The report as to why Cheney should be indicted

[Neil D]

There is at least one reporter that is calling for the indictment of Dick Cheney. Here is his reasons. What do you think?

Cheney War Crimes: Just Look at the Statute

By Matthew Rothschild, March 25, 2009

President Obama needs to tell Attorney General Eric Holder to indict Dick Cheney, right now, for war crimes.

Just look at the statute, Title 18 of the U.S. Criminal Code, Section 2441. It says that someone is guilty of a war crime if he or she commits a “grave breach of common Article 3” of the Geneva Conventions. And then it defines what a grave breach would be.

One such breach is torture, or the conspiracy to commit torture, which Cheney was clearly in on, as when he repeatedly defended waterboarding and talked about the need to go to the “dark side” Here’s the language from the statute: “The act of a person who commits, or conspires to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering . . . upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.”

Another grave breach is “cruel or inhuman treatment,” or the conspiracy to inflict such treatment. Again, Cheney was supervising such treatment in the White House, which would qualify as committing this crime. One time, it got so ghoulish that Attorney General John Ashcroft asked the other principals, “Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.”

Here’s the language on “cruel or inhuman treatment”: “The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering . . . including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.”

An additional breach is “mutilation or maiming.” Since some detainees say they no longer have the complete functioning of arms or limbs, Cheney may be on the hook here, too. “The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons . . . by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.”

“Intentionally causing serious bodily harm” is yet another grave breach. The statute defines this as: “The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.”

For each of these offenses, Cheney could receive life in prison, according to the statute.

That is where he belongs.

And it’s time for Obama to stop pussyfooting around. He should indict, arrest, and prosecute Cheney.

“There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes,” said Major General Antonio Taguba, USA (Ret.), in the preface to the Physicians for Human Rights report, “Broken Laws, Broken Lives”. “The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”

That question is now firmly on Obama’s desk.

And if he continues to dodge it, he’ll make a sick joke of the pious claim that we are a nation of laws, not men.

[Woody]

Maybe Obama will give Chaney a pardon.

Ha HA HA HE HE HE HO HO HO

[phkrause]

If it comes to that, I hope he does. I don't think that Chaney should be brought up on any charges.

pk

[there buster]

The terrorists did not qualify for the Geneva Convention. They were not in uniform, they were not state actors, and they targeted civilians.

Geneva convention does not apply to such persons.

[Neil D]

The terrorists did not qualify for the Geneva Convention. They were not in uniform, they were not state actors, and they targeted civilians.

Geneva convention does not apply to such persons.

The intent of the Geneva Convention is to treat people who are prisoners humanly. Our police force is organized to treat prisoner/crimials humanly...The intent is to treat those who commit crimes against humanity humanly...

By your logic, if a person does not qualify as a soldier, we can treat them anyway we want, including torture, disfigurement or other sadistic ways of our choosing. The question here is why do our core values need to be defended in a mannor so as to negetate those same core values? IOWs, we become what we are trying to defeat...

Is that what you want, Mr. Ed? But what do I know...I am a hopelessly lost individual anyway,,,,

[Stan]

I thought it was tradition for the incoming president to 'forgive' the out going one for anything they had done, I many not be using the correct term.

[Neil D]

Since when did Cheney become "president"?

Adminsitration officials are not necessarily 'forgiven' if they were operating outside the law....

[there buster]

Quote:

The intent of the Geneva Convention is to treat people who are prisoners humanly. Our police force is organized to treat prisoner/crimials humanly...The intent is to treat those who commit crimes against humanity humanly...

By your logic, if a person does not qualify as a soldier, we can treat them anyway we want, including torture, disfigurement or other sadistic ways of our choosing. The question here is why do our core values need to be defended in a mannor so as to negetate those same core values? IOWs, we become what we are trying to defeat...

Is that what you want, Mr. Ed? But what do I know...I am a hopelessly lost individual anyway,,,,

In your post, lots of heat, little light, Mr. Neil.

The intent of the Geneva Convention is to make rules for war, so that soldiers in war do not misbehave. It is precisely to prevent soldiers from targeting civilians, etc. Soldiers who act within those rules get the protection of the Geneva Convention. Terrorists violate these rules, and therefore cannot claim their protection.

