From CNN.com: (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/16/cheney.government/index.html)
(CNN) -- Dick Cheney has finally found the limits of government power.
In his interview with CNN's John King -- his first television interview since leaving the vice presidency -- Cheney revealed a view of federal power that is incoherent and hypocritical.
According to recently released legal memos from the Bush-Cheney administration, the former vice president believes that the federal government can ignore the First Amendment and suppress free speech and freedom of the press as part of its "war on terror."
An October 23, 2001, memo from Justice Department lawyers John C. Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty said, "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully."
Former Vice President Cheney also believes, according to these same memos, that the federal government can send troops to burst into the homes of American citizens without a search warrant, despite the Fourth Amendment's protection against such unreasonable searches. He believes that the federal government has the right to arrest an American citizen on American soil and hold him in prison without charges. He believes that the federal government can listen in on your phone conversations without a court order.
Cheney believes that the federal government can ignore the Geneva Conventions, binding treaties largely written by the United States, signed by the president and ratified by the Senate. He believes that the federal government can commit torture, despite laws and treaties making torture a crime.
As the Washington Post reported, "Starting in January, 2002, Cheney turned his attention to the practical business of crushing a captive's will to resist. The vice president's office played a central role in shattering limits on coercion of prisoners in U.S. custody, commissioning and defending legal opinions that the Bush administration has since portrayed as the initiatives, months later, of lower-ranking officials."
The newspaper said, "Cheney and his allies ... did not originate every idea to rewrite or reinterpret the law, but fresh accounts from participants show that they translated muscular theories, from Yoo and others, into the operational language of government."
In fact, Yoo has said the federal government has the power to grab your young son and crush his private parts if the president thinks that will help the "war on terror."
Think I'm kidding? Here's the verbatim exchange from a debate between Yoo and Notre Dame professor Doug Cassel:
Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty ...
Cassel: Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo ...
Yoo: I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that.
Wow. That is a sick, twisted, sadistic world view. It is also a breathtakingly expansive view of federal power over citizens. Indeed, the position of Cheney and his allies seems to be that the federal government has limitless power over people. If the government can censor the free press, restrict free speech, listen in on your private conversations, burst into your home, take you away, hold you in prison without charges and torture you, it raises an interesting question: What on Earth does Dick Cheney think the federal government can't do?
Thanks to John King, we now know: Cheney believes that the government cannot help with health care, improve education or wean America off Middle East oil. I'm not kidding.
Cheney, whose authoritarian impulses run deep, is suddenly worried that the federal government might become too powerful under President Obama.
"I worry a lot," he told King, "that they're using the current set of economic difficulties to try to justify a massive expansion in the government, and much more authority for the government over the private sector. I don't think that's good. I don't think that's going to solve the problem."
Set aside the, umm, irony of a guy who is alive, thank God, because of government-provided health care opposing health care for taxpaying Americans. And set aside the hypocrisy of the Bush-Cheney Medicare prescription drug entitlement, the greatest expansion of the federal role in health care since President Lyndon B. Johnson.
Focus instead on Cheney's alarmist rhetoric: "a massive expansion in the government", "much more authority for the government." Cheney is comfortable with a government that has the authority to torture, imprison, censor and kill. Just not a government that has the capacity and compassion to write a health insurance policy or take on Big Oil.
I write this only hours after King's interview with Cheney, and yet I believe it will live in history. Right there, in his own words, Cheney gives historians a candid explication of his world view: that government may claim dictatorial powers when he and his ilk are in charge, but when we the people call on our government to act to address recession, illness and ignorance (made worse by Cheney's policies) well, then we've reached Cheney's boundaries of the government's power.
Since Chaney is not longer in power I fail to see what you have to fear from him. What does Obama think on these issues, has anyone asked him. I would look to today and tomorrow then to live in the past myself. JMO
Quote from: mcgonser on March 17, 2009, 10:50:17 AM
Since Chaney is not longer in power I fail to see what you have to fear from him. What does Obama think on these issues, has anyone asked him. I would look to today and tomorrow then to live in the past myself. JMO
What we have to fear from him is that plenty of people still agree with his anti-American sentiments.
But you forget, the democrats won and the republicans are no longer in power. Polosi tells them that every day. ;D
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
Those who live in the past cannot see the present and future. TMG
Quote from: mcgonser on March 17, 2009, 10:50:17 AM
Since Chaney is not longer in power I fail to see what you have to fear from him. What does Obama think on these issues, has anyone asked him. I would look to today and tomorrow then to live in the past myself. JMO
Cheney IS a Nazi and he had a little Hitler (shrub) to play the role of mein fuhrer. They almost succeeded, based on bush's EO's, signing docs and papers now being revealed from Justice. They should all be in jail awaiting war crime and treason trials.
Quote from: dan foster on March 21, 2009, 12:51:26 PM
Cheney IS a Nazi and he had a little Hitler (shrub) to play the role of mein fuhrer. They almost succeeded, based on bush's EO's, signing docs and papers now being revealed from Justice. They should all be in jail awaiting war crime and treason trials.
Prove it:
Fascism is a totalitarian nationalist and corporatist ideology. It is primarily concerned with perceived problems associated with cultural, economic, political, and social decline or decadence, and which seeks to solve such problems by achieving a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation, as well as promoting cults of unity, strength and purity.
so⋅cial⋅ism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
These definitions are both from wikipedia: I wonder which one is best??????????
Quote from: mcgonser on March 22, 2009, 07:05:00 PM
Fascism is a totalitarian nationalist and corporatist ideology. It is primarily concerned with perceived problems associated with cultural, economic, political, and social decline or decadence, and which seeks to solve such problems by achieving a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation, as well as promoting cults of unity, strength and purity.
so⋅cial⋅ism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
These definitions are both from wikipedia: I wonder which one is best??????????
Not sure of your point. The Nazi's of WWII ilk were Socialists. And that would mean, what?
Yep, the English translation of NAZIonaliste Socialiste Deutsch Arbeiter Partei (I doubt I spelled that right) is: Nationalist Socialist German Workers' Party. It came to prominence as a backlash movement which appealed to Germans unhappy with their situations in a miserable post WW1 environment. The movement was characterized by its promotion of blind patriotism, a wish to return to the "good old days" before Germany's defeat, and an inclination to find someone else to blame for their woes, The Jews became an easy target. I fear conditions in this country may be becoming ripe for another incarnation of this sort of movement. Who might become our whipping boy: Mexicans; the rich; maybe the Republican party which is currently catching the blame for all the problems faced by the U.S.?
If Bush/Cheney and cronies were tried in the Hague, they would be sentenced to the death penalty. It is up to the prosecutors to prove it in court. In my living room, if they were to show up here, they would be dead.
Quote from: xman on March 22, 2009, 11:51:42 PM
If Bush/Cheney and cronies were tried in the Hague, they would be sentenced to the death penalty. It is up to the prosecutors to prove it in court. In my living room, if they were to show up here, they would be dead.
Well so much for a fair trial. Are we going to punish JFK, Johnson and Nixon for Vietnam? Yes I know they are dead. Are we going to find ALL of congress that voted to go to Iraq guilty? The Hague has nothing to do with America. Thats what we need, the people to be focused on this rubbish instead of what is really going on. This comes off as nothing more than vindictive and UnAmerican.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 23, 2009, 07:01:59 AM
Well so much for a fair trial. Are we going to punish JFK, Johnson and Nixon for Vietnam? Yes I know they are dead. Are we going to find ALL of congress that voted to go to Iraq guilty? The Hague has nothing to do with America. Thats what we need, the people to be focused on this rubbish instead of what is really going on. This comes off as nothing more than vindictive and UnAmerican.
Don't forget about Clinton and the asprin factory. :wink:
Quote from: mcgonser on March 23, 2009, 07:01:59 AM
This comes off as nothing more than vindictive and UnAmerican.
Supporting the crap Bush and Cheney pulled is as unAmerican as it gets.
You can't say I supported our President Bush. I knew that I didn't know the whole story and trusted my president to do what was necessary. No one has proved to me yet that he didn't. You throw alot of accusations around but I haven't seen proof, not opinions on this JMO
That's because you're a blind sheep. JMO
No its because you have bought into the conspiracy theories and bashing that is being spread around. I still have not seen proof and doubt if there is any to take to court. If it does go to court it is only a democratic tactic to get us to not look at what is really going on NOW. I wonder who is really wearing blinders. JMO
Executive orders that usurp the Constitution are not conspiracy theories; they are fact. If you see that document as that unimportant, you should move elsewhere.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 23, 2009, 02:44:12 PM
Executive orders that usurp the Constitution are not conspiracy theories; they are fact. If you see that document as that unimportant, you should move elsewhere.
Oh no! I think Obama has been accused of the same thing with some of his actions already. Does this mean he will be taken to court too?
Quote from: mcgonser on March 23, 2009, 02:56:48 PM
Oh no! I think Obama has been accused of the same thing with some of his actions already. Does this mean he will be taken to court too?
Of course he has been
accused of it...the feeble minded are always up for a good lynching.
Are these the same feeble minded that are after Bush? Maybe they are an equal party offender LOL
It doesn't surprise me that you aren't bright enough to recognize the difference between the two.
No, I just rely on your wisdom to keep me informed??????????
Quote from: mcgonser on March 23, 2009, 04:07:15 PM
No, I just rely on your wisdom to keep me informed??????????
You have already proven that you can't be informed.
Well thats Ok, you haven't proven anything yet. Just made accusations(run you mouth) and put everyone else down.
Quote from: mcgonser on March 23, 2009, 08:30:18 PM
Well thats Ok, you haven't proven anything yet. Just made accusations(run you mouth) and put everyone else down.
Fact: There is proof of torture. Fact: Torture is illegal and a war crime. Fact: Bush and Cheney should be in jail awaiting a war crimes trial. No opinion in any of that. It is the law.
Quote from: dan foster on March 23, 2009, 10:20:56 PM
Fact: There is proof of torture. Fact: Torture is illegal and a war crime. Fact: Bush and Cheney should be in jail awaiting a war crimes trial. No opinion in any of that. It is the law.
Give it a rest will ya? There were no war crimes committed by Bush or Cheney period. If they had been given all the comforts of home it would have been a cave with no electricity for pete's sake. So they were deprived of sleep or subjected to water boarding....big deal they still have their heads attached to their bodies unlike some of the Americans their people captured. And don't give me that crap about "how do we know they were terroriste" because they were captured in the field shooting at our troops.
Quote from: dan foster on March 23, 2009, 10:20:56 PM
Fact: There is proof of torture. Fact: Torture is illegal and a war crime. Fact: Bush and Cheney should be in jail awaiting a war crimes trial. No opinion in any of that. It is the law.
So we had trials for the Germans and Japanese for their torture of soldiers in prisoner of war camps??
We had trials for the North Vietnamese for their torture of Prisoners?
We have trials for the torture, kidnapping and murder of our people(civilians) from South American, Central American and Mexican drug lords??
There was no war declared between us and the low life yellow bellied terrorist. It is not their way. They would rather bomb innocent people and our soldiers. They are the scum of the earth and do not get the respect of a war time enemy. So are we going to look back and see if any other President knew about torture of prisoners? Then try them too?
Give me a break!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: mcgonser on March 23, 2009, 10:46:37 PM
So we had trials for the Germans and Japanese for their torture of soldiers in prisoner of war camps??
We had trials for the North Vietnamese for their torture of Prisoners?
We have trials for the torture, kidnapping and murder of our people(civilians) from South American, Central American and Mexican drug lords??
There was no war declared between us and the low life yellow bellied terrorist. It is not their way. They would rather bomb innocent people and our soldiers. They are the scum of the earth and do not get the respect of a war time enemy. So are we going to look back and see if any other President knew about torture of prisoners? Then try them too?
Give me a break!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"So we had trials for the Germans and Japanese for their torture of soldiers in prisoner of war camps??"
So you really are that fucking ignorant? I rest my case.
:rolleyes: :no:
Quote from: dan foster on March 24, 2009, 10:24:38 PM
"So we had trials for the Germans and Japanese for their torture of soldiers in prisoner of war camps??"
So you really are that fucking ignorant? I rest my case.
Well since you think I am so ignorant, explain it to me. You didn't answer my question just repeated it. Whats Your Point. In simple words please.LOL
Quote from: mcgonser on March 24, 2009, 11:21:55 PM
Well since you think I am so ignorant, explain it to me. You didn't answer my question just repeated it. Whats Your Point. In simple words please.LOL
Your (your spelling) joking, right? OK, just in case you aren't, but man you gotta put down the video games (or the porn) and pick up some books:
Nuremberg Trials - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials)
The first and best known of these trials was the Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which tried 22 of the most important captured leaders of Nazi Germany.
The Tokyo War Crimes Trials (1946-1948) - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/peopleevents/pandeAMEX101.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/peopleevents/pandeAMEX101.html)
The Tokyo trials were not the only forum for the punishment of Japanese war criminals, merely the most visible. In fact, the Asian countries victimized by the Japanese war machine tried far more Japanese -- an estimated five thousand, executing as many as 900 and sentencing more than half to life in prison. But with Japan under the control of the Americans, the most prominent Japanese war leaders came under MacArthur's jurisdiction.
Since we lost in Korea and Vietnam, we weren't in much of a position to impose any justice, if any were needed. I do hope the International Courts get a hold of Bush and Cheney.
The Nuremberg Trials were for the Nazi's slaughter of over 6 million jews and war crimes against them. It was a world outcry of something they could not hide. No war crimes against America.
The Tokyo trials were for Asian nations that had be tortured and killed by the Japanese. actually not for the crimes against us as we had signed a peace treaty with them. It says so in the article you posted plus more info online.
I read quite well thank you for your concern and snide smugness. :biggrin:
Quote from: dan foster on March 25, 2009, 09:46:05 PM
"Eternal damnation and punishment awaits those who question God's unconditional love." -Bill Hicks
LMAO! That's freakin' great!