We Have Federal Laws On Torture For A Reason!
By CSPANJunkie Wednesday Aug 26, 2009 6:00am
August 24, 2009 News Corp
(Heather): Wow. Bill-O actually put someone on his show who does a good job of shooting down his talking points. O'Reilly thinks that no one wants torture investigated and that it's just a witch hunt, and that our torture program was "an absolute success". Jami Floyd hits back at him with some logic, like the Department of Justice is not supposed to be politicized, and that "we have federal laws on torture for a reason".
I guess after all of those years of the Bush administration using the D.O.J. as a political arm of the White House, Bill-O is having a little bit of trouble understanding that how the Bush administration did things is not exactly how they are supposed to work.
Transcript below the fold.
O'REILLY: "Unresolved problem" segment tonight, President Obama's on record as saying he does not want to prosecute CIA agents, who may have broken rules and laws and interrogating terror suspects after 9/11. However, Attorney General Eric Holder has now decided to appoint a prosecutor to investigate about dozen cases of alleged CIA wrongdoing, while interrogating the terror suspects. And he wants to see if crimes were committed.
Justice Department official John Durham will head the probe. And with us now to analyze, attorney and Democratic strategist Jami Floyd.
So this will make the ACLU happy, but I don't think it's going to make Barack Obama happy.
JAMI FLOYD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, that's not Holder's job. You know, I think being A.G. is the hardest job in the administration because you're not working for the president. You're working for us. You're working for the constitution. You've got to do what's right by the constitution and by the laws of the United States. And if the special prosecutor is what's needed here, that's what he's got to do.
O'REILLY: Yeah, but you know.
FLOYD: .whether Obama likes it or not.
O'REILLY: .there are - I just don't know. I know Holder and Obama are friends. So I'm not going to say that Holder did - they're not playing some subterfuge game. They may be, excuse, but you know there's prosecutional discretion on most everything.
And in this case, all the polls show that Americans do not want this. They think it's a witch-hunt. And even the old memos that he's going by, this is at the end of the memo. And you will not see this on any other news program. The memo that Holder is going by to appoint the special prosecutor says, "The CIA's interrogation program was an absolute success in protecting Americans from another attack and that includes waterboarding and all of that. "Absolute success. "
FLOYD: The 2004 memo.
O'REILLY: That's what this is.
FLOYD: .goes back to 2004.
O'REILLY: Right.
FLOYD: .in the Bush administration.
O'REILLY: Right.
FLOYD: That pressure has been on to investigate what went on in these interrogations since long before Eric Holder had this job. And yes, it is correct that Obama has said from the beginning that he wants to look forward.
O'REILLY: Yeah, and he's smart to do that. Right.
FLOYD: And he doesn't want to look back.
O'REILLY: Right.
FLOYD: And that's a political choice. And it's probably a wise strategy, but Eric Holder is not in a political job.
O'REILLY: Yeah, but he can get fired.
FLOYD: That's right, he can, but you can't make decisions as attorney general because you're afraid of getting fired.
O'REILLY: But how many attorney generals did Nixon fire? He fired one a week.
FLOYD: I'm thinking about Nixon. I'm thinking about Nixon.
O'REILLY: Okay. All right, now.
FLOYD: But you can't be thinking about Nixon if you're attorney general.
O'REILLY: I don't trust Eric Holder. I'll tell you why. He's the guy that wanted Marc Rich to be pardoned. Do you know who Marc Rich is?
FLOYD: I know all about Mark Rich.
O'REILLY: Okay, he's.
FLOYD: I know about Scooter Libby, too.
O'REILLY: Who went to Bill Clinton on the last day of the Clinton administration, who pleaded Marc Rich.
FLOYD: This is not.
O'REILLY: Wait, wait, wait, Jami, who pleaded Marc Rich's case. The biggest tax cheat in American history, Holder goes in second in command in the Justice Department.
FLOYD: Bill.
O'REILLY: .says Mr. President.
FLOYD: Bill?
O'REILLY: .give this giant tax cheat a pardon.
FLOYD: Bill, the big news of today is the memo. It's not Marc Rich.
O'REILLY: But it's.
FLOYD: It's the 2004 memo.
O'REILLY: I just tell you why I don't trust him.
FLOYD: Look.
O'REILLY: Unless you can explain to me why he did that, I don't trust this guy.
FLOYD: But here's the good news if you don't trust him. Here's the good news. He has now appointed.
O'REILLY: Yeah?
FLOYD: .another man, a prosecutor, independent of Eric Holder, a prosecutor, independent.
O'REILLY: Yeah.
FLOYD: .who is a special prosecutor.
O'REILLY: Yeah.
FLOYD: .who is now going to look into this matter.
O'REILLY: Right.
FLOYD: .that has been on the table since 2004. Since before Eric Holder's time. The pressure has been on the Justice Department for years.
O'REILLY: From whom? The ACLU.
FLOYD: No.
O'REILLY: Not from the folks.
FLOYD: No, no, no.
O'REILLY: The folks don't want it.
FLOYD: But the pressure has been on from all sectors.
O'REILLY: What sectors?