Please try to actually read what is written. I did not say they could be treated in any way we want. I did not speak to that at all. But they do not come under the Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Convention deals with 'conventional' warfare, not with unconventional warfare. It's really simple. The rules of BASKETBALL don't apply to them, either. They're not playing basketball.

I have no way of knowing-- nor did I say anything -- about you being hopelsssly lost. It does appear, however, that when it comes to basic logic, you have yet to find your way.

[Woody]

Quote:

I have no way of knowing-- nor did I say anything -- about you being hopelsssly lost. It does appear, however, that when it comes to basic logic, you have yet to find your way.

You are so right Ichabod. He is certainly lost in more ways than one. But there is always 'hope'. So he is not hopelessly lost. With God ALL things are possible. 'Hope'fully some day he can become unlost and find his way to the Republican party. But the question is ... do they want him?

[carolaa]

I thought the Geneva Convention was about how to treat prisoners of war.

The fact is that most of the prisoners were not terrorists at all.

[bonnie]

I thought the Geneva Convention was about how to treat prisoners of war.

The fact is that most of the prisoners were not terrorists at all.

I am curious how we know this? Didn't at least one that was released go on to "his higher calling" of suicide bomber

[Neil D]

Quote:

The intent of the Geneva Convention is to treat people who are prisoners humanly. Our police force is organized to treat prisoner/crimials humanly...The intent is to treat those who commit crimes against humanity humanly...

By your logic, if a person does not qualify as a soldier, we can treat them anyway we want, including torture, disfigurement or other sadistic ways of our choosing. The question here is why do our core values need to be defended in a mannor so as to negetate those same core values? IOWs, we become what we are trying to defeat...

Is that what you want, Mr. Ed? But what do I know...I am a hopelessly lost individual anyway,,,,

In your post, lots of heat, little light, Mr. Neil.

[Neil D]

I thought the Geneva Convention was about how to treat prisoners of war.

The fact is that most of the prisoners were not terrorists at all.

Seems to me that I remember reading some pentagon official who said that we had only 12-24 hard core al Qaida prisoners, the rest of the 700+ [?] were just those who were vaccumed up after a miltary operation to squeeze out information of who was a terrorist and where the terrorists were.

Wow...4000+ of our soldiers died for 24 men who might have information on Osama bin Laudin...

....something just seems wrong about that ratio.....

[carolaa]

Originally Posted By: carolaa

I thought the Geneva Convention was about how to treat prisoners of war.

The fact is that most of the prisoners were not terrorists at all.

I am curious how we know this? Didn't at least one that was released go on to "his higher calling" of suicide bomber

There were also attempted suicides inside Gitmo. Who can blame them after the way they were treated? It would be completely understandable for someone to come out of there and go side with the opposition.

As early as 2002, we knew that most of the Gitmo detainees had no connections with terrorists:

http://www.latimes.com/la-na-gitmo22dec22,0,2294365.story

[there buster]

Neil, I've seen people jump to conclusions, but you are one of the few who jumps to one conclusion, then compounds that by using it as the premise for the next jump to another conclusion. You pray leap-frog with yourself.

Like the man said, your answer isn't right-- it isn't even wrong. It's just fantasy.

Quote:

No, Cheney is going around the country saying that this President is making our country less safe because he will not use waterboarding as it is considered a torturing process. Thus, Cheney promotes a core value that is foriegn to the American values. Therefore, since Cheney promotes torture, he should get his day in court.

When the day comes that "promoting a value" is a crime, we won't have to worry about anything else.

[there buster]

Quote:

The fact is that most of the prisoners were not terrorists at all.

If they were combatants, then under the Geneva Convention, we are entitled to hold them until the cessation of hostilities. Since most of them came from Afghanistan, where hostilities are still going on, we would have the right to detain them.

So it works out this way. Terrorists--not under Geneva Conventions, no jurisdiction. Not terrorists, but combatants or suspected combatants apprehended in a combat area, we can detain them until the cessation of hostilities.

Since Obama's justice dept. recently declared that Gitmo is in accord with the Geneva Conventions, there's no problem.

[Neil D]

Neil, I've seen people jump to conclusions, but you are one of the few who jumps to one conclusion, then compounds that by using it as the premise for the next jump to another conclusion. You pray leap-frog with yourself.

[there buster]

Quote:

So let me mirror this back to you, you're saying the values that Cheney is promoting, torture thru waterboarding, is....promoting a value???

I did not say that, you did:

Quote:

No, Cheney is going around the country saying that this President is making our country less safe because he will not use waterboarding as it is considered a torturing process. Thus, Cheney promotes a core value . . .

That statement is a twofer. Cheney has not said that Obama is making the country less safe "because he will not use waterboarding." That is your conclusion jumping.

And you said "Thus, Cheney promotes a core value. . ."

[Neil D]

Quote:

So let me mirror this back to you, you're saying the values that Cheney is promoting, torture thru waterboarding, is....promoting a value???

I did not say that, you did:

[phkrause]

Not only that, from what I've heard on all the news stations, almost all the "so called detainees" (who are not terrorists) have gone back to terrorist groups to fight us again. I think if I'm recalling this correctly, when we first went into Iraq the soldiers stop many Iraqi's and let them go, only to being fighting them again and again, until we got smart enough to start jailing them and than sending them to gitmo. And I guaranty you that we will be seeing them again in Afganisatain fighting against us one more time.

pk

[carolaa]

Quote:

The fact is that most of the prisoners were not terrorists at all.

If they were combatants, then under the Geneva Convention, we are entitled to hold them until the cessation of hostilities. Since most of them came from Afghanistan, where hostilities are still going on, we would have the right to detain them.

So it works out this way. Terrorists--not under Geneva Conventions, no jurisdiction. Not terrorists, but combatants or suspected combatants apprehended in a combat area, we can detain them until the cessation of hostilities.

Since Obama's justice dept. recently declared that Gitmo is in accord with the Geneva Conventions, there's no problem.

So are you saying that all the Gitmo detainees are combatants? Are you saying it's ok to apprehend people because someone pointed their finger at them, and then hold them as long as we want to? Besides that, detaining them is one thing; treating them cruelly is quite another.

It's very possible that Gitmo is in accord with the Geneva Conventions - NOW. Because they finally stopped doing that torture and inhumane treatment stuff. You know, I always thought we were the good guys. What happened?

[Neil D]

It's a National Security Issue...[/TIC]

[there buster]

Quote:

Cheney has not said that Obama is making the country less safe "because he will not use waterboarding." That is your conclusion jumping.

"Those programs" is a generalized statement. You made a specific claim. Even John King's summary does not quote Cheney as saying that Obama is making the world less safe "because he will not use waterboarding." That is his gloss and your jump to conclusion.

Quote:

Oh, and Mr. Ed....I don't have a TV....what's your excuse for not seeing this?

Mr. Neil, I don't need a TV to see when a person jumps to a conclusion. All I need to do is read what they post. Do you not read your own posts?

Besides leaping from the general "those programs" (and we don't have the context of that phrase) to the specific "waterboarding," you make the leap from "this country" to "the world."

[there buster]

Quote:

So are you saying that all the Gitmo detainees are combatants? Are you saying it's ok to apprehend people because someone pointed their finger at them, and then hold them as long as we want to? Besides that, detaining them is one thing; treating them cruelly is quite another.

They were apprehended in a combat area. "Treating them cruelly" is alleged, but like the mythical "flushing the Koran down a toilet," the charges are assumed, not necessarily true.

[Neil D]

"Those programs" is a generalized statement. You made a specific claim. Even John King's summary does not quote Cheney as saying that Obama is making the world less safe "because he will not use waterboarding." That is his gloss and your jump to conclusion.

The articles were taken in context. They each explained Cheneys comment on making America less safe. They each explained Cheney was defending the use of torture by waterboarding. The only conclusion that I can come up with your missing each of these explainations is that you either 1] didn't read the articles nor check the sources that I had supplied. or 2] you just want to be stubborn and ignore/deny the facts of the articles.

Now, since I am accused of jumping to conclusions, let me fulfill that accusation....

You are arguing for the sake of arguing. You assume that in a serious discussion, that I will be reasonably hooked on argueing for arguments sake....Let me assure you that, if you assumed that, you would be the horse's patutie, Mr. Ed. I have no desire to argue with you, as you are just ....well, Mr. Ed.