I agree. I think it’s a defensible opinion to say something as vague as “this encourages Al Qaeda” or even “this is great for Al Qaeda,” because both of those are commentary on the secondary effects of the actions taken. But to choose to use the specific words “aid and comfort” knowing, as he surely does, that they are a term of art describing treason, is absolutely wrong and an insult to the office of the President. Yes, he got tarred with that same brush, and no, that gives him zero justification to go waving it around at others. Extremely poor showing, Mr. Cheney.
I just saw that on the news. Not sure that adds substance to the debate, but I sure laughed my ass off!
Chris Matthews doesn’t know what “STFU” means? Explains a lot.
From Cheney’s point of view, the problem isn’t that we waterboarded him, it is that some lib’ruls let it be known that he was waterboarded. If the waterboarding was still secret, then who would get mad at the US, hmmm? And even if people get mad at the US, fuck them.
What a statesman.
I have criticized Grayson in the past as being a clown, but this made me smile.
I think what really bothers and scares Cheney is that it’s going to come out that the reason for the waterboarding wasn’t to try to get information, but to try to get them to say that Iraq as involved with 9/11, and that Cheney himself was the one who ordered it done.
On trial for heinous crimes, facing at minimum life in prison = aid and comfort. Can we aid and comfort bin Laden some time soon? Did Cheney allow Saddam to be aided and comforted? I recall quite a lot of ranting during his trial. I expect the prosecutors are rather hoping the accused will get up in court and hang himself with his own words. Does Cheney think KSM is going to convert Americans to jihad with a speech at his trial? Is there something new he could say to rile up his own followers? I’m open to the criticism that the whole thing could be thrown out (thanks to Dick policies), but what’s the point of the soap-box argument?
Oh yeah! … they lost the election … that’s the point, as usual.
Cheney’s tears are truly the sweetest. I look forward to enjoying more of them over the next 3-7 years.
Cheney continues to be an apologist, and likely will until he draws his last breath. If KSM and the others are tried, convicted, and sentenced, it will be a triumph of some American ideals and a failure for how Bush handled the issues of indefinite detention, rendition, and torture (all of which will be given prominent display during the trial).
You know, he seems like a douche now, but I bet we’ll all be looking pretty stupid if KSM manages to turn the judge, jury, court reporter and baliffs into jihadis.
Ditto what Bricker said. I agree that the NYC trial is a horrible idea, and may well in the long run prove a boon to Al Qaeda. But implying that this was what the admin intended, and using the specific language of treason is deeply wrong.
On a human level, I can understand that those who get it done to them want to give tit-for-tat. That doesn’t make it right.
Howe the fuck is it going to be a "boon to al Qaeda? What is aQ going to able to do after a trial that it couldn’t do before?
Does anyone think that the defendants are going to be persuasive in any hypothetical rants against the US?
If anything, showing that we follow a rule of law and give even “terrorist” suspects due process might have a marginally cooling effect on anti-US sentiment.
And get him a nice screensaver for his computer.
Why, oh why, do they keep interviewing him? He never says anything worth hearing, it all sounds like sour grapes, and he is too far from innocent of wrongdoing to be criticizing anyone.
Why is his opinion on the news at all?
I don’t care what the dick thinks, stop putting in the media like it matters already!
How many people are currently being held? How many were released again?
Yet, once again it it simply…
BUSH.
You guys don’t want to or you never will get it. It is politics as normal. Obama isn’t groundbreaking, heroic or any other label you want to provide for him, other than ‘political’.
Is he slick? Sure as hell is and that is why he is a good politician. (oxymoron)
No more calls; we have a winner!
Why is a NYC trial a horrible idea? It’s the only proper venue.
I fail to see how it’s Obama’s fault if Bush had all these people locked up and didn’t bother to have anyone document why they were being locked up. Now somebody has to go back and figure it out.
Well, since the hijackers boarded at Logan, maybe Boston would have a claim to jurisdiction.
Not so much the in-NYC part, but I think the trial itself is a bad idea. For one thing, much of the evidence usable against him is likely to have been generated by, um, “non-traditional” methods; a trial that admits this evidence into court generates precedent for future cases. For another, I don’t think a show trial with a predetermined outcome (both the pres and AG have said in advance that KSM will be convicted) does much to make us look like a beacon of justice; just the opposite.
It could hardly make us look worse than holding him indefinitely. Anyway, there’s a big difference between evidence gained via torture (obviously inadmissible) and evidence gained via traditional methods in a non-traditional setting- ie., wartime (grey area).
I highly doubt they’d be putting him on trial if they couldn’t put him away using only “clean” evidence.
So in three years when they are still being held your answer won’t change?
Bush, Bush, Bush.
If I got s much bush at home as I get here, I’d never leave home.
I don’t know whether or not trying this guy is a good idea, NY or not.
If they’re still being held in three years my answer will certainly change.
What else are they going to do with him? They can’t keep him locked up forever and they can’t execute him without trying him.