Obama’s Cheney Dilemma

"The flaw of the Bush-Cheney administration may have been less in what it did than in the way it did it."
You mean the flaw was the particular way in which they lied to Congress and America about their reasons for starting an unnecessary war, not the false justification itself? Or that it was the way in which they lied to us about illegal surveillance and torture policies, not those policies themselves? That is a preposterous assertion and a bald-faced attempt to mislead. And the rest of the article follows in the same vein.

"The flaw of the Bush-Cheney administration may have been less in what it did than in the way it did it."
You mean the flaw was the particular way in which they lied to Congress and America about their reasons for starting an unnecessary war, not the false justification itself? Or that it was the way in which they lied to us about illegal surveillance and torture policies, not those policies themselves? That is a preposterous assertion and a bald-faced attempt to mislead. And the rest of the article follows in the same vein.

Torture is as degrading to our country just like spanking one's child is degrading to the child, the discipliner, and the family. Both kinds of discipline may force one to talk, but instead of truthful talk, it is often what the disciipliner wants to hear.

Bush and Cheney F*U8C*K*E*D the American economy so hard that there is nothing left for OBAMA...OBAMA can only masturbate...when the show is over masturbation is the only choice.

Obama has not entered into office yet. Undoubtedly he would be wise to carefully consider the information presented to him and to further explore among authorities involved with the security of this nation, risks versus benefits. Hopefully, he and his team will arrive at a decision they and the nation can live with and conclude with action. Let him and his team run the show, not Cheney. Any input given by Cheney, they will judiciously take under advisement. It would be most prudent to be patient and let the new president and his team settle in. They will have many issues to address, one priority at a time.

Taylor and Thomas make a common error in suggesting that there are types of torture that are permissible, given certain circumstances. Sleep deprivation is easily trotted out as an "obviously permissible" form of interrogation. Haven't we all stayed up late studying for finals? But it is widely known that FORCED sleep deprivation can drive a person to near-insanity in as little as 48 hours, subjecting them to psychological trauma from which they will likely never fully recover. Secondly, the UN and the USA has declared in the past that this IS torture. We demanded justice when our POW's in Korea were subjected to sleep deprivation! The Golden Rule must be brought back into play in our international relations: don't do anything to their soldiers what we wouldn't have done to our soldiers. Otherwise, we are in danger of losing our national soul.

The authors have been watching too many episodes of "24." Cheney's advice to the in-coming administration to learn about the Torture Team's methods and to emulate them has nothing to do with keeping our country safe from terror. Cheney et al see themselves already on the road toward prosecution for crimes against humanity and they want that road plowed back under. Enough of the dark side! Let the sun shine in!

I have never been more disappointed in Newsweek and I will be cancelling my subscription. I am flabbergasted at the complete lack of interest in human rights that the author shows. You cannot fight terrorism with terrorism. I know that my country is better than this and I used to think that Newsweek was better than this. I understand the tendancy for people and even nations to desire safety especially after the 9/11 attacks. But we have to be very careful not to lose our moral bearings in a time of mourning. Human rights are human rights. They do not become invalid simply because someone has committed a crime, no matter how heinous the crime. That is not how we decided to set up our constitution. We have to play by the same set of rules that we hold ourselves to or else we just come off as a bunch of imperialist hypocrites. And I want to believe that we are more than that! I really want to believe that!

What a sad and scary article. The authors would have us believe that the ends justify the means, and so encourage Americans to (continue to) turn a blind eye toward these blatant abuses of power. Morally, we don't have a leg to stand on when we allow crimes like this to take place. The truth is that nothing is completely safe and there is no way to make it so. We should know better than to believe anyone who says differently, and we certainly shouldn't give up our freedoms-- and our ethics-- in search of that impossibility. My country is better than this. The criminals who committed such horrifying acts "in the interest of national security" should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law-- Bush and Cheney among them.

I am appalled at the authors' attitude toward torture. It is absolutely true that information disclosed under torture cannot be trusted. That does not mean NO words that pass the lips of someone being tortured. The authors also seem unconcerned with the moral implications of torture--and totally ignorant of the true nature of most torture, which is not interrogation at all but simply the unleashing of sadism on helpless people. Abu Ghraib shows some of the tamer examples. They seem unconcerned with the fact that torture is illegal under US and international law. Finally, they argue that in order to be safe, we need to give up some of our rights, such as the right not to be imprisoned without charge. I do not feel safe at the thought of continuing to live in Dick Cheney's creeping police state, and that we are NOT safe should be amply proven by the hundreds or more of us who have been imprisoned and tortured in the past eight years. Can a president guarantee that there will never be a terrorist attack on Americans? No. The political fallout of such an attack--and the second-guessing by apologists for torture such as Newsweek--is the burden each President must risk. Better those losses, and the political repercussions, than a life under a dictatorship. That is the true word for the expanded executive powers of which the article speaks.

disgusting article. As a nation, we once championed checks and balances against totalitarian states. As Americans we dream that we still do, but we during the bush years, with its unprecedented power grap in all directions, we have gotten too used to encroaching state power-- and if state-sanctioned torture isn't the ultimate power, what is? Also there is much propaganda we need to sift through, to keep clear focus on our values and on what is really required. In its weasel wording --and the easy assumptions it makes!--this policy recommendation seems to offer false choices and symplifications. I hope teh public -- and our dull elected officials-- will not be fooled. My dad worked for Newsweek for many years-- he tells me that he does not read it anymore and that former colleagues tell him it has fallen into the cheapness of received wisdom.

I'm disgusted by this article. We don't have to choose between being attacked by criminals and becoming criminals. And attempts to scare us into thinking otherwise are reprehensible.

There's a big difference between expanded presidential power and abuse of presidential power. Bush may not have understood the difference, but Cheney certainly did. What Cheney wanted was to be a dictator, and he almost became one.

Now we should let him become what he really has been all along: a criminal.