Cheney Gains Rock-Star Status at CPAC

Remember this past Sunday when former Vice President Dick Cheney declared that he is a "big supporter" of waterboarding and effectively solidified his support for torture?

Remember how others have stated that is is pretty much a confession to conspiring to torture and how the Department of Justice should investigate and prosecute Cheney based off his claims?

Well I wonder how Cheney would be received at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) when he was announced as a surprise guest by his daughter Liz:



What an ovation! Check out this report from Ben Smith at Politico:

Chris Barron, organizer of "Draft Cheney," emails this morning that he's organizing a write-in vote for the former Vice President at the CPAC straw poll.

“We urge the grassroots conservatives who will be attending CPAC to join us in sending a powerful message about the future of our party, by writing in the name of the only person with the experience and conservative credentials necessary to lead our party in 2012 – write in Dick Cheney,” Barron says.

It looks like Conservatives at CPAC are more than willing to accept a man who openly embraces torture and openly thumbs his nose at the rule of law.

More on Cheney's Torture Confession

I wanted to follow-up on this post in which I discussed former Vice President Cheney admitting that he was a "big supporter" of waterboarding.

There were a couple of reactions to Cheney's appearance on ABC this past Sunday that were right on the money and advance this discussion surrounding his behavior. I wanted to start with Glenn Greenwald who feels that Cheney knows exactly what he is doing...he is taunting the current administration:

In general, people who commit felonies avoid publicly confessing to having done so, and they especially avoid mocking the authorities who fail to act. One thing Dick Cheney is not is stupid, and yet he's doing exactly that. Indeed, he's gradually escalated his boasting about having done so throughout the year. Why? Because he knows there will never be any repercussions, that he will never be prosecuted no matter how blatantly he admits to these serious crimes.

[...]

Does anyone doubt that Cheney's assessment is right? And isn't that, rather obviously, a monumental indictment of most everything?

I think that this is sadly quite accurate. Cheney is not a stupid man and it is quite clear that he feels that he can speak freely about his support for what Attorney General Holder has explicitly stated, is torture. The Obama Administration has held true to their pledge to "look forward" and not to the past on the issue of torture, even when it is clear that crimes and have been committed and even when now, a former Vice President admits to supporting torture on national television.

Scott Horton lays out the section of the Federal Criminal Code that Cheney admitted to violating:

Section 2340A of the federal criminal code makes it an offense to torture or to conspire to torture. Violators are subject to jail terms or to death in appropriate cases, as where death results from the application of torture techniques. Prosecutors have argued that a criminal investigation into torture undertaken with the direction of the Bush White House would raise complex legal issues, and proof would be difficult. But what about cases in which an instigator openly and notoriously brags about his role in torture?

[...]

What prosecutor can look away when a perpetrator mocks the law itself and revels in his role in violating it? Such cases cry out for prosecution. Dick Cheney wants to be prosecuted. And prosecutors should give him what he wants.

It should be pointed out that not only did Cheney admit to supporting torture, but right at the end of the interview was this exchange (emphasis mine):

KARL: And, finally, I know that you have a reunion coming up later this month with President Bush. This'll be the first time you've seen him since leaving office, face to face?

CHENEY: Pretty much, yes. We talk on the telephone periodically, but the first time I've seen him since January 20th.

KARL: What does he think of you being so outspoken in contrast to him?

CHENEY: Well, I don't think he's opposed to it, by any means. I'd be inclined to let him speak for himself about it. The reason I've been outspoken is because there were some things being said, especially after we left office, about prosecuting CIA personnel that had carried out our counterterrorism policy or disbarring lawyers in the Justice Department who had -- had helped us put those policies together, and I was deeply offended by that, and I thought it was important that some senior person in the administration stand up and defend those people who'd done what we asked them to do.

And that's why I got started on it. I'm the vice president now -- ex-vice president. I have the great freedom and luxury of speaking out, saying what I -- what I want to say, what I believe. And I have not been discouraged from doing so.

Cheney mentions that the lawyers at the Justice Department had "helped us put those policies together" and that he felt it was his role to "defend those people who'd done what we asked them to do." In other words, the Bush Administration wanted to torture detainees and so they asked lawyers like John Yoo and Jay Bybee to craft memos that would allow them to do so. Yoo and Bybee obliged. This is conspiracy to torture and as Scott Horton mentions, a serious crime.

There has been no excuse to investigate for some time now and with the former Vice President's recent comments, there is no justification that the current Justice Department could use to defend not prosecuting those who broke such serious laws.

Cheney Delcares His Support for Waterboarding

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was on ABC's This Week yesterday morning spouting most of the same talking points that he has become known for ever since leaving office last year. He slammed the Obama Administration as being weak on terrorism and criticized their handling of almost every aspect of their Foreign Policy.

While much of what Cheney had to say is not surprising there was this exchange between Cheney and guest host Jonathan Karl:

KARL: Did you more often win or lose those battles, especially as you got to the second term?

CHENEY: Well, I suppose it depends on which battle you're talking about. I won some; I lost some. I can't...

(CROSSTALK)

KARL: ... waterboarding, clearly, what was your...

CHENEY: I was a big supporter of waterboarding. I was a big supporter of the enhanced interrogation techniques that...

KARL: And you opposed the administration's actions of doing away with waterboarding?

CHENEY: Yes.

Cheney's open admission to being a "big supporter" of waterboarding has led some like Andrew Sullivan to claim that this is an open admission to a war crime by the former Vice President:

In fact, the attorney general of the United States is legally obliged to prosecute someone who has openly admitted such a war crime or be in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention on Torture. For Eric Holder to ignore this duty subjects him too to prosecution. If the US government fails to enforce the provision against torture, the UN or a foreign court can initiate an investigation and prosecution.

These are not my opinions and they are not hyperbole. They are legal facts. Either this country is governed by the rule of law or it isn't. Cheney's clear admission of his central role in authorizing waterboarding and the clear evidence that such waterboarding did indeed take place means that prosecution must proceed.

Cheney himself just set in motion a chain of events that the civilized world must see to its conclusion or cease to be the civilized world. For such a high official to escape the clear letter of these treaties and conventions, and to openly brag of it, renders such treaties and conventions meaningless.

In addition to pretty much confessing it only solidifies Cheney's sadistic tendencies each time he appears on one of these programs. When the former Vice President goes on national television and declares that he is a big fan and supporter of torture, one would hope that in a country that prides itself on being a nation of laws, some action would be taken. Still though, the Obama Administration and the Holder Justice Department continue to take no action on an issue that so clearly needs further investigation and civilized society suffers. After all, if there is no punishment for crimes as serious as these, then there will be no deterrent when history repeats itself in the future. These are grave and serious matters and it is on this Administration to stand up for the rule of law no matter how politically difficult.

For those interested, here is the full ABC interview in two parts:

Dick Cheney Strikes Terror into the Hearts of Former Bush Administration Officials

There was an interesting story that popped up in the news today that really emphasizes just how partisan Washington has become.

Peter Baker of the New York Times wrote a magazine piece entitled "Inside Obama's War on Terrorism" which contains the following tidbit (emphasis mine):

A half-dozen former senior Bush officials involved in counterterrorism told me before the Christmas Day incident that for the most part, they were comfortable with Obama’s policies, although they were reluctant to say so on the record. Some worried they would draw the ire of Cheney’s circle if they did, while others calculated that calling attention to the similarities to Bush would only make it harder for Obama to stay the course. And they generally resent Obama’s anti-Bush rhetoric and are unwilling to give him political cover by defending him.

You read that right. Former Senior Bush Administration officials told Baker that they were reluctant to express public support for President Obama's policies partly because they were scared of former Vice President Cheney's reaction.

While the other half of that quote is also disturbing, anyone who has been paying attention has already noticed the similarity in some of Obama's policy decisions to those that were made by President Bush.

What is really striking is not only that these Bush Administration officials admitted this point, but the explicit partisan nature of this behavior. We all know that Washington is bad, but this is something that I would expect to hear more on a middle school playground than from officials who ran this country.

Rachel Maddow to Liz Cheny: "I Will Not Bite"

Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, and Bill Kristol have launched a new organization called "Keep America Safe" whose mission statement reads in part:

Since 9/11, the United States Government, through our armed forces and our intelligence and law enforcement professionals, has succeeded in preventing any further attacks on the American homeland. This is a major achievement. By turning away from the policies that have kept us safe, by treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter, giving foreign terrorists the same rights as American citizens, launching investigations of CIA agents, cutting defense spending, breaking faith with our allies and attempting to appease our adversaries, the current administration is weakening the nation, and making it more difficult for us to defend our security and our interests.

Keep America Safe believes the United States can only defeat our adversaries and defend our interests from a position of strength. We know that America has, for 233 years, been an unparalleled force for good in the world, that our fighting forces are the best the world has ever known, and that the world is a safer place when America is trusted by our allies and feared and respected by our enemies. Keep America Safe will make the case for an unapologetic approach to fighting terrorism around the world, for victory in the wars this country fights, for democracy and human rights, and for a strong American military that is needed in the dangerous world in which we live.

They have also launched a new web ad:



Cheney's group is obviously targeting MSNBC in this ad though it is unclear whether the "they" that are referring to in the ad is MSNBC specifically or anyone who opposes the agenda of this conservative group. Regardless, Rachel Maddow responded last night on her show:



Considering that Rachel Maddow has invited many guests on her show to debate substantive issues in a respectful manner, it is going to be interesting to see if Cheney decides to take up Maddow's offer. I know one thing, if this does happen, it will be must see TV and I would like to see Maddow's full hour show devoted to this discussion.

Jeremy Scahill on Torture and Dick Cheney

Jeremy Scahill was on Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night talking about torture and Dick Cheney's latest interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News. Video is below:

Dick Cheney has a Lovely Chat With Fox's Chris Wallace

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was interviewed by Fox News' Chris Wallace over the weekend. If there is still any question remaining in your mind about the level of journalism displayed at Fox News, look no further than this interview:



Andrew Sullivan likened it to "a teenage girl interviewing the Jonas Brothers":

Now look: there are softball interviews; and then there are interviews like this. It cannot be described as journalism in any fashion. Even as propaganda, which is its point, it doesn't work - because it's far too cloying and supportive of Cheney to be convincing to anyone outside the true-believers. When it comes to Cheney, one of the most incompetent vice-presidents in the country's history, with a record of two grotesquely botched wars, war crimes and a crippling debt, Chris Wallace sounds like a teenage girl interviewing the Jonas Brothers.

My two favorite moments:

CHENEY: I am going to -- if I address that, I will address it in my book, Chris.

WALLACE: It is going to be a hell of a book.

CHENEY: It is going to be a great book.

And then the apology for asking the questions Cheney wanted asked:

WALLACE: Well, we want to thank you for talking with us and including in your private life putting up with an interview from the likes of me.

CHENEY: It's all right. I enjoy your show, Chris.

WALLACE: Thank you very much, and all the best sir.

When future historians ask how the United States came not only to practice torture but to celebrate it and treat torturers as heroes, a special place in hell among the journalists who embraced and justified it should be reserved for Chris Wallace.

More that has yet to be Revealed on Torture

Scott Horton has a great post in which he discusses seven of his observations surrounding the recent release of the 2004 Inspector General report. His whole post is worth a full read and you can find it here, but in the meantime, here are a few of his observations:

1. The worst is yet to come. Yesterday the CIA released a fresh copy of the report with roughly half of the “case study” discussion now unmasked. But context and placement suggest that the material that remains concealed contains some of the worst discussion of abuse in the report. The heavy redactions start around page 25, and the redactions cover discussion of the origins of the program and the approval process, as well as the discussion of specific prisoners, notably Abu Zubaydah, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, and Khalid Shaikh Mohammad. Although cases in which the guidelines provided by the Justice Department were exceeded have been discussed, it’s likely the case that the still blacked-out passages cover instances where Justice gave a green light but the conduct was so gruesome that CIA wants to keep it under wraps. That means we haven’t heard the last of the Helgerson report, and further disclosures are likely.

2. Opposition from within. For years the CIA has said that CIA personnel would be demoralized and the reputation of the agency would be damaged by disclosure of the contents of the report. But the report documents just the opposite. The Inspector General’s review was launched by complaints coming from valued senior employees who felt that the Bush Program (as John Yoo has dubbed it) was wrong. One of them actually expresses his worry that those involved will be hauled before the World Court at some point because of [and that’s redacted!] This makes clear that good employees of the agency opposed the Bush Program, were vocal in their opposition, and focused concern on the program’s illegality. The OLC memos were intended to silence these complaints, but they only accentuated the agency’s morale problems by enmeshing it in obviously illegal and immoral conduct. By contrast, the number of CIA personnel involved in pushing it through and supporting it is tiny—probably not many more than two dozen—though their voices are heard very loudly. It’s interesting that in a stream of appearances by CIA personnel on TV yesterday—Tyler Drumheller, Jack Rice, Bob Baer and others—all said that a criminal investigation was a good idea. The official spokesman of the CIA torture team remains, as for the last seven years, David Ignatius.

[...]

4. All trails lead to the Vice President’s office. At several points, redactions begin just when the discussion is headed toward the supervision or direction of the program and context suggests that some figure far up the Washington food chain is intervening. Moreover, as Jane Mayer recounts in Dark Side, Helgerson’s report was shut down when he was summoned, twice, to meet with Dick Cheney, who insisted that the report be stopped. Cheney had good reason to be concerned. This report shows that the vice president intervened directly in the process and ensured that the program was implemented. The OPR report likewise shows Cheney’s office commissioning the torture memos and carefully supervising the process. It is increasingly clear that torture was Dick Cheney’s special project and that he was personally and deeply involved in it. And the CIA report has some amazing nuggets that show Cheney’s hand. In 2003, after Jay Bybee departed OLC, Cheney struggled to have John Yoo installed as his successor, but ultimately John Ashcroft’s candidate, Jack Goldsmith, prevailed. Goldsmith quickly backtracked on the torture authorizations that Yoo and Bybee gave. The result? The CIA stopped taking its cue from OLC and instead turned to the White House for guidance. It is remarkably vague on the particulars, and blackouts emerge just as passages seem to be getting interesting. But there’s little doubt that Dick Cheney and his staff were pushing the process from behind the scenes.

Panetta's Reaction to Finding Out About Cheney's Secret Program

Rachel Maddow had a good point last night regarding the revelation that former Vice President Dick Cheney apparently ordered that his "secret assassination program" be kept from Congress.

If this was a program that was designed to secretly use the CIA to go around the world in an attempt to target, capture, or kill terrorists - then explains the reaction of CIA Director Leon Panetta? After all, the United States has a long history of targeting "terrorists" around the world with the goal of "capturing" or "killing" them, so it seems a little odd that Panetta acted the way that he did once he found out about this program. Panetta ordered that the program be stopped on the very day that he found out about it and he also went to Congress to disclose that this program had been hidden from them. Something tells me that we haven't learned all that there is to know about the nature of Cheney's secret program. Rachel Maddow explains:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

TIME magazine floats another possible idea:

CIA officials tell TIME there's another, somewhat less dramatic, possibility: a plan to conduct domestic surveillance. Spying on Americans is outside the CIA's purview and would be highly controversial — good enough reason for Cheney to want it kept under wraps.

but then the article quotes officials who claim that Panetta wasn't informed because the program wasn't "operational" and so it was "no big deal". If this program was "no big deal" and was a program designed to do what is essentially done every day in the so-called "War on Terror", then it makes no sense that Panetta would have such a severe reaction when finding out about this program. More details are almost certainly yet to be revealed.

Cheney's Secret Assassination Program

A lot has been revealed recently about, what appears to be, a secret assassination program that was headed by former Vice President Cheney. Last week, details began to quickly emerge about this program and that Cheney allegedly ordered that it be hidden from members of Congress. Rachel Maddow gives a good summary of how events have unfolded:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

So it looks like Dick Cheney was running a secret assassination ring. This sounds oddly familiar, almost like someone said something about this earlier this year:

At a “Great Conversations” event (MP3) at the University of Minnesota last night, legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh may have made a little more news than he intended by talking about new alleged instances of domestic spying by the CIA, and about an ongoing covert military operation that he called an “executive assassination ring.”

[...]

At the end of one answer by Hersh about how these things tend to happen, Jacobs asked: “And do they continue to happen to this day?”

Replied Hersh:

“Yuh. After 9/11, I haven’t written about this yet, but the Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state. Without any legal authority for it. They haven’t been called on it yet. That does happen.

"Right now, today, there was a story in the New York Times that if you read it carefully mentioned something known as the Joint Special Operations Command -- JSOC it’s called. It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ...

"Congress has no oversight of it. It’s an executive assassination ring essentially, and it’s been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths.

"Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That’s been going on, in the name of all of us.

"It’s complicated because the guys doing it are not murderers, and yet they are committing what we would normally call murder. It’s a very complicated issue. Because they are young men that went into the Special Forces. The Delta Forces you’ve heard about. Navy Seal teams. Highly specialized.

