Obama’s Cheney Dilemma

Let Cheney and his thugs point to any evidence that shows they protected anybody through use of torture.

Send them off to be judged by International Courts at the Hague, because the truth be not be found in Washington.

There is no executive order barring presidents from assassinating "political figures" except for legitimate heads of state.

A President cannot order the assassination of, say, Kim Jong-Il, no matter how awful a man he is.

But a President can order the assassination of any al-Qaeda terrorist, anywhere on earth, at any time.

Level with the American people about how your going to protect them because the bad guys promise not to listen. Sounds good to me.

Torture has no place in American society or government, as do anti-Constitutional power grabbing political administrations that should have been impeached years ago. Contrary to this Newsweek article's assertions, Obama has absolutely no obligation to carry on any of the Bush-Cheney ideas, failed philosophies or unlawful actions. Obama needs to rub out completely the stain left by Bush-Cheney that has only further endangered Americans and our allies at home and abroad. That is first on the list of an agenda to restoring America's credibility in the world.

This article is based upon a phooney premise: that Bush Cheney acted to prevent another terrorists attack on America. That was only a secondary concern. They attempted to instill a Republican power grab and long-time Republican control of power. The plan failed.

Why should Obama 'dial back his campaign rhetoric'?? He was elected by a clear majority on the basis of these promises. The people obviously wanted those promises to be acted upon. Is this a democracy or isn't it? Shame on you, Newsweek. Why don't you go live in Cuba?

From the accounts I've read, the "information" the torturers got from Khalid Sheik Mohammed turned out to be lies in every instance that could be checked. Of course the torturers still believe that the items that could not be checked were true. The only thing torture is good for is extracting confessions. Actionable intelligence may be mixed in with the lies, but torture can't separate the two.

The President would be well advised NOT to retain an option to use torture.

Although President Bush and Vice President Cheney have claimed that torture produced valuable information, they have never given a single example. Now I know they ore so obsessed with secrecy that they believe it will help terrorists if they even reveal the brand of toothpaste they use, but this kind of secrecy makes it impossible for them to make their case. Opponents of torture will not be persuaded that it is sometimes useful without evidence.

The reason they have not been able to convict anyone of serious crimes is because the people they detained are NOT "the worst in the world."

Since Cheney is such an advocate of enhanced interrogation techniques he himself and other high ranking White House Officials should be treated in similiar fashion so that all of us can finally learn valuable information and the real truth about the Iraqi invasion.

Since Cheney is such an advocate of enhanced interrogation techniques he himself and other high ranking White House Officials should be treated in similiar fashion so that all of us can finally learn valuable information and the real truth about the Iraqi invasion.

I definitely approve of the idea that the president should have to personally sign any orders involving actions that might be considered torture. Any one to cowardly to put his or her name on this sort of dirty work has little right to be president.

The Cheney era subordinated the Constituion to a rather despotic sense of the Presidency and Obama has to put it back even if it means less power than Bush was wlling to assume. It is essential for the President to return the Presidency to what it ought to be. No President should be able to act like the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland.