Tweet
Perhaps the most remarkable moment of the interview, however, came when Cheney was asked if President Bush himself had signed off on the interrogation program. His response left the impression that Bush was brought into the loop only as a legal or political formality.
"I certainly have every reason to believe that he knew a great deal about the program," he said. "He basically authorized it. I mean, this was a presidential level decision. And the decision went to the president. He signed off on it."
There is also this from Condi Rice:
Questioner: "Is water boarding torture?"
Rice: "The President instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations, under the Convention Against Torture. So that’s, and by the way I didn’t authorize anything, I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency that they had policy authorization subject to the Justice Department’s clearance, that’s what I did."
Questioner: "Is water boarding torture, in your opinion."
Rice: "And I just said the United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates are obligation under the Convention Against Torture, and so by definition if it was authorized by the President it did not violate our obligations under the convention against torture."
There is also the memo that Jason Leopold wrote about in which FBI personnel mention a Bush authorization: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/30/a-bush-eo-on-torture/
There is also this LA Times story, where White House spokesman Tony Fratto “indicated that Bush might consider reauthorizing waterboarding or other harsh techniques in extreme cases, such as when there is “belief that an attack might be imminent.”
34 Comments
Thanks wigwam. Recommended.
Un-!@#$%^&=real. Now Dick wants to hide behind junior.
that ain’t really fair, Boo
you’re acting like cheney “moderated” his actions, or compromised his “values” by suddenly using george as a shield
dead eye dick ain’t moderatin anything, and he has always understood the value of hiding behind george bush
cheney has been hiding behind george bush since 1999
It does seem amazing that the bus driver is throwing the boss UNDER the bus now but nothing Cheney does surprises me any longer – the guy is dead set on protecting his own carbuncle’d ass (woops, that’s Rush..sorry). I’m not sure if it’s because he really did think that his heart would give out before he could get tagged with any of this or that he thought they’d get away with it and now…he’s not so sure. In either case, he is certainly trying to put the light on his boss..as Rice is doing as well. All of these SOBs were certainly willing to do the dirty deed…but none of them is willing to suck it up and take responsibility. I’m sure Scooter Libby is just pleased as punch..
Also recommended. I couldn’t bear to watch live, then when I went to HufPo via Wigwam’s link couldn’t get the sound. (finally looked at task bar and sound muted, so fixed). Watched for a while without sound and thoughts I had before came again: Why does Chency look down while spinning his lie, then glance at interviewer, then down again to begin the next tale? Is it that he looks down when he knows he’s lying, then checks to see if interviewer swallowed it? Cheney is not “looking the interviewer in the eye” as he reels out his self-defense.
I’d like to ‘hear’ how other folks read Cheney’s body language. His breathing does, for all the world, sound like Darth Vadar’s.
One trait of a liar is to avoid eye contact by constantly glancing away. Another trait is to maintain eye contact consistently such as Petraeus does. Petraeus has his propaganda memorized and delivers it in a monotone. Cheney does the same thing in all of his interviews. This was a case of a planted question that was answered by Cheney with a memorized script. His breaths are deep because he knows his answer is long and the mike is too close. He is probably glancing down at his script. He is not worrying in this interview about looking at the interviewer because the interviewer is a facilitator of the propaganda/lies. He says that maybe 100s of 1000s were saved. Show us one, Cheney, just one.
Got this off the net. I think the following sure apply to him:
http://teenadvice.about.com/od…..rliar2.htm
is there any doubt?! seriously, thanks for posting that. nice lil’ description for future reference and to lend cred to what everyone suspects about the darling little man.
Fits Cheney like a glove, libbyliberal! As for ’small details’, how about his version of the oath of office which he took??? He is trapping himself in his own web of lies. Thanks so much, libby, I’m going to your link to see what else I can learn about Liars.
HOLY CRAP WIGWAM, let’s get that off to the boyking PRONTO, and LET THE SHIIIT HIT THE FAN!!!!
this is gonna be FUN!
When rats abandon ship, it’s always “me first.”
But, if I read that right, he only said Bush signed off on it. Who created the idea and wrote it up for Dubya’s signature? Seems there has to be some kind of culpability in doing that.
Though, in the end, the final decision the ONLY authority has to be the “unitary executive” (not that I agree with that concept at all) George W. Bush.
I could easily say he asked for that unitary responsibility, but that’s a cheap shot. There are a lot of things done by the Executive that the President doesn’t sign off on and isn’t responsible for (except perhaps in a public superficial way). But, this is clearly a decision he had to make and should have had significant legal counsel to help with.
Keep talking, Dick.. Just keep talking.
Oh, man. I saw that this morning. Incredible that Darth would be so blatant about his hatred for W.
Seemed to me like Cheney knows he’s going down, but he’s comfortable enough that he’s close to death that he doesn’t care. He’s got his death plan, and doesn’t care about what happens at The Hague.
He just wants to make sure that W goes down with him.
Nobody goes to the Hague unless the US government sends them there.
Bush retracted our signature to the ICC treaty about the sametime they were getting their woodies on for “Enhanced Interogations”.
There’s no doubt that George knows, but I think he was Cheney’s satrap and signed his W where Cheney told him sign.
Jr’s legacy has been trashed and that may be why we are seeing the break between them. IMHO
Well, there are US laws against torture too. You can’t just unsign the international treaties. Spain is looking.
” The Hague – In 2002, Congress passed a law enabling United States forces to unilaterally storm into peaceful Holland to liberate American soldiers held for war crimes.
Formally titled the American Service Members Protection Act, the measure is widely and derisively known here as the Invasion of The Hague Act.
Odd as it may seem, the law allows the US to constitutionally send jack-booted commandos to fly over fields of innocent tulips, swoop into the land of wooden shoes, tread past threatening windmills and sleepy milk cows into the Dutch capital – into a city synonymous with international law – and pry loose any US troops.
Today, the Dutch mostly treat the issue as a joke, a cowboy American moment. But it is widely felt that if President Barack Obama’s foreign policy team wants to achieve a symbolic break with the previous White House, it could rescind the invasion law.
The argument for The Hague Act was always very weak,” says Mark Ellis, head of the International Bar Association in London. “Under the ICC statutes, if soldiers’ [are charged with] war crimes, all the US has to say is that it is undertaking a good faith effort to investigate. That automatically sets aside ICC jurisdiction.” “
http://www.alternet.org/rights…..age=entire
I don’t think so.
The Hague Invasion Act (aka American Service Members Protection Act) is a 2002 act of Congress Sponsored by Jesse Helms and signed by President Bush. It would take an act of Congress, including 60 votes in the Senate, to repeal it. Of course, the act, however, permits but does not mandate that the Hague be invaded if and when U.S. officials are brought there.
Thanks for the clarification on the Hague details.
LibbyLibberal @18, you posted some very good indicators of lying behavior, but this part I have to disagree with:
I was falsely accused by two members of the vice squad in Utah, and I became very upset. Then they tried to use that point against me to prove my guilt.
The lawyer I hired told me that protestations against the accusation were actually an indication of my innocence.
I think that liars try to wiggle out of trouble with the use of semantics, excuses and adhominen attacks, more than a direct confrontation of what they are being accused of.
Loo Hoo, I do think that Bush and all of his goons should be held accountable by someone, especially since the “Divine right of Kings” seems to have replaced the constitution and no one in the congressional aristocracy seems to care enough to excericse the power they derive from the people to restore it.
His heavy breathing, to me, sounds very measured — as if he is stating something very carefully. Now, coupled with a serious heart condition, maybe he is not getting enough oxygen. Regardless, it sounds to me like he is nailing Dubya to the wall…
Condi insists W assured Condi it wasn’t illegal. Hmm, is that why she ignored Zelikow’s legal memorandum arguing the opposite?