FLOYD: Having to do with the memos of John, you, and others. Having to do with what went on in Abu Ghraib.
O'REILLY: There's no - wait, wait, Jami, you're crazy.
FLOYD: Having to do.
O'REILLY: Obama doesn't want it. O'Reilly doesn't want it. Those are the two most powerful people in the country. All right?
(LAUGHTER)
FLOYD: The big O's aren't the question.
O'REILLY: All the polls say 65 percent.
FLOYD: The big goal.
O'REILLY: .don't want it.
FLOYD: The big goal is not the question.
O'REILLY: There is no pressure.
FLOYD: The big O's aren't the question. The question is the constitution and the federal law on torture.
O'REILLY: Oh, stop, stop.
FLOYD: .and whether it's violated.
O'REILLY: It's totally discretionary.
FLOYD: All that's being looked at here is whether or not there's enough evidence to investigate.
O'REILLY: That's true.
FLOYD: If there's not enough evidence.
O'REILLY: That's true.
FLOYD: .we move on.
O'REILLY: All right.
FLOYD: If there's evidence, we indict.
O'REILLY: Leon Panetta issues a statement today to his guys and says we don't want this. And then.
FLOYD: Well.
O'REILLY: Mukasey.
FLOYD: See, that's a CIA.
O'REILLY: Right.
FLOYD: Of course he doesn't want it.
O'REILLY: That's a good point, but Panetta's a Democrat. Says I don't want. Mukasey, the former CIA guys go, hey, if do you this, Holder, no foreign country is going to cooperate with the United States and intel gathering because they don't want to be dragged into any scandal. So we're going to lose all intel drying up around the world. And you might be killed because of it, Jami.
FLOYD: This is not about politics. This is not about party.
O'REILLY: See, you're totally ignoring my question.
FLOYD: This is about -- you didn't ask a question.
O'REILLY: I did. You made a statement.
O'REILLY: You made statement.
O'REILLY: You may be killed because of this crazy decision by Holder.
FLOYD: We have federal laws on torture for a reason. We can't just violate them willy-nilly. And if they've been violated, we need to prosecute.
O'REILLY: You go any war, you could have prosecuted Abraham Lincoln for suspending habeas corpus.
FLOYD: Okay, look, they're going to investigate.
O'REILLY: Okay?
FLOYD: We'll see what they find.
O'REILLY: Yeah.
FLOYD: And then you'll have me back. And we'll talk about what they found.
O'REILLY: I'll have you back if you're alive.
FLOYD: I'll be alive, Bill.
O'REILLY: You may be killed because the terrorists -- all of that stuff's going to dry up according to Mukasey.
FLOYD: I`ll be alive Bill O'Reilly.
O'REILLY: I'm sorry, Hayden . I made a mistake. I said it's Mukasey. It's Hayden. Michael Hayden. All right? Do I have that right? I hope I do. Yes, Hayden.
FLOYD: Yes, it's Hayden.
O'REILLY: Michael.
FLOYD: Mukasey was at Justice.
O'REILLY: You know, I can't keep track of them all. Jami Floyd, everybody.
Login or Register to post comments.
My brain hurts after watching that. Can O'Reilly stop flapping his jaw for a moment to let his "guest" get even a phrase out?
The fact that shows like this are the highest rated in TV says a lot more about the state of the union than anything else really. It's not about being dumbed down anymore - that's already happened to the point where a sizable portion of the country is "dumber than a fifth grader". It's about the selfish, hostile and cruel nature of a sizable portion of the nation. That they can listen to O'Reilly, Hannity and all these other barking poodles yelling over their guests, insulting them and demonizing them shows the viewers are looking to hate without any concern for understanding.
Empathy is bad, progress is bad, liberty is bad, peace is bad, compassion is bad, intellect is bad, negotiating is bad, turning the other cheek is bad, rule of law is bad, civil liberties are bad, human rights are bad...
War is good, torture is good, yelling is good, threatening is good, greed is good, isolationism is good, theocracy is good, proud ignorance is good, failure is good, sensationalism is good, condemnation is good...
If you don't agree, "They'll kill you and your grandma and your baby and..."
which is indeed kind of scary. But only gets a fraction of other shows, which much larger audience. Equally braindead but probably not as offensive.
whips O'Reilly.
I think that pretty much sums things up.
Condescension,Bill-O is thy name.
We have turned into a nation of bullies thanks to the likes of BillO and Beckster.
When yelling replaces reasonable debate as a national discourse, you know we have slid down the slippery slope.
I hate these fucking republican liars and fools!
First thing I thought. Name ONE poll that says "Americans think this is a witch-hunt"
Well THIS American says BRING IT ON!
If you rob a bank and leave the scene with money on you, you're "absolutely successful" at robbing the bank and therefore shoudn't be subject to law?
:)
on this very subject last night...I was trying to explain why it's wrong, and the many reason why the US should NOT be torturing anyone...
And he kept saying "But, what if" and I stopped him right there...there IS no but when discussing torture...it cannot ever be justified...I think I got through to him finally...of course...it didn't hurt that whats-her-face on Maddows show was interviewing that guy about torture right after we stopped...