"In many cases, they were the best and the brightest. Really, no exaggerations. Really fine guys that went in to do the kind of necessary jobs that they think you need to do to protect America. And then they find themselves torturing people.

"I’ve had people say to me -- five years ago, I had one say: ‘What do you call it when you interrogate somebody and you leave them bleeding and they don’t get any medical committee and two days later he dies. Is that murder? What happens if I get before a committee?’

"But they’re not gonna get before a committee.”

For one, it looks like Seymour Hersh has been proven correct. As we continue to hear stories of wiretapping, torture, and assassination squads one must ask what it is going to take to launch some kind of investigation into criminal activity on at least one of these topics.

Newly Leaked Emails Give Some New Insight into the 2004 White House Torture Debate

The New York Times has obtained three 2004 emails from then Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey, that lend some new insight into the internal discussions that surrounded the issue of interrogation techniques and the publication of the "torture memos" in 2004 and 2005.

I first read the emails and then the New York Times article and wondered if the New York Times had analyzed the same memos that I had read. From the NYT piece:

When Justice Department lawyers engaged in a sharp internal debate in 2005 over brutal interrogation techniques, even some who believed that using tough tactics was a serious mistake agreed on a basic point: the methods themselves were legal.

Previously undisclosed Justice Department e-mail messages, interviews and newly declassified documents show that some of the lawyers, including James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general who argued repeatedly that the United States would regret using harsh methods, went along with a 2005 legal opinion asserting that the techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency were lawful.

There is nothing in the emails that indicate Comey had agreed that the interrogations techniques outlined in the DOJ "torture memos", were legal. To the contrary, he raised fierce objections to the program and warned that the opinions would come back to haunt the administration. emptywheel has more analysis of the problems with the New York Times article here.

So, what do these newly leaked emails tell us? Glenn Greenwald has a great post that breaks down the emails:

The DOJ torture-authorizing memos are perfectly analogous to the CIA's pre-war intelligence reports about Iraq's WMDs. Bush officials justify their pre-war statements about WMDs by pointing to the CIA's reports -- as though those reports just magically appeared on their desks from the CIA -- when, as is well documented, Dick Cheney and friends were continuously pressuring and cajoling the CIA to give them those threat reports in order to supply bureaucratic justification for the attack on Iraq. That is exactly how the DOJ torture-authorizing memos came to be: Dick Cheney, David Addington and George Bush himself continuously exerted extreme pressure on DOJ lawyers to produce memos authorizing them to do what they wanted to do -- not because they were interested in knowing in good faith what the law did and did not allow, but because they wanted DOJ memos as cover -- legal immunity -- for the torture they had already ordered and were continuing to order. Though one won't find this in the NYT article, that is, far and away, the most important revelation from the Comey emails.

[...]

But the real story here is obvious -- these DOJ memos authorizing torture were anything but the by-product of independent, good faith legal analysis. Instead, those memos -- just like the pre-war CIA reports about The Threat of Saddam -- were coerced by White House officials eager for bureaucratic cover for what they had already ordered. This was done precisely so that once this all became public, they could point to those memos and have the political and media establishment excuse what they did ("Oh, they only did what they DOJ told them was legal"'/"Oh, they were only reacting to CIA warnings about Saddam's weapons"). These DOJ memos, like the CIA reports, were all engineered by the White House to give cover to what they wanted to do; they were not the precipitating events that led to and justified those decisions. That is the critical point proven by the Comey emails, and it is completely obscured by the NYT article, which instead trumpets the opposite point ("Unanimity at DOJ that these tactics were legal") because that's the story their leaking sources wanted them to promote.

These emails give interesting insight into the pressure that was put on the DOJ by former Vice President Cheney, Harriet Miers, David Addington, and President Bush to publish the opinions expressed in the "torture memos", that the use of these various techniques (that were already being used) were legal. Comey even mentioned that he believed that this program would eventually become public and that the Administration would justify their actions by pointing to these very DOJ opinions. Greenwald points out the important point that the pressure being put on the DOJ to release these opinions, are a very good indication that the opinions were released not in good faith, but because of the intense pressure that the Bush Administration put on DOJ so that they would release opinions that were concurrent with what they wanted to do.

Former Military Interrogator: "Torture has cost us American lives"

Matthew Alexander is a former senior military interrogator that conducted over 300 interrogations in Iraq and supervised over 1,000. He was lead interrogator for the military task force whose responsibility it was to track down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. He recently sat down for an exclusive interview with Brave New Films during which he rebuked statements made by former Vice President Cheney and asserted that "Torture has cost us American Lives".

Here is the video:

A Tale of Two Speeches and a Tale of Two Obamas

Yesterday I posted an entry prior to, what the media was dubbing as, the "dueling speeches" between President Obama and Vice President Cheney on anti-terrorism policy.

President Obama went first and gave a speech that was highly critical of the Bush Administration's policies over the last eight years:

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight; that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions.

[...]

the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable -- a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions, and that failed to use our values as a compass. And that's why I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people.

Obama went on to condemn waterboarding and torture, defend his decision to close the military base at Guantanamo Bay, and assure the people of the United States that we are a country that adheres to the rule of law and to the Constitution. It was a good speech that was well delivered and spoke very eloquently about the United States as a country that is obligated to respect and adhere to the principles upon which it was founded.

As expected, Dick Cheney's speech was sharply critical of President Obama for the decisions that he has made since being elected to the Presidency. Cheney also defending the decision made by the Bush Administration as well as the legacy that their policies have left behind:

What is equally certain is this: The broad-based strategy set in motion by President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on our watch. The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.

There have been some good reactions and observations on both speeches and I would like to share a few of them with you. First is the assessment that McClatchy Newspapers gave of Dick Cheney's speech in which they say that Cheney "ignored some inconvenient truths" in his speech. Here are a few examples from the McClatchy piece:

_ Cheney denied that there was any connection between the Bush administration's interrogation policies and the abuse of detainee at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, which he blamed on "a few sadistic guards . . . in violation of American law, military regulations and simple decency."