Cheney knows we are all ready to buy into the claim that the buck stops in the Oval Office. He justs puts Ws John Hancock on it for two reasons, Cheney’s not going down alone and Cheney may not go down if he can drag Bush in front and center and Obama yields. This is Cheney’s gambit to force the ultimate political fight – charging 43 with war crimes. Not that it should be a political fight.
These guys ALWAYS misstate the “protect and defend” part of the oath. Cheney did it again in this interview.
It’s not to protect and defend the country, it’s to “preserve, protect and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States.” Trashing the Constitution as they did, supposedly to protect the country itself, is a direct violation of the oath they took.
I noticed that sly mis-statement by Cheney, too. Glad you caught it. I hope that many did.
” The Arabic media is ablaze with the news that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the emir of an Afghan training camp — whose claim that Saddam Hussein had been involved in training al-Qaeda operatives in the use of chemical and biological weapons was used to justify the invasion of Iraq — has died in a Libyan jail. So far, however, the only English language report is on the Algerian website Ennahar Online, which reported that the Libyan newspaper Oea stated that al-Libi (aka Ali Abdul Hamid al-Fakheri) “was found dead of suicide in his cell,” and noted that the newspaper had reported the story “without specifying the date or method of suicide.”
This news resolves, in the grimmest way possible, questions that have long been asked about the whereabouts of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, perhaps the most famous of “America’s Disappeared” — prisoners seized in the “War on Terror,” who were rendered not to Guantánamo but to secret prisons run by the CIA or to the custody of governments in third countries — often their own — where, it was presumed, they would never be seen or heard from again.
Four months later, on February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell made the same claim in his notorious speech to the UN Security Council, in an attempt to drum up support for the invasion. “I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these [chemical and biological] weapons to al-Qaeda,” Powell said, adding, “Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story.” As a Newsweek report in 2007 explained, Powell did not identify al-Libi by name, but CIA officials — and a Senate Intelligence Committee report — later confirmed that he was referring to al-Libi.
Al-Libi recanted his story in February 2004, when he was returned to the CIA’s custody, and explained, as Newsweek described it, that he told his debriefers that “he initially told his interrogators that he ‘knew nothing’ about ties between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden and he ‘had difficulty even coming up with a story’ about a relationship between the two.” The Newsweek report explained that “his answers displeased his interrogators — who then apparently subjected him to the mock burial. As al-Libi recounted, he was stuffed into a box less than 20 inches high. When the box was opened 17 hours later, al-Libi said he was given one final opportunity to ‘tell the truth.’ He was knocked to the floor and ‘punched for 15 minutes.’ It was only then that, al-Libi said, he made up the story about Iraqi weapons training.” “
http://www.andyworthington.co……an-prison/
dead men tell no tales.
That site, andyworthington.co.uk is an incredible indictment in itself.
Thanks
April 29/09, Andy wrote about al Libi and the others. Timing is all..and yes..dead men tell no tales. I suspect that his location was about to be confirmed and that is why he is now dead. This will likely be the fate of the other “ghosts”. It might very well be that it already has been and we just don’t know it.
*****************
” Where are Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi and the other 79 “ghost prisoners”?
In addition, a second reason for revisiting al-Libi’s story emerged two weeks ago, when memos approving the use of torture by the CIA, written by lawyers in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in 2002 and 2005, were released, because, in one of the memos from 2005, the author, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury, revealed that a total of 94 prisoners had been held in secret CIA custody. As I noted at the time, what was disturbing about this revelation was not the number of prisoners held, because CIA director Michael Hayden admitted in July 2007 that the CIA had detained fewer than 100 people at secret facilities abroad since 2002, but the insight that this exact figure provides into the supremely secretive world of “extraordinary rendition” and secret prisons that exists beyond the cases of the 14 “high-value detainees” who were transferred to Guantánamo from secret CIA custody in September 2006.
