| ||
Human Rights First, 333 Seventh Avenue, 13th Floor, New York, NY 10001-5004 www.humanrightsfirst.org Join us on Facebook, Follow us on Twitter |
BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label cheney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cheney. Show all posts
24 October 2010
Gitmo Trial Hits NYC; Manhattan Yawns (WATCH THE VIDEO) from HRF 1OKT10
BY THE BY, the terrorism trial of Guantanamo detainee Ahmed Ghailani has been going on in Federal Court in NYC WITHOUT ANY TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE CITY, AND WITHOUT THE CITY BEING PARALYZED BY MASSIVE SECURITY BY THE GOVERNMENT OR FEAR AMONG CITY RESIDENTS, WORKERS AND TOURIST. This from Human Rights First.......
23 June 2010
Failed Times Square Bomber's Guilty Plea Is a Win for US Justice System 21JUN10
After an initial delay, Faisal Shahzad, the failed Times Square car bomber, stood up today in a federal courthouse in downtown Manhattan and entered a plea of "guilty."
Though his expected court appearance had been widely publicized, there were no gunshots heard or bomb threats issued. Notwithstanding Liz Cheney's warnings that bringing suspected terrorists to a U.S. federal courthouse can only cause chaos, the proceeding was orderly, calm and peaceful. The dozens of reporters from around the world who packed the courtroom quietly hurried out to file their stories across the globe.
And the story that they now have to tell is a simple one: the U.S. criminal justice is working.
Since it happened in May, critics of the Obama administration have heralded the failed Times Square bombing attempt as proof that Americans are under constant threat from a powerful foreign enemy and must, in our vigilance, treat all suspected terrorists as enemy warriors -- throwing them in an offshore military prison and either detaining them indefinitely or allowing them only a trial by military commission.
But the careful handling of Faisal Shahzad by New York City police and federal law enforcement is proof of just the opposite. Whether the attempted mass murderer sees himself as aligned with a group of foreign jihadists battling American imperialism is beside the point. What matters is that good old-fashioned law enforcement -- police officers quickly responding to the observations of an alert pedestrian, and skilled FBI agents using time-honored interrogation techniques -- successfully averted disaster and, thereafter, gained critical intelligence to help thwart future attacks.
Shahzad, a Pakistan-born U.S. citizen, was indicted last week on 10 terrorism and weapons charges that accused him of using money and training from the Pakistani Taliban to plot his failed car bombing. His plea of guilty to all 10 counts (five more than originally specified) could land the 30-year-old father of two in prison for life.
Shahzad's plot fizzled, of course, when the gasoline-and-propane bomb he tried to construct failed to ignite in the SUV he'd parked near a Broadway theater. That's typical, say many experts, of bombing attempts in the United States. Among the challenges of detonating a bomb on U.S. soil are the difficulty of obtaining high-powered explosives and of fashioning an effective explosive from the sort of products that are easily available.
That Shahzad wasn't successful doesn't mean he's not a terrorist, however. And what's critical about this case is that skilled law enforcement officials knew that even though his attempt failed, Shahzad was a potential treasure trove of information about the Pakistani Taliban and their operations. And they've exploited that well: after his arrest, Shaizad reportedly cooperated with law enforcement and answered their questions for two weeks before even requesting a lawyer. His arraignment was postponed several times even after a lawyer was appointed to represent him, indicating that even with a lawyer he continued to cooperate, with the process culminating in today's guilty plea.
Shahzad's cooperation has so far lead to the arrest of a Pakistani army major in Islamabad who was allegedly in contact with Shahzad by cell phone. Three men have also been arrested in the United States on immigration charges for allegedly helping Shahzad import money from Pakistan.
Administration critics such as John McCain insisted after Shahzad's arrest that he should never have been read his Miranda rights or treated as a common criminal. Indeed, a bill McCain introduced in March, the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act, would have prevented that. The bill would require all terror suspects such as Shahzad to be turned over to the military for interrogation and possibly indefinite dentition without trial. There would be no Miranda rights, no right to a lawyer and no right to remain silent.
Although it's theoretically possible that military interrogators handling a suspect that way could get useful information, it's not clear exactly how or why that would work. For one thing, military interrogators are trained to gather information on a battlefield, not for future prosecution. That means the evidence can easily be compromised, making it impossible to prosecute the suspect later. That also means the interrogator loses the leverage a future prosecution can offer.
The administration, of course, has said that it can hold indefinitely any suspects it deems "alien enemy belligerents." But that also works against encouraging cooperation. After all, if a suspect knows that acknowledging his participation in the plot could land him in indefinite detention without charge or trial, what incentive does he have to cooperate?
One reason the FBI has been so successful is terrorism cases is that by following the federal court rules, it reserves its ability to criminally prosecute any terrorism suspect. It doesn't have to worry that the evidence won't be admissible later. The suspect, meanwhile, knows he's headed to court, and that the person interrogating him can influence what the charges and the sentence will be. That provides a strong incentive to cooperate and provide as much information as possible, in the hopes of getting some sort of a break -- a few decades in prison, say, instead of life.
Still, critics such as Liz Cheney and Senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Joseph Lieberman continue to argue that treating suspected terrorists as criminals isn't being tough enough, and demand military detention.
But just because something's run by the military doesn't make it any tougher. On the contrary, the military commissions created to try suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay have managed to convict only three terrorists in eight years -- and two are already out free. The criminal justice system, on the other hand, has convicted some 400 terrorists since September 11, 2001.
Faisal Shahzad's guilty plea today is a perfect example of how the system works, producing valuable intelligence while still landing convicted terrorists behind bars.
The U.S. faces a very real threat of terrorism, whether at home or abroad. But the solution to the threat isn't to do away with the most effective means we have of combating it.
Though his expected court appearance had been widely publicized, there were no gunshots heard or bomb threats issued. Notwithstanding Liz Cheney's warnings that bringing suspected terrorists to a U.S. federal courthouse can only cause chaos, the proceeding was orderly, calm and peaceful. The dozens of reporters from around the world who packed the courtroom quietly hurried out to file their stories across the globe.
And the story that they now have to tell is a simple one: the U.S. criminal justice is working.
Since it happened in May, critics of the Obama administration have heralded the failed Times Square bombing attempt as proof that Americans are under constant threat from a powerful foreign enemy and must, in our vigilance, treat all suspected terrorists as enemy warriors -- throwing them in an offshore military prison and either detaining them indefinitely or allowing them only a trial by military commission.
But the careful handling of Faisal Shahzad by New York City police and federal law enforcement is proof of just the opposite. Whether the attempted mass murderer sees himself as aligned with a group of foreign jihadists battling American imperialism is beside the point. What matters is that good old-fashioned law enforcement -- police officers quickly responding to the observations of an alert pedestrian, and skilled FBI agents using time-honored interrogation techniques -- successfully averted disaster and, thereafter, gained critical intelligence to help thwart future attacks.
Shahzad, a Pakistan-born U.S. citizen, was indicted last week on 10 terrorism and weapons charges that accused him of using money and training from the Pakistani Taliban to plot his failed car bombing. His plea of guilty to all 10 counts (five more than originally specified) could land the 30-year-old father of two in prison for life.
Shahzad's plot fizzled, of course, when the gasoline-and-propane bomb he tried to construct failed to ignite in the SUV he'd parked near a Broadway theater. That's typical, say many experts, of bombing attempts in the United States. Among the challenges of detonating a bomb on U.S. soil are the difficulty of obtaining high-powered explosives and of fashioning an effective explosive from the sort of products that are easily available.
That Shahzad wasn't successful doesn't mean he's not a terrorist, however. And what's critical about this case is that skilled law enforcement officials knew that even though his attempt failed, Shahzad was a potential treasure trove of information about the Pakistani Taliban and their operations. And they've exploited that well: after his arrest, Shaizad reportedly cooperated with law enforcement and answered their questions for two weeks before even requesting a lawyer. His arraignment was postponed several times even after a lawyer was appointed to represent him, indicating that even with a lawyer he continued to cooperate, with the process culminating in today's guilty plea.
Shahzad's cooperation has so far lead to the arrest of a Pakistani army major in Islamabad who was allegedly in contact with Shahzad by cell phone. Three men have also been arrested in the United States on immigration charges for allegedly helping Shahzad import money from Pakistan.
Administration critics such as John McCain insisted after Shahzad's arrest that he should never have been read his Miranda rights or treated as a common criminal. Indeed, a bill McCain introduced in March, the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act, would have prevented that. The bill would require all terror suspects such as Shahzad to be turned over to the military for interrogation and possibly indefinite dentition without trial. There would be no Miranda rights, no right to a lawyer and no right to remain silent.
Although it's theoretically possible that military interrogators handling a suspect that way could get useful information, it's not clear exactly how or why that would work. For one thing, military interrogators are trained to gather information on a battlefield, not for future prosecution. That means the evidence can easily be compromised, making it impossible to prosecute the suspect later. That also means the interrogator loses the leverage a future prosecution can offer.
The administration, of course, has said that it can hold indefinitely any suspects it deems "alien enemy belligerents." But that also works against encouraging cooperation. After all, if a suspect knows that acknowledging his participation in the plot could land him in indefinite detention without charge or trial, what incentive does he have to cooperate?
One reason the FBI has been so successful is terrorism cases is that by following the federal court rules, it reserves its ability to criminally prosecute any terrorism suspect. It doesn't have to worry that the evidence won't be admissible later. The suspect, meanwhile, knows he's headed to court, and that the person interrogating him can influence what the charges and the sentence will be. That provides a strong incentive to cooperate and provide as much information as possible, in the hopes of getting some sort of a break -- a few decades in prison, say, instead of life.
Still, critics such as Liz Cheney and Senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Joseph Lieberman continue to argue that treating suspected terrorists as criminals isn't being tough enough, and demand military detention.
