About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Robinson spars with Liz Cheney over effectiveness and legality of EITs

May 12, 2009 10:54 am ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by jarossiter (May 12, 2009 11:19 am ET)
      7 1
      The proper response to the whole "What if your family was threatened... would you torture to save them" line of reasoning is very simple.

      Yes, I would torture him to save my family, BUT then I would turn myself in for breaking the law. I would plead guilty and go to jail willingly for saving my family.

      The problem with Cheney, is he wants to torture and not pay the price associated with the crime.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 12, 2009 11:50 am ET)
        2  
        That's exactly right. Juts becasue my fear and baser instict would cause to want to do it, doesn't mean that we should MAKE IT LEGAL! Sheesh.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by terrapin53 (May 12, 2009 11:19 am ET)
      4 1
      Lose the argument, so pull out the old Jack Bauer in 24 scenario that has just plain never been proven to exist. Anyone who thinks that the interrogators foolowed those alleged legal limits to the letter are nuts. The did what the hell they wanted to do. Why do you think the tapes were all destroyed? Liz Cheney is no better than her father with all the bs.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (May 12, 2009 2:23 pm ET)
        1  
        Excellent point. The "Ticking Time Bomb" scenario is a Hollywood construction for dramatic effect. Has it ever even occurred in real life? I doubt it. If it ever did, it would require a bizarre set of circumstances to coincide. The "authorities" would have to know of an impending attack, capture somebody involved in the plot and know that they've captured somebody involved in the plot. They would also have to know that the other conspirators wouldn't change their plans, assuming that their captured compatriot might crack.

        What are the odds of all those things lining up? One in a Billion?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (May 12, 2009 2:41 pm ET)
             
          Also IF they knew for CERTAIN there was such a plot and for CERTAIN THIS GUY knew where the bomb was, wouldnt they know enough to quickly investigate and find the bomb? What are the chances of them finding all this out for certain ten minutes before the deadline. It defies common sense
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (May 12, 2009 4:48 pm ET)
           
        What about that one detainee they waterboarded 183 times in one month? Were they thinking, "It's been 30 days, we've tried this 182 times already, and have gotten nothing, this time [u]has[u] to be the charm!"?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by drplace (May 12, 2009 11:24 am ET)
      3 1
      The whole interchange was an exercise in wasted energy, especially when she would refuse for long periods to let anyone make a point or ask a question. Can she possibly not have read any of the reports of the Administration's (especially Dad's office) pressure on the "lawyers" to give them what they wanted? And that the torture started well before the "justifications?"
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Max Credits (May 12, 2009 12:40 pm ET)
        2  
        Yeah, she spoke without interruption for about 3 minutes, Robinson was granted about 30 seconds of time without her talking over him.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by TheDayV (May 12, 2009 1:51 pm ET)
          1  
          Agreed. That's how she did it in her last interview.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by John Paradox (May 12, 2009 4:39 pm ET)
               
            Interrupting/speaking over the other person is a standard Neocon technique, originally developed on The McLaughlin Group years ago.

            To Liz Cheney: STFU!
            Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (May 12, 2009 11:32 am ET)
      2 1
      It's not fair to bring up the legality?

      Effectiveness has nothing to do with this issue. Torture is illegal and it's a war crime.


      Report Abuse
      • Author by Brian in FL (May 12, 2009 12:46 pm ET)
        1  
        Yeah, that was a bizarre comment.

        Someone could argue nuking or carpet bombing the entire Middle East could be effective in reducing terror attacks in the USA, but is it legal and moral?

        Another person could argue if we forcibly sterilize all convicted criminals, the odds show we will reduce crime overall, but is that legal and moral?

        Maybe if we deported all right-wingers, it would reduce hate crimes, but don't those right-wingers have rights? Should we just ignore the legality and just deport them all in the name of "saving lives"?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Max Credits (May 12, 2009 11:37 am ET)
      1 1
      Liz Cheney's advocacy in favor of illegal EITs is manifest in her interest in keeping her father out of jail. Her position has absolutely NOTHING to do with the actual effectiveness of torture.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (May 12, 2009 11:40 am ET)
        1
      She is just out & out defending torture here and living on the fine thin line provided by John Yoo and Bybee. This is the same company line put out by Bill Bennett, Karl Rove & daddy Dick.

