Interesting. Where did you find the transcript? (I am trying to get everyone in the habit of citing their sources)

He said on cbs face the nation 5/10/09

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/10/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5004448.shtml

bottom of the article is a link to a pdf of the transcript.

Thanks

You left out the part where he said that the intelligence gained stopped thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of lives.

If you are going to selectively listen to, and accept his words, you are demonstrating that you do not want the truth, but rather revenge.

0ld_Prospector, try to stay on topic. I was discussing whether or not it was torture or enhanced interrogation techniques. I was calling into question who was and should be calling the shots.

1. The President "basically knew" what was going.

2. The Vice President authorized it.

3. The President "knew a great deal."

Again; Why is Bush remain silent? See the topic of this post...that is truth I am demonstrating.

should say.."I was NOT discussing whether..."

OP. The Director of the FBI doesn't agree with you or Cheney on the benefit of these techniques, the intelligence it revealed, and if any lives were saved or not.

Rolandmc:

Yes, the President "Knew" what was going on, so did Nancy Pelosi and many other members of Congress, Demos and Repubs alike at the time. It has been widely reported that they "Knew" about it at the time and Nancy and friends never voiced a complaint!!!!!

Where is your out rage or questions about the Dems, that never said a word? Fully well knowing at the time what was going on . And now it is "politically" correct for them to speak out about this issue?.... OH, I was never told about what was going on..... Oh, Now that a memo has come out that I was there at the time and briefed about it.... sorry I did not understand that it was actually going on. Oh, sorry it's Bush's fault.

I will not buy your story until all members of congress come forth with the truth of what they knew and when they knew it. But keep blaming Bush for everything if it makes you feel better. In reality everthing is not Bushes fault.. maybe the fault might lay within congress itself?

I observed a typo in my earlier post.

"You left out the part where he said that the intelligence gained stopped *** the loss of *** thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of lives.

There are multiple points here.

1) You believe Cheney when he says something you find useful.

2) You disbelieve Cheney when he says something you find blows a huge crater in your position.

3) You think that because Bush delegated a responsibility to Cheney, Bush was negligent.

4) You fail to understand that there is a difference between saying "I informed someone of something" and "he knew about it"...the former is a statement of fact, the latter calls for a conclusion... watch Judge Judy some time and perhaps you will become more savvy about the difference.

And then there is the whole "its torture...its not" thing. Lets face it, it happened. Whether it was right or wrong, it happened.

Now, why has Congress not officially established in law that waterboarding is illegal? Why did they not do it years ago?

I know, we are venturing into #2 again..you cannot answer the question without admitting a huge crater in your position. You cannot say "Nancy Pelosi knew about it, but she did not call for a bill to stop it" because you are such a party loyalist, you cannot admit the leader of your party did something wrong.

I can criticize Bush, but not for allowing waterboarding, or for delegating the security questions to Cheney. My criticism is on his spending like a drunken sailor.. (apologies to all drunken sailors).

Opie: Obama and Congress continue to spend money like a drunken sailor, and blame Bush for their, " Inherited" problems. Yes, Bush did spend a lot of our money but Obama is spending our way out of debt with money that "WE" do not currently have..... but "Should" have in the future.??????

And I bet by your previous post, Observer will not answer your question about "Why has Congress has not officially establised in law that waterborading is illegal" And that Obama himself has not requested or submitted a Bill or Amendment to Congress "Out Lawing Waterborading" If he does...(Observer). well coffee will be on me at the next "AJ" bloggers coffee. Which I have missed the first two meetings.

Observer... sorry about that was taking about/to Rolandmc..... me bad, busy with phones and employee's.. I will try and be more attentive in the future... Hopefully no harm no foul.

Our constitution does not allow a shift towards a war-time dictatorship morality, even if it would make us "safer."

Yet the torture debate keeps returning back to the surreal idea of excusing crimes against humanity because they may have yielded important (contested) intelligence. The current torture discussion reminds me of the Nixon plumber defense: "if the President does it, it isn't illegal."

Because he knows he will never be sanctioned, Dick Cheney is baiting the media and the American public.

We need to send an unmistakably graphic message to the next group of budding demagogues, who Bush & Co. undoubtedly planted throughout the government. If Nixon had gone to prison for Watergate and Reagan had become his cellmate for illegally selling missiles to Iran, we wouldn't be going through this mess.

We have a moral responsibility to ourselves and to the world. A nation cannot just turn the page after its leaders have committed international war crimes and are responsible for the slaughter and displacement of more than a million people.

I'm not a party loyalist O.P. because as a registered Independent, Nancy Pelosi doesn't represent my party. I've mentioned that numerous times...oh well.

Let's get back to the authorization point. Even IF Nancy Pelosi had authored a bill to make waterboarding specifically an act of torture and IF it had passed and IF it came to the White House, would Dick Cheney have authorized George Bush to sign off on it?