But just because something's run by the military doesn't make it any tougher. On the contrary, the military commissions created to try suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay have managed to convict only three terrorists in eight years -- and two are already out free. The criminal justice system, on the other hand, has convicted some 400 terrorists since September 11, 2001.
Faisal Shahzad's guilty plea today is a perfect example of how the system works, producing valuable intelligence while still landing convicted terrorists behind bars.
The U.S. faces a very real threat of terrorism, whether at home or abroad. But the solution to the threat isn't to do away with the most effective means we have of combating it.
11 March 2010
ROVE PROTECTS THE REAR from MOJO 4MAR10
Just more lies from another of the Bush Cabal, the real Evil Empire. Remember, Herta Daubler-Gmelin spoke the truth, "Bush will ablenken...beliebte methode seit Hitler". Click the header for the story on Mother Jones. And check out the video at the end with David Corn on MSNBC on 9 MAR 10.
In a new book, the ex-Bush aide contends W. didn't knowingly mislead the nation into the Iraq war. Here's the history he leaves out.
— By David Corn
Thu Mar. 4, 2010 2:00 AM PST
With his soon-to-be-released book, Karl Rove is trying to mount something of a rear-guard action in the war over George W. Bush's legacy. According to the AP, which has obtained a copy of the book, Rove
blames himself for not pushing back against claims that President George W. Bush had taken the country to war under false pretenses, calling it one of the worst mistakes he made during the Bush presidency. The president, he adds, did not knowingly mislead the American public about the existence of [weapons of mass destruction].
And The New York Times reports that in the book, which will hit stores on Tuesday, Rove writes that his failure to counter the narrative that "Bush lied" was "one of the biggest mistakes of the Bush years." Rove adds, "did Bush lie us into war? Absolutely not."
Here we go again: Did Bush grease the way to war with lies? Having written two books on the subject—The Lies of George W. Bush and (with Michael Isikoff) Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War—I have some skin in this game.
Let's cut to the bottom line: prior to the Iraq war, US intelligence generally produced faulty information overstating Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities, which were actually nonexistent. But Bush and his crew purposefully and callously overstated these overstatements—and made dramatic and untrue assertions unconnected to the flawed intelligence—in order to whip up popular support for the invasion of Iraq. Mother Jones has produced a timeline that lists the false Bush administration assertions. And to remind Rove—and book reviewers—here's a limited sampling of notable whoppers, reported in my books and elsewhere.
* When Bush issued his ultimatum to Saddam Hussein on March 17, 2003, he declared, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." But there was doubt—and plenty of it. Intelligence analysts had registered uncertainty regarding key elements of Bush's case for war—such as whether Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium in Niger, and whether it had purchased aluminum tubes for an enrichment process to make material for nuclear weapons. Moreover, the doubters were correct.
* Seven months earlier, Vice President Dick Cheney similarly said in a speech, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." But there was no intelligence suggesting that Saddam's intention was to beef up his WMD arsenal so he could deploy it against the United States—which would have been a suicidal act. In fact, the existing intelligence indicated Saddam was not interested in a WMD showdown with the United States.
* During an October 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, Bush declared that UN inspectors had "concluded" that Iraq in the 1990s had actually produced "two to four times" the 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents than it had acknowledged making. Bush went on: "This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions." But UN inspectors had concluded no such thing. They had reported destroying key facilities Iraq had used to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The inspectors had encountered discrepancies in the accounting of Iraq's weapons and WMD material and had noted that Iraq could have produced more weapons than the inspectors had uncovered. Bush was misstating the facts to turn a possible stockpile of WMDs into an actual arsenal.
* Throughout the fall of 2002 and the winter of 2003, Bush and his aides insisted Iraq was loaded with WMDs. At one point, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld huffed, "There's no debate in the world as to whether they have those weapons...We all know that. A trained ape knows that." On January 7, 2003, Rumsfeld declared, "They currently have chemical and biological weapons." Yet a September 2002 report by the Defense Intelligence Agency said, "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has—or will—establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities." A national intelligence estimate produced about that time did assert, "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons." The point is that contradictory information existed, yet Bush and his crew chose to ignore any data that undermined their contention that Saddam was up to his neck in WMDs.
* At a September 7, 2002, joint news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush said that a 1998 International Atomic Energy Agency report had found that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need." But there was no such IAEA report. And in 1998, the IAEA had reported there were "no indications" that Iraq was producing nuclear weapons. Bush had concocted a nonexistent report to bolster the case for war.
* On November 7, 2002, Bush said Saddam "is a threat because he's dealing with Al Qaeda." Yet as the 9/11 Commission later noted, there had been no intelligence confirming contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda that added up to an operational relationship. (On September 26, 2002, Rumsfeld said that he had "bullet-proof" evidence that Saddam was tied to Osama bin Laden. He never produced that evidence. In March 2003, Cheney claimed Saddam had a "long-standing relationship" with Al Qaeda. He didn't.)
* At a December 31, 2002, press conference, Bush asserted, "We don't know whether or not [Saddam] has a nuclear weapon." But there was no intelligence at the time suggesting that the Iraqi dictator might already possess nuclear weapons. The faulty national intelligence estimate produced in October 2002 had errantly declared that Iraq was "reconstituting" its nuclear weapons program but it had also concluded Iraq had no nuclear weapons and would not be able to produce one for years. Bush had no basis for suggesting Saddam could already be nuclear-armed. Yet he did so.
I could go on. Remember Colin Powell's lengthy UN presentation? Practically every relevant fact in it proved to be false. Rove can argue that in the run-up to the war, Bush and the others believed what they were saying about Iraq's WMDs. But Bush and his crowd demonstrated a profound disinterest in sorting out the truth. They made no effort to distinguish between known facts and convenient suppositions. They exaggerated. They trumped up unconfirmed pieces of information. They presented rosy assumptions. They overlooked or discounted data that didn't advance the cause.
It was a PR campaign girded with misrepresentations and false statements. Rove contends that his old boss did not knowingly bamboozle the public. (Bush, though, did in a January 2003 meeting with Tony Blair raise the idea of staging an incident—in which US reconnaissance planes painted in UN colors would fly over Iraq and try to draw fire—to provoke an excuse for war.) But Bush, Cheney, and other administration aides exercised a thoroughly reckless disregard for the truth, as they pushed an utterly phony and over-the-top case for invading Iraq.
As Rove makes the rounds on his book tour, he ought to be pressed on all this. There is no doubt that the Bush posse mischaracterized what was known and not known about WMDs in Iraq. It was easy—and useful—for them to do so, for they didn't care to get this right. (After all, as Rove writes, the Iraq war would have likely not occurred without the WMD argument: "Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without the WMD threat.") Bush and his aides, Rove included, were not looking to lead an informed debate based on the best information available; they were aiming to start a war. Almost by any means necessary. They spun the nation into Iraq—and now Rove is spinning to cover that up.
David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter.
Copy and paste this link http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/03/corn-msnbc-wanna-bet to go to MOJO for the MSNBC 9 MAR 10 video.
In a new book, the ex-Bush aide contends W. didn't knowingly mislead the nation into the Iraq war. Here's the history he leaves out.
— By David Corn
Thu Mar. 4, 2010 2:00 AM PST
With his soon-to-be-released book, Karl Rove is trying to mount something of a rear-guard action in the war over George W. Bush's legacy. According to the AP, which has obtained a copy of the book, Rove
blames himself for not pushing back against claims that President George W. Bush had taken the country to war under false pretenses, calling it one of the worst mistakes he made during the Bush presidency. The president, he adds, did not knowingly mislead the American public about the existence of [weapons of mass destruction].
And The New York Times reports that in the book, which will hit stores on Tuesday, Rove writes that his failure to counter the narrative that "Bush lied" was "one of the biggest mistakes of the Bush years." Rove adds, "did Bush lie us into war? Absolutely not."
Here we go again: Did Bush grease the way to war with lies? Having written two books on the subject—The Lies of George W. Bush and (with Michael Isikoff) Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War—I have some skin in this game.
Let's cut to the bottom line: prior to the Iraq war, US intelligence generally produced faulty information overstating Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities, which were actually nonexistent. But Bush and his crew purposefully and callously overstated these overstatements—and made dramatic and untrue assertions unconnected to the flawed intelligence—in order to whip up popular support for the invasion of Iraq. Mother Jones has produced a timeline that lists the false Bush administration assertions. And to remind Rove—and book reviewers—here's a limited sampling of notable whoppers, reported in my books and elsewhere.
* When Bush issued his ultimatum to Saddam Hussein on March 17, 2003, he declared, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." But there was doubt—and plenty of it. Intelligence analysts had registered uncertainty regarding key elements of Bush's case for war—such as whether Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium in Niger, and whether it had purchased aluminum tubes for an enrichment process to make material for nuclear weapons. Moreover, the doubters were correct.
* Seven months earlier, Vice President Dick Cheney similarly said in a speech, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." But there was no intelligence suggesting that Saddam's intention was to beef up his WMD arsenal so he could deploy it against the United States—which would have been a suicidal act. In fact, the existing intelligence indicated Saddam was not interested in a WMD showdown with the United States.
* During an October 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, Bush declared that UN inspectors had "concluded" that Iraq in the 1990s had actually produced "two to four times" the 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents than it had acknowledged making. Bush went on: "This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions." But UN inspectors had concluded no such thing. They had reported destroying key facilities Iraq had used to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The inspectors had encountered discrepancies in the accounting of Iraq's weapons and WMD material and had noted that Iraq could have produced more weapons than the inspectors had uncovered. Bush was misstating the facts to turn a possible stockpile of WMDs into an actual arsenal.
