Cheney Thinks Obama will Appreciate Expansion of Executive Power

  • News
  • Thread starter LowlyPion
  • Start date
  • #1
LowlyPion
Homework Helper
3,097
5
What a smug little bug Cheney is. Power corrupts and I think he's leaving office a drunken sailor - drunk on his obsequious sense of self importance and proud of the human rights he's managed to violate through whatever subterfuge and misrepresentation he could manage.
Politico said:
Cheney: Obama 'not likely to cede authority'
By ANDY BARR | 12/15/08 4:08 PM EST

Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that President-elect Barack Obama will “appreciate” the expansions of executive power achieved during the Bush administration and is unlikely to cede authority back to Congress.

“Once they get here and they’re faced with the same problems we deal with every day, then they will appreciate some of the things we've put in place,” Cheney said during an interview on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show.

“We did not exceed our constitutional authority, as some have suggested,” Cheney insisted. “The President believes, I believe very deeply, in a strong executive, and I think that's essential in this day and age. And I think the Obama administration is not likely to cede that authority back to the Congress. I think they'll find that given a challenge they face, they'll need all the authority they can muster.”

Cheney also said that he doubts Obama will close the detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay, despite campaign promises to do so.

“Guantanamo has been very, very valuable. And I think they'll discover that trying to close it is a very hard proposition,” he said.

“Remember, these are unlawful combatants,” Cheney explained. “These are people who don't belong to any recognized military force. They don't obey the rules of warfare. They're unlawful combatants. And you if you're not going to have a place to locate them like Guantanamo, then you either have to bring them here to the continental United States and I don't know any member of Congress who's volunteering to have al Qaeda terrorists deposited in his district.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16594.html
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
119
0
Meh, what he says makes sense.
 
  • #3
LowlyPion
Homework Helper
3,097
5
Maybe someone ought to conduct Cheney's exit interviews down in Guantanamo? There but for the Bill of Rights goes anyone. With Cheney's obvious support for torture, why should he be spared when he is no longer VP, if people don't like him? It looks to me like he has been a bad actor in office.
Cheney was key in clearing CIA interrogation tactics
The vice president says that the use of waterboarding was appropriate and that the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should stay open until 'the end of the war on terror.'
By Greg Miller
December 16, 2008
Reporting from Washington -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that he was directly involved in approving severe interrogation methods used by the CIA, and that the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should remain open indefinitely.

Cheney's remarks on Guantanamo appear to put him at odds with President Bush, who has expressed a desire to close the prison, although the decision is expected to be left to the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama.

Cheney's comments also mark the first time that he has acknowledged playing a central role in clearing the CIA's use of an array of controversial interrogation tactics, including a simulated drowning method known as waterboarding.

"I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared," Cheney said in an interview with ABC News.

Asked whether he still believes it was appropriate to use the waterboarding method on terrorism suspects, Cheney said: "I do."

His comments come on the heels of disclosures by a Senate committee showing that high-level officials in the Bush administration were intimately involved in reviewing and approving interrogation methods that have since been explicitly outlawed and that have been condemned internationally as torture.

Soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney said, the CIA "in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it."

Waterboarding involves strapping a prisoner to a tilted surface, covering his face with a towel and dousing it to simulate the sensation of drowning.

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden has said that the agency used the technique on three Al Qaeda suspects in 2002 and 2003. But the practice was discontinued when lawyers from the Department of Justice and other agencies began backing away from their opinions endorsing its legality.

Cheney has long defended the technique. But he has not previously disclosed his role in pushing to give the CIA such authority.

Cheney's office is regarded as the most hawkish presence in the Bush administration, pushing the White House toward aggressive stances on the invasion of Iraq and the wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

Asked when the Guantanamo Bay prison would be shut down, Cheney said, "I think that that would come with the end of the war on terror." He went on to say that "nobody can specify" when that might occur, and likened the use of the detention facility to the imprisonment of Germans during World War II.

"We've always exercised the right to capture the enemy and hold them till the end of the conflict," Cheney said.

The administration's legal case for holding detainees indefinitely has been eroded by a series of court rulings. Obama has pledged to close the facility, which still holds 250 prisoners.

Cheney's remarks are the latest in a series of interviews granted by Bush and senior officials defending their decisions as they prepare to leave office. Bush recently said his main regret was that U.S. spy agencies had been so mistaken about Iraq's alleged weapons programs. Cheney and the Bush administration have been accused of "cherry-picking" intelligence to support going to war with Iraq.

Cheney said that those mistakes didn't matter, and that the U.S. invasion was justified by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's ability to reestablish destructive weapons programs. The vice president brushed off a series of findings questioning that view, including a 2006 Senate report concluding that Hussein lacked a "coherent effort" to develop nuclear weapons and had only a "limited capability" for chemical weapons.

"This was a bad actor and the country's better off, the world's better off, with Saddam gone, and I think we made the right decision in spite of the fact that the original [intelligence] was off in some of its major judgments," he said.

Miller is a writer in our Washington bureau.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cheney16-2008dec16,0,5456856.story?track=rss
 
  • #4
LowlyPion
Homework Helper
3,097
5
The Rachael Maddow show was pointing out that Cheney's admission that he supported water-boarding to extract information from "detainees" flies in the face of past US international prosecution.

At the end of World War II there were apparently war crimes tribunals that prosecuted and hung Japanese who were found to have exactly engaged in this kind of practice.
 
  • #5
tchitt
The Rachael Maddow show was pointing out that Cheney's admission that he supported water-boarding to extract information from "detainees" flies in the face of past US international prosecution.

