Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

3point14 said:
And that will affect Cheney how?
Click to expand...

I imagine that he doesn't want to forever be branded a war criminal by the President of the United States. Nor, I think, would others that might be in his position in the future.
 
Tony Stark said:
I imagine that he doesn't want to forever be branded a war criminal by the President of the United States. Nor, I think, would others that might be in his position in the future.
Click to expand...

I imagine that he doesn't really care all that much. He is a sociopath.
 
Tony Stark said:
I imagine that he doesn't want to forever be branded a war criminal by the President of the United States. Nor, I think, would others that might be in his position in the future.
Click to expand...

But he'll still live in the big house with the big car and receive whateve monies he can earn during the rest of his life until he dies?

I'm sure he's quaking at the prospect. Those that will forgive him don't care if he's branded a criminal those that won't already know. It affects him not at all.

Anyone else in his position in the future is going to look back and think 'well, Cheny got away with it' and go ahead and commit some war crime somewhere and then hide in the USA safe in the knowledge that the USA harbours international criminals from justice.
 
tsig said:
You think that torture produces the truth?
Click to expand...

Is this one of your questions that is supposed to teach me something tsig? If so, you have completely misunderstood what I posted which had nothing whatever to do with whether torture produces truth. If you want to demonstrate that it never does, go right ahead. Maybe somebody will take the other side.
 
3point14 said:
But he'll still live in the big house with the big car and receive whateve monies he can earn during the rest of his life until he dies?

I'm sure he's quaking at the prospect. Those that will forgive him don't care if he's branded a criminal those that won't already know. It affects him not at all.

Anyone else in his position in the future is going to look back and think 'well, Cheny got away with it' and go ahead and commit some war crime somewhere and then hide in the USA safe in the knowledge that the USA harbours international criminals from justice.
Click to expand...

What you describe is the status quo except for now there is no official acknowledgement that he's a war criminal that only escaped prosecution because of a pardon.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Why do serial killers hide the bodies?
Click to expand...

Because they don't want people to know that they are serial killers. If Cheney doesn't care what anybody thinks, why is he giving interviews telling lies designed to convince people that he is not a war criminal? He certainly doesn't have to talk to anybody about this at all.
 
3point14 said:
But he'll still live in the big house with the big car and receive whateve monies he can earn during the rest of his life until he dies?

I'm sure he's quaking at the prospect. Those that will forgive him don't care if he's branded a criminal those that won't already know. It affects him not at all.

Anyone else in his position in the future is going to look back and think 'well, Cheny got away with it' and go ahead and commit some war crime somewhere and then hide in the USA safe in the knowledge that the USA harbours international criminals from justice.
Click to expand...
I think he cares about his legacy.
 
Tony Stark said:
What you describe is the status quo except for now there is no official acknowledgement that he's a war criminal that only escaped prosecution because of a pardon.
Click to expand...


He needs to be prosecuted.

Acknowledging he has ordered torture and is therefore a torturer by proxy but then adding because he's rich and influential he won't suffer any consequenses at all is no better than ignoring it.

I strongly suspect that, in the circles in which he moves, the branding and the pardon would bring him a pat on the back and a Cuban cigar rather than any derision. He is and will be utterly insulated from the reaction of anyone that would view his branding as a war criminal as anything other than a badge of honour.

I say again. the USA, it's government and administration is, in the name of the people, harbouring torturers and international criminals. By it's own admission.
 
Tony Stark said:
Because they don't want people to know that they are serial killers. If Cheney doesn't care what anybody thinks, why is he giving interviews telling lies designed to convince people that he is not a war criminal? He certainly doesn't have to talk to anybody about this at all.
Click to expand...

Because he doesn't want to go to jail. He could care less about what people think about him.
 
3point14 said:
He needs to be prosecuted.
Click to expand...

But that appears unlikely to happen.

Acknowledging he has ordered torture and is therefore a torturer by proxy but then adding because he's rich and influential he won't suffer any consequenses at all is no better than ignoring it.
Click to expand...