However, a bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee report in December traced the abuses at Abu Ghraib to the approval of the techniques by senior Bush administration officials, including former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own," said the report issued by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz. "The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality and authorized their use against detainees."

[...]

_ Cheney said that only "ruthless enemies of this country" were detained by U.S. operatives overseas and taken to secret U.S. prisons.

A 2008 McClatchy investigation, however, found that the vast majority of Guantanamo detainees captured in 2001 and 2002 in Afghanistan and Pakistan were innocent citizens or low-level fighters of little intelligence value who were turned over to American officials for money or because of personal or political rivalries.

In addition, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Oct. 5, 2005, that the Bush administration had admitted to her that it had mistakenly abducted a German citizen, Khaled Masri, from Macedonia in January 2004.

Masri reportedly was flown to a secret prison in Afghanistan, where he allegedly was abused while being interrogated. He was released in May 2004 and dumped on a remote road in Albania.

In January 2007, the German government issued arrest warrants for 13 alleged CIA operatives on charges of kidnapping Masri.

[...]

_ Cheney said that, in assessing the security environment after 9-11, the Bush team had to take into account "dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists."

Cheney didn't explicitly repeat the contention he made repeatedly in office: that Saddam cooperated with al Qaida, a linkage that U.S. intelligence officials and numerous official inquiries have rebutted repeatedly.

The late Iraqi dictator's association with terrorists vacillated and was mostly aimed at quashing opponents and critics at home and abroad.

The last State Department report on international terrorism to be released before 9-11 said that Saddam's regime "has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President (George H.W.) Bush in 1993 in Kuwait."

A Pentagon study released last year, based on a review of 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the U.S.-led invasion, concluded that while Saddam supported militant Palestinian groups — the late terrorist Abu Nidal found refuge in Baghdad, at least until Saddam had him killed — the Iraqi security services had no "direct operational link" with al Qaida.

Cheney's speech was quite typical of speeches that were given by various Bush Administration officials during their time in office. They mischaracterized facts, omitted contrary information, and flat-out lied in order to defend their lawless and reckless behavior. Instead of once again tearing down the neo-conservative agenda for the remainder of this post, let's return to the President.

There has also been some worthy criticism of Barack Obama's speech as being well delivered, but meaningless considering the actions that he has taken since he has taken office. Glenn Greenwald provides his insight:

The speech was fairly representative of what Obama typically does: effectively defend some important ideals in a uniquely persuasive way and advocating some policies that promote those ideals (closing Guantanamo, banning torture tactics, limiting the state secrets privilege) while committing to many which plainly violate them (indefinite preventive detention schemes, military commissions, denial of habeas rights to Bagram abductees, concealing torture evidence, blocking judicial review on secrecy grounds). Like all political officials, Obama should be judged based on his actions and decisions, not his words and alleged intentions and motives. Those actions in the civil liberties realm, with some exceptions, have been profoundly at odds with his claimed principles, and this speech hasn't changed that. Only actions will.

I agree with Greenwald's mixed reaction. Obama does a good job at making some very important points and arguments surrounding the need to refocus the country on the values and principles that we have strayed from in the last eight years. Within the same speech however, Obama openly argues for extending old policies and implementing new ones that violate the very areas to which he seeks recommittal.

dday echoes these sentiments:

So in public, the President gave a pretty speech about upholding the rule of law, but inside the White House, he vows not to uphold it, to do precisely the opposite of what he claims to believe makes us "who we are as a people." In fact, it does violence to the rule of law for the President to even decide who does and does not get prosecuted, as that is nowhere near within his jurisdiction. And as each new revelation about criminal activity committed at the highest levels comes out, the hollowness of Obama's rhetoric becomes more and more clear

Rachel Maddow also did a fantastic job at observing the same on her program last night:




Will Obama supporters now be in favor of so-called "prolonged detention"? It seems as though those who opposed "indefinite detention" under President Bush should oppose "prolonged detention" if they are being intellectually honest.

Today's Cage Match Between Obama and Cheney

President Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney will both be giving speeches on the topic of anti-terrorism and national security later this morning and the corporate media are eating this up, portraying this as if it were a championship fight between two heavyweight boxers.

"Obama vs. Cheney" reads this headline on MSNBC and Politico has a headline entitled, "Barack Obama, Dick Cheney plan dueling speeches". My how the media loves a good political speech-off! So much so, that CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News all plan to carrying Dick Cheney's speech in its entirety and predictably, will debate both speeches as if they carry equal weight.

I, for one, would like to see analysis of these speeches given in the following context. President Obama's speech, which will reportedly focus on Guantanamo Bay and the issues surrounding the closure of the base, actually has meaning considering that Obama is the President. Dick Cheney's speech, which will reportedly focus on how torture is a necessary tool in combating terror, are the words of a man who is not only making torture a partisan issue, but has been on a media tour trying to justify the lawless legacy that the Bush Administration has left behind.

This is only a "duel" because the corporate media are presenting it that way. What we really have is one speech by the President of the United States and another speech by a former Vice President who is desperate to defend the lawless legacy that he has left behind and in doing so, will rely on his continued strategy of defending torture and using fearmongering to claim we are "less safe" under Obama.

More thoughts and reactions on this after the two speeches.

Colin Powell's Former Chief of Staff: Torture Was Used to Link Al Qaeda to Saddam

Former Chief of Staff to then Secretary of State Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson, was recently on "The Rachel Maddow Show" discussing the various comments made in the media by Former Vice President Dick Cheney:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Wilkerson then posted an entry on the website of the Washington Note in which he stated:

Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002--well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion--its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa'ida.

So furious was this effort that on one particular detainee, even when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney's office that their detainee "was compliant" (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP's office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qa'ida-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, "revealed" such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop.

There in fact were no such contacts. (Incidentally, al-Libi just "committed suicide" in Libya. Interestingly, several U.S. lawyers working with tortured detainees were attempting to get the Libyan government to allow them to interview al-Libi....)

The seriousness of what went on over the last eight years under the leadership of the Bush Administration cannot be stressed enough. Claims that torture was being applied to detainees to elicit false information on a non-existant link between Al Qaeda and Iraq remind me of the words of another former Administration official.

Take a journey with me back to 2004 when President Bush's top adviser on terrorism, Richard Clarke, made the following claims on 60 Minutes (emphasis mine):

Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.

Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld was joking.

[...]


After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.
"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."

Clarke's statements were made five years ago. Seems like some of the puzzles pieces are beginning to fit together to bring things full circle.

The Stunted Discourse on Torture Continues

I have devoted quite a few entries recently to the discussion of torture policies and my viewpoint that officials that approved these policies should be investigated and held accountable for their actions. I actually find it fascinating to witness some of the conversations that take place in the media in regard to torture policies and those who continue to insist that this is merely a question of political difference and debate as opposed to a discussion over accountability to the rule of law.

I am in complete agreement that outgoing administrations should not have to worry about policies being criminalized, but when those policies break the law and are potential war crimes, then certainly those who implement said policies should be investigated and held to account. When we are discussing violations of the law, we move beyond mere differences in political ideology and discussions about accountability to the law should not be viewed through merely a political lens. After all, we are a nation of laws and are of the belief that no one is above the law. It was quite refreshing to see the nominee for the position of Attorney General state today that "no one is above the law" and that "waterboarding is torture".




Despite Holder's assertion that "no one is above the law" President-elect Obama has not made any indication that Bush Administration officials will be investigated and face charges for implementing policies. In fact, Obama stated the tired line that "we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards" this past weekend with George Stephanopolous. In order for Obama's Administration to hold the line that "no one is above the law" and to remain consistent with their assertion that "waterboarding is torture", there is no other option than to hold those who made the decision to implement torture, accountable for their illegal and immoral actions.

As President Bush and other Administration officials continue to admit that they approved of torture and Holder and Obama state that waterboarding is indeed torture that the United States has prosecuted others for in the past, the scenario is set for the next step of accountability. All the while there is still a debate about whether these policies are appropriate, with people like Joe Scarborough and Dick Cheney, continuing to defend these policies as necessary to the safety of U.S. citizens. The clip below is a prime example of just how backward the discourse has slid when these issues are discussed:

Cheney Defends Torture, Claims Country is Guided by "The Hand of Providence"

Last week, a group of conservative journalists sat down with Vice-President Cheney for a two hour discussion on the last eight years in the White House and about his service in various Presidential Administrations. Among these journalists, was Erick Erickson of the website HumanEvents.com and his latest piece discusses some of the topics about which the outgoing Vice President spoke.

Naturally, the so-called "War on Terror" was a topic that came up during this time and Erickson mentions that Cheney feels that the Administration did not get credit for a lot of things that didn't happen; or to translate, Cheney is again making the claim that since the United States has not been attacked since 9/11, it is evidence that the Bush Administration's policies have worked. It is obvious that Cheney feels that torture is among the "policies" that have provided results in keeping America safe because Erickson then quotes Cheney as saying:

We’ve ended up in a situation where critics label everything the administration does as “torture.” “That word,” he sighed, “is used with reckless abandon."

The fact that Cheney is still arguing semantics in regard to using the term "torture" as opposed to the more Orwellian "enhanced interrogation techniques" is more indication that Administration officials feel that these policies were actually beneficial and feel that they did nothing wrong. Regardless of the term used, it is more important is to focus on what has been implemented as acceptable ways of treating detainees, how those policies have broken laws, and how it affects the United States and its ability to keep the country safe in the future.


We know, from the Senate Armed Services Committee report released a few weeks ago, that what Cheney and Bush Administration officials felt would be acceptable, has led to the abuse and deaths of detainees that were in U.S. custody. A report issued last year by Physicians for Human Rights found abuses such as detainees being stabbed in the cheek with a screwdriver and another detainee had injuries consistent with being sodomized. Combine this with the comprehensive records that the ACLU has kept of detainee deaths that are consistent with homicide and one continues to wonder if using the term "torture" really is being used with such "reckless abandon". If this is deemed an appropriate way to treat detainees, the majority of which have never been charged with a crime, then perhaps America needs to step down from pedestal of morality upon which these same leaders claim we are perched.

Erickson's piece continues:

Many of the administration’s opponents have never let go of the belief that terrorists could be prosecuted. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the best example: the dividing line between the Bush administrations admirers and its most vehement critics falls along not just party lines, but separates those whose views are legalistic and academic and those who view war pragmatically.

What is striking about this statement is not just Erickson's amazement that there are those who "have never let go of the belief that terrorists could be prosecuted" as if prosecuting criminals is some hair-brained idea, but his distinction between those who view the war in legalistic terms versus pragmatic terms. To think that war should be viewed through one lens or another is to fall trap to same black and white mindset that this Administration has grown so fond of during the last eight years. Breaking the law the way this Administration has done and disrespecting the very idea of the law in the name of pragmatism is still breaking the law. Upholding the law is not some ideology with which those who have supposed "pragmatic vision" can simply disagree with.

What drives Cheney and other members of the Bush Administration to believe that they are above the law? Perhaps the answer lies in Cheney's response to a question by conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer during the two-hour long interview. Krauthammer asked Cheney if he felt that the "hand of providence" played a part in American history. Erickson documents:

The Vice President replied that he thought the United States had a very special place and was unique in history. “Clearly genius was involved in establishing the Republic. . . . We’ve either been extraordinarily fortunate from time to time or one can see the hand of providence.”

With the belief that your god is on their side and is guiding the path of the country that they lead, then it becomes easier to justify breaking laws in the name of advancing the cause of a country that has a "special place" and is guided by the "hand of providence". Such a perversion of adherence to the rule of law, justified by a belief in divine guidance is a reinforcement of why there needs to be an independent investigation of crimes committed over the last eight years.

Washington and Fox News Shed a Tear for the Departure of Brit Hume

Last night, Brit Hume signed off for the last time as the anchor of the Fox News program, "Special Report". Hume was treated to a video presentation from his colleagues and friends (including both Presidents Bush and Vice President Cheney), praising his journalistic integrity and all of his years of hard work:





Is it any surprise that President Bush and Vice President Cheney would appear in a video to heap praise upon an anchor that has provided this Administration a platform from which they have spread their propaganda? It is only appropriate to take a look back at a few instances which show exactly what type of "journalist" Brit Hume was during his tenure as anchor. In order to do this, I turn back to Glenn Greenwald, author, activist, and commentator for Salon.com who has written about Hume over the years. Let's go back to an entry from Greenwald on September 11, 2007, in which he analyzed Hume's performance when General David Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker appeared on "Special Report" to "brief America" about the situation in Iraq. Greenwald writes:

The model for the entire hour was not a journalist asking questions of
government leaders, but instead, a direct examination at a trial, where a
friendly lawyer gently leads his own witness to present claims in the most
persuasive manner possible, with the lawyer interrupting only to clarify the
witness' statements and to provide helpful suggestions as to how the witness can
make his case even more effectively.

Greenwald goes on to describe how during the first ten minutes of this program, Petraeus (with help from charts and a video presentation) spoke uninterrupted, carefully laying out his talking points with Hume only speaking to raise points that helped to clarify points that Petraeus was making. The program continued in this manner with Hume lobbing softball after softball at both Petraeus and Crocker and refusing to critically challenge or follow-up the responses. Greenwald writes of Hume:

Even before this obscene propaganda show last night, the very idea that
Hume could be considered a "journalist," and that there is nothing deemed
improper about Gen. Petraeus choosing him for an exclusive interview, speaks
volumes about the broken and corrupt state of our media. Hume is an outspoken
proponent of the war, having called Jack Murtha senile for advocating withdrawal and proclaiming the Democrats untrustworthy on national security for opposing the war. A country with a functioning political press would never pretend that the pro-war, Bush-worshipping Hume could conduct an actual interview with Petraeus, let alone be the only journalist allowed to do so.

What other kind of "journalism" passed the so-called "fair and balanced" test during Hume's tenure? Let's fast forward to the coverage that Fox News gave the U.S. raid on the Afghan village of Azizabad. It quickly became clear that the United States had killed around 95 civilians in this raid as villagers spoke of their outrage and news reports began to surface that this had not been a military target. The U.S. government continued to insist that this target was legitimate and that only 5 civilians had been killed in this attack. Brit Hume's program joined alongside the Pentagon, suggesting the witnesses had lied and that few civilians had been killed in the strike despite mounting evidence that led the U.S. to reinvestigate the raid.

All the while, the U.S. government did everything from accusing villagers from spreading Taliban propaganda to doubting the claims that 50 of the civilians that were killed, were children, despite contrary information from investigations, independent journalists, the UN, and video footage of the aftermath that showed the large number of civilians that had been killed in this raid. The Pentagon did an investigation at the time and said that they based their conclusion (that many Taliban members had been killed) on an account from an "independent journalist" and his first-hand account of the incident. This "independent journalist" turned out to be Oliver North, Fox News reporter, main player in the Iran-Contra scandal who admitted lying to Congress, and regular guest on Brit Hume's program.

Glenn Greenwald also wrote about this incident and Hume's involvement in spreading these dubious claims:

Nobody -- other than Brit Hume's news show -- ever denied that civilians were
killed in this airstrike. The only "debate" -- prior to the emergence of
documentary evidence -- was over how many were killed. Yet Fox began by telling its pitifully misled viewers that while "some locals claim [the airstrike]
killed civilians," "a Fox crew" had a "different story."

Greenwald continues:

Fox's news show -- not Bill O'Reilly, but Brit Hume's "legitimate news
program" -- continued to insist, based upon the "reporting" of "journalist"
Oliver North and his cameraman, that the U.S. military's original claims were
true, and the villagers and the U.N. were lying, even as the U.S. military
itself was, in light of the ample evidence, severely backtracking on its story

This is the type of reporting that is consistent with the the "fair and balanced" coverage for which President Bush and Vice President Cheney heap praise upon Hume in his farewell video. Is it any wonder why they hold Hume in such high regard? Now that Hume will be "limited" to his new role as "Senior Political Analyst", one wonders what kind of analysis he will be giving as a guest on the very same "news" program that he just spent over a decade anchoring. I bet the only difference that we will be able to see, is the side of the table on which Hume will be seated.

Happy trails Brit!

This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

Rep. Nadler (D-NY) Calls for an Investigation of Bush Administration Officials

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has written a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey urging him to appoint an independent council to investigate actions taken by Vice President Dick Cheney, Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and other senior level administration officials in regard to the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody. Rep. Nadler cites Vice President Cheney's recent interview with ABC News and Cheney's frank admission to directly approving the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad as evidence of the Administration's participation in approving tactics that are against the law. Rep. Nadler states in his letter:

The Vice President’s public admission that he was “aware of the program,
certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared” is deeply
disturbing. It implicates the Vice President in this activity which appears to
have been a direct violation of our criminal laws against the use of
torture. Similarly, a recent report issued by the Senate Armed Services Committee
found that “Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s authorization of aggressive
interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of
detainee abuse there.”[7] Additional evidence shows that other top officials
also were involved in authorizing similar activities.

