Cheney wants to torture prisoners. He said so. He didn't mean a dunk in the pool.

[bigtree]

He realized he had agreed to something illegal on the air when he agreed that a dunk in the water was "no-brainer" that could "save lives", so, he qualified it with "we don't torture." But, he's all for torturing suspects and prisoners. He's said so on several occasions as he advocated for CIA release from the ban on torture.

These folks love the idea of torture. They call their brand of torture "interrogation techniques," and they just rammed a load of false immunity for past and future abusive techniques through Congress in the Torture and Detention Bill Bush signed the other day. It was the prospect of being held accountable for those past and contemplated torturous techniques that caused Cheney to snap out the "we don't torture" line.

One good indication of the Bush regime's deep concern about revelations of past tortures is in their proposed rules that seek to restrict communications between Gitmo prisoners and their lawyers. An October 25 report in the Boston Globe said administration officials had expressed concern that information about those 14 terrorist suspects (including alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) who were quickly hustled to Guantanamo Bay from secret CIA facilities after the Supreme Court invalidated the tribunal plan -- and the conditions under which they were kept in secret prisons -- might leak out through defense attorneys.

That's the reason for all of the posturing over the torture provisions in the law, and the reason the Bush regime wants to severely limit open expression, and has rules in the legislation that let the military courts suppress whatever evidence they want:

Under the new law, the officers of the military tribunal have the power to decide whether the defendants' evidence is "unfair, confusing, misleading, or wasting their time."

Here is the provision: (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc109/h6166_ih.xml)

“The military judge shall exclude any evidence the probative value of which is substantially outweighed—

“(i) by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the commission; or

“(ii) by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Defendants will do whatever they can to argue that whatever 'confessions' the CIA, military, or private contractors tortured out of them should be declared invalid and thrown out. That's where the challenges to the new law will come in. Of course, the defendants are severely restricted from challenging the authority of the new courts, but there will be plenty of challenges to the law from outside the system.

Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi was still defiant this week on the signing of the Torture and Detention Bill. She doesn't think the bill will withstand court scrutiny. She made these statements: (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=74451)

"Democrats voted overwhelmingly to go to war in Afghanistan so that those responsible for the 9/11 attacks would be brought to justice. More than five years later, because of the failure of the Bush Administration to devise a legal process that could withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court, not a single person who planned the attacks has been tried and convicted.

"That record of failure is unlikely to be improved by the military commissions bill President Bush signed today. Legal challenges to the bill may result in convictions being overturned, punishments being set aside, and justice being further delayed. In addition, because the bill allows the president to interpret the Geneva Conventions through executive order, it invites other countries to do the same, thereby weakening the international legal standards that have protected our troops for decades.

"Democrats want terrorists who kill Americans tried, convicted and punished through a constitutionally sound process that will be upheld on appeal. That goal will not be achieved by the bill President Bush signed into law today."

As we go to the polls, we should keep our Democratic leaders in mind as we vote to send them a majority with which to initiate and prioritize legislation, rejecting (and hopefully overturning) the 'smash and grab' republicans who have so thoroughly enjoyed trampling on our democracy. The republicans are so intent on protecting the administration from criticism and rebuke that they've taken to passing laws to cover for their obvious crimes.

It will be more than satisfying to watch these traitors take a dunk in the ocean of our democracy in November. It'll seem like torture to these fascists.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[bigtree]

1. Cheney Ducks Dunking

October 28, 2006, 11:51 am

By Kate Phillips

On Air Force Two Friday night, Vice President Cheney took a few questions, the first set of which were about his comments earlier in the week about “a dunk in the water.” (See our earlier post “Of Waterboarding and No-Brainers.”)

According to the White House transcript, Mr. Cheney tried to clarify: (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061028-2.html)

I was being interviewed by a talk show host. I don’t talk about techniques and I wouldn’t. I have said that the interrogation program for a select number of detainees is very important. It has been I think one of the most valuable intelligence programs we have. And I believe it has allowed us to prevent terrorist attacks against the United States. I did not talk about specific techniques involved.

Q: So it was not about water boarding, even though he asked you about dunking in the water?

Mr. Cheney: I didn’t say anything about water boarding. Those were all his comments. He didn’t even use that phrase.

Q: He said dunking in the water.

Mr. Cheney: I didn’t say anything, he did.


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=477