Maybe if only Cheney was pardoned it could legitimately be argued that it was because of his wealth and influence. But if everybody involved, including low ranking CIA officers got pardoned, not really. The President would be saying that those people are criminals but isn't the in the interest of the United States to prosecute them.

I strongly suspect that, in the circles in which he moves, the branding and the pardon would bring him a pat on the back and a Cuban cigar rather than any derision. He is and will be utterly insulated from the reaction of anyone that would view his branding as a war criminal as anything other than a badge of honour.
Click to expand...

Why, he's already getting away with it. If being a war criminal would be a badge of honor, why is he trying to convince people that he is not a war criminal?

I say again. the USA, it's government and administration is, in the name of the people, harbouring torturers and international criminals. By it's own admission.
Click to expand...

And that doesn't seem like it will change. That being as it is, I would rather see the President basically call these people criminals with a pardon rather just do nothing.
 
anglolawyer said:
Is this one of your questions that is supposed to teach me something tsig? If so, you have completely misunderstood what I posted which had nothing whatever to do with whether torture produces truth. If you want to demonstrate that it never does, go right ahead. Maybe somebody will take the other side.
Click to expand...

It was a question trying to elicit an answer. Interesting how you are trying to reverse the burden of proof and want me to prove torture never works, look up proving a negative.

If torture doesn't produce reliable information then why use It?

Would you take your car to a shop that only fixed on out of one hundred cars and mangled the other 99?
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
But that appears unlikely to happen.
Click to expand...

True. :(

Maybe if only Cheney was pardoned it could legitimately be argued that it was because of his wealth and influence. But if everybody involved, including low ranking CIA officers got pardoned, not really. The President would be saying that those people are criminals but isn't the in the interest of the United States to prosecute them.
Click to expand...

It is not in the interests of the USA to abide by international treaties to which they are signatories? That is the biggest possible raised middle digit to the rest of the world.


Why, he's already getting away with it. If being a war criminal would be a badge of honor, why is he trying to convince people that he is not a war criminal?
Click to expand...

I genuinely don't think he would care. I certainly don't think anyone outside the USA would consider justice done.


And that doesn't seem like it will change. That being as it is, I would rather see the President basically call these people criminals with a pardon rather just do nothing.
Click to expand...


To me it's the same thing, I'm afraid.
 
IANAL but I think what Anglolawyer is saying that the only possible defense would to argue on a basis of necessity. I.e that a case could potentially be made (solidity of said case to be evaluated) that they acted from their view of the situation believing that it was necessary to do what they did. IANAL so can't evaluate how common law and statute could be directed in this case to work but I am sure we have all seen cases where flimsy defences have won the day.
 
Tony Stark said:
How does lying to the press help keep him out of prison over keeping silent? Which would you think that a lawyer would advise?
Click to expand...

He is trying to convince the public that he should never be prosecuted. A lawyer would probably advise against his going on television, but Dick Cheney is also a narcissist so he thinks he knows the best way to handle the situation.
 
Wudang said:
Have you ever heard "innocent until proven guilty"? Those tortured were largely only suspected of involvement.
Click to expand...

Bleeding heart liberal, some of these people were even in the same country as a known terrorist, if that isn't strong enough grounds for suspicion I don't what is.
 
tsig said:
It was a question trying to elicit an answer. Interesting how you are trying to reverse the burden of proof and want me to prove torture never works, look up proving a negative.

If torture doesn't produce reliable information then why use It?

Would you take your car to a shop that only fixed on out of one hundred cars and mangled the other 99?
Click to expand...

You need to be having this argument with somebody else. I have posted nothing about whether torture works, produces truth etc.

if I were running the defence of necessity to torture I would have to prove my belief that the torture was the only way of avoiding greater harm [and other things besides]. Depending on whether that belief were subject to an objective test, I might also have to prove my belief was a reasonable one. The jury is still out on this point in England and Wales (IOW a genuine but unreasonable belief might suffice). I would not have to prove torture works but only that I believed (objectively or subjectively, according to whatever the law on that point is) that it would in the particular circumstances. So your point would also be irrelevant even in a real trial, which is going some even for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom