'm not hysterical. I don't guess. I don't repeat what I've read. I don't carry water.

What I do instead, is think. I understand that's not something you're familiar with, so it surprises you that somebody actually does it...

I've spelled out the legal case before, and I'll probably have to do it again... Let's start with the proposition that torture is illegal. If you don't think so, then we have nothing to discuss. If it is determined that what we did was torture, then everybody who ordered it, did it, and conspired to do it, are guilty of a war crime.

YOU and your ilk have determined that EIT isn't torture. Fortunately for this country, YOU are not the final arbiter. The courts are.

Let's just take the lawyers... If the conclusion they came up was the result of due diligence, then even if it was bad law, and it was, NO CRIME was committed... However, if the conclusion was predetermined, and they wrote the memos to cover somebody's a$$, that's illegal. It's a crime, and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

What techniques they used and how many people they used them on, or even whether they were successful or not, isn't relevant to the legal question. We don't even have to parse the word torture anymore, because the courts will.

excon

I suppose this is about Wilkerson being "pretty sure it’s fairly accurate." I think that besides Obama finding out that being prez in real life is different than campaigning, there might be a touch of him realizing Democrats probably don't want so much transparency after Pelosi's implosion over what she knew.

But anyway, I just needed a place to mention something about a VP's gums glapping...

Joe Biden Confirms, Apparently, Top-Secret Survival-of-Government Bunker for Vice President

And you thought Bush was a dufus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Let's just take the lawyers... If the conclusion they came up was the result of due diligence, then even if it was bad law, and it was, NO CRIME was committed... However, if the conclusion was predetermined, and they wrote the memos to cover somebody's a$$, that's illegal. It's a crime, and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

---

Uhhh... no. If a lawyer renders a legal opinion, even if that opinion is contrary to the law, he is still NOT guilty of any crime. All he has done was put words on a piece of paper, and there is nothing illegal about that. If it was done in good faith, fine. But even if it was done to help someone get off a crime, well, that's what attorneys do for a living. They twist legal interpretation to fith their client's needs. There is NOTHING illegal about that. There's not even anything unethical about it.

And if you would bother to read the memo, which I'm sure you haven't, you'd know that the opinion WAS rendered in good faith, and with a strong legal and historical argument to back them up.

You are trying to assign guilt where none exixsts... or even can exist.

That is why Holder had to let 'em go, and why Obama and Pelosi have been trying so hard to get their local bar associations to take action. There's no CRIME to get them on in the legal arena, so they have to go after them in the political arena. And NOW the entire thing is blowing up in Pelosi's face.

Quote:

---

Suppose this is about Wilkerson being "pretty sure it's fairly accurate."

---

So far we have Wilkerson's rantings , and Duelfer ,who wrote in his book that someone made a request that Muhammed Khudayr al-Dulaymi be subjected to EIT . Robert Windrem ;a former reporter for NBC makes the extrapolation without any proof that the request came from someone in the VP office.

Quote:

---

Evidence is mounting that under Cheney's direction, "enhanced interrogation" was not used exclusively to PREVENT imminent acts of terror or collect actionable intelligence, the aims that he constantly emphasizes, but to INVENT evidence that would link al-Qaida with Saddam Hussein and connect the late Iraqi dictator to the 9/11 attacks.

---

There is no evidence at all . There is no question that Saddam's Iraq cooperated with AQ ;but no one ever made the claim that there was a direct connection of Saddam to the 9-11 attacks. To find out the level of cooperation however would fall under "actionable intelligence " .

So far the only player in this game asking for the release of exculpatory evidence is Cheney.The people making the accusations are obfuscating .Duelfer's book was probably vetted so it can be assumed that some of the stuff he wanted to write about was scrubbed. Wilkerson and Windrem are speaking out of their a$$ .