Cheney Pushes Senate for CIA Exemption on Torture

[chomerics]

Man, this is just plain sickening. The VP of our freakin country want to have an explicit exception for the CIA to torture people in secret prisons :doh:

By DAVID ESPO and LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writers 54 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - 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 (news, bio, voting record) of Alabama, while Arizona Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) 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.

Cheney's appeal came two days before a former senior State Department official claimed in an interview with National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" that he had traced paperwork back to Cheney's office that he believes led to U.S. troops abusing prisoners in

Iraq.

"It was clear to me there that there was a visible audit trail from the vice president's office through the secretary of defense down to the commanders in the field," Lawrence Wilkerson, a former colonel who was Secretary of State

Colin Powell's chief of staff during

President Bush's first term, said Thursday.

Wilkerson said the view of Cheney's office was put in "carefully couched" terms but that to a soldier in the field it meant sometimes using interrogation techniques that "were not in accordance with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and the law of war." He said he no longer has access to the paperwork.

Cheney spokeswoman Jennifer Mayfield declined to comment on Wilkerson's remarks.

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.

source

[Thiebear]

Why do you have a problem with the CIA doing the dirty work of the Country?

As far as I know Maxwell Smart in the 50's was a parody of it...

Whats your exact issue with the CIA torturing suspected terrorists in Pakistan to find the rest of the cell?

Have you gotten all weepy on us, or is it too hard to pass by Cheney without a swipe?

Edit: I can see not allowing the military do it.. geneva convention and all.

But the cia is clandestine personnel working against other clandestine personnel with no one in uniform and if your caught your dead..

*Kinda why you've been railling about Valerie Plame being outed*...

[Sarge]

in case the president decided one was necessary to prevent a terrorist attack.

If this is the case, the CIA damn well better be chopping of some fingers and toes to get info

[Spaceman Spiff]

Chom buddy, i don't know why you keep getting offended and uppity over stuff like this. there's so much **** like this going on in presidencieson BOTH sides that i'm not shocked anymore.

[Lone Star Skin Fan]

Why would Cheney want a terrorist act prevented? He's made out pretty well since the last one.

I'm with Chom.

Plus anything this administration is for, I am against

[Crazyhorse1]

Chom buddy, i don't know why you keep getting offended and uppity over stuff like this. there's so much **** like this going on in presidencieson BOTH sides that i'm not shocked anymore.

Let me get this straight, just for the record: You guys are Americans; Christians, or believe in some other God of the civilized world; consider yourselves fit to raise children; understand that the President of the United States is not a monarch and that torture of prisoners is an international crime by rules of the Geneva Conventions (uniforms or not), as well by a number of other international agreements; realize that torture is abhored by every reputable theologian in the Western world; and know that your mothers are people rather than one-eyed demon swollen ****es from hell and would die of shame for you if they caught you torturing anyone; and still you support the Vice President's position on torture?

[airborneskins]

Wait, I am sure that if we ask nicely, and say pretty please, they will tell us exactly what they plan on doing. :doh:

C'mon guys it is Sh!t like this that is saving your @sses. We are not talking about kids that are wannabe gangsters, we are talking about the real deal mo-fo's that want to kill every American they can, and plan on killing themselves if they have to in order to accomplish the mission. :doh:

[Sarge]

Let me get this straight, just for the record: You guys are Americans; Christians, or believe in some other God of the civilized world; consider yourselves fit to raise children; understand that the President of the United States is not a monarch and that torture of prisoners is an international crime by rules of the Geneva Conventions (uniforms or not), as well by a number of other international agreements; realize that torture is abhored by every reputable theologian in the Western world; and know that your mothers are people rather than one-eyed demon swollen ****es from hell and would die of shame for you if they caught you torturing anyone; and still you support the Vice President's position on torture?

Let me get this straight. You'd rather pass on a potentially vital piece of intelligence, and in the situation the VP stated, one that could avert another terrorist attack on the United States, than torture someone for the info?

You'd rather assure the physical comfort of an enemy that has declared they want to end your way of life, and end your own life as well, than apply some pressure?

Is that what you're saying?

[Crazyhorse1]

It's axiomatic that you get trash intel by torture. It doesn't work. Other means are much more effective. Torture is effective in getting your own people tortured when they are captured, however. Is that what you want?

[Sarge]

It's axiomatic that you get trash intel by torture. It doesn't work. Other means are much more effective. Torture is effective in getting your own people tortured when they are captured, however. Is that what you want?

You never answered my question

[MaddogCT]

I wonder what all of Cheney's friends overseas are thinking right now?

:logo:

[dreamingwolf]

we really should just surrender to islam now, it will save lives in the long run. atleast they will only kill those who break islam laws that are in place, and not the innocents in the battle to put them in place.

Who would have guessed that tollerance would have created blindness?

[twa]

I wonder what all of Cheney's friends overseas are thinking right now?

:logo:

Probably that he has the common sense to retain the option of torture in extreme cases where time is a luxury we cannot afford.

[Destino]

I would agree with Cheney on one condition. The fact that the President has decided to torture someone must be made PUBLIC within 24 hours.

I do not support any law that goes against the will of the people in SECRET. You think that torture is absolutely needed? Then you pay the political capital to have it done, period. Having everything take place behind closed doors makes it too easy a decision.