* Throughout the fall of 2002 and the winter of 2003, Bush and his aides insisted Iraq was loaded with WMDs. At one point, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld huffed, "There's no debate in the world as to whether they have those weapons...We all know that. A trained ape knows that." On January 7, 2003, Rumsfeld declared, "They currently have chemical and biological weapons." Yet a September 2002 report by the Defense Intelligence Agency said, "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has—or will—establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities." A national intelligence estimate produced about that time did assert, "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons." The point is that contradictory information existed, yet Bush and his crew chose to ignore any data that undermined their contention that Saddam was up to his neck in WMDs.
* At a September 7, 2002, joint news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush said that a 1998 International Atomic Energy Agency report had found that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need." But there was no such IAEA report. And in 1998, the IAEA had reported there were "no indications" that Iraq was producing nuclear weapons. Bush had concocted a nonexistent report to bolster the case for war.
* On November 7, 2002, Bush said Saddam "is a threat because he's dealing with Al Qaeda." Yet as the 9/11 Commission later noted, there had been no intelligence confirming contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda that added up to an operational relationship. (On September 26, 2002, Rumsfeld said that he had "bullet-proof" evidence that Saddam was tied to Osama bin Laden. He never produced that evidence. In March 2003, Cheney claimed Saddam had a "long-standing relationship" with Al Qaeda. He didn't.)
* At a December 31, 2002, press conference, Bush asserted, "We don't know whether or not [Saddam] has a nuclear weapon." But there was no intelligence at the time suggesting that the Iraqi dictator might already possess nuclear weapons. The faulty national intelligence estimate produced in October 2002 had errantly declared that Iraq was "reconstituting" its nuclear weapons program but it had also concluded Iraq had no nuclear weapons and would not be able to produce one for years. Bush had no basis for suggesting Saddam could already be nuclear-armed. Yet he did so.
I could go on. Remember Colin Powell's lengthy UN presentation? Practically every relevant fact in it proved to be false. Rove can argue that in the run-up to the war, Bush and the others believed what they were saying about Iraq's WMDs. But Bush and his crowd demonstrated a profound disinterest in sorting out the truth. They made no effort to distinguish between known facts and convenient suppositions. They exaggerated. They trumped up unconfirmed pieces of information. They presented rosy assumptions. They overlooked or discounted data that didn't advance the cause.
It was a PR campaign girded with misrepresentations and false statements. Rove contends that his old boss did not knowingly bamboozle the public. (Bush, though, did in a January 2003 meeting with Tony Blair raise the idea of staging an incident—in which US reconnaissance planes painted in UN colors would fly over Iraq and try to draw fire—to provoke an excuse for war.) But Bush, Cheney, and other administration aides exercised a thoroughly reckless disregard for the truth, as they pushed an utterly phony and over-the-top case for invading Iraq.
As Rove makes the rounds on his book tour, he ought to be pressed on all this. There is no doubt that the Bush posse mischaracterized what was known and not known about WMDs in Iraq. It was easy—and useful—for them to do so, for they didn't care to get this right. (After all, as Rove writes, the Iraq war would have likely not occurred without the WMD argument: "Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without the WMD threat.") Bush and his aides, Rove included, were not looking to lead an informed debate based on the best information available; they were aiming to start a war. Almost by any means necessary. They spun the nation into Iraq—and now Rove is spinning to cover that up.
David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter.
Copy and paste this link http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/03/corn-msnbc-wanna-bet to go to MOJO for the MSNBC 9 MAR 10 video.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
19 February 2010
Dick Cheney confessed to a war crime. Prosecute him.
Cheney likes to run his big mouth, and this time he may be sorry. He has confessed to a war crime, torture. We all knew he was guilty, but proof was almost impossible to come by. Thank you Dick for living up to your name and now giving the government the proof it needs to prosecute you. Click the header to sign the petition to A.G. Holder calling on him to prosecute Cheney for war crimes. Also below is the Larry King show from 12MAY09 when Jesse Ventura talks about Bush, Cheney, torture (and what he would like to do to Cheney) and Obama. Last is the complete transcript of the ABC interview with Cheney with his confession to war crimes.
On ABC News last weekend, former Vice President Dick Cheney confessed to playing a key role in the commission of war crimes during the Bush administration.
"I was a big supporter of waterboarding," boasted Cheney.
Since he has publicly confessed to ordering torture, the U.S. has no choice but to prosecute Dick Cheney for war crimes.
Waterboarding is torture and a war crime. The UN Convention on Torture, the Geneva Conventions, the Red Cross, and constitutional governments around the globe agree on this point of law. More to the point, Attorney General Eric Holder has stated publicly that waterboarding is torture. Cheney's confession legally obligates Holder to prosecute him.
Cheney apologists will no doubt turn a blind eye to this. But this is the law, plain and simple. The case has been laid out in detail by Andrew Sullivan1, Glenn Greenwald2, and Scott Horton3.
By publicly confessing his role in illegal U.S torture programs, Cheney has created an extraordinary opportunity to hold the Bush administration accountable for its crimes. One that must not — and indeed legally cannot — be ignored. Copy and paste the links below for Cheney's confession.
16 Feb 2010 10:03 am
Cheney: "I Was A Big Supporter Of Waterboarding"
Scott Horton adds to the legal ramifications of Dick Cheney's remarkable confession of committing a war crime on national television:
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?
Cheney told Jonathan Karl that he used his position within the National Security Council to advocate for the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques. Former CIA agent John Kiriakou and others have confirmed that when waterboarding was administered, it was only after receiving NSC clearance. Hence, Cheney was not speaking hypothetically but admitting his involvement in the process that led to decisions to waterboard in at least three cases.
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.
Jonathan Karl has gotten a similar statement out of Cheney before, if not quite so specifically.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c45669e2012877a5a266970c
1 Cheney: "I Was A Big Supporter Of Waterboarding", Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic, February 16, 2010. http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=5276&id=7828-179986-IHDKWNx&t=7
2 Dick Cheney's taunting, Glenn Greenwald, Salon, February 16, 2010. http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=5277&id=7828-179986-IHDKWNx&t=8
3 Does Dick Cheney Want to Be Prosecuted?, Scott Horton, Harper's, February 15, 2010. http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=5278&id=7828-179986-IHDKWNx&t=9
JESSE VENTURA ON BUSH, CHENEY, OBAMA, TORTURE ON LARRY KING 12 MAY 09
Jesse Ventura: You Give Me a Water Board, Dick Cheney and One Hour, and I'll Have Him Confess to the Sharon Tate Murders
By Heather Tuesday May 12, 2009 9:00am
On Larry King Live Jesse Ventura takes on the Bush administration chickenhawks and Rush Limbaugh, and defends Colin Powell. After being waterboarded himself in the SERE program, Ventura makes no bones about it. Waterboarding is torture. I'd like to see Hannity have Ventura on his show to debate the issue.
King's reaction to Ventura's straight talk on how terrible of a President W was is amusing. He's shocked...just shocked I tell you, that anyone would talk so badly about our former President.
KING: Joining us now, Jesse Ventura, former wrestler, former governor of Minnesota, former Navy SEAL, the author of "Don't Start The Revolution Without Me." That book is now out in paper back. Welcome to have you back, Jesse. There you see the cover of the book. How's Obama doing?
JESSE VENTURA, FMR. GOV. OF MINNESOTA: Too early to tell, Larry, really. In my opinion, George Bush is the worst president in my lifetime.
KING: Have an opinion, will you?
VENTURA: I will. I will. And he's the worst president in my lifetime. So Barack Obama, President Obama inherited something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. You know? Two wars, an economy that's borderline depression. So it's far too early to judge him 100 days in. I think if you have me back about two years from now, I can give you a much better of how he's doing.
KING: He poked fun at himself at the White House correspondents' dinner Saturday night. Let's watch.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Finally, I believe that my next 100 days will be so successful I'll be able to complete them in 72 days. And on the 73rd day, I will rest.
KING: He's very likable.
VENTURA: Oh, yes.
KING: Right?
VENTURA: Very intelligent, which is a change from our previous president.
KING: All right already with Bush.
VENTURA: No, I live in Mexico now, Larry. So I do a lot of reading. I don't watch much TV. This year's reading, I covered Bush's life. I covered Guantanamo and a few other subjects. And I'm very disturbed about it.
I'm bothered over Guantanamo because it seems we have created our own Hanoi Hilton. We can live with that? I have a problem. I will criticize President Obama on this level; it's a good thing I'm not president because I would prosecute every person that was involved in that torture. I would prosecute the people that did it. I would prosecute the people that ordered it. Because torture is against the law. KING: You were a Navy SEAL.
VENTURA: That's right. I was water boarded, so I know -- at SERE School, Survival Escape Resistance Evasion. It was a required school you had to go to prior to going into the combat zone, which in my era was Vietnam. All of us had to go there. We were all, in essence -- every one of us was water boarded. It is torture.
KING: What was it like?
VENTURA: It's drowning. It gives you the complete sensation that you are drowning. It is no good, because you -- I'll put it to you this way, you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.
KING: Even though you know it's not going to happen -- even though before it, you know you're not going to drown.
VENTURA: You don't know it. If it's -- if it's done wrong, you certainly could drown. You could swallow your tongue. You could do a whole bunch of stuff. If it's it done wrong or -- it's torture, Larry. It's torture.
[.....]
KING: A lot of things to go into, Jesse. What do you make of the Cheney/Limbaugh --
VENTURA: I don't have a lot of respect for Dick Cheney. Here's a guy who got five deferments from the Vietnam War. Clearly, he's a coward. He wouldn't go when it was his time to go. And now he is a chicken hawk. Now he is this big tough guy who wants this hardcore policy. And he's the guy that sanctioned all this torture by calling it enhanced interrogation.
KING: Do you think Rush Limbaugh's a better Republican than Colin Powell?
VENTURA: No, not at all. In fact, if you compare the two, let's look at Colin Powell, who's a war hero, who strapped it on for his country, and didn't run and hide.
KING: Twice.
VENTURA: And then you look at Dick Cheney who ran and hid. I have no respect for Dick Cheney. I have tremendous respect for General Powell.
'This Week' Transcript: Former Vice President Dick Cheney
Transcript: "This Week" with Former Vice President Dick Cheney and George Will, Peter Beinart, Paul Gigot and Jane Mayer.
Feb. 14, 2010 —
KARL: Good morning, and welcome to "This Week."
CHENEY: There is no middle ground.
KARL: This morning, a "This Week" exclusive, former Vice President Dick Cheney, the administration's harshest critic...
CHENEY: The president's been largely silent. Half-measures keep you half-exposed. The White House must stop dithering.
KARL: ... with no apologies of his own.
CHENEY: I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program.
KARL: National security, Iran, politics, and...
BIDEN: Iraq, I mean, it's going to be one of the great achievements of this administration.
KARL: ... Dick Cheney takes on the current vice president, only on "This Week." Then, a Washington thaw.
OBAMA: I'm going to spend some time listening.
KARL: But can bipartisanship survive the politics of the moment?
PALIN: We need a commander-in-chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.
KARL: That and the rest of the week's politics on our roundtable with George Will, Peter Beinart of the Council on Foreign Relations, the New Yorker's Jane Mayer, and Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal.
And as always, the Sunday funnies.
LETTERMAN: John McCain knew that it was Sarah Palin's birthday, and he did something very nice for her. He bought her a Toyota.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: From the heart of the nation's capital, "This Week" with ABC's congressional correspondent, Jonathan Karl, live from the Newseum on Pennsylvania Avenue.
KARL: Joining me now, former Vice President Dick Cheney.
Mr. Vice President, welcome to "This Week."
CHENEY: Good morning, John.
KARL: Now, you have been unflinching in your criticism of this administration's handling of terrorism, counterterrorism. Most recently, talking about the Christmas Day bomber, you said, "It is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend that we are not at war." Now, this morning, we have heard from the current vice president, Joe Biden, directly in response to that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: We're pursuing that war with a vigor like it's never been seen before. We've eliminated 12 of their top 20 people. We have taken out 100 of their associates. We are making -- we've sent them underground. They are, in fact, not able to do anything remotely like they were in the past. They are on the run. I don't know where Dick Cheney has been.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Your response?
CHENEY: Well, my reference to the notion that the president was trying to avoid treating this as a war was in relation to his initial response when we heard about the Christmas underwear bomber...
KARL: Right.
CHENEY: ... up in Detroit, when he went out and said this was the act of an isolated extremist. No, it wasn't. And we found out over time, obviously -- and he eventually changed his -- his assessment -- but that, in fact, this was an individual who'd been trained by Al Qaida, who'd been part of a larger conspiracy, and it was closer to being an act of war than it was the act of an isolated extremist.
It's the mindset that concerns me, John. I think it's -- it's very important to go back and keep in mind the distinction between handling these events as criminal acts, which was the way we did before 9/11, and then looking at 9/11 and saying, "This is not a criminal act," not when you destroy 16 acres of Manhattan, kill 3,000 Americans, blow a big hole in the Pentagon. That's an act of war.
KARL: Well -- well...
CHENEY: And what the administration was slow to do was to come to that -- that recognition that we are at war, not dealing with criminal acts. And as I say, my response there dealt specifically to the fact the president called it an isolated extremist. It was not.
KARL: Well, I want to get to that notion of treating this as a law enforcement action, but what the administration will say is, look at what they have done, 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, doubling, tripling, and maybe even more the drone attacks on the tribal areas in Pakistan on Al Qaida targets. They say that they are actually dedicating more resources to the fight against Al Qaida than you were.
CHENEY: Well, I -- you know, I'm a complete supporter of what they're doing in Afghanistan. I think the president made the right decision to send troops into Afghanistan. I thought it took him a while to get there.
Having Stan McChrystal now in charge in Afghanistan I think is an excellent choice. General McChrystal's one of the most able officers I know. I'm glad they're doing what they're doing in Afghanistan. I'm not a critic of what they're doing, in terms of how they're dealing with that situation.
But I do see repeatedly examples that there are key members in the administration, like Eric Holder, for example, the attorney general, who still insists on thinking of terror attacks against the United States as criminal acts as opposed to acts of war, and that's a -- that's a huge distinction.
KARL: OK, before we get to Eric Holder, a couple more things from the vice president. He's been out responding preemptively to you. One thing he said we heard in the open, that he believes Iraq may ultimately prove to be one of the greatest achievements of the Obama administration.
CHENEY: Well, I -- I guess I shouldn't be surprised by my friend, Joe Biden. I'm glad he now believes Iraq is a success. Of course, Obiden and -- Obama and Biden campaigned from one end of the country to the other for two years criticizing our Iraq policy.
CHENEY: They opposed the surge that was absolutely crucial to our getting to the point we're at now with respect to Iraq. And for them to try to take credit for what's happened in Iraq strikes me as a little strange. I think if -- if they had had their way, if we'd followed the policies they'd pursued from the outset or advocated from the outset, Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Baghdad today.
So if they're going to take credit for it, fair enough, for what they've done while they're there, but it ought to go with a healthy dose of "Thank you, George Bush" up front and a recognition that some of their early recommendations, with respect to prosecuting that war, we're just dead wrong.
KARL: Well, in fact, Vice President Biden says that he believes that the war in Iraq was not worth it. What do you say to that? I mean, given the resources that were drawn away from the -- what you could argue is the central front in Afghanistan, Pakistan, is he right about that?
CHENEY: No. I -- I believe very deeply in the proposition that what we did in Iraq was the right thing to do. It was hard to do. It took a long time. There were significant costs involved.
But we got rid of one of the worst dictators of the 20th century. We took down his government, a man who'd produced and used weapons of mass destruction, a man who'd started two different wars, a man who had a relationship with terror. We're going to have a democracy in Iraq today. We do today. They're going to have another free election this March.
This has been an enormous achievement from the standpoint of peace and stability in the Middle East and ending a threat to the United States. Now, as I say, Joe Biden doesn't believe that. Joe Biden wants to take credit -- I'm not sure for what -- since he opposed that policy pretty much from the outset.
KARL: I think what he wants to take credit for is taking resources out of Iraq, the fact...
CHENEY: That's being done in accordance with a timetable that we initiated, that we -- that we negotiated with -- with the Iraqis. I mean, that was our policy.
KARL: Another thing from the vice president, he also addressed the possibility of another 9/11-style attack.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: The idea of there being a massive attack in the United States like 9/11 is unlikely, in my view. But if you see what's happening, particularly with Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, they have decided to move in a direction of much more small-bore, but devastatingly frightening attacks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Is he right?
CHENEY: I don't think so. And I would point to a study that was released just within the last week or two up at the Kennedy School at Harvard by a gentleman -- Mowatt-Larssen's his name, I believe. He was CIA for 23 years, director of intelligence at the Energy Department for a long time, that looks at this whole question of weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaida and comes to the conclusion that there's a very high threat that Al Qaida is trying very hard to acquire a weapon of mass destruction and, if they're successful in acquiring it, that they will use it.
I think he's right. I think, in fact, the situation with respect to Al Qaida to say that, you know, that was a big attack we had on 9/11, but it's not likely again, I just think that's dead wrong. I think the biggest strategic threat the United States faces today is the possibility of another 9/11 with a nuclear weapon or a biological agent of some kind, and I think Al Qaida is out there even as we meet trying to figure out how to do that.
KARL: And do you think that the Obama administration is taking enough serious steps to prevent that?
CHENEY: I think they need to do everything they can to prevent it. And if the mindset is it's not likely, then it's difficult to mobilize the resources and get people to give it the kind of priority that it deserves.
KARL: OK, let's get to -- you mentioned Eric Holder, the treatment of the Christmas Day underwear bomber. How do you think that case should have been dealt with?
CHENEY: I think the -- the proper way to -- to deal with it would have been to treat him as an enemy combatant. I think that was the right way to go.
The thing I learned from watching that process unfold, though, was that the administration really wasn't equipped to deal with the aftermath of an attempted attack against the United States in the sense that they didn't know what to do with the guy.
There was talk earlier after they'd dismantled the system we'd put in place for prisoner interrogation of high-value detainees. They'd gone out supposedly to create the HIG, high-value interrogation program, but in reality, it was not up and running at Christmastime when it should have been. It started months before that, to put that in place. They need a process, a set of institutions that they can fall back on. Admittedly, this is hard. We had a hard time dealing with this. You've got the Supreme Court on one side that -- that is going to evaluate everything you do, and you've got to be careful with that. The Congress gets involved in it.
CHENEY: So I'm not saying it's an easy task, but by this point, when they've made all the decisions they've had, closed Guantanamo, end (ph) the high-value detainee program and so forth, I think those are all mistakes. Those were the tools we put in place to deal with this kind of situation. They should have had something to put in lieu of those programs, and it would look like they do not have -- have that kind of capability yet.
KARL: If you have somebody in custody like Abdulmutallab, after just trying to blow up an airliner, and you think he has information on another attack, I mean, do you think that those enhanced interrogation techniques should have been -- should have been used? I mean, would you -- do you think that he should have been, for instance, subject to everything, including waterboarding?
CHENEY: Well, I think the -- the professionals need to make that judgment. We've got people in -- we had in our administration -- I'm sure they're still there -- many of them were career personnel -- who are expects in this subject. And they are the ones that you ought to turn somebody like Abdulmutallab over to, let them be the judge of whether or not he's prepared to cooperate and how they can best achieve his cooperation.
KARL: But you believe they should have had the option of everything up to and including waterboarding?
CHENEY: I think you ought to have all of those capabilities on the table. Now, President Obama has taken them off the table. He announced when he came in last year that they would never use anything other than the U.S. Army manual, which doesn't include those techniques. I think that's a mistake.
KARL: OK. So -- so was it a mistake when your administration took on the Richard Reid case? This is very similar. This was somebody that was trying to blow up an airliner with a shoe bomb, and he was within five minutes of getting taken off that plane read his Miranda rights, four times, in fact, in 48 hours, and tried through the civilian system. Was that a mistake?
CHENEY: Well, first of all, I believe he was not tried. He pled guilty. They never did end up having a trial.
Secondly, when this came up, as I recall, it was December of '01, just a couple of months after 9/11. We were not yet operational with the military commissions. We hadn't had all the Supreme Court decisions handed down about what we could and couldn't do with the commissions.
KARL: But you still had an option to put him into military custody.
CHENEY: Well, we could have put him into military custody. I don't -- I don't question that. The point is, in this particular case, all of that was never worked out, primarily because he pled guilty.
KARL: Now, I'd like to read you something that the sentencing judge reading the -- giving him his life sentence read to Richard Reid at the time of that sentencing. Here it is. He said to Reid, "You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. We do not negotiate with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice."
The judge in that case was a Reagan appointee. Doesn't he make a good point?
CHENEY: Well, I don't think so, in a sense that it -- if it -- if you interpret that as taking you to the point where all of these people are going to be treated as though they're guilty of individual criminal acts.
I want to come back again to the basic point I tried to make at the outset, John. And up until 9/11, all terrorist attacks were criminal acts. After 9/11, we made the decision that these were acts of war, these were strategic threats to the United States.
Once you make that judgment, then you can use a much broader range of tools, in terms of going after your adversary. You go after those who provide them safe harbor and sanctuary. You go after those who finance and those who provide weapons for them and those who train them. And you treat them as unlawful enemy combatants.
There's a huge distinction here in terms of the kinds of policies you put in place going forward. And what I'm most concerned about isn't so much argument about all the stuff in the past, about what happened to Abdulmutallab or Richard Reid. I think the relevant point is: What are the policies going to be going forward?
And if you're really serious and you believe this is a war and if you believe the greatest threat is a 9/11 with nukes or a 9/11 with a biological agent of some kind, then you have to consider it as a war, you have to consider it as something we may have to deal with tomorrow. You don't want the vice president of the United States running around saying, "Oh, it's not likely to happen."
KARL: Now, on that question of trying, you know, dealing as enemy combatants or through the criminal justice system, I came across this. This is a document that was put out by the Bush Justice Department under Attorney General Ashcroft...
CHENEY: Right.
KARL: ... covering the years 2001 to 2005. And if you go right to page one, they actually tout the criminal prosecutions...
CHENEY: They did.
KARL: ... of terror suspects, saying, "Altogether, the department has brought charges against 375 individuals in terrorism- related investigations and has convicted 195 to date." That was 2005. Again, seems to make the administration's point that they're not doing it all that differently from how you were doing it.
CHENEY: Well, we didn't all agree with that. We had -- I can remember a meeting in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House where we had a major shootout over how this was going to be handled between the Justice Department, that advocated that approach, and many of the rest of us, who wanted to treat it as an intelligence matter, as an act of war with military commissions.
We never clearly or totally resolved those issues. These are tough questions, no doubt about it. You want my opinion, my view of what ought to happen, I think we have to treat it as a -- as a war. This is a strategic threat to the United States. I think that's why we were successful for seven-and-a-half years in avoiding a further major attack against the United States.
And I do get very nervous and very upset when that's the dominant approach, as it was sometimes in the Bush administration or certainly would appear to be at times in the new Obama administration.
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.
KARL: I'd like to ask you about the big terror case now, which is the KSM trial. The administration very much wants to see the mastermind of 9/11 tried in civilian courts here in the United States. New York has obviously objected.
Do you think that's going to happen? Do you think this will be a civilian trial? Or are they not going to be able to do it?
CHENEY: It looks to me like they're going to have great difficulty doing it in New York. I mean, even the mayor's come out against it now. I think trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York's a big -- big mistake. It gives him a huge platform to promulgate his -- his particular brand of propaganda around the world.
I think he ought to be at Guantanamo. I think he ought to be tried at Guantanamo in front of a military commission. They've got difficulties now, because my guess is they don't want to send him back to Guantanamo, because that would validate, if you will, the value of Guantanamo. They're trying to close it, clearly haven't been able to get it done.
But my guess is, in the end, he'll end up being tried in front of a military commission on a military facility some place.
KARL: So you think Guantanamo will be open when this president leaves office?
CHENEY: I wouldn't be surprised. It's a valuable facility. There's a reason why we set it up. It makes good sense. There's obviously great reluctance on Capitol Hill to appropriate the funds to close it down. I think -- I think Guantanamo is going to be there for quite a while.
KARL: And one other point -- I just want to read also from a previous interview that you gave -- one of your points about Guantanamo is, if you release the hard-core Al Qaida terrorists, you said, that are held at Guantanamo, I think they go back into the business of trying to kill more Americans and mount further mass casualty attacks. If you turn them loose and they go kill more Americans, who's responsible for that?
And it's a real concern. We've heard from the president's homeland security adviser, John Brennan, saying that at minimum 10 percent of the more than 500 that have been released from Guantanamo have gone back into the fight.
But Brennan also wrote this. He said, "I want to underscore the fact that all of these cases relate to detainees released during the previous administration and under the prior detainee review process."
In other words, all of those released from Guantanamo that have gone back into the fight were released by your administration. Can't you make the case that the Obama administration has actually been more responsible about releasing who they release from Guantanamo?
CHENEY: I wouldn't make that -- I wouldn't make that case, John. I think -- as I recall, the percentage that we had of the recidivists was 12 percent. And we released prisoners back basically to their home countries, partly because the State Department was under enormous pressure to do so, and there was an effort to try to return them. The Saudis had a rehabilitation program for returned Saudis, and...
KARL: Did you oppose those releases?
CHENEY: I did. I didn't think that releasing anybody was the right thing to do, unless you had evidence that, you know, there was a mistake of some kind or they'd been -- been before a commission and you'd reviewed their case and found that the case didn't stand up, and that was usually the case. They were put through a thorough scrub before they were released.
Obviously, some of them got through the filter. But I think, out of the ones that remain, those are the real hard core, and I think your recidivist rate would be far higher than it was on those that have already been released.
It's a tough problem; I'll be the first to admit it. But I think you have to have a facility like Guantanamo to hold these individuals who are members of Al Qaida, who've tried to kill Americans, and who -- when they're released, they'll go back out and try to kill Americans again.
KARL: I'd like to move to Iran. Do you trust the Obama administration to do what is necessary to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?
CHENEY: I remain to be persuaded.
KARL: Do you think that sanctions can work? I mean, that's the track they've chosen.
CHENEY: Well, I think -- I hope sanctions work.
KARL: It's the same track you chose (ph).
CHENEY: We -- I certainly would hope sanctions would work, but I think they're most likely to work if you keep the military option on the table. I don't think you want to eliminate the military -- the possibility of military action. I think that's essential to give any kind of meaning at all to negotiations over sanctions.
KARL: How close did you come -- how close did the Bush administration come to taking military action against Iran?
CHENEY: Well, I would -- some of that I can't talk about, obviously, still. I'm sure it's still classified. We clearly never made the decision -- we never crossed over that line of saying, "Now we're going to mount a military operation to deal with the problem."
The president was always hopeful -- and I think everybody else was, too -- that we could find a way to deal with it within having to resort to military force. One of the problems that the Obama administration inherited was the Iranian problem, and it's a tough one.
KARL: David Sanger of the New York Times says that the Israelis came to you -- came to the administration in the final months and asked for certain things, bunker-buster bombs, air-to-air refueling capability, overflight rights, and that basically the administration dithered, did not give the Israelis a response. Was that a mistake?
CHENEY: I -- I can't get into it still. I'm sure a lot of those discussions are still very sensitive.
KARL: Let me ask you: Did you advocate a harder line, including in the military area, in those -- in those final months?
CHENEY: Usually.
KARL: And with respect to Iran?
CHENEY: Well, I -- I made public statements to the effect that I felt very strongly that we had to have the military option, that it had to be on the table, that it had to be a meaningful option, and that we might well have to resort to military force in order to deal with the threat that Iran represented. The problem here being that a nuclear-armed Iran is a huge threat to that entire part of the world and, indeed, to the United States.
KARL: Was it -- was it a...
CHENEY: We never got to the point where the president had to make a decision one way or the other.
KARL: Was that a mistake? Was it a mistake to leave that nuclear capability intact?
CHENEY: Well, we -- we did a lot, because we were very concerned about nuclear capability in the hands of rogue states or potentially shared with terrorist organizations, and we were successful in taking down, for example, Saddam Hussein, who had messed with nuclear weapons twice previously, taking down the A.Q. Khan network, a black-market operation that was providing technology to the North Koreans, Iranians, and Libyans. We successfully obtained all the Libyan materials for their nuclear program, so we got a lot done.
We didn't get everything done. We still -- when we finished, there still was the ongoing Iranian problem and the ongoing North Korean problem. Both of them remain to be addressed.
KARL: I'd like to get your response to Sarah Palin's recent comments on Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PALIN: Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decided really to come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do, if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies, I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he -- than he is today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: She's, of course, talking about President Obama, seemed to be implying that this would be a good political move for him. What's your take?
CHENEY: I don't think a president can make a judgment like that on the basis of politics. The stakes are too high, the consequences too significant to be treating those as simple political calculations. When you begin to talk about war, talk about crossing international borders, you talk about committing American men and women to combat, that takes place on a plane clear above any political consideration.
KARL: So...
CHENEY: So I'd be -- I'd be very cautious about treating that kind of issue on those kinds of conditions.
KARL: We're almost out of time. We're going to get you very quickly on a few other subjects. First of all, one more on Palin. Is she qualified to be president?
CHENEY: I haven't made a decision yet on who I'm going to support for president the next time around. Whoever it is, is going to have to prove themselves capable of being president of the United States. And those tests will -- will come during the course of campaigns, obviously. I think -- well, I think all the prospective candidates out there have got a lot of work to do if, in fact, they're going to persuade a majority of Americans that they're ready to take on the world's toughest job.
KARL: OK, "don't ask/don't tell" -- you're a former defense secretary -- should this policy be repealed?
CHENEY: Twenty years ago, the military were strong advocates of "don't ask/don't tell," when I was secretary of defense. I think things have changed significantly since then. I see that Don Mullen -- or Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has indicated his belief that we ought to support a change in the policy. So I think -- my guess is the policy will be changed.
KARL: And do you think that's a good thing? I mean, is it time to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?
CHENEY: I think the society has moved on. I think it's partly a generational question. I say, I'm reluctant to second-guess the military in this regard, because they're the ones that have got to make the judgment about how these policies affect the military capability of our -- of our units, and that first requirement that you have to look at all the time is whether or not they're still capable of achieving their mission, and does the policy change, i.e., putting gays in the force, affect their ability to perform their mission?
When the chiefs come forward and say, "We think we can do it," then it strikes me that it's -- it's time to reconsider the policy. And I think Admiral Mullen said that.
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.
KARL: And that includes writing a book?
CHENEY: Writing a book, that's correct.
KARL: Can you give us -- before you go -- a quick nugget that's going to be in the book, give us the title, give us something going?
CHENEY: Have me back about a year from now, and I'll have a copy of the book for you, John.
KARL: OK, it's deal.
CHENEY: All right.
KARL: Mr. Vice President, thanks a lot for joining us on "This Week."
CHENEY: Good to see you. I've enjoyed it.
KARL: The roundtable is next, George Will, Paul Gigot, Jane Mayer, and Peter Beinart. And later, the Sunday funnies.
Copyright © 2010 ABC News Internet Ventures
On ABC News last weekend, former Vice President Dick Cheney confessed to playing a key role in the commission of war crimes during the Bush administration.
"I was a big supporter of waterboarding," boasted Cheney.
Since he has publicly confessed to ordering torture, the U.S. has no choice but to prosecute Dick Cheney for war crimes.
Waterboarding is torture and a war crime. The UN Convention on Torture, the Geneva Conventions, the Red Cross, and constitutional governments around the globe agree on this point of law. More to the point, Attorney General Eric Holder has stated publicly that waterboarding is torture. Cheney's confession legally obligates Holder to prosecute him.
Cheney apologists will no doubt turn a blind eye to this. But this is the law, plain and simple. The case has been laid out in detail by Andrew Sullivan1, Glenn Greenwald2, and Scott Horton3.
By publicly confessing his role in illegal U.S torture programs, Cheney has created an extraordinary opportunity to hold the Bush administration accountable for its crimes. One that must not — and indeed legally cannot — be ignored. Copy and paste the links below for Cheney's confession.
16 Feb 2010 10:03 am
Cheney: "I Was A Big Supporter Of Waterboarding"
Scott Horton adds to the legal ramifications of Dick Cheney's remarkable confession of committing a war crime on national television:
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?
Cheney told Jonathan Karl that he used his position within the National Security Council to advocate for the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques. Former CIA agent John Kiriakou and others have confirmed that when waterboarding was administered, it was only after receiving NSC clearance. Hence, Cheney was not speaking hypothetically but admitting his involvement in the process that led to decisions to waterboard in at least three cases.
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.
Jonathan Karl has gotten a similar statement out of Cheney before, if not quite so specifically.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c45669e2012877a5a266970c
1 Cheney: "I Was A Big Supporter Of Waterboarding", Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic, February 16, 2010. http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=5276&id=7828-179986-IHDKWNx&t=7
2 Dick Cheney's taunting, Glenn Greenwald, Salon, February 16, 2010. http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=5277&id=7828-179986-IHDKWNx&t=8
3 Does Dick Cheney Want to Be Prosecuted?, Scott Horton, Harper's, February 15, 2010. http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=5278&id=7828-179986-IHDKWNx&t=9
JESSE VENTURA ON BUSH, CHENEY, OBAMA, TORTURE ON LARRY KING 12 MAY 09
Jesse Ventura: You Give Me a Water Board, Dick Cheney and One Hour, and I'll Have Him Confess to the Sharon Tate Murders
By Heather Tuesday May 12, 2009 9:00am
On Larry King Live Jesse Ventura takes on the Bush administration chickenhawks and Rush Limbaugh, and defends Colin Powell. After being waterboarded himself in the SERE program, Ventura makes no bones about it. Waterboarding is torture. I'd like to see Hannity have Ventura on his show to debate the issue.
King's reaction to Ventura's straight talk on how terrible of a President W was is amusing. He's shocked...just shocked I tell you, that anyone would talk so badly about our former President.
KING: Joining us now, Jesse Ventura, former wrestler, former governor of Minnesota, former Navy SEAL, the author of "Don't Start The Revolution Without Me." That book is now out in paper back. Welcome to have you back, Jesse. There you see the cover of the book. How's Obama doing?
JESSE VENTURA, FMR. GOV. OF MINNESOTA: Too early to tell, Larry, really. In my opinion, George Bush is the worst president in my lifetime.
KING: Have an opinion, will you?
VENTURA: I will. I will. And he's the worst president in my lifetime. So Barack Obama, President Obama inherited something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. You know? Two wars, an economy that's borderline depression. So it's far too early to judge him 100 days in. I think if you have me back about two years from now, I can give you a much better of how he's doing.
KING: He poked fun at himself at the White House correspondents' dinner Saturday night. Let's watch.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Finally, I believe that my next 100 days will be so successful I'll be able to complete them in 72 days. And on the 73rd day, I will rest.
KING: He's very likable.
VENTURA: Oh, yes.
KING: Right?
VENTURA: Very intelligent, which is a change from our previous president.
KING: All right already with Bush.
VENTURA: No, I live in Mexico now, Larry. So I do a lot of reading. I don't watch much TV. This year's reading, I covered Bush's life. I covered Guantanamo and a few other subjects. And I'm very disturbed about it.
I'm bothered over Guantanamo because it seems we have created our own Hanoi Hilton. We can live with that? I have a problem. I will criticize President Obama on this level; it's a good thing I'm not president because I would prosecute every person that was involved in that torture. I would prosecute the people that did it. I would prosecute the people that ordered it. Because torture is against the law. KING: You were a Navy SEAL.
VENTURA: That's right. I was water boarded, so I know -- at SERE School, Survival Escape Resistance Evasion. It was a required school you had to go to prior to going into the combat zone, which in my era was Vietnam. All of us had to go there. We were all, in essence -- every one of us was water boarded. It is torture.
KING: What was it like?
VENTURA: It's drowning. It gives you the complete sensation that you are drowning. It is no good, because you -- I'll put it to you this way, you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.
KING: Even though you know it's not going to happen -- even though before it, you know you're not going to drown.
VENTURA: You don't know it. If it's -- if it's done wrong, you certainly could drown. You could swallow your tongue. You could do a whole bunch of stuff. If it's it done wrong or -- it's torture, Larry. It's torture.
[.....]
KING: A lot of things to go into, Jesse. What do you make of the Cheney/Limbaugh --
VENTURA: I don't have a lot of respect for Dick Cheney. Here's a guy who got five deferments from the Vietnam War. Clearly, he's a coward. He wouldn't go when it was his time to go. And now he is a chicken hawk. Now he is this big tough guy who wants this hardcore policy. And he's the guy that sanctioned all this torture by calling it enhanced interrogation.
KING: Do you think Rush Limbaugh's a better Republican than Colin Powell?
VENTURA: No, not at all. In fact, if you compare the two, let's look at Colin Powell, who's a war hero, who strapped it on for his country, and didn't run and hide.
KING: Twice.
VENTURA: And then you look at Dick Cheney who ran and hid. I have no respect for Dick Cheney. I have tremendous respect for General Powell.
'This Week' Transcript: Former Vice President Dick Cheney
Transcript: "This Week" with Former Vice President Dick Cheney and George Will, Peter Beinart, Paul Gigot and Jane Mayer.
Feb. 14, 2010 —
KARL: Good morning, and welcome to "This Week."
CHENEY: There is no middle ground.
KARL: This morning, a "This Week" exclusive, former Vice President Dick Cheney, the administration's harshest critic...
CHENEY: The president's been largely silent. Half-measures keep you half-exposed. The White House must stop dithering.
KARL: ... with no apologies of his own.
CHENEY: I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program.
KARL: National security, Iran, politics, and...
BIDEN: Iraq, I mean, it's going to be one of the great achievements of this administration.
KARL: ... Dick Cheney takes on the current vice president, only on "This Week." Then, a Washington thaw.
OBAMA: I'm going to spend some time listening.
KARL: But can bipartisanship survive the politics of the moment?
PALIN: We need a commander-in-chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.
KARL: That and the rest of the week's politics on our roundtable with George Will, Peter Beinart of the Council on Foreign Relations, the New Yorker's Jane Mayer, and Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal.
And as always, the Sunday funnies.
LETTERMAN: John McCain knew that it was Sarah Palin's birthday, and he did something very nice for her. He bought her a Toyota.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: From the heart of the nation's capital, "This Week" with ABC's congressional correspondent, Jonathan Karl, live from the Newseum on Pennsylvania Avenue.
KARL: Joining me now, former Vice President Dick Cheney.
Mr. Vice President, welcome to "This Week."
CHENEY: Good morning, John.