Not only did Cheney admit to his role in approving such policies as stated above, but, as Nadler points out, the Senate Armed Services Committee recently issued a report that found Administration officials directly responsible for the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody. I recently wrote about this bi-partisan report and will reemphasize that this report is damning evidence that the Administration not only approved policies of torture, but lied about it when the abuses at Abu Ghraib were exposed.

In addition to Nadler's letter, he appeared this morning on Democracy Now! and emphasized some very basic points that I, and others, have been making:

And the morality of this aside, you cannot have high officials deliberately
break the law without accountability. The Vice President, on that interview we
saw a few minutes ago, talked about the oath of office that the President, the
Vice President, others take, and that is to preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States. You are not preserving it, and you are not
defending it; you are, in fact, perverting it, if you deliberately break the
law, which is the supreme law of the land pursuant to the Constitution. It is
imperative, if the United States is to remain a country of laws and not men,
that people who break the laws be held accountable.

This is very important and very fundamental to the operation of the United States. This country is a country of laws and not men, or in other words, no one should be above the law. When it continues to become increasingly clear that elected officials at the highest levels of government have committed serious crimes, there should be no reason why an independent panel shouldn't look into said crimes. As I have also written about in recent days, a distinction must also be made between political accountability and accountability to the law. Nadler touches on this point in his interview:

...there are things that it is imperative that the Obama administration,
when it takes office, and the Congress, in January, take steps to hold officials
accountable for violations of law, and really, not because we want vengeance and
not because we want to be vindictive of what happened, but because holding
people to the law and making them go through a legal process of proving guilt or
innocence is the only way that you can minimize the likelihood of recurrence of
law breaking and maintain the United States as a democratic country.

Those who often raise the argument that we should "move on to unite the country" and "not hold political grudges" are wrongly applying their formula for political accountability into the realm of criminal accountability. When laws are broken, there is a need for investigations and charges to be brought that apply to the crimes committed. It does not make any sense, or deter future political leaders from lawbreaking, if we chalk up the violation of laws to "political disagreements" or "political difference". This is the same disparity that I wrote about in discussing the response of some in Politico's "Arena" forum recently. I will revisit Maurice Carroll's response to reiterate the point:

Is it a good idea for a new administration to look for prosecutable crimes
by the old administration? Even if their opinion is that there WERE crimes? By
and large, the answer is no. Even if the true believers (and the true-believer
editorial writers) are pestering the Obama administration to do it. One of the
strengths of the American political system is that it's not a blood sport. We
disagree without looking to put the other guys in jail. Which is a longish way
of saying: There'll be a new slate. Shouldn't we wipe the old slate clean?

Carroll is not alone in this viewpoint, a viewpoint that encourages us not to investigate an outgoing administration EVEN IF there is a belief that crimes WERE committed. Carroll justifies this viewpoint by stating that "we disagree without looking to put the other guys in jail" and that this is "one of the strengths of the American political system." This is an absurd statement that equates political difference with accountability to laws and sadly, it is this narrative that is often repeated the loudest during these recent discussions about investigation of Bush Administration Officials. It mischaracterizes the argument of those who are calling for accountability to the rule of law into an argument being put forth by mere political opponents.

Rep. Nadler is not the first who has called for the investigation of Bush Administration officials for lawbreaking and he is certain to not be the last. There have been some rumors that President Bush has plans to pre-pardon members of his Administration before January 20 to avoid potential prosecution, but at this point it remains to be seen if an Obama Administration would put forth such an investigation. There is certain to be more on this issue between now and Inauguration Day.

This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

Cheney Spouts Off on Support for Torture, Executive Power, and Illegally Wiretapping Americans

Vice President Dick Cheney has been making several appearances in the corporate media as of late, giving interviews to ABC and FOX over the last few days, in which he has been quite frank about many aspects of the last eight years. For example, in these interviews Cheney has revealed:

1. That as a "general principle", any decisions the President makes during wartime are legal.

2. The interrogation of Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed, which included repeatedly waterboarding him, was approved through the Vice President's Office, that he does not regret that decision, and that he supports waterboarding as a tactic used by America.

3. That he himself told leading Democratic members of the Congress, in detail, about the NSA warrantless wiretapping program and that the Democrats agreed that this program should proceed and be kept secret.

These items are not necessarily ground-breaking or "new", but the open way in which Cheney confirms what many have been saying for years now is a clear indication that this Administration has operated and continues to operate under the notion that they are above the law. Support for a Nixonesque view of Executive power, support for torture, and support for illegally listening in on the phone conversations of Americans are not the result of some long investigative report or inquiry, rather this is the admission of the current Vice President during nationally televised interviews. Is it any clearer that this country needs to hold these officials within the Administration accountable and recommit itself to the rule of law? Cheney in his own words:








In regard to this last clip about the NSA wiretapping program, I think that Glenn Greenwald's entry over at Salon hits the nail on the head regarding the complicity of the Democrats in Congress in some of the illegal activity over the last eight years and just how far Washington has strayed from the basic principles of the law:

Either way, Cheney's general claim is as clear as it is incriminating. According to him, key Congressional Democrats were told about the illegal NSA spying program in detail, and they not only actively approved of it, but far beyond that, they insisted that no Congressional authorization should even be sought, based on what was always the patently inane claim that to discuss the fact that the administration was eavesdropping on our conversations without warrants (rather than with warrants, as the law required) would be to reveal our secrets -- "our playbook" -- to Al Qaeda. It is certainly true that Dick Cheney is not exactly the most scrupulously honest public servant around. In fact, he's almost certainly the opposite. Still, what he said yesterday was merely an expanded and more detailed version of what has previously been publicly reported and, to some degree, confirmed about the knowledge and support of Democratic
leaders for the NSA program.