Cheney Admits Breaking Laws & Torturing

Watch more at http://www.theyoungturks.com

Category:

• News
• Entertainment

Tags:

• the
• young
• turks
• cenk
• uygur
• ana
• kasparian
• dick
• cheney
• barack
• obama
• george
• bush
• administraiton
• iraq
• war
• torture
• illegal
• la
• commentary
• analysis
• political
• commercial
• documentary
• news
• grassroots
• outreach
• face
• nation
• bob
• schieffer
• interview

[jamesmaseobrown]

self-righteous asshole. If you fought in Iraq, you were'nt defending me BITCH ! Iraq did not attack the US. The fault lies with Bush and CHeney. Those are the two you should be angry at, because they sent you and others to fight for NO GOOD REASON !!!

But being in the military, YOU HAVE TO DEFEND YOUR MISSION, NO MATTER WHAT.

Bush and Cheney are not Gods, They were WRONG !

Just because you went does not mean that you are correct or better than anyone. It means you was PLAYED ! ! !

[JohnnyRock2000]

These are crimes. How arrogant the American leaders have become.

[septogram7]

This man is responsible for every dead civilian in Iraq and Afghanistan, every dead, injured or emotionally damaged US soldier, every mother who has outlived her child as a result of the war he (and others) started based on a lie . . . I could go on and on. The scariest part is that he doesn't care at all. 

[adam3176]

TYT News is more propaganda.. SURE alot of truth then BOOM, Deception at the end

[BBoyFury]

@AngeCord Fair point. I can see what you mean there. I certainly would agree that there was no moral justification for "enhanced" interrogation. And I think I'm with you legally now too. Good talk.

[AngeCord]

@BBoyFury I am aware there where some valid points for attacking Afganistan, and that is why UN supported that invasion in opposite to the Iraq war.

However, I don't see the justification for handeling prisoners in a way that goes outside the juridical framework.

You are right that the term 'illegal combatant' has been around before Afghanistan, but why the sudden need to use it in war? US didn't need to open up a camp in Guantanamo while fighting the wars in Korea, Vietam, Gulf war etc.

[BBoyFury]

@AngeCord Just want to clarify where I'm getting that from, and again I realize this is open to interpretation: A provision of the UN Charter specifically states that no law shall prohibit a nation from defending itself (don't have time to look it up right now, but I don't think it says that it must be against another nation). So since Afghanistan was the prime haven for Al Qaeda and the Taliban supported them, the only way for the US to defend itself regarding 9/11 was to invade Afghanistan.

[BBoyFury]

@AngeCord If that terror organization is residing in a country that provides it safe haven and financial support (which the Taliban government did), then an attack by that organization may well be considered an attack by that nation as well. I'll give you that the term "illegal combatant" itself is not in the conventions, but it has been around as a type of "common law" practice observed by many nations long before Bush was even in office.

[AngeCord]

@BBoyFury I hate to break your illusions, but how international law is written, Afghan invasion was quite clearly a "crime against peace". The law says that you can only go to war when attacked by another country. The law was written after WW2 to prevent nations to go at eatchother. It does not give permission if attacked by a terror organisation residing in another country. You may agree or disagree, or consider it a flaw, but that is how it is written.

[AngeCord]

@BBoyFury The term 'illegal combatant' is not mentioned in Hague or the Geneva Conventions. It is a word enginered to create legal confusion.

[BBoyFury]

@AngeCord Oh, and maybe you could say Iraq was an illegal invasion, but the Taliban in Afghanistan? Not a chance.

[BBoyFury]

@AngeCord prevent accidental deaths among civilians (for example, wearing a uniform). Again, Al Qaeda does not follow this. These terms were around long before Bush could have "made them up" to justify his administration's actions. And since there is no true enforcement of many of these laws, reciprocity has and continues to be the main form of "enforcement." Simply put: you don't play by the rules, you give up your protection under them. Again, morally wrong, but legally gray.