Dick Cheney Fails To Understand American Values


Former Vice-President Dick Cheney continues to obfuscate the truth and tarnish the name of all Republicans by means of standing up for cruel and unusual punishment of military detainees.

Appearing on FOX News Sunday recently, the former Vice President continued to advocate a dangerous and sick agenda by claiming pride for the torture and prisoner mistreatment that occurred under The Bush Administration.

Beyond this outrageous fact, Cheney made a statement that I see as a direct affront to very heart of American Values like he has never done before.

WALLACE: So even these cases [of interrogation] where they went beyond the specific legal authorization, you’re OK with it.”



This was a true testament to how divorced Dick Cheney remains from any understanding of our national standards of justice and our mutual values as a people.

Cheney clearly declares that he cares nothing as to the pursuit of justice to those that break the law under the blanket of authority claiming to pursue justice themselves.

This country does not accept any person or body to be beyond the law, and Cheney insulted this nation by supporting the notion that supporting illegal actions under government supervision are acceptable in a free nation of laws.


Exception to Torture

18 US Code 2340 — Exception to Torture

“Torture means an act of a person acting under color of law to inflict severe physical and mental pain other than pain and suffering to lawful sanctions upon another person under lawful physical custody or control.”

This statute combined with the Justice Department memos seeking to define ‘enhanced interrogation’ as legal sanction are the method by which the Bush administration violated the US Constitution through the approval of cruel and unusual punishment on military detainees as part of lawful sanctions.

Many who use the word ‘torture’ on both sides of the argument fail to recognize this statute in it’s existence. I do not. Those who committed acts of torture as defined by US Legal Code should face prosecution for their acts no matter if they belong to an agency of US origin or not. The Nuremberg Defense is invalid. If your commanding officer orders you to commit torture you are bound by law to resign rather than accept the orders.

The US Supreme Court has rejected the argument that holding military detainees indefinitely is constitutional, stating that habeas corpus (the right to speedy trial) must be granted to terrorism suspects.

The United States Constitution applies as to persons and not exclusively to citizens nor exclusively within our borders. Wherever America goes, the Constitution follows.

Ours was the nation that defined specifically waterboarding as torture to be banned by the Geneva Convention, we proposed that their were to be no exceptions under the law for this method of interrogation to be lawful sanction. This nation once stood against the tactics of the communists who oppress freedom of opinion with fear and propaganda. When politically expedient such a review of history is rejected for the failed logic of ’enhanced interrogation’ being successful and vital to national security. All available credible information on the matter says otherwise and the FBI has warned of a ’blow-back factor’ from using such tactics from the beginning.

Not only do tactics like waterboarding endanger national security but they degrade our ability to conduct ourselves as a credible nation to other nations whom engage in human rights violations and nuclear proliferation. We have no weight in our stance while we allow illegalities to go unpunished within our own government and our own military.

Now somehow in these dark days we have a portion of the country who believe in using the very tactics of the communists that we rallied against so many years ago in a new battle where following this ideology will undoubtedly lead to yet another terrorist attack on the homeland and further the goals of global terrorism abroad. I contend if we listen to the perspective of former Vice-President Richard Cheney on the matter that we will provoke the national security situation to an irreparable state.

World Focus: “Obama Defends Decision to Close Guantanamo”

From WorldFocusOnline:

On Thursday, U.S. President Barack Obama delivered a strong defense of his decision to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, an issue that has become increasingly political in recent weeks. On Wednesday, Congress had denied Obamas request for $80 million to close the detention facility.

In the speech, Obama largely repudiated the Bush administration policy on dealing with terror suspects — and declared again, in no uncertain terms, we do not torture.

Shayana Kadidal, a senior managing attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights who has represented a number of Guantanamo detainees, joins Martin Savidge to discuss how the president made his case, the next step and potential pitfalls of the Obama plan.

Waterboarding is Torture

It disturbs and disgusts me that so many American conservatives refuse to address all empirical evidence regarding practices like waterboarding while supporting these failed and immoral policies enacted under the Bush Presidency in the aftermath of the attacks of 2001.

Political partisanship aside, our nation has long stood as a global role model of a free republic and a just democracy by which the policies of fledgling democracies might observe and hopefully mimic.

A country claiming moral superiority must have reflective policies as pertaining to these morals. Any country that approves of a policy such as legal waterboarding of detainees cannot hope to claim any degree of civic morality inherent to it’s soil.

Redefinitions of torture as acceptable in any form is counter-intuitive to sound American policy making, in my view. Within political debate the same attempts are contrary to the Spirit of The Constitution itself. Not to mention the practice is specifically banned by the Military Code of Conduct and the Geneva Convention.

Are We Safe Since 9/11?

