Comments Galore

This wasn't all by a long shot, but its all I have room for. You can track down today's New York Times editorial for more.

Only the release of the records of what was obtained using "enhanced interrogation techniques" can resolve this dispute.

If the records show that we did not obtain even one piece of actionable information, then it is clear that waterboarding and the other horrors were not only illegal and immoral but also ineffective. Case closed.

However, what if we did get, among the false information, some accurate leads? Then we need to have a full debate on whether the Bush/Chaney policy could be justified on military necessary grounds.

It cannot be justified on legal or moral grounds, but sometimes in war we are required to do things that would otherwise be entirely reprehensible. The consensus appears to be that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan actually saved lives, both American and Japanese, while, in contrast, the fire bombing of Dresden did nothing (except, as some claim, demonstrate our air power to the Soviets).

But, if we do not know whether these methods were ever effective (and personally I believe that they were not), we have to condemn them absolutely. The burden is on Chaney, et al. to show that they did save even one life. Absent that proof, then we should call our practices what they were - torture. And we then should punish that torture, wherever the road may lead us.

— John G., NYC

Of course Mr. O. is right,
Cheney, the Prince of the Night,
Can hear the bells chime
That herald Hard Time,
So he spews out Terror and Fright!

— Larry Eisenberg, New York City

This forum helps remind one that there are plenty of Americans, like Mike above from Appleton, who are ready and willing to toss the Constitution away on the slightest provocation. 9/11 isn't the worst thing America has ever faced folks. With a few exceptions (like the Japanese internments) we've weathered (real) war and depression and famine and assassination AND kept true to what our nation stands for. The whole debate about whether the torture worked or not is only a debate for those who don't understand American values at all. You don't avoid torture because it doesn't work; you avoid torture because that's not who we are.

— nesralr, San Francisco

Leigh Pullman (#1):

Many thanks for your incisive comments.

Your letter should be required reading for Mr. Obama, who I fear has been morphing from a seemingly highly principled leader and supporter of our Constitution into a Bush act-alike. He should immediately push the Justice Department to initiate legal action against the Bush administration henchpersons, from the top down.. Otherwise, the shabby remnants, personified by Dick Cheney, will continue to erode the foundations of our democracy.

President Obama rightly admires Lincoln. He should read Lincoln's immortal words and take them to heart:

"You can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you can not fool all the people all the time".

Perhaps President Obama should be equally mindful of William E. Gladstone's prescient observation: "Justice delayed is justice denied".

— Nat Solomon, Bronx, NY

I agree with your editorial but please will someone hold Cheney accountable for stating yesterday that we went to Iraq because we were targeting regimes that were CAPABLE of producing wmd's. Thousands of dead Americans and Iraquis demand it. If the former V.P. of America is allowed to rewrite his deeds and not be held accountable for one of the most significant events in our country-wow-This man is unhinged and his own words in 2003-Irag definitely has wmd's demonstate the pathology that is continuing.

— elaine price, massachusetts

Benjamin Franklin said it best,"Those who are willing to give up a little freedom for a little more security deserve neither & will lose both!"

— Frank E., Odessa,Tx.

John D., you forgot the journalist being held in Iran and about to be released. Two journalists being held in North Korea, while lamentable, does not make Americans less safe. Kim Il Jong "stuck" it too us when Bush was President as well.

While Cheney conveniently ignores over 4,000 American military deaths and, by some reports, over 100,000 civilian ones, in Iraq, President Obama cites our heritage, our Constitution and our values. Would you trust someone who got us into a war causing the above casualties with the biggest lie in American History since Nixon uttered "I am not a crook"? Tell us about those "WMD's" again, Dick!

Dick Cheney more and more resembles the aging actor who just will not get off stage and finds a constant need to justify himself. He may be the ultimate "Frank Skeffington" of Edwin O'Connor's "The Last Hurrah". Adept for so long at playing individuals off against each other, serving his own self-interest and now fast becoming that annoying uncle who keeps telling the same story at Thanksgiving. Dick, it's over! Go back to Wyoming, go hunting and spare us!

— Joe M, Manchester, VT

We know that the Right has lost perspective on torture and privacy rights, but I do wish a more pragmatic approach would be taken by the left.

"Mr. Obama was exactly right when he said Americans do not have to choose between security and their democratic values."

While this may be true against Mr. Cheney's extremism, and is good rhetoric, there are many exceptions that we must learn to deal with and expect. Democracy and freedom are messy and there is a price to pay for them. In our own courts we often must let a criminal go for lack of a good case or even due to prosecutorial malfeasance. We should be prepared for the same in war and in fighting terrorism. The price for exacting a perfect cleansing is simply too high, in civilian lives, in the torture of detainees but also in the blowback that comes in the form of resistance and hatred for American brutality.

Unless you demand perfect safety (something Cheney-Bush played upon) you will expect to set free some who perhaps should not be free. There is imperfection in the system. Justice is not perfect. It is this imperfection or restraint that protects us from extremist disproportionality that destroys civilization. And we would do well to examine our own domestic expectations for perfect justice at a time when we maintain the largest proportion of prison population in the world.

— St Paul, Minnesota

What Obama must do first is heed his own precept, not to let fear counsel him! For a panicky fear is what we clearly see in Cheney's following speech, in his mistaken history that 9/11 was "the most devastating strike...against Americans...," as he omits Pearl Harbor and the bombing of the USS Maine. For Cheney also shows us how much panic and fear guided the Bush administration response to 9/11, when he describes his state of mind: "... watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities." His and Bush's fear caused them to mix Al Qaeda, A.Q. Khan's nuclear efforts for export, anthrax attackers, Libya's nuclear bomb program, and unnamed "regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists" all as targets of retaliation, and in Cheney's admission, he starkly reveals, unwittingly, what terrible soldiers that he and President Bush would have made had either man ever enlisted to fight for our country. Now we see why they did not make good military commanders-in-chiefs, because neither Bush nor Cheney knew who committed 9/11. When they ordered our military attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan, they were like reckless hunters who fire their shotguns before they see where they are aiming. Neither man emulated British WW II leader Winston Churchill, touring the rubble of London streets following a devastating Luftwaffe bombing raid on civilians, serenely cool because he knew his intelligence services were cracking the Nazi military codes, and he was bringing into military service a new and secret air defense, radar. Churchill also knew, in Britain's darkest moments of war, that his agents would soon identify the source of German rocket launches, and munitions factories. Churchill was no reckless quail hunter shooting blindly at his quarry, nor was he someone who spooked it to seek cover with loud, drunken behavior under the influence of a "couple of martinis" before brunch that morning. And Bush was no FDR either who had identified secretly the location of German U-boats sinking our merchant marine fleets, but who would not act until he had them all clearly mapped. Fear drove Cheney and Bush, two of our history's most unseasoned military and conflict political leaders, to shoot in the dark after 9/11 at any likely target that appeared in their intelligence reports as hostile to the USA. They messed up, firing everywhere but at the right culprits, who escaped while they were diverted into disarming Libya, shutting down A.Q. Khan's nuke operations, overthrowing Saddam Hussein and the Taliban Afghan government. Someone please remind Cheney that none of those "successful targets of his retaliation for 9/11" were directly involved in the 9/11 attack by Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda. And that is why we are still occupying Iraq and Afghanistan years after overthrowing the leaders there, afraid of what the Iraqi and Afghan peoples might do to their US puppet governments should we suddenly leave, in retaliation for all the unjustified deaths we caused to thousands of innocent people there.

— Bayou Houma, Boston

Did you listen to the same speech that I did? "Prolonged Detention"? I voted for Obama. I sent him money. It was the first campaign I ever supported financially in my 40 plus years of voting. Yet, I must admit (as you should if you desire to be honest) that this speech was a disappointment. He has been "touched". Someone has "gotten" to him. He is "falling in line". I am beginning to believe that the conspiracy theorists were right after all. Office holders are merely figure heads. Elections are efforts in futility. There is indeed an "unseen hand" that pulls the strings. This is what Italian anarchists have for over a century referred to as the "Pezzonavonte". It is obvious that even my beloved N.Y. Times, although faithful and true in social issues like health care, has been touched by the "hand" in foreign policy issues, especially those involving Arabs, Muslims, and other Middle Easterners who are not Israeli.

— Fizzy, Philadelphia

The contrast between diametrically opposed views could not be sharper than what we heard yesterday.

Ideology is important! A country must live its values, not just leave them on a piece of sheepskin.

The rationalizations I heard from Mr. Cheney and his daughter yesterday, not only amounted to an apoligist view of events, but also consisted of many lies aimed at deflecting from the real issues.

How convenient for certain Republicans to disregard several rulings by the Bush Supreme Court that negated many of his government's practices; to disregard the linkages of outrages comitted at many locations to the justifications for torture as reported by the Schlesinger inquiry; to disregard that their methods of interrogation were public during the Bush/Cheney years as they were the subject of more than one news report; and to disregard the Valerie Plaine affair while purporting to support the CIA, an agency whose analysis in the buildup to the stupidly and unjustifiably conducted invasion of Iraq has been harshly criticized.

I also do not want anyone to forget that the self-riteous Cheney, the former ceo of Haliburton, was able to keep his stock in that company while sitting as vice president, a position from which he managed to influence the awarding of multi-billions of dollars of contracts for various poorly performed and over-billed services in Iraq, many of which were awarded without a competitivew bidding process.

No wonder many view Cheney as a Satanic figure. I just view him as a crook.

— R H, Toronto

I see that Cheney is lying about the Iraq/al Qaeda link again. He was also ignoring the testimony of his own interrogators that foreign fighters who later came to Iraq repeatedly cited Abu Ghraib as their motivation. Cheney also continues to lie about the effectiveness of waterboarding when we now have the interrogator's testimony that torture shut down a cooperative KSM, and produced a bunch of garbage intel instead.

But, I can see from some of these comments why Cheney is still lying: there are still people out there who are stupid enough to fall for it. Again.

This is the difference between us and the torture party, now. We have values. They don't. They threw their principles away and all they have to show for it is groveling at the feet of Dick Cheney, a loser and a liar.

— John, Texas

I applaud the President's effort to stand his ground against the defiant Pentagon and corporate-owned Congress. The commentators who want national security over the rule of law will not be very happy when the same national security apparatus is turned against them. Once you abandon the moral values you stand for (the belief in due process being one of such values) you have no reason to argue against government authority when it's unjustly turned against you. Also, most of Gitmo prisoners were handed to the US by Musharraf who was playing a classic double game. Most of those individuals were randomly picked by Musharraf to satisfy the demand for Gitmo 'terrorists'. How many real terrorists did the US actually keep in Gitmo? Five? Ten? We won't know until and unless we have fair trials.

— Yasir, London, ON

pparently, the NYT ignored the part of the speech where President Obama laid out the details of his "prolonged" (read: "preventive and indefinite") detention of people only suspected of possibly committing terrorist acts in the future. The candidates for this indefinite detention are detainees against whom no charges were preferred, and without and evidence that they had already committed any crimes or participated in any attacks against the United States. And, recognizing that this is a violation of the Constitution, US statutory law and the Geneva Conventions, he promised that his administration would craft a brand new "legal framework" that would make this "legal."

No wonder Obama hasn't gone after Bush's "legal" experts John Yoo, Jay Bybee, Alberto Gonzales, William Haynes, and David Addington. He may need to call on their legal sophistry to create yet another warped fig leaf for patently unconstitutional practices.

