Meaning you got nothing.
Meaning you got nothing.
Seriously – if Cheney were a high school student, I don’t think he could get SUSPENDED on these facts.
No, I want it to be painful for him, not the rest of us.
Interestingly, it still sounds like you’re personally convinced it did happen that way. And I can only guess that the basis for your personal belief is what I’ve been saying above… that it’s just the kind of thing Cheney would do.
It obviously, without question, happened that way, and you know damn well it did. Cheney didn’t ask if it was legal, he ordered Woo et al to say it was to give the administration cover. We’re all adults here. We know what happened. Cheney even admits they’d “done what we asked them to do.”
Of course, any chance of Cheney being prosecuted for his admitted role in a torture conspiracy is slim to non-existent. I don’t think there’s any clear, unequivocal statutory violation to hang an indictment on. It’s still disingenuous to pretend we don’t know exactly what happened, though, especially after Cheney is virtually outright confessing it himself.
Then you’re a damned bad guesser. Or else just a damned willful misrepresenter.
The attitude you’re seeing, but purportedly having trouble comprehending, is that Cheney is morally impaired *based on the evidence of *his having ordered torture (along with lying us into a war of aggression, etc.), not that he ordered torture because he’s morally impaired.
Can you please make an effort to acknowledge that (I think you do understand it)? Your repeated assertions otherwise are simply insulting and impair anyone’s ability, including yours, to advance whatever debate there may be left here.
“Personally convinced” is a bit stronger than I’ll concede. But in a hypothetical situation where an envelope containing the exact right answer were scheduled to be opened and revealed to the public, say, at the halftime show for Super Bowl XLV, I’m thinkin’ it’s the way I’d be willing to bet.
Dunno what’s supposed to be so “interesting” about it. Unless you have some stake in my being personally convinced that it happened in a way that completely exculpates the pigfuck.
You’re ignoring the wiggle room. All that is required is for Cheney to “clarify” by stating that what was required was an impartial anaysis.
And you are dangerously close to introducing such metaphysical issues like “morality” and “justice” into a debate that is clearly defined as an exercise in legal sophistry. If you cannot avail yourself of the clarity of cynicism, it might be best to refrain.
I’ll go further, and say that the evidence for his moral impairment is his freely given admission that he was supportive of waterboarding. There’s your moral impairment right there.
It certainly sounds like you’re convinced it happened that way, too - implicit in your commentary here is the tacit admission that while Cheney probably did not violate the letter of the law, he did violate its spirit.
Am I wrong?
Not wrong, just futile. Bricker does not recognize the concept of the spirit of the law, only the letter.
That is typical in American politics. You don’t prosecute the previous admin, because if the other party gets in, they will come after you. The government is huge and I suppose their are always transgressions somewhere in your staff that could haunt you. A lot of people think Clinton’s impeachment was getting even for Nixon. It took a while but they sent the message.
Which was… what? Provide an impartial memo researching the issue?
Sure, we’re all adults here. And as adults, talking about what a smart individual did, I am absolutely convinced that even if you had a videotape of every moment of Cheney’s life, you would not be able to get a conviction on this charge.
Sort of.
As I indicated with my videotape thought experiment above, I am personally convinced that the way Cheney operates is to be very sure the people he’s working with know exactly what he wants, while at the same time being careful to never explicitly say or do anything that could be later cited as explicit instruction.
“Morally impaired,” is a good way of looking at it.
But it irritates me no end to read these demands that he be criminally prosecuted for being morally impaired.
Me too, but if there’s really a God, he’ll have a little more trouble skating.
Depending on the venue, he’s right to do so. In the court of public opinion (and in the crafting of legislation), by all means embrace the notion of the spirit of the law. In a court of law, OTOH, we really need to rely on the letter. Otherwise, horrible abuses can be perpetrated when the wrong people are empowered to decide and implement their idea of what “the spirit” of the law is.
The SDMB (ISTM) is more properly identified with the former sort of court, so your point does have merit.
I don’t think he could or should be criminally prosecuted solely on the basis of anything we currently know. I see no clear, unambiguous violation of any criminal statute. I think your characterization is exactly right. He made sure that people knew what he wanted, but he did not do so in a way that would leave him open to any personal liability.
In his own twisted way, he’s even showing a sense of honor, in a mafioso sort of way, by trying to man up and protect the guys who did what he asked them to do. He’s saying without saying (and the public gets it), “don’t crucify these guys. They were just following my orders.” He could have just lt them swing, so it does show some speck of integrity, oddly enough, that he’s saying, “point the gun at me.”
Sure. But this thread is not about “Deciding on the SDMB if Dick Cheney is morally bereft.” (It’s weird, but I sort of have this feeling about how that thread might go…) This thread is explicitly about the legal process: prosecuting Dick Cheney for conspiracy to torture.
Yes. And he’s saying that because he believes, in whatever twisted little black atrophied squib of tissue that used to be a heart, that he was right.
Which is, of course, a very dangerous position for an elected official to take, no matter what side they’re on.
Then quit pretending that that’s what you’re reading. :rolleyes: GAwdamm …
Who are these “wrong people”? And how horrible by comparison are the abuses that can be perpetrated when the spirit of the law is expressly disregarded?
“Wrong people?” I suppose we could start with Dick Cheney. 
And your question about “the spirit of the law [being] expressly disregarded” strikes me as nonsensical. The only things that can be “expressly” disregarded (or regarded, for that matter) are things that are “expressed” in the first place.
“Expression” is pretty much the defining difference between the “letter” of the law and the “spirit” of the law.