KARL: Now, you have been unflinching in your criticism of this administration's handling of terrorism, counterterrorism. Most recently, talking about the Christmas Day bomber, you said, "It is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend that we are not at war." Now, this morning, we have heard from the current vice president, Joe Biden, directly in response to that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: We're pursuing that war with a vigor like it's never been seen before. We've eliminated 12 of their top 20 people. We have taken out 100 of their associates. We are making -- we've sent them underground. They are, in fact, not able to do anything remotely like they were in the past. They are on the run. I don't know where Dick Cheney has been.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Your response?
CHENEY: Well, my reference to the notion that the president was trying to avoid treating this as a war was in relation to his initial response when we heard about the Christmas underwear bomber...
KARL: Right.
CHENEY: ... up in Detroit, when he went out and said this was the act of an isolated extremist. No, it wasn't. And we found out over time, obviously -- and he eventually changed his -- his assessment -- but that, in fact, this was an individual who'd been trained by Al Qaida, who'd been part of a larger conspiracy, and it was closer to being an act of war than it was the act of an isolated extremist.
It's the mindset that concerns me, John. I think it's -- it's very important to go back and keep in mind the distinction between handling these events as criminal acts, which was the way we did before 9/11, and then looking at 9/11 and saying, "This is not a criminal act," not when you destroy 16 acres of Manhattan, kill 3,000 Americans, blow a big hole in the Pentagon. That's an act of war.
KARL: Well -- well...
CHENEY: And what the administration was slow to do was to come to that -- that recognition that we are at war, not dealing with criminal acts. And as I say, my response there dealt specifically to the fact the president called it an isolated extremist. It was not.
KARL: Well, I want to get to that notion of treating this as a law enforcement action, but what the administration will say is, look at what they have done, 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, doubling, tripling, and maybe even more the drone attacks on the tribal areas in Pakistan on Al Qaida targets. They say that they are actually dedicating more resources to the fight against Al Qaida than you were.
CHENEY: Well, I -- you know, I'm a complete supporter of what they're doing in Afghanistan. I think the president made the right decision to send troops into Afghanistan. I thought it took him a while to get there.
Having Stan McChrystal now in charge in Afghanistan I think is an excellent choice. General McChrystal's one of the most able officers I know. I'm glad they're doing what they're doing in Afghanistan. I'm not a critic of what they're doing, in terms of how they're dealing with that situation.
But I do see repeatedly examples that there are key members in the administration, like Eric Holder, for example, the attorney general, who still insists on thinking of terror attacks against the United States as criminal acts as opposed to acts of war, and that's a -- that's a huge distinction.
KARL: OK, before we get to Eric Holder, a couple more things from the vice president. He's been out responding preemptively to you. One thing he said we heard in the open, that he believes Iraq may ultimately prove to be one of the greatest achievements of the Obama administration.
CHENEY: Well, I -- I guess I shouldn't be surprised by my friend, Joe Biden. I'm glad he now believes Iraq is a success. Of course, Obiden and -- Obama and Biden campaigned from one end of the country to the other for two years criticizing our Iraq policy.
CHENEY: They opposed the surge that was absolutely crucial to our getting to the point we're at now with respect to Iraq. And for them to try to take credit for what's happened in Iraq strikes me as a little strange. I think if -- if they had had their way, if we'd followed the policies they'd pursued from the outset or advocated from the outset, Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Baghdad today.
So if they're going to take credit for it, fair enough, for what they've done while they're there, but it ought to go with a healthy dose of "Thank you, George Bush" up front and a recognition that some of their early recommendations, with respect to prosecuting that war, we're just dead wrong.
KARL: Well, in fact, Vice President Biden says that he believes that the war in Iraq was not worth it. What do you say to that? I mean, given the resources that were drawn away from the -- what you could argue is the central front in Afghanistan, Pakistan, is he right about that?
CHENEY: No. I -- I believe very deeply in the proposition that what we did in Iraq was the right thing to do. It was hard to do. It took a long time. There were significant costs involved.
But we got rid of one of the worst dictators of the 20th century. We took down his government, a man who'd produced and used weapons of mass destruction, a man who'd started two different wars, a man who had a relationship with terror. We're going to have a democracy in Iraq today. We do today. They're going to have another free election this March.
This has been an enormous achievement from the standpoint of peace and stability in the Middle East and ending a threat to the United States. Now, as I say, Joe Biden doesn't believe that. Joe Biden wants to take credit -- I'm not sure for what -- since he opposed that policy pretty much from the outset.
KARL: I think what he wants to take credit for is taking resources out of Iraq, the fact...
CHENEY: That's being done in accordance with a timetable that we initiated, that we -- that we negotiated with -- with the Iraqis. I mean, that was our policy.
KARL: Another thing from the vice president, he also addressed the possibility of another 9/11-style attack.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: The idea of there being a massive attack in the United States like 9/11 is unlikely, in my view. But if you see what's happening, particularly with Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, they have decided to move in a direction of much more small-bore, but devastatingly frightening attacks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Is he right?
CHENEY: I don't think so. And I would point to a study that was released just within the last week or two up at the Kennedy School at Harvard by a gentleman -- Mowatt-Larssen's his name, I believe. He was CIA for 23 years, director of intelligence at the Energy Department for a long time, that looks at this whole question of weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaida and comes to the conclusion that there's a very high threat that Al Qaida is trying very hard to acquire a weapon of mass destruction and, if they're successful in acquiring it, that they will use it.
I think he's right. I think, in fact, the situation with respect to Al Qaida to say that, you know, that was a big attack we had on 9/11, but it's not likely again, I just think that's dead wrong. I think the biggest strategic threat the United States faces today is the possibility of another 9/11 with a nuclear weapon or a biological agent of some kind, and I think Al Qaida is out there even as we meet trying to figure out how to do that.
KARL: And do you think that the Obama administration is taking enough serious steps to prevent that?
CHENEY: I think they need to do everything they can to prevent it. And if the mindset is it's not likely, then it's difficult to mobilize the resources and get people to give it the kind of priority that it deserves.
KARL: OK, let's get to -- you mentioned Eric Holder, the treatment of the Christmas Day underwear bomber. How do you think that case should have been dealt with?
CHENEY: I think the -- the proper way to -- to deal with it would have been to treat him as an enemy combatant. I think that was the right way to go.
The thing I learned from watching that process unfold, though, was that the administration really wasn't equipped to deal with the aftermath of an attempted attack against the United States in the sense that they didn't know what to do with the guy.
There was talk earlier after they'd dismantled the system we'd put in place for prisoner interrogation of high-value detainees. They'd gone out supposedly to create the HIG, high-value interrogation program, but in reality, it was not up and running at Christmastime when it should have been. It started months before that, to put that in place. They need a process, a set of institutions that they can fall back on. Admittedly, this is hard. We had a hard time dealing with this. You've got the Supreme Court on one side that -- that is going to evaluate everything you do, and you've got to be careful with that. The Congress gets involved in it.
CHENEY: So I'm not saying it's an easy task, but by this point, when they've made all the decisions they've had, closed Guantanamo, end (ph) the high-value detainee program and so forth, I think those are all mistakes. Those were the tools we put in place to deal with this kind of situation. They should have had something to put in lieu of those programs, and it would look like they do not have -- have that kind of capability yet.
KARL: If you have somebody in custody like Abdulmutallab, after just trying to blow up an airliner, and you think he has information on another attack, I mean, do you think that those enhanced interrogation techniques should have been -- should have been used? I mean, would you -- do you think that he should have been, for instance, subject to everything, including waterboarding?
CHENEY: Well, I think the -- the professionals need to make that judgment. We've got people in -- we had in our administration -- I'm sure they're still there -- many of them were career personnel -- who are expects in this subject. And they are the ones that you ought to turn somebody like Abdulmutallab over to, let them be the judge of whether or not he's prepared to cooperate and how they can best achieve his cooperation.
KARL: But you believe they should have had the option of everything up to and including waterboarding?
CHENEY: I think you ought to have all of those capabilities on the table. Now, President Obama has taken them off the table. He announced when he came in last year that they would never use anything other than the U.S. Army manual, which doesn't include those techniques. I think that's a mistake.
KARL: OK. So -- so was it a mistake when your administration took on the Richard Reid case? This is very similar. This was somebody that was trying to blow up an airliner with a shoe bomb, and he was within five minutes of getting taken off that plane read his Miranda rights, four times, in fact, in 48 hours, and tried through the civilian system. Was that a mistake?
CHENEY: Well, first of all, I believe he was not tried. He pled guilty. They never did end up having a trial.
Secondly, when this came up, as I recall, it was December of '01, just a couple of months after 9/11. We were not yet operational with the military commissions. We hadn't had all the Supreme Court decisions handed down about what we could and couldn't do with the commissions.
KARL: But you still had an option to put him into military custody.
CHENEY: Well, we could have put him into military custody. I don't -- I don't question that. The point is, in this particular case, all of that was never worked out, primarily because he pled guilty.
KARL: Now, I'd like to read you something that the sentencing judge reading the -- giving him his life sentence read to Richard Reid at the time of that sentencing. Here it is. He said to Reid, "You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. We do not negotiate with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice."
The judge in that case was a Reagan appointee. Doesn't he make a good point?
CHENEY: Well, I don't think so, in a sense that it -- if it -- if you interpret that as taking you to the point where all of these people are going to be treated as though they're guilty of individual criminal acts.
I want to come back again to the basic point I tried to make at the outset, John. And up until 9/11, all terrorist attacks were criminal acts. After 9/11, we made the decision that these were acts of war, these were strategic threats to the United States.
Once you make that judgment, then you can use a much broader range of tools, in terms of going after your adversary. You go after those who provide them safe harbor and sanctuary. You go after those who finance and those who provide weapons for them and those who train them. And you treat them as unlawful enemy combatants.
There's a huge distinction here in terms of the kinds of policies you put in place going forward. And what I'm most concerned about isn't so much argument about all the stuff in the past, about what happened to Abdulmutallab or Richard Reid. I think the relevant point is: What are the policies going to be going forward?