At the end of World War II there were apparently war crimes tribunals that prosecuted and hung Japanese who were found to have exactly engaged in this kind of practice.

You act like Barack Obama and his crew don't support the complete butchering of the constitution. :confused:

Whether you accept it or not, Obama is ALL about power in the fedgov. He believes that the government must take care of everything for everyone, because no one is capable of surviving, or excelling without their help. Mandatory community service in high school? Give me a break. That's in direct violation of Amendment XIII.

This is the problem with all of them today.. Republicans and Democrats alike. I don't give a damn if the sky is falling... it's a sacred document and I'll die before I give up any of my rights.

Benjamin Franklin said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

I think this should be sent out over the airwaves daily so that we as a people wake up and realize that the federal government is walking a thin line with their constant fear mongering crap. Sort of a counterbalance. A daily terror risk level? It hasn't dropped below "Elevated" since 9/11.

Hell, I saw a commercial the other day telling me I should have a "plan in case of a terrorist attack", featuring children asking their parents what they should do when the evil muslims invade to destroy freedom.

I honestly don't care about gitmo, or torture for that matter... war is war and it's all going to happen regardless of what the Pentagon's official policy on it is. And yeah, it's a double standard... because the United States doesn't lose wars. At least not in the way the Japanese and Germans did in WW2.
 
  • #6
WarPhalange
You act like Barack Obama and his crew don't support the complete butchering of the constitution. :confused:

Whether you accept it or not, Obama is ALL about power in the fedgov. He believes that the government must take care of everything for everyone, because no one is capable of surviving, or excelling without their help. Mandatory community service in high school? Give me a break. That's in direct violation of Amendment XIII.

I'd rather pay money to help an addict quit heroin than pay money to send our troops to their deaths in some desert.

Is he still going too far? We'll see. I don't like the bailout at all since it will just increase inflation, causing the people to pay for a corporation. Not cool. But I hear his health care plan includes the option to have private doctors and insurance. And I never heard of this mandatory community service you are talking about. I heard it was to get better government grants and loans for college. Which isn't a new thing seeing as how we give similar bonuses to people who served in the military and the Peace Corps.
 
  • #7
142
1
why don't you guys just wait and see what happens.
 
  • #8
tchitt
I'd rather pay money to help an addict quit heroin than pay money to send our troops to their deaths in some desert.

Is he still going too far? We'll see. I don't like the bailout at all since it will just increase inflation, causing the people to pay for a corporation. Not cool. But I hear his health care plan includes the option to have private doctors and insurance. And I never heard of this mandatory community service you are talking about. I heard it was to get better government grants and loans for college. Which isn't a new thing seeing as how we give similar bonuses to people who served in the military and the Peace Corps.

The point is that the states are suposed to have more power than the fedgov, which should be limited. I just don't think we need beauracrats in washington to dictate policy on anything and everything... which has been the case for a long time. I'd rather not pay money to help an addict quit heroin... like I'd rather not pay money to bail out these incompetent automotive corporations and the UAW who are addicted to destructive policies. I'd rather not throw the heroin addict in prison either. The bottom line most of the things about this country that p*** me off involve me paying for someone else's choices all the time when the country is in financial trouble as it is. I also find it bothersome that the government spends billions on bombs that serve no purpose other than to destroy lives... many of which are innocent. I really don't think there's anything wrong here that significantly cutting spending wouldn't fix... Leave the power to the states like it's supposed to be and the fedgov wont have to bail everyone out at every turn. Kind of a form of damage control, if nothing else.

If that's the case with his community service plans then it's not so bad, I suppose. I really can't be bothered to go information-finding but I'm sure I read somewhere that he was at least mulling the idea over. To be honest the guy is pleasantly surprising me up to this point on a lot of things in spite of the fact that I disagree with 90% of his policies... and like ProtonSoup said only time will tell. It just seems to me at this point we've got a choice between a welfare state, and a police state with the dems and/or republicans running the show.

Also, I'm not exactly a "wait and see" kind of guy when it comes to politics. That's basically the problem I'm pointing out... so many people think they can vote for the prez and ignore everything else on the ballot in hopes that they'll just take care of everything. Democracy demands education and involvement everywhere, and this type of complacency is killing the United States.
 
  • #9
LowlyPion
Homework Helper
3,097
5
The point is that the states are suposed to have more power than the fedgov, which should be limited.

Maybe you are reading more into the Constitution than is there?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

If your hoping to rely on the 10th Amendment, I'd say that is a pretty slippery grasping point.

Basically what it says is that States get to keep the rights that they haven't surrendered in the Constitution, and at this point I'd say that is precious little. I'm puzzled by your interpretation that it is "supposed to be more" when what they really get are the leftovers.
 
  • #10
tchitt
Maybe you are reading more into the Constitution than is there?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

If your hoping to rely on the 10th Amendment, I'd say that is a pretty slippery grasping point.

Basically what it says is that States get to keep the rights that they haven't surrendered in the Constitution, and at this point I'd say that is precious little. I'm puzzled by your interpretation that it is "supposed to be more" when what they really get are the leftovers.

Are you saying that, by now, the states have surrendered most of their power to the federal government through legislation... or what? What's confusing me is "haven't surrendered in the Constitution". The states don't surrender a lot power to the fedgov in the constitution itself, so I'm assuming you meant ""what it says in the constitution, is that the states get to keep the rights they haven't surrendered, and at this point I'd say that is precious little."

?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on Cheney Thinks Obama will Appreciate Expansion of Executive Power

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
46
Views
7K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
S
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
3K
W
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
103
Views
9K
Top