[DeanCollins]

One things for sure, the VP has big coconuts to stick his neck out for this in the midst of all the scandels surrounding the WH lately.

personally I think we should let the CIA do there job when it comes to obtaining information. And I have a problem with terrorist not representing one country (any country), or wearing uniforms, and think that should make them exempt to the protections under the Geneva Convention. They certainly are not observing the GC. It's nice to have have ethical standards,

but the trouble is, it's a double standard with regards to this enemy.

We are expected to act under the highest standards, with respect to this enemy, and they are expected to act like barbarians. And thier supporters are the first ones to scream about a mistep on our part (abu grab), never commenting about beheading, burning people alive.....It's sickening.

You can't win a game of chess, playing by the rules of checkers.

[twa]

I would agree with Cheney on one condition. The fact that the President has decided to torture someone must be made PUBLIC within 24 hours.

I do not support any law that goes against the will of the people in SECRET. You think that torture is absolutely needed? Then you pay the political capital to have it done, period. Having everything take place behind closed doors makes it too easy a decision.

I could see extending the time to 48 hrs or so,but otherwise I agree.

There should be accountability for it's use.

[airborneskins]

I would agree with Cheney on one condition. The fact that the President has decided to torture someone must be made PUBLIC within 24 hours.

I do not support any law that goes against the will of the people in SECRET. You think that torture is absolutely needed? Then you pay the political capital to have it done, period. Having everything take place behind closed doors makes it too easy a decision.

Destino, this would work, IF you wnat the other terrorists to know that we have the ones being tortured. There is a reason that we do not publish who we have captured. Big Names, sure, But just your average ordinary terrorist joe, no..

[Burgold]

The VP lacks courage in this. Why? He proposed it in a private meeting only in front of his fellows. When confronted with the leak, his people refused to confirm or deny. If he were a man of courage and conviction and believed that it truly was right for the US to engage in torture than he should have made his case in public and let the American people decide.

The problem here is standards. What they are asking for is that if the President knows that a prisoner has vital information... well, how sure does the President or the CIA have to be? If you hold a high standard, then aren't you seeking confirmation versus new intelligence? If you hold a low standard, then you're arguing that it's cool to torture anyone who has the remote possibility of having knowledge. Do you truly want to give the CIA carte blanche to imprison US citizens without charge, hold them in a secret prison leaving their family in the dark, and subjected to torture on the suspiscion that he or she might know something? We're not just talking about Pakistan, Iraq, or Syria. We're talking about anyone under surveilance. Anyone whom the CIA deems suspiscious could be disappeared and tortured. Doesn't that seem against the amber grain?

[nelms]

Let me get this straight, just for the record: You guys are Americans; Christians, or believe in some other God of the civilized world; consider yourselves fit to raise children; understand that the President of the United States is not a monarch and that torture of prisoners is an international crime by rules of the Geneva Conventions (uniforms or not), as well by a number of other international agreements; realize that torture is abhored by every reputable theologian in the Western world; and know that your mothers are people rather than one-eyed demon swollen ****es from hell and would die of shame for you if they caught you torturing anyone; and still you support the Vice President's position on torture?

Why yes, yes I do. Now STFU and grow a pair.

[twa]

Why yes, yes I do. Now STFU and grow a pair.

:laugh:

What I want to know is why there is no public outcry about leaking classified info,seems like a job for another indepedent prosecutor

[Burgold]

Just because a meeting is private does not make it classified. I bet there a lot of people trying to find the leaker, because they're pissed.

[autographcollector]

Chom is soooooooooooo naive

[twa]

Destino, this would work, IF you wnat the other terrorists to know that we have the ones being tortured. There is a reason that we do not publish who we have captured. Big Names, sure, But just your average ordinary terrorist joe, no..

How about a compromise of after 24-48 hrs it is reviewed by a appointed panel,which would allow some oversight.

However I see NO need to publicly release the suspects identity in either instance.

[Mad Mike]

What some here have chosen to forget is that terrorist acts of the future will almost certainly include a nuclear attack. That has been their stated goal long before 9/11.

So here's the situation... There is an imminent threat of a nuclear attack on an american city. Youv'e nabed a guy who very likely knows the details you need to prevent it. The bad guys may step up their timetable if they know you have this shmuck (there's your 24 hour rule Destino), and no other means of coercion have worked to get the answers you need to save an American city from destruction (Asking nicely hasn't done squat and you are all out of options Crazyhorse). What do you do?

[Prosperity]

I will be open minded about this idea if

1. The circumstances are as dire as possible, ie the unlikely scenario presented above

2. It will become public who gets tortured and why

3. There must be some sort of trial to figure out if the person was guilty, if not then the people responsible must be punished thoroughly, including jail time.

4. Accountability has to go to the highest levels, some random CIA spook can't take the fall for #3

5. for this to be legal the law must be exteneded (or stopped) every 2 years, or sooner, it can never under any circumstance become legal for good

6. The tortured person must not be killed or maimed, until they have a trial

Even after all that I have to wonder if the gov will inevitably abuse it, my guess is that once we give the gov this power we won't be able to take it away and there will be rampant abuse.