Dick Cheney Fails To Understand American Values

dick-cheney

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney continues to obfuscate the truth and tarnish the name of all Republicans by means of standing up for cruel and unusual punishment of military detainees.

Appearing on FOX News Sunday recently, the former Vice President continued to advocate a dangerous and sick agenda by claiming pride for the torture and prisoner mistreatment that occurred under The Bush Administration.

Beyond this outrageous fact, Cheney made a statement that I see as a direct affront to very heart of American Values like he has never done before.
1.Chris_wallace_fnc

WALLACE: So even these cases [of interrogation] where they went beyond the specific legal authorization, you’re OK with it.”

3_61_320_cheney

CHENEY: I am.

This was a true testament to how divorced Dick Cheney remains from any understanding of our national standards of justice and our mutual values as a people.

Cheney clearly declares that he cares nothing as to the pursuit of justice to those that break the law under the blanket of authority claiming to pursue justice themselves.

This country does not accept any person or body to be beyond the law, and Cheney insulted this nation by supporting the notion that supporting illegal actions under government supervision are acceptable in a free nation of laws.

Advertisements

Exception to Torture

18 US Code 2340 — Exception to Torture

“Torture means an act of a person acting under color of law to inflict severe physical and mental pain other than pain and suffering to lawful sanctions upon another person under lawful physical custody or control.”

This statute combined with the Justice Department memos seeking to define ‘enhanced interrogation’ as legal sanction are the method by which the Bush administration violated the US Constitution through the approval of cruel and unusual punishment on military detainees as part of lawful sanctions.

Many who use the word ‘torture’ on both sides of the argument fail to recognize this statute in it’s existence. I do not. Those who committed acts of torture as defined by US Legal Code should face prosecution for their acts no matter if they belong to an agency of US origin or not. The Nuremberg Defense is invalid. If your commanding officer orders you to commit torture you are bound by law to resign rather than accept the orders.

The US Supreme Court has rejected the argument that holding military detainees indefinitely is constitutional, stating that habeas corpus (the right to speedy trial) must be granted to terrorism suspects.

The United States Constitution applies as to persons and not exclusively to citizens nor exclusively within our borders. Wherever America goes, the Constitution follows.

Ours was the nation that defined specifically waterboarding as torture to be banned by the Geneva Convention, we proposed that their were to be no exceptions under the law for this method of interrogation to be lawful sanction. This nation once stood against the tactics of the communists who oppress freedom of opinion with fear and propaganda. When politically expedient such a review of history is rejected for the failed logic of ’enhanced interrogation’ being successful and vital to national security. All available credible information on the matter says otherwise and the FBI has warned of a ’blow-back factor’ from using such tactics from the beginning.

Not only do tactics like waterboarding endanger national security but they degrade our ability to conduct ourselves as a credible nation to other nations whom engage in human rights violations and nuclear proliferation. We have no weight in our stance while we allow illegalities to go unpunished within our own government and our own military.

Now somehow in these dark days we have a portion of the country who believe in using the very tactics of the communists that we rallied against so many years ago in a new battle where following this ideology will undoubtedly lead to yet another terrorist attack on the homeland and further the goals of global terrorism abroad. I contend if we listen to the perspective of former Vice-President Richard Cheney on the matter that we will provoke the national security situation to an irreparable state.

 

Bill O’Reilly versus Joan Walsh

YouTube Video of The Debate

“This Tiller thing is bogus. And I think you know it‘s bogus. And if not I‘m gonna show you a sound byte that‘s gonna prove it to you.”

How many sound bytes do you have to show people to fix what they read in textbooks and newspapers?

If it’s in the Constitution, he has a sound byte for that. No need to read it yourself.

If it’s the truth of ideology that he claims to hold and only perverts and twists to his own ends, he has a sound byte for that. No need to speak to the people involved.

If he promotes domestic terrorism via lies about Americans and invasions of privacy in his ‘just crusade,’ he has a sound byte for that. No need to look at reality.

He has a sound byte ready for the day he starts getting right down to it and promoting violence against liberals and terrorism on the city of San Francisco. And another one ready as they fit him for an orange jumpsuit.

All of it to carefully explain away why he is not at fault, ever, and has nothing to do with anything except the so-called ‘truth.’ All it to make sure nobody in his audience ever actually reads anything except what he tells them to.

To me, this is proof of what I’ve always said about Bill O’Reilly:

This man cares nothing for facts and only for own personal set of biases.

 

The O’Reilly Tactic of Dirty Pool Debate revealed one of his trademark spin artist moves in the opening moments of this clip.

Bill’O brings up as a side-line, and states himself very quickly, in mentioning what Joan wrote on her website was “unconscionable” and then says he is going to “stick to it” by addressing the matter at hand.

This is classic Dirty Pool Debate. You slander your opponent and before they get a chance to respond then quickly you move to the ’real issue at hand.’ The whole point of Dirty Pool Debate is to demean the character of your opponent instead of argue the point with them.

Bill O’Reilly is a master at doing just this. Keeping the truth of a real debate away from his audience and helping them maintain narrow-minded thinking while feeling like they are ‘learning’ about politics, media and the nation.

Just screaming like an idiot into the camera and refusing the recognize the damage he does to society at large with this brand of partisan hate and untruthful propaganda on serious social issues in America.

Joan: “You crusaded against him.”

Bill: “You bet!”

Joan: “He had been shot twice already.”

Bill: “And I‘m sorry about that.”

Well if he was so sorry why didn’t he stop slandering and misusing his platform to spread lies about Americans that ultimately lead to domestic terrorism incidents?

Because that would have hurt his ratings. Oh, the precious ratings.

He should be sorry. He is the one with blood on his hands, after all.

What Bill O’Reilly does on television is wrong. It is a brutal set of lies and conjecture that provides no benefit to the nation whatsoever. FOX Broadcasting Studios should be ashamed to have their name attached to such a disreputable and dishonest man.

 

The need to scream over all that disagrees with your mentality is a clear example of partisanship and intolerance for the opinions of others.

The need to call everyone not aligned with you as “far left“is a clear example of a need to marginalize your opponent because you feel your own position is weak or lacking against theirs.

Considering conservatives are on the wrong side of history in every debate over social issues I can see why Bill O’Reilly is so threatened to use such shallow and childish tactics.

Joan is absolutely right about Bill O’Reilly being a vile man. A vile and lowly man who loves his ideologies more than he loves other humans.

He disrespects the nation and the intelligence of his audience with his so-called ‘facts’ and his so-called ‘reporting.’

Time and time again it is the true patriots who must stand up against the charlatans and propagandists who seek to destroy this nation in violence and ignorance.

Let our voices be heard, loud.

A domestic terrorist is in our amidst: Bill O’Reilly. A man who promotes vigilantism and misinformation that gets Americans killed.

Rusty Humphries is a Fascist

Rusty Humphries is a disturbed individual. He sought to express to his audience today that for the first time since his wife passed away, a year ago, he felt as if tears would well up into his eyes. What caused him this moment of anguish and misery equal to the loss of a loved one? The images of recently released Guantanamo Bay terror suspects, referred to as “Uighurs,” to Bermuda.

One more radio pundit has lost his mind in the age of a return to American justice and the US Constitution being enacted under President Barack Obama. The partisan hate and ignorance of the fundamental values of American Democracy is disturbing and leads to only one conclusion: Rusty Humphries supports totalitarian-fascist policies for the U.S.

RUSTBUCKET: “These guys [Uighurs] had every intention of doing terrorist acts on China.”

One has to prove this in a court of law if you intend to detain any person. Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental difference between American and Fascist Ideals.

RUSTBUCKET: “China has made it clear they will execute and make example of all terrorists.”

This is true. They are also a nation guilty of endless human rights atrocities. It is clear to me that this particular radio-jockey is a pro-fascist and anti-democratic pundit.

This is the U.S., not China.

Those who lose their country seek to protect the U.S. Constitution.

Those who love fascism seek to defend torture and detainment without trial.

His hatred for President Obama and all things American is so great, and so vastly partisan, that he continues to jeopardize and threaten the nation with his dangerous and unconstitutional rhetoric.

Judge Andrew Napolitano & Alan Colmes

Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights

From WorldFocusOnline:

On Thursday, U.S. President Barack Obama delivered a strong defense of his decision to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, an issue that has become increasingly political in recent weeks. On Wednesday, Congress had denied Obamas request for $80 million to close the detention facility.


In the speech, Obama largely repudiated the Bush administration policy on dealing with terror suspects — and declared again, in no uncertain terms, we do not torture.


Shayana Kadidal, a senior managing attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights who has represented a number of Guantanamo detainees, joins Martin Savidge to discuss how the president made his case, the next step and potential pitfalls of the Obama plan.

Cheney Deserves His Day in Court

“When just one single piece of information could prevent a nuclear-armed terrorist [we can‘t take any chances.]”

Former-Vice President Dick Cheney continues to spread the myth that inhumane torture tactics, mislabeled as ’enhanced interrogation,’ are necessary to protect the nation from extremist violence. His continued use of fear-tactics by insinuation of nuclear attack on American soil is a throw-back to the selling of the Iraq War to the American People, which ultimately was proven to be based on bad intelligence. The use of these tactics will only produce more bad intelligence and not to mention legal ramifications of using techniques that are clearly ‘cruel and unusual punishment.’

I could only speculate if he is a man bereft of all humanity or simply a man of very strong and very flawed convictions, but the fact remains that putting our nation in danger and violating the US Constitution are all that is accomplished in following this destructive version of course of action proposed by both Cheney and Bush.

I continue to advocate investigation and prosecution based on any evidence gathered that can meet the standards of a courtroom. If sufficient evidence to convict Dick Cheney of war crimes exists then, we the American people, deserve to hear the facts out before a jury of his peers.