Skeptic: Ooooh geeez..get off your high horse. This is of utmost constitutional importance...right? Sheesh.

Lets face it, what Obama is doing right now with the unconstitutional "taking" of shareholder property via the "bailout" is unconstitutional, yet you have no problem with it.

"A nation cannot just turn the page after its leaders have committed international war crimes"... IMFHO..right?? IN MY F'ing HUMBLE OPINION?!?!?

You declare Bush an international war criminal as if you are the judge, jury and executioner. You are so partisan, you cannot even see your partisanship when you look in the mirror. Some of us are a bit more concerned about the criminals getting away with their crimes than a cop stepping on a crook's neck. Get over it!

Rolandmc: "IF Nancy Pelosi had authored a bill to make waterboarding specifically an act of torture and IF it had passed and IF it came to the White House, would Dick Cheney have authorized George Bush to sign off on it?"... Answer: We will never know. Nancy did not, the Democrat Congress did not. Your supposition that GW would require Cheney to authorize it is moronic as you have nothing to demonstrate a basis for the supposition.

Opie,

Drop the bait and switch. It's deceptive. Obviously, I speak only for myself. My opinion is that people were tortured and torture is illegal. We all agree Bush was in charge.

We've imprisoned and even executed others for waterboarding. That law doesn't ask weather the perpetrator is a Japanese officer, or Bush or even Jesus. It's still illegal. The buck stops at Bush.

O.P. "Your supposition that GW would require Cheney to authorize it is moronic as you have nothing to demonstrate a basis for the supposition. "

Read the blog again...as I said when I posted this blog, it raises more questions than it answers.

1. "We know that you -- and you have said -- that you approved this... CHENEY: RIGHT"

2. "Cheney: I certainly, yes, have every reason to to believe he knew -- he new a GREAT DEAL about the program."

3. He BASICALLY authorized it."

It seems there is still some doubt that former president Bush bears the ultimate and full legal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by his administration.

As luchk would have it, today's online issue of Salon has an interview exactly on point with Manfred Nowak, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture. Mr. Nowak confirms that judicially speaking, the United States has a clear and unavoidable obligation to bring proceedings against top government officials who authorized techniques that under international law are defined as torture.

The United States of America, since 1984, has been a party to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which clearly contains an obligation to make torture a criminal offense under US domestic law, and to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of the territoriality principle, the nationality principle, and the universal jurisdiction principle, all of which ensure that perpetrators of torture have no safe haven in any nation.

Under the direct jurisdiction of the United States of America, if any government official, including police or military officers, practices torture, he or she shall be brought before an independent criminal court to be held accountable. This also includes anyone who orders torture, or in any other way participates in the practice of torture. This is a general obligation and it applies to everybody; there are no exceptions.

The Convention Against Torture is just one treaty with that obligation; the Geneva Conventions, to which the United States is also a signatory, also provide that all contracting parties will bring before any of its courts any individuals or government officials who have committed breaches of the obligations of the Geneva Conventions. This would include government officials but also private contractors such as Blackwater, DynCorp, Titan, CCAI, Atlas and other mercenaries who actually performed torture sessions.

If you define torture in the way the United Nations Convention requires, it's clear that water-boarding falls under the definition of torture and persons can be prosecuted for it under the US Code. In addition, other provisions, such as the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the US Constitution, apply.

A tthe Nuremberg trials, The Ministry Cases, in which German officials who did nothing other than advise deporting Jews from France, were prosecuted as war criminals for giving legal sanction to what were in actuality war crimes.

You might like to read the full transcript for yourself at: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/25/nowak/

(source: Transcript of Interview with Mr. Manfred Nowak, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture; in Salon. Monday 11 May 2009)

Skeptic, so you are saying Bush is innocent of any charges but Cheney should be brought up on violations of the Geneva Convention?

Tell us, do you think Osama Bin Laden should be brought up on charges for having planes flown into our buildings, or do you consider that an acceptable act of war?

No.

Hello Skeptic,

I think your friend Opie is beyond the realm of reason and logic and should be left alone to enjoy his self-imposed inability to process contrary information, his closemindedness and consequent his bliss. If a person cannot see truth when it is laid out as clearly as you laid it out, Skeptic, then please beat the dead horse no more.

But I enjoy seeing Old_Pee shriek and convulse and babble incomprehensibly. Nor can I allow him to pass off unimaginative second-hand lies as valid opinions. After all, we have to protect the kids. I have a moral obligation. Think of me as the instrument of his karma.

Hey! I haven't heard you weigh in on this war crimes investigation stuff yet. What say you, Mr. Queequig, are thy irons keen and true and thirsting to dart? Haul away!