      They changed our moral standing by choosing to call waterboarding something other than torture to get away with it and let these secretive SERE CIA guys carry it out.

      That is hard to defend and she is not very convincing.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jmj (May 12, 2009 11:49 am ET)
        1
      This Cheney combines all the "best" of all things reicht-wing. She has her father's snide "calmness" which insinuates "I'm right and you just don't understand anything" and the FAUX "news" method of interrupting and talking over the other person, especially if the other person is making an important point. It's all but impossible to watch this clip without wanting to throw something at the screen.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by RABBITLUVR (May 12, 2009 11:57 am ET)
        1
      Wow. I am impressed with this media blitz the Cheneys are conducting. Does Dick see the writing on the wall or what?!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (May 12, 2009 1:56 pm ET)
        2  
        I guess if he goes to trial, he might have to spend some of those billions he looted from the Treasury, and his girls might lose their inheritance.

        His lesbian daughter was interviewed on NPR a year or so ago, and she sounded like a GOP talking points zombie. I guess it runs in the family.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jbrantow (May 12, 2009 12:15 pm ET)
      1 1
      The apple doesn't fall far from the tree....Liz Cheney is rude, arrogant and full of twists and lies. She gives a great example of filibustering as well. Cheney=Lies
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Mike the Liberal (May 12, 2009 12:49 pm ET)
      3 1
      She has a future at Fake News as she has mastered the art of controlling the conversation with relentless interruption of the opposing view.
      She just won't shut up! Guess I'll have to wait for him to be on Kieth's show tonight so he will be allowed to complete his sentences/thoughts.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (May 12, 2009 1:03 pm ET)
      1 1
      How does the World court view those in the media who help to cover up war crimes?

      Maybe Ms. Cheney could talk herself into a cell along with her father.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NG_Officer (May 12, 2009 1:05 pm ET)
      1 1
      I'm still not sure why Liz Cheney is on any of these shows discussing torture. Is she going to run for office? She was pretty quiet when her dad was the puppetmaster. I guess the righties don't have enough voices drowning out the discussion.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by gwojtowy (May 12, 2009 1:39 pm ET)
      1 1
      The "Jack Bauer" argument can be easily turned on it's head. Any dedicated terrorist can summon the willpower to endure the unendurable if they knew that they would only have to wait a few days at the most for their mission, no matter how gruesome, will succeed. Indeed, a lie told after torture, is more convincing than one told before. A prisoner can still fight his or her terrorist war by frustrating the captor, and giving him false leads.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by TheThief672 (May 12, 2009 1:45 pm ET)
      1 1
      If this show wanted a one-sided discussion they should have had a cardboard cut out of the opposing view.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by adamsinclair0078312 (May 12, 2009 1:59 pm ET)
        1
      I love the correlation with the SERE program. Let's see, we use the SERE program to train special forces how to withstand interrogation from the enemy in the event of capture (spoken torture). Special forces are a voluntary branch of the military. Much like someone could voluntarily drive a six in spike through their penis. However, if you were to do this to a prisoner during interrogation, this would necessarily be torture. Waterboarding has been qualified as torture time and time again throughout history. Efficacy (which is still in doubt) is a moot point.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eniobob2631 (May 12, 2009 4:03 pm ET)
        1
      "FACTS"will make DICK soft.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (May 12, 2009 5:20 pm ET)
        1
      I wish ROBINSON would have told CHENEY to shut the h--l up. They al just let her ramble on.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ProgLib (May 12, 2009 6:26 pm ET)
        1
      does liz cheney think she is an expert on this stuff just because her daddy was the vice president? what makes her think that she knows everything? she wasnt in on the meetings with bush and cheney... she doenst have any insider information. and, just like everyone else here, i found it very rude that she kept interrupting him, but she got all the time she needed to speak.
      Report Abuse