President Bush wishes to express to the people of America that he has kept our nation safe since September 11th 2001 by means of his administration’s Middle-Eastern foreign policy. It is true that this nation has not suffered any such tragedies in the past seven years and unfair to not recognize that President Bush has held our national security in high regard after the 2001 attack. The question of his of readiness to assume the responsibility from the out-going Clinton administration in terms of national security and properly assimilating the depth of the known threats to American soil in 2000, is another issue. It is entirely possible and within reason that the Clinton administration failed in their presentation of relevant security matters and did not properly convey the gravity of said intelligence. 


The responsibility to prevent an attack on America, if at all possible, still falls under the purview of the Executive Branch even in cases of possible faulty intelligence or possible inadequate representation of facts by previous administrations.

Prior to the 2001 tragedy in New York City often termed ‘9/11’ in mass media we had not suffered an attack to our mainland from a foreign source in more than one-hundred years.

Ultimately, the President is the President in-full from day one and is responsible for that day and every to come until out of office to the safety and prosperity of the American people.

Yet another issue to weigh is the effect of the Bush foreign policy agenda as a whole against the issues of the security of our national allies such as Israel, India and the European nations. The common interest of the American people always extends to their national allies in so far as the interests of commerce and mutual security.

While it is possible the Bush Doctrine may indeed provide the critical and necessary elements of effective national security that our nation must maintain, it is a possible outcome that continued use of this style of foreign policy in future administrations could cause permanent damage to our allies and thus effect the strength of the nation as a whole.

The issue of the responsibility of any current President in national security affairs extends beyond simply guarding against possible foreign attacks but also to guarding against national market failures and against stagnation in our legislature.

Economic strength provides higher quality intelligence services and personnel staying within American interests. Inaction in the branches of our government during crisis or outcry sends a message of instability to foreign adversaries who seek to claim us a nation without legitimacy and without honor.

The Bush White House has not upheld the role of economic steward nor has President Bush personally been a vigorous advocate of significant legislation, with the exception of the credit market bail out totaling $700 billion and the No Child Left Behind Act.

President Bush has taken more total vacation time and made less total vetoes than any President of recent decades. In a televised interview aired tonight he explained that he was concerned about the auto industry crisis but took no significant stance on the proposed bail out negotiations.

Even a lame-duck President holds the power of office and working American families that were promised pensions and benefits under the major American automakers could face an employer contract-breach should the chief legislator continue to straddle the issue. The House of Representatives and The Senate, to date, have also not upheld their role as intelligent regulators and legislators of our vital markets and industries. Congress is also not without blame in allowing a single branch to become unjustly-powerful in our system of checks and balances between the Three Branches of American government.


Eric Lightborn


December 18th, 2008

Four Stories Avoided Like The Plague By Mass Media

Everyday of our lives the media picks out certain stories to cover and certain stories to ignore. This process is called playing the gatekeeper.

Here are four stories I believe all Americans should know about if they do not already.


There is a running claim that a large amount of yellowcake (chemical-based WMD) was found in Iraq in the past two years. The Bush White House has not presented this as justification for the invasion of Iraq. Quite the opposite. They have come forward that the intelligence provided in 2002 to Congress and the American people was in fact not as credible as they once believed it to be. Mass media groups have failed to find the source of this information and present the case or non-case to the American public thereby removing the running claim from fringe discussions in media.


Easter ‘08, yet more tragedy struck the Iraqi people as they came to the end of fasting under religious observance and were killed in large numbers while crowding to the supermarkets. In so far as a discussion of current Iraqi / American affairs, these bombings counter the strongly held contention of some that Arab Extremism stems primarily from the Muslim faith. This story took only passing notice in mass media and is completely under-referenced in discussions of Middle-Eastern affairs in mass media circles.


Fourteen people were killed in a Tennessee church supposedly for their liberal beliefs in the past year. Is it pure the conjecture of liberals that this man was listening to right wing radio or sites to influence his actions or is there any evidence of this? The story has gone all but unnoticed and becomes increasingly ‘old news’ and less relevant each day in the ever faster and faster news-cycles. This again appears at face-value to be a strong case for the fact that the fear of political defacement or civil liability among mass media giants prevents certain ’taboo’ stories from reaching any but the most news-savvy of Americans.


An unknown individual leaked a false-credibility internet article claiming the credentials of Maureen Dowd during the 2008 presidential election. According to Snopes.com, this began in a chain e-mail and was picked up by certain low-credibility websites thereafter.

Has any government agency investigated this matter or made any concerted effort to find this person who sought to interject false and illegal campaign coverage on contributions into the electoral process? Has not one mass media agency in America the will to run this story as a perfect example of the importance of credible information sources in an election year?


Eric Lightborn


(Drafted December 17th 2008, Edited December 19th)