Al-Libi, of course, is one of the 80 prisoners whose whereabouts are unknown. There are rumors that, after he was fully exploited by the administration’s own torturers (in Poland and, almost certainly, other locations) and by proxy torturers in Egypt, he was sent back to Libya, to be dealt with by Colonel Gaddafi. I have no sympathy for al-Libi, as the emir of a camp that, at least in part, trained operatives for terrorist attacks in their home countries (in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East), but if there is ever to be a proper accounting for what took place in the CIA’s global network of “extraordinary rendition,” secret prisons, and proxy prisons, then al-Libi’s whereabouts, along with those of the other 79 men who constitute “America’s Disappeared” (as well as all the others rendered directly to third countries instead of to the CIA’s secret dungeons), need to be established.”
http://www.andyworthington.co……a-new-low/
” SCHIEFFER: Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was on this broadcast recently. And I said, do you intend to ask the former vice president to come up? And he said if he will testify under oath. Would you be willing to testify under oath?
CHENEY: I’d have to see what the circumstances are and what kind of precedent we were setting. But certainly I wouldn’t be out here today if I didn’t feel comfortable talking about what we’re doing publicly. I think it’s very, very important that we have a clear understanding that what happened here was an honorable approach to defending the nation, that there was nothing devious or deceitful or dishonest or illegal about what was done. “
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/…..testify-2/
butterfly, cheney is full of crap,notice my bold;
in one sweep he gives himself two out, first, “he’d have to see the circumstances”
read that like so;
“It would have to be NOT under oath and it would have to be that I say what I want and don’t have to answer any questions you pose”
and when he says, “and what precedent is set” what he means is;
“if I still think you can trap me I will use that as my excuse not to testify as well”
Sounds a lot like how he performed for the 911 Commission..no oath..no record of his statement..no questions etc.
Bluebutterfly and Perris at #20: Why waste time and lots of money having this lying bunch appear before any congressional committees? They led our country to war, killed and maimed multitudes, attacked and devastated another sovereign country, stained our country’s reputation forever with their kidnap and torture programs, deep-sixed our economy, etc., – all on a pack of lies. Huh, you think lying under oath would matter to them? We need to get on with prosecutions. Holder should just indict them and have them arrested. There’s plenty of evidence now. Politics has won out over Justice too long already. Every day that Obama and Holder dawdle and doodle and rephrase their weak excuses for not doing their duty is a day that puts them closer to becoming an extension of the W regime, IMO.
so Cheney had the nerve to say his torture program saved hundreds of thousands of lives
this is so he can blame Obama when there’s an attack that he caused with his dungeons of pain
this man is getting even more dangerous, it’s like an animal trapped in the corner and he’s gonna flail about with everything he’s got and then he’s gonna invent some more
he’s sick in the heart in every sense of the word. and, yes. very very dangerous.
Just another of those annoying “gut feelings” here, but I don’t look to see warm invites from bar & poppy to the cheenahs anytime soon for coctails on the porch in any-bunk-port.
Payback to bush for not pardoning cheney’s bud?
Here’s a sweet piece of analysis:
Playing by Our Own Rules:
How U.S. Marginalization of International
Human Rights Law Led to Torture
by Jamie Mayerfeld
“James Harding (Financial Times): “Mr. President, I want to return to the question of torture. What we’ve learned from these memos this week is that the Department of Justice lawyers and the Pentagon lawyers have essentially worked out a way that United States officials can torture detainees without running afoul of the law. So when you say you want the United States to adhere to international and United States laws, that’s not very comforting. This is a moral question: Is torture ever justified?”
President Bush: “Look, I’m going to say it one more time. . . . Maybe I can be more clear. The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you. We’re a nation of law. We adhere to laws. We have laws on the books. You might look at these laws, and that might provide comfort for you. And those were the instructions . . . from me to the government.” 1
In evading the reporter’s question, President Bush gave the impression that he believed himself legally permitted to order torture.2 It is puzzling that the President might hold or even suggest such a view, but his remarks call attention to an even greater mystery. The United States considers itself, as the President says, a “nation of law,” yet over the past several years, it has engaged in the systematic use of torture. How was this possible?…”