Combined with the President's plan to resurrect the illegal Bush military tribunals, albeit, with a gloss of legal cover, such as representation for the defendents, we get a picture of a man who is wonderfully inspirational in his oratory, talking the talk as well as any president in history, but a very, very different man when it comes down to walking the walk.

Boys and girls, can you say "OBusha?" I knew you could..."

— Blue Sun, New Hope, PA

ome of the above comments display a shocking example of GOP brainwashing.
None mention that most of the original detainees who were tortured are innocent. None mention that many were rounded up by reward seekers and were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. None mention that 100 of them died as a result of being tortured. None mention that interrogators who left their jobs because they were disgusted by the use of torture swear that traditional interrogation methods yielded far better results than did torture, and that Cheney & Co. are now trying to falsely credit torture with obtaining the info that was actually provided by using traditional interrogation techniques.
The Repub mantra seems to constitute a twist on a time-honored legal precept: "Let 10 innocents be tortured rather than let one who is guilty not be tortured."

— Captain Ronnel, L. A., CA

eneral Musharraf himself acknowledged that he sold terrorists to CIA where they 'confessed' under the enhanced techniques employed by Rumsfeld:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200610090029

— Yasir, London, ON

Dick Cheney and Joe McCarthy are parallel figures that used fear to try to manipulate the constitution, and will both go down in history as despots that the people of the United States purged when their ideals came under attack.

— Don, Winona MN

Dick Cheney is still trying to run the show, even when isn't in office. He is a strange & often frightening man. My guess is that he probably to force President Obama to do what he thinks should be done. This country embraced by the world after 9/11 & disgraced by our own actions in the aftermath, and these actions were orchestrated by Dick Cheney pulling the strings above a weak president. This cannot become a major distraction from what Obama is trying to achieve this first year of his presidency - that's what Cheney really wants - to stop the momentum of President Obama by distracting him from his vigorous & forward moving agenda, but he should tread lightly or it could backfire on him - and he could become the target of a criminal investigation - he should have laid low, so whatever happens now, he asked for it. He should back off.

— Vic, New York

Words matter. They matter deeply because they provide a precedent for subsequent action and a legitimating mark for those actions. Obama can refer back to this major national-security address and say, Look I stated my policy clearly and distinctly, and therefore what I am about should not surprise anyone. Given his engaging manner, adeptness at nuance, and high degree of intelligence, it becomes imperative that we listen closely and well.

Obama revealed he does not take criticism lightly. The Times did not cover his meeting with human rights and constitutionalist groups the day preceding his speech, in which the comment that he was continuing Bush's policies on detention and classification met with a chilly response. Contrary to popular myth, Obama is NOT receptive to all sides, as witness his practical exclusion of advocates for a single-payer health insurance program from his health care conferences and deliberations. On the equally important issue of adhering to Constitutional principles, he is equally adamant about furthering his own interpretation. Thus, The Times in this editorial was almost flippant in the way it passed over Obama's defense of the state secrets doctrine. Too, it did not stop to think that Obama's refusal to release photographs documenting torture--and the eerily flag-waving reasons for doing so--was a clear refutation of transparency, candor, and truth-telling, traits to which The Times generously accorded the president.

In his address, Obama did not once mention the word, "torture." The word play supports his determination NOT to promote, indeed, because of his powers to classify and/or prevent the release of documents, actually to prevent the investigation of the actions of the preceding administation. More important, he endorsed, in addition to military commissions (which legal critics see as inherently unjust, despite what they also find to be only cosmetic changes), the principle of indefinite detention, a concept so abhorrent to the American Constitution and Western jurisprudence as to be mind-boggling in its implications. THAT, of course, is where words qua precedents open the way to the eclipse of democracy.

One implication of indefinite detention is the contemplation of indefinite war--a course justified by another phrase Obama used more than once in his address. I found it strange to hear the phrase "al Quaeda and its affiliates," because it widened the horizons for permissible warfare to include any group, anywhere, and for any duration a president deems a threat to national security. (This, of course, regurgitates the Bush thinking about ties between Saddam and al Quaeda.) All in all, the address saddens one about the rapid deterioration in leadership now manifested by the president; not coincidentally, within hours of the address he can sign a bill on credit card reform that contains a provision for carrying loaded, concealed weapons into our national parks!

— Norman Pollack, East Lansing, Mich.

Once again, Cheney uses arguments that fail in the light of scrutiny:

He claims that "enhanced Interrogation" saved lives yet won't talk of false information that took resources to investigate and diluted our intelligence efforts.

He claims success based on the fact that there were no more attacks on American soil while ignoring the acts of terror in other countries and the massive amount of death in Iraq. Heck, there have been no nuclear strikes since I started dating several decades ago, yet I'm not so stupid to claim that my dating is what stopped nuclear strikes!

Obamas position isn't perfect either, but at least is seems to be based on something other than false logic and fear.

I'm very saddened that many that wanted Gitmo closed don't have the intestinal fortitude to actually do something about it. Once again, many of our elected "leaders" seem to be nothing more than so many leaves blowing in the wind.

And to those that correctly point out that in times of war, we have often played fast and loose with rights and privilages ignore a couple truths:

There is no claim that things like the internment of Japanese and Japanese decendants actually made us safer in WWII. Rather it seems univerally acknowledged as a black mark on the face of US history. More importantly, these reactionary events were much more limited in time than what we have now: an ill-defined "war on terror" with no national boundaries and no criteria for conclusion. Because of the nebulous nature, it, by definition, will never end and any suspension of basic rights or the rule of law just becomes and excuse for the excersize of extra-legal powers outside the scope of checks and balances.

We surely can do better than this.

— Matt R, Woodside, CA

"The Real Path to Security" is to just stop digging the hole that leads us and U.S. to the abyss and ineluctable death spiral of EMPIRE.

In the film "Jerry Maguire" Renée Zellweger says to Tom Cruse, "Shut up, just shut up. You had me at 'hello'".

Yesterday watching the beginning of Obama's speech I found myself wanting to shout, "Shut up, just shut up, you had me at 'EMPIRE'".

What had my hopes up was Obama's early history lesson in the speech when he said"

"Fidelity to our values is the reason why the United States of America grew from a small string of colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the world."

I'll admit, with my older hearing, that I thought Obama had said "colonies under the (grip) of empire", rather than the "writ" of empire, but to my ear the wonderful and glorious word that Obama was about to use as his teaching example was that we were under an 'EMPIRE'.

My heart jumped, I perked up my old ears and got ready to listen to this most educated and educating president explain to his American students that the British Empire that had so oppressed and tyrannized our forefathers was, like all Empires, not merely a form of political oppression by the governmental monarchy of George III, but also was an indivisible economic tyranny of the British royally chartered East India Corporation, which caused the real Boston Tea Party against this combined political economic Empire.

I waited in rapt attention to Obama's every world waiting for him to speak truth to the oppressive power of Empire and explain, to we his students, how Empire is a pathology of both the political and economic (as well as social and military) spheres of our lives, and then to really lower the boom on Empire by explaining how one sphere of Empire (typically the economic) perverts all other spheres and actively seeks to take over all of the elements of a democratic society and 'democratic thinking' with the tyranny of an out-of-control ruling-elite that usurps 'democratic thinking' with their own private hierarchy of 'Empire thinking' --- just as Ben Franklin feared when he said, "We have our Republic if we can keep it" (protected from Empire).

Not only did Obama not fulfill my 'hope' in his ability to 'change' our maelstrom driven course from one headed toward Empire, back to the safe course of democracy, but he then broke my heart by lying the 'white lie of politics' which Bill Clinton's deadly 'triangulation' has already shown always turns as black as death in the hands of Empire.

Obama said, not once, but twice, in describing the measures taken by the Bush/Cheney regime after the 'shock' of 9/11, "I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people."

There are only two possibilities for Obama telling this massive lie about the real reason for the Bush regime taking the imperial control measures that it was able to force on American democracy with the 'shock doctrine' that it implemented for the guileful Empire it was controlled by; either Obama is very naive (which he is not), or he was giving this deadly ruling-elite 'corporate financial Empire' that controls our government behind the facade of its two-party, 'Vichy' sham of democracy, a Clintonian DLC accommodation and 'triangulation' rather than exposing, confronting, battling, and expunging this new and sophisticated Empire which has the U.S. under its grip, or as Obama himself preferred "writ".

As Obama continued to speak, he gave compelling encouragement to American's about how our country not only overcame that earlier "empire writ" that had tried to strangle our birth, but also how we overcame through strength of character and values the 20th century Empires (Nazi) of fascism, and (Soviet) of communism --- but the person most in need of such encouragement (and courage) from Obama, IS Obama.

Before this modern Hamlet walks off stage he will have to face the issue of whether to be, or not to be, for or against the Empire that he already knows in his heart and mind that he will have to confront.

Obama meeting this existential challange, with us helping him, is the only thing that will bring us (and U.S.) a "Real Path to Security".

Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine

Dick Cheney is still trying to run the show, even when isn't in office. He is a strange & often frightening man. My guess is that he is probably trying to force President Obama to do what he thinks should be done. This country was embraced by the world after 9/11 & disgraced by our own actions in the aftermath, and these actions were orchestrated by Dick Cheney pulling the strings above a weak president. This cannot become a major distraction from what Obama is trying to achieve this first year of his presidency - that's what Cheney really wants - to stop the momentum of President Obama by distracting him from his vigorous & forward moving agenda, but he should tread lightly or it could backfire on him - and he could become the target of a criminal investigation - he should have laid low, so whatever happens now, he asked for it. He should back off.

— Vic, New York

I address myself to commenters #3,10,22,34,39, and any others whose posts appear before this one. I am writing at 9:45 EDT. They should also read Bill Appledorf's comment, #29

The apologists and supporters of Cheney and those tolerant of torture to "keep us safe" are substituting fear for clear thinking and assuming that those in detention are all "Jihadists...[bent on] murder[ing] our innocents by the truckload, even with WMD's...."
(#39, DL13, San Rafael)

Wow. I suppose thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan killed our bombs are just useless human beings, properly dismissed as "collateral damage" and not to be considered "innocent" because after all there are "jihadists" in those countries.

Among the many lies and omissions in Cheney's speech, not to be exhaustive, are 1) not owning up to President Bush's ignoring the warnings from the CIA (PDB, Aug 6, 2001) and Coleen Rowley and others of the FBI who tried to report suspicious activity of some of the hijackers, 2)the coerced-by-torture report by one detainee of WMD in Iraq that was used to justify what has turned out to be a disastrous invasion of Iraq (are we safer?) and 3) an outright lie about "taking down" the Pakistan nuclear network. Secy of Defense Gates said on 60 Minutes last Sunday that the nuclear threat from Pakistan keeps him awake at night.

We have a Constitution. We have laws. We will be safer by adhering to our fundamental principles than throwing them overboard in a panic.

— CJGC, Cambridge, MA

....."Mr. Obama flatly rejected Mr. Cheney’s claims that torture saved “hundreds of thousands” of lives and reminded Americans that those abuses were ineffective, recruited more terrorists than they brought to justice, destroyed the nation’s image and will make it much harder to try some of the most dangerous terrorists."

Apparently Obama decided that it's not necessary to try them. He'll just detain them indefinately without trial or charges.
The new American Gulag. Pathetic.

— J, X, New Haven, CT.

Bravo for President Obama for taking his oath of office seriously.
He is to protect and defend the constitution, and by closing Gitmo and by allowing the prisoners due process, he is doing just that.
Now, it is time for him to put some bite behind his words and stop letting congress run all over him (no funding for closing Gitmo).
“We the people” voted for Obama… the congress?...not so much.

— CPS, Malvern, PA

Fortunately, we now have a President who is knowledgeable, articulate and able to comprehend the legal and moral complexities of the mess he inherited. As he wisely pointed out, it is much more difficult to repair the damage of of a job poorly done than to begin from scratch and do the work properly from the beginning. He is able to see the larger implications for the future within each individual choice made today. Some would call that the virtue of prudence. He is systematically handling competing priorities.

Unfortunately, the Cheney/Bush administration subscribed to the Machiavellian notion of 'the end justifying the means'. In a democratic society that values justice under the rule of law and individual liberty, we cannot allow such a skewed and morally bankrupt precedent to stand unchallenged. Within our legal system, over time, even flawed judicial precedent will eventually carry the weight of codified legislation.

Bending the law into a pretzel, engaging in torture, establishing off-shore limbo prisons, parsing legal terminology to "re-designate" the legal status of those we fear — diminishes our national character and threatens the liberty of every American citizen. Continually gazing into that fear-driven abyss and trying to somehow rationalize what we have consented to as a nation, will cause us to become the very likeness of our enemies. What we rationalize as the 'just desserts' of a few will eventually become the rule of law for the many... including ordinary citizens.

I don't completely agree with some other positions taken by President Obama, but in this situation IMO, he is right on target. Thankfully, he is proving himself to be a reasonable man who is willing to listen to all points of opinion and thus avoid the perils of group-think. That's a good thing revealing a calm and confident temperament, not weakness.

Conversely, Mr. Cheney continues to appeal to the fear and lower nature of human beings to make his case. For our nation to continue on such a course, building our house on the shifting sand of emotions and gratification of baser human instinct, will cause our nation/house to fall. There is an irony in the fact that Mr. Cheney and his political party proclaim themselves to be the party of 'morality and family values' while simultaneously attempting to re-define the sadism of torture as merely "enhanced interrogation" and a "necessary" evil.

Mr. Cheney, we are better than that. We do not have to cave into our fear or lower nature in order to protect ourselves. We may be attacked again, but we refuse to be moral cowards. You are no longer an elected official and have become a distraction rather than being part of a moral solution.

— Abbi, Asheville

he Cheney/Dan argument is simply wrong. The experiment to see whether torture vs. skilled interrogation is "best" cannot be conducted ethically. The fundamental question is whether human decency outweighs putting ourselves in the same camp as the terrorists. The fear mentality is garbage. Yes 9-11 was bad. I was there. That said, twice that many people die EACH DAY from cardiovascular disease and stroke. Let's put terror in perspective please. Terror has always been there and always will be, home grown and otherwise. Our homeland security measures have proven effective to date. Let's get back to decent core values and the bigger problems confronting humanity.

— shared thoughts, New Haven, CT

Here are some of the pertinent provisions of the Covenant against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:

"PART I

Article I

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

....

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3

....

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

Article 5

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:

(a) When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;

(b) When the alleged offender is a national of that State;

(c) When the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.

2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction ....

....

Article 6

1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.

2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.

3. Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, with the representative of the State where he usually resides.

4. When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said States and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.

Article 7

1. The State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution."

The U.S. is a signatory of this convention, and it is part of the law of our land. Accordingly, top members of the Bush Admin. and, indeed, the entire nation are criminally liable for approving carrying out torture. President Obama is in the process of making himself an accessory after the fact in the torture committed by the preceeding administration. Likewise, the MSM who give V.P. Cheney and his daughter a platform to lie and obfuscate about his involvement in these crimes are complicit in condoning torture.

— Gwain52, Georgia

I think if george bush had any public speaking prowess we would have seen a similar speech 2 years ago regarding these issues. Obama does not know what to do with the detainees who cannot be tried and refers to 'prolonged detention' as the only option. His grace and eloquence never seem to fail in impressing the masses, but this speech was only slightly improved upon what Bush would have given us.

His inclusion of the judicial and congressional branches is a nice step, but creating a system within law to detain these 'terrorists' is not the right path. legalizing the illegal is not in the rule of law.

— irydebikes88, the minny apple

Thank you for this piece. One of the most telling points, for me, was the bold recognition that "I'm not the only one in this town who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution." Obama is the first in a long time to recognize the seriousness of that oath - and to take it seriously. That is what "putting country first" really means. Ex vice-president Cheney, speaking immediately after President Obama, only reminded me of how extremely, and how many times, he and President Bush had violated that oath.

— Sue, New York

so obama will try the terrorists as long as he knows they will be convicted? sounds more like iran or china than the u.s. appearnaces over substance as usual for obama.

— Chris, NY

ince our Revolution, hundreds of thousands of Americans have given their lives to defend our ideas of democracy and justice. In the light of this fact, the Bush/Cheney administration's activities in Guantanamo were treason.

— Joel A. Levitt, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Conservatives have a way of co-opting an idea that has great symbolism in our culture, then stripping it of value for use in their propaganda war. Christ’s Cross, the American Flag, a yellow ribbon, but maybe the best example of this is the word “freedom”. What do they mean by the word freedom, certainly not freedom of choice, nor freedom of association, the truth is they don’t mean anything by it, its just a word to them, a word that their ignorant masses can rally around, a word they have stolen out of our American historical vernacular that has power, and while they themselves have no moral authority the word freedom does.

Our new president says we need to look forward, he is wrong, we need to prosecute these war criminals, and break the associations they have established equating their way of thinking, as somehow more American, when in reality is truly anti-American.

I never want to hear The United States of America referred to as “the homeland” it is much too similar to the term “the fatherland”.

— tjtaraba9, 04256366

What about the many other illegal prisons in which the USA keeps prisoners?
They are spread all over the world...do the inmates of those prisons not deserve human rights?

— joseph parmetler, austria

2009 2:17 pm

Link
If Al Qaeda was capable of killing “hundreds of thousands” of people, as Mr. Cheney states, why in the world did they choose to arm themselves with box cutters and kill just a few thousand instead? One has the element of surprise only once, why did they waste it with a plan that no one could have predicted would be as effective and that killed only about 3000 people?

And if they really had been planning and ready to kill “hundreds of thousands” – which is a whole lot of people - why was our CIA and our military caught completely off guard in terms of the other plots? Are they that incompetent? It’s bad enough that the CIA missed the signs of ONE secret plan, but Mr. Cheney is saying that there were many, many plans. The only way to kill that many people is to have multiple, surprise attacks. That means years and years and planning and that mean that many al Qaeda agents would have to be in the country and ready to go with plots equally as improbable as the box cutter plot. Remember: there is no Al Qaeda army with tanks and planes and missiles, and whatever big weapons they have are on another side of the world - unless they have been sneaking things in for years. And their army is …uh….how many people? He is saying they were here and ready to go. YIKES!

Playing the devil’s advocate for a moment: if Mr. Cheney is correct. That means our government was clueless for years. He is, in effect, saying that our FBI, CIA and police are really and truly incompetent bunglers who not once, but repeatedly missed the signs that we were about to be attacked. Only after we tortured people did the truth come out.

If he is correct, then shouldn’t heads be rolling? Why isn’t he demanding that those incompetent men and women be fired or put on trial? Let’s have a trial, and let’s put Mr. Cheney under oath to explain how he uncovered something the CIA, FBI and the police missed.

— Mark W, watchung

It's mind boggling how a nation of 300 million people can be so frightened by 240 individuals. Surely we can cope with them on U.S. soil.

The entire military base at Guantanamo Bay should be closed and the land returned to the people of Cuba.

— Barbara B., Dallas, TX

The label "terrorist" today has degenerated to the point where it is now as accurate as "witch" was in Salem in 1692.
The accusations have similar accuracy and the process of "law" is equally biased.

Sure, there are lots of terrorists in the world, some international, many of them domestic. The average American is in greater danger from domestic terrorists (hate groups, etc) than from any international terrorist. Drunk drivers are a far greater danger to society, their actions just don't get banner headlines.

Someone please tell Cheney that he is no longer the President.

On a recent trip to Europe, people we met almost without exception said "thank god you (the US) voted in Obama". There is true relief around the world that we don't have the moral equivalent of a drunk with a gun running the US.

— John H, Santa Clara, CA

I don't understand why we have to listen to Cheney. I thought his agenda was thoroughly rejected in November, 2008.The people of the US have been embarrassed and betrayed, internationally, by his dogmatic leadership.The November vote was an expression of the deep understanding of this.

— ada mcelhenney, austin,texas

Thank you for this fair, clear column regarding this issue that continues to confound and confuse the legal body in this country. Because Mr Bush took the law into his own hands, mistreated prisoners, placed many in prison who never should have been there, and ran rough shod over the constitution, Mr Obama is left with a tangled mess to sort out and make right. It will take courage and intelligence to undo all the injustice that was done in the name of national security.
It is amazing to me that Cheney has become the mouth piece for the far right and more important, that anyone listens to him. He is sounding off like a noisy gong in the wind. It is time to retire him back to Wyoming, or where ever it is he shoots his friends in the face.
Thank you, Mr Obama for having the courage to face this terrible wrong that was done to our country and the world, and thank you New York Times for speaking the truth about this serious ongoing issue.

— wendyruth, boise ID

Given that this piece rightly places blame on the Bush administration for its recklessness, disregard for the rule of law and this nation's world standing, and ignorance of the increased danger it placed all Americans in due to its policies toward alleged terrorist detainees, it is curious that the editorial board did not go one step further by calling for President Obama to support the establishment of a commission that would completely investigate the individuals, and their decision-making process, responsible for detainee torture, even if it eventually led to the prosecution of certain of those individuals. The injurious nature of their misdeeds cries out for justice, not to mention that, without satisfactory punishment, the door is left open for a future administration to again engage in criminal behavior.

— Ken Pullen, Omaha, NE

Many comments deal with the notion that we are at war, so anything goes, including torture, preventive detention, secret prisons, etc. and invading other countries that did not attack us, occupying them and calling it war, all in the name of keeping us safe. The occupations/"wars" and the so-called "war on terror" are based on our fear of being "attacked" again. All real wars are fought between nations, not against the diffuse threat of criminals and terrorists. We continue to use the 9/11 terrorist/criminal action to justify flouting of international and US law. Who are we really warring against? Ourselves.

— NJahn, Seattle

Thank goodness we have a president who is not only educated and intelligent, but humane. It is, however, way past time for a commission or special prosecutor or some other legal device to find out what really happened during the Bush/Cheney years and if laws were broken, then someone must pay the penalty. Let the chips fall where they may. We have to put this behind us once and for all.

— spence, Bellingham, WA

I am a good old-fashioned bleeding heart liberal. I don't believe Obama has gone far enough. Can we all finally admit that we deserved the terrorists attacks that hit us? That we brought them on ourselves through years of self-serving foreign policy misadventures? Further, it's pristinely clear at this point that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are the real terrorists. I believe they should be water-boarded for their nationalistic and fear-mongering assertions that terrorists would seek to harm us without a good reason. It's time that we engage in a real dialogue with the terrorists and the other embittered peoples of the world about what steps can be taken to rectify America's numerous national sins, dating back to its very founding. This may involve a large-scale transferring of all of our ill-gotten gains--houses, cars, jewelry--to the less fortunate and those we have so grossly pilfered from. So be it. It's time to make things right.