And if you're really serious and you believe this is a war and if you believe the greatest threat is a 9/11 with nukes or a 9/11 with a biological agent of some kind, then you have to consider it as a war, you have to consider it as something we may have to deal with tomorrow. You don't want the vice president of the United States running around saying, "Oh, it's not likely to happen."
KARL: Now, on that question of trying, you know, dealing as enemy combatants or through the criminal justice system, I came across this. This is a document that was put out by the Bush Justice Department under Attorney General Ashcroft...
CHENEY: Right.
KARL: ... covering the years 2001 to 2005. And if you go right to page one, they actually tout the criminal prosecutions...
CHENEY: They did.
KARL: ... of terror suspects, saying, "Altogether, the department has brought charges against 375 individuals in terrorism- related investigations and has convicted 195 to date." That was 2005. Again, seems to make the administration's point that they're not doing it all that differently from how you were doing it.
CHENEY: Well, we didn't all agree with that. We had -- I can remember a meeting in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House where we had a major shootout over how this was going to be handled between the Justice Department, that advocated that approach, and many of the rest of us, who wanted to treat it as an intelligence matter, as an act of war with military commissions.
We never clearly or totally resolved those issues. These are tough questions, no doubt about it. You want my opinion, my view of what ought to happen, I think we have to treat it as a -- as a war. This is a strategic threat to the United States. I think that's why we were successful for seven-and-a-half years in avoiding a further major attack against the United States.
And I do get very nervous and very upset when that's the dominant approach, as it was sometimes in the Bush administration or certainly would appear to be at times in the new Obama administration.
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.
KARL: I'd like to ask you about the big terror case now, which is the KSM trial. The administration very much wants to see the mastermind of 9/11 tried in civilian courts here in the United States. New York has obviously objected.
Do you think that's going to happen? Do you think this will be a civilian trial? Or are they not going to be able to do it?
CHENEY: It looks to me like they're going to have great difficulty doing it in New York. I mean, even the mayor's come out against it now. I think trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York's a big -- big mistake. It gives him a huge platform to promulgate his -- his particular brand of propaganda around the world.
I think he ought to be at Guantanamo. I think he ought to be tried at Guantanamo in front of a military commission. They've got difficulties now, because my guess is they don't want to send him back to Guantanamo, because that would validate, if you will, the value of Guantanamo. They're trying to close it, clearly haven't been able to get it done.
But my guess is, in the end, he'll end up being tried in front of a military commission on a military facility some place.
KARL: So you think Guantanamo will be open when this president leaves office?
CHENEY: I wouldn't be surprised. It's a valuable facility. There's a reason why we set it up. It makes good sense. There's obviously great reluctance on Capitol Hill to appropriate the funds to close it down. I think -- I think Guantanamo is going to be there for quite a while.
KARL: And one other point -- I just want to read also from a previous interview that you gave -- one of your points about Guantanamo is, if you release the hard-core Al Qaida terrorists, you said, that are held at Guantanamo, I think they go back into the business of trying to kill more Americans and mount further mass casualty attacks. If you turn them loose and they go kill more Americans, who's responsible for that?
And it's a real concern. We've heard from the president's homeland security adviser, John Brennan, saying that at minimum 10 percent of the more than 500 that have been released from Guantanamo have gone back into the fight.
But Brennan also wrote this. He said, "I want to underscore the fact that all of these cases relate to detainees released during the previous administration and under the prior detainee review process."
In other words, all of those released from Guantanamo that have gone back into the fight were released by your administration. Can't you make the case that the Obama administration has actually been more responsible about releasing who they release from Guantanamo?
CHENEY: I wouldn't make that -- I wouldn't make that case, John. I think -- as I recall, the percentage that we had of the recidivists was 12 percent. And we released prisoners back basically to their home countries, partly because the State Department was under enormous pressure to do so, and there was an effort to try to return them. The Saudis had a rehabilitation program for returned Saudis, and...
KARL: Did you oppose those releases?
CHENEY: I did. I didn't think that releasing anybody was the right thing to do, unless you had evidence that, you know, there was a mistake of some kind or they'd been -- been before a commission and you'd reviewed their case and found that the case didn't stand up, and that was usually the case. They were put through a thorough scrub before they were released.
Obviously, some of them got through the filter. But I think, out of the ones that remain, those are the real hard core, and I think your recidivist rate would be far higher than it was on those that have already been released.
It's a tough problem; I'll be the first to admit it. But I think you have to have a facility like Guantanamo to hold these individuals who are members of Al Qaida, who've tried to kill Americans, and who -- when they're released, they'll go back out and try to kill Americans again.
KARL: I'd like to move to Iran. Do you trust the Obama administration to do what is necessary to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?
CHENEY: I remain to be persuaded.
KARL: Do you think that sanctions can work? I mean, that's the track they've chosen.
CHENEY: Well, I think -- I hope sanctions work.
KARL: It's the same track you chose (ph).
CHENEY: We -- I certainly would hope sanctions would work, but I think they're most likely to work if you keep the military option on the table. I don't think you want to eliminate the military -- the possibility of military action. I think that's essential to give any kind of meaning at all to negotiations over sanctions.
KARL: How close did you come -- how close did the Bush administration come to taking military action against Iran?
CHENEY: Well, I would -- some of that I can't talk about, obviously, still. I'm sure it's still classified. We clearly never made the decision -- we never crossed over that line of saying, "Now we're going to mount a military operation to deal with the problem."
The president was always hopeful -- and I think everybody else was, too -- that we could find a way to deal with it within having to resort to military force. One of the problems that the Obama administration inherited was the Iranian problem, and it's a tough one.
KARL: David Sanger of the New York Times says that the Israelis came to you -- came to the administration in the final months and asked for certain things, bunker-buster bombs, air-to-air refueling capability, overflight rights, and that basically the administration dithered, did not give the Israelis a response. Was that a mistake?
CHENEY: I -- I can't get into it still. I'm sure a lot of those discussions are still very sensitive.
KARL: Let me ask you: Did you advocate a harder line, including in the military area, in those -- in those final months?
CHENEY: Usually.
KARL: And with respect to Iran?
CHENEY: Well, I -- I made public statements to the effect that I felt very strongly that we had to have the military option, that it had to be on the table, that it had to be a meaningful option, and that we might well have to resort to military force in order to deal with the threat that Iran represented. The problem here being that a nuclear-armed Iran is a huge threat to that entire part of the world and, indeed, to the United States.
KARL: Was it -- was it a...
CHENEY: We never got to the point where the president had to make a decision one way or the other.
KARL: Was that a mistake? Was it a mistake to leave that nuclear capability intact?
CHENEY: Well, we -- we did a lot, because we were very concerned about nuclear capability in the hands of rogue states or potentially shared with terrorist organizations, and we were successful in taking down, for example, Saddam Hussein, who had messed with nuclear weapons twice previously, taking down the A.Q. Khan network, a black-market operation that was providing technology to the North Koreans, Iranians, and Libyans. We successfully obtained all the Libyan materials for their nuclear program, so we got a lot done.
We didn't get everything done. We still -- when we finished, there still was the ongoing Iranian problem and the ongoing North Korean problem. Both of them remain to be addressed.
KARL: I'd like to get your response to Sarah Palin's recent comments on Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PALIN: Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decided really to come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do, if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies, I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he -- than he is today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: She's, of course, talking about President Obama, seemed to be implying that this would be a good political move for him. What's your take?
CHENEY: I don't think a president can make a judgment like that on the basis of politics. The stakes are too high, the consequences too significant to be treating those as simple political calculations. When you begin to talk about war, talk about crossing international borders, you talk about committing American men and women to combat, that takes place on a plane clear above any political consideration.
KARL: So...
CHENEY: So I'd be -- I'd be very cautious about treating that kind of issue on those kinds of conditions.
KARL: We're almost out of time. We're going to get you very quickly on a few other subjects. First of all, one more on Palin. Is she qualified to be president?
CHENEY: I haven't made a decision yet on who I'm going to support for president the next time around. Whoever it is, is going to have to prove themselves capable of being president of the United States. And those tests will -- will come during the course of campaigns, obviously. I think -- well, I think all the prospective candidates out there have got a lot of work to do if, in fact, they're going to persuade a majority of Americans that they're ready to take on the world's toughest job.
KARL: OK, "don't ask/don't tell" -- you're a former defense secretary -- should this policy be repealed?
CHENEY: Twenty years ago, the military were strong advocates of "don't ask/don't tell," when I was secretary of defense. I think things have changed significantly since then. I see that Don Mullen -- or Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has indicated his belief that we ought to support a change in the policy. So I think -- my guess is the policy will be changed.
KARL: And do you think that's a good thing? I mean, is it time to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?
CHENEY: I think the society has moved on. I think it's partly a generational question. I say, I'm reluctant to second-guess the military in this regard, because they're the ones that have got to make the judgment about how these policies affect the military capability of our -- of our units, and that first requirement that you have to look at all the time is whether or not they're still capable of achieving their mission, and does the policy change, i.e., putting gays in the force, affect their ability to perform their mission?
When the chiefs come forward and say, "We think we can do it," then it strikes me that it's -- it's time to reconsider the policy. And I think Admiral Mullen said that.
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.
KARL: And that includes writing a book?
CHENEY: Writing a book, that's correct.
KARL: Can you give us -- before you go -- a quick nugget that's going to be in the book, give us the title, give us something going?
CHENEY: Have me back about a year from now, and I'll have a copy of the book for you, John.
KARL: OK, it's deal.
CHENEY: All right.
KARL: Mr. Vice President, thanks a lot for joining us on "This Week."
CHENEY: Good to see you. I've enjoyed it.
KARL: The roundtable is next, George Will, Paul Gigot, Jane Mayer, and Peter Beinart. And later, the Sunday funnies.
Copyright © 2010 ABC News Internet Ventures
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)