— Mark Reed, Detroit, Michigan

As a college student just returned from 5 months in Europe, I have seen first hand how the Bush Administration ruined America's reputation. Instead of being a land of the free, we are seen as the land of the oppressive powerful. Obama is representing a refreshing and quite honestly, NORMAL viewpoint that human life should be valued at all costs; versus the previous theory that tortue on few would "save" the rest. Europeans in general do not respect America, and I can see why. This whole bit that Cheney is trying to pull, criticizing our new administration, is qualified (freedom of speech, big baby), however, frankly, it is unneccessary. Cheney, you had your 8 years to deliver well-written speeches and defend your criminal acts. Welcome to 2009 where we, the citizens, have had frankly too much of you.

Hello, President Obama. Keep it up.

— Amy, Los Angeles

What frightens me more than terrorism is Mr. Cheney spewing forth on a new fear based propaganda campaign against an administration that clearly discredited everything Cheney stands for by winning the 2008 elections. Cheney and the people who stand with him are a bigger threat to everything this country stands for than any two bit terrorist with a weapon. A terrorist or terrorist oraganiztion can only hurt us in small ways compared to the damage we can do to them when they give us a reason. By adovocating ideals that essentially ignore our constitution and our rule of law Cheney and his friends threaten the rights of American citizens as well as all human beings. Until Americans understand that we hold all of the cards against terrorism and understand that terrorists who choose not to respond positively to reasonable dialog will loose in time one way or another, Cheney will be able to use fear propaganda against his own people to achieve unwarrented power. I would say that Cheneys way is irrelavent and that terrorists have all the reasons to fear America and its allies.

— crazynlazy, Michigan

This back and forth between Cheney and Obama shows that Cheney was President of Vice for 8 years.

http://blogdredd.blogspot.com...

— Dredd, Texas

"There are Guantánamo prisoners who violated the laws of war and should be tried in military tribunals..."
_________________________________
What are the laws of war?

— willie227, Vancouver

Cheney sounds like a "good German."
Enough said.

— George, West Palm Beach, FL

Why does the media give a has been washed up private citizen dick cheney live television coverage. In November the country spoke clearly no more bush cheney lies disturtions. The man is obviously unhinged the media does him no favor by encouraging his dilussions he is a disgraced former politition let him go and quietly sink into insanity.

— Howard, New York,NY

Relief and optimism? I must be one of those lefties that cable analysts predicted would not be thrilled w/ Obama’s speech. I was not thrilled. It was better than Cheney’s, sure. But that’s not saying much, and much of what Obama had to say was not that different from what Cheney said.

The key for me is the notion of the primacy of law, the alternative to rule by raw power. By my lights, Bush-Cheney operated not just at the extreme outer edge of what is permissible by way of bending law to permit unbridled exercise of power, they were far off the scale: usurping power in numerous ways from a timid, fractious Congress, demanding and mostly getting carte blanche from the supine Supremes, invading foreign nations without restraint, ignoring laws of war, etc. Bush, pushed and abetted by Cheney, became The Decider, openly deciding to do whatever he wanted, without regard to US or international law. The Bush-Cheney view that a President’s obligation to protect national security trumps all other considerations was at the root of their reign of lawlessness on a scale never before seen.

Obama, the brilliant, principled Constitutional Law professor, was to be the anti-Bush, who would restore the rule of law. So far, he has made many decisions that I support (abolishing torture, for example), but mostly for the wrong reasons and in the wrong ways. It’s always about him being true to his values, not about him discharging his obligation to defend the Constitution. Yesterday’s speech was especially worrisome in echoing, rather than repudiating, many Bush-Cheney themes. Some examples:

- Obama asserted, with emphasis, that ‘it is MY job to defend the USofA,’ or words to that effect [no, that is everyone’s job, including Congress, the Court, about half the Federal workforce, and many others; your primary job is to uphold the Constitution].
- Regarding transparency vs. secrecy – use of State Secrets challenges, etc., Obama asserted that he will determine the appropriate balance [wrong remedy: propose a better standard, for review and adoption by Congress].
- Obama promised to invent legal procedures case by case, designed to ensure that the country wouldn’t ever be endangered by any Gitmo ‘terrorists,’ including ‘preventive detention’ whenever he can’t find any other way to ensure they won’t be released [wrong, six ways to Sunday, and indistinguishable from the Bush-Cheney approach; not kosher to select the judicial procedure that best guarantees a desired outcome; doubly not kosher to ‘preventively’ detain people with no procedure at all].
- Obama didn’t challenge Cheney’s oft-stated position that their differences concerning waterboarding and other forms of prisoner abuse are merely differences in policy: Obama’s administrative decision to halt torture is indeed nothing more than a change of policy and, therefore, easily reversible by himself or future Presidents whenever the impulse strikes.
- Obama appears to share Cheney’s view that prosecuting him or others for prisoner abuse would be inappropriate, criminalizing a policy difference (Cheney) or, equivalently, pointing fingers, recrimination (Obama). [wrong; whether or not Cheney, et al., should be prosecuted should hinge exclusively on whether or not there is reason to believe they violated US or international law, not whether or not we like the policies they selected]
- Obama reiterated his opposition to Congressional, Special Prosecutor, independent blue ribbon panel, or any other wide-ranging investigation of potential illegality in the way Bush-Cheney prosecuted their ‘war on terror’ because he doesn’t want to be distracted from his forward-looking agenda [wrong decision, doubly wrong reason; given credible allegations of widespread illegality – of which waterboarding may have been only a small part – a thorough, apolitical investigation is clearly needed as a basis for determining whether or not violations of law have occurred; that, in turn, is an essential precondition for determining whether or not prosecutions are warranted; preventing investigation is equivalent to abandonment of any possibility of rule of law; that’s about as wrong as a President can get].

So, I don’t share NYT’s sense of relief and optimism. My reaction was more one of disappointment and dread.

— Ken Burgdorf, Rockville, MD

There are two aspects to the debate: principles and practical consequences. On the matter of principle, I found it abhorrent that my country would adopt the tactics used by Communist regimes that my parents came here to avoid. On the matter of practical consequences, the evidence that people will say anything to make the pain stop is overwhelming. If they happen to say something true during the process, it may be impossible to separate it from the falsehoods surrounding it. Thus, the practical benefit of torture is small. Finally, the other practical consequence is to motivate the other side and provide recruitment tools. The fact that the recidivism rate of those released from Guantanamo is ONLY 14% actually surprises me.

Admiral Blair is alleged to have said that valuable intelligence resulted from use of the "alternative procedures". His view is contradicted by Lt. Gen. Kimmons, who led the release of the latest Army Field Manual for Human Intelligence Collector Operations that specifically forbids precisely the "alternative procedures" as being morally indefensible and nor useful. Blair's view is also contradicted by retired Col. Wilkerson who, as chief of staff to former Secretary of State Powell, had access to classified intelligence reports and who says that no significant, useful information came out of the "enhanced interrogations" during his tenure. Both Gen. Kimmons and Mr. Wilkerson are not wild-eyed liberals, but present or retired professional soldiers charged with defending this country.

Mark Danner's article on this subject is a most useful reference: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22614

— lisztian, San Diego, CA

n his speech at the National Archives yesterday the President was loud and clear when he said: "I categorically reject the proposition that waterboarding is an effective means of protecting the nation's security."

His delivery matched his conviction and passion for the law, more decisively than at any time since taking office. It was a moment the country and the world were waiting for. President Obama reminded us all that the Commander-in-Chief is on duty ("I see the intelligence!") and has fortitude enough to meet the challenges facing us as a country.

The challenges to this authority and responsibility come, it seems, as much from the drum-beat of scare rhetoric in Fox News and ex-Veep Cheney as it does from anything Al Qaeda and the Taliban are throwing at us in the field of battle.

My hope is that Obama will now go ahead and make the moves of detainees he contemplates, close the prison at GTMO as quickly as he can. Let Congress memorialize that empty shell of shame as it sees fit, but don't be deterred from doing what seems so right to this leader who is every day earning his stripes.

— KP, Nashville

Obama gave a very eloquent, honest speech on the dangers of believing the ends justify the means. I thought he hit all the valid points right on the nail.

— Julie D, palmdale

During the Presidential election, the constant talking point from the McCain camp was that Obama delivered a masterful speech but was short on substance. In many respects and much to my despair, this attack does hold some merit. While we may certainly laud the message given by Obama today that guaranteeing our safety need not infringe upon the Constitution, he leaves much to be desired in terms of action. We are still left with military commissions, "preventive detention," and war criminals who remain free from prosecution. These do not further democratic values. "Preventive detention" gives the President the authority to hold anyone who would "maybe" carry out an act of war. This "Minority Report" power has no place in a democracy. One is imprisoned after he has committed a crime, not beforehand. The fact that Dick Cheney is not in a prison cell is another example of the complete disregard for the rule of law. The central irony is that Obama's message had to compete with that of a self-confessed war criminal who Obama refuses to prosecute. He won't allow the Justice Department to adhere to the Rule of Law because he does not believe it is politically appropriate. This is yet another Bush-like intervention into an Agency's agenda that simply should not be Obama's call to make. A Democracy cannot survive if the Rule of Law is not its fundamental principle.
Doubtless, Obama has an enormous mess to clean up in all areas of our society. But adherence to our Constitution should be the central priority.

— Leigh Pullman, Tenafly, NJ

Listening today to Darth Cheney's gloomy, fearful pronouncements reminded me once again why I hated Bush and Co. so much, and how grateful we should all be that the they are gone. Cheney seems desperate to rescue the soiled reputation of Bush's failed administration, but the damage he and his cronies wrought was too lasting. We can only hope that Cheney retreats permanently back to his undisclosed location.

— Christopher Johnson, CA

Thank you for being the last bastion of freedom in America and helping to return us to peace in a small way. Your Editorial seems to be more of a compromise position or I am further to the left.
The concept of "Preventitive Detention" sounds like a military feel good phrase for a thousand years old tyrannical practice of locking people in the dundgeons on the orders of the kings.
Thank you to the New York Times for allowing us readers to post our comments on your website. I hope it is as great a source of information to you as it is for me.
The last Bastion of Democracy!

— Patrick, Mattituck NY

If as the NY Times says President Obama was totally correct when he "flatly rejected Mr. Cheney’s claims that torture saved “hundreds of thousands” of lives and reminded Americans that those abuses were ineffective ..." then why doesn't he take up Dick Cheney's dare and release what exactly was obtained as intelligence on al Qaeda? If he can authorize the release of the methods, why not the results? What is he afraid of? Why did the White House synopsis delete Admiral Blair's assertion that the information WAS vital? And let's see the transcripts of the Congressional briefings to see once and for all if Nancy Pelosi is telling the truth or full of you know what. The fact that most Congressional Democrats, after all the brave indignation, got cold feet when it really came time to close Guantanamo reminds me of the heroic struggle against segregation in the 60's and 70's -- lots of progressives standing firm for integration, as long as it wasn't in their own neighborhoods. How typical.

— JW, New York

Does the President still have the power to declare any American citizen an enemy combatant (or similar phrase) and detain that citizen indefinitely, or even send that citizen abroad to be tortured?

— Mark Lebow, Milwaukee, WI

Very happy to note the NYT is taking a very sensible and balanced approach to Obama's national security plan. Good editorial...one of your better ones. Upholding America's ideals in a dangerous world is not easy but we certainly do not want to continue the Bush/Cheney old way.

— dbg25, NM

President Obama's actions belie his words.
In normal, everyday life, when individuals act against the democratic foundations of our nation, they are supposed to answer for their actions.

Former President George W. Bush, his VP, his Attorney General, his Secretary of Defense, and so many, many others who deceived the American people, are free as birds. THEY DESERVE TO BE CAGED. Obama would restore America's confidence in itself and its future by the mere act of caging those vultures.

— Nat Solomon, Bronx, NY