I totally agree....it matters not one bit IF there was any useful intel gathered as a result of torture.....torture is wrong and we should hold our nation to a higher standard then the terrorists hold themselves. PERIOD.
The other side of that statement might be..."how many new terrorists were recruited as a result of OUR torturing detainees....and how many Americans and innocents worldwide have been killed as a result of that recruitment.
he'd seen to justify torture...(he's only 23, I'm trying to learn him and his gf what's up)
I said this is the real world, with real and tangible consequences for the things we do...
I did use that argument...and he said they're gonna do it anyway...Sure I said,but the fewer reasons we give them to hate us, the less effective their recruiting efforts will be...then..he used the eye for an eye thing...which I've used before...until someone on this site replied...eye for an eye, great...not long before we're both blind.
I used that, and he thought about it...I think I really got through to him.
This whole "eye for an eye" meme is precisely why the Middle East is such a mess. Point that out to your 23 year old friend.
..
IF the detainee DOES float after being tied to a stone and thrown into the Atlantic, then the interrogation practice would certainly be justified as necessary to prevent that witch from hexing America with pestilence.
It's really just common sense, people.
What if we tied terrorists to a stake and burned them? Then if they actually burned, it would PROVE that they were guilty!
Similar logic really.
it is a witch hunt...
I guess BillO agrees with someone else that torture investigation would only be "catnip" for the media.
If you ask a guy, Did you plan to blow up a certain bridge, and he says no, then you torture him until he finally says, yes I planned to blow up a certain bridge. You can report that the torture worked as you got him to admit he planned to blow up a certain bridge and since the bridge didn't get blown up, the torture worked and saved lives. Forget the fact that he only said he was going to blow up the bridge to make the torture stop.
Perfect! You got it exactly right.
Bill doesn't seem to want to understand that laws must be enforced no matter how popular or unpopular they are to a certain segment of the population. Suspected robbers would probably prefer that robberies not be investigated too but that doesn't mean we aren't going to do it.
We'll have you back, IF YOU'RE ALIVE!!!!!
Because Jami Floyd is clearly a high priority target for terrorist groups. Unless Bill was suggesting he was going to send one of the FOX police teams after her.
Fear-monger much, Bill?
I can't help but think of Bush's "we'll all be dead" comment about history and his legacy. This torture investigation should then be the best news they could hope for for Bush's legacy. It would both "prove Bush was right" and leave no one alive to dispute it. /snark.
..beating back bor's stupidity.
I can't wait to go to court for some traffic violation so I can say, "Yeah, but your law is discretionary!". I can expect a stiff fine from the judge because, bor may not be smart enough to get this, because laws are not discretionary! They are laws and we have one that says we don't torture! And I for one want the bastards who tortured and who enabled torture put behind bars. In bor's pea brain, he thinks torture makes America safe because of the information we get. Hey stupid! - torture does not nor has it ever produced reliable information! And even if it does, how does it make us safer? What if we don't have the right person to torture? You know, the one that doesn't know jack-pshht about anything. What an idiot. And, what about when you're picked up on the streets of, somewhere, and are tortured because some foreign government accuses you of a crime? What then bor? Can they torture? Will they torture? Why wouldn't they? We've no moral standing anymore!
Who cares what bor thinks? He's a blowhard entertainer who offers nothing to the public discusssion but lies and hate. he's useless in political discussions because as long as his ratings stay up, that's all he cares about.
I believe you left out an "o", as in "boor", which my dictionary defines as:
boor |boŏr|
noun
a rude, unmannerly person : at last the big obnoxious boor had been dealt a stunning blow for his uncouth and belligerent manner.
• a clumsy person.
• a peasant; a yokel.
but it omits O'Reilly's picture.
..and I can appreciate the comment about bor's picture. You may have realized this but I've taken to using lower case when naming faux and right-wing talking heads out of a lack of respect for them and their lies. When they earn my respect, I'll amend that. Until then..they, bor, beck, limpbaugh, boehner, grassle, w, cheney and the rest can go straight to the Iraqi desert to clean camel stalls or hell, don't care which.
But then by doing that you malign the good name of e.e. cummings....
..Thank you for pointing that out but this isn't American Poetry 101 and I never cared much for e.e.cummings either but in a different kind of artistic way.
The whole notion of justifying torture because " ... there could be a nuclear time-bomb set to go off ..." is so very "24-ish" -- not grounded in reality in any alternate universe, let alone here. If a well-trained terrorist with fore-knowledge of a ticking nuclear bomb were to be captured, he would already know what type of interrogation techniques might be involved to illicit a truthful response. If that terrorist had already made the commitment to proceed, wouldn't he have also committed to being a "suicide bomber" as well? How would any torture that might bring imminent death pose a threat to such a person?
OTOH, torture is against both US and international law, punishable by long prison terms. In time of war, it is also considered a war crime. Prior knowledge of these crimes imply "conspiracy-to-commit", also a serious crime. Knowledge after-the-fact (and doing nothing toward its prosecution) imply yet another crime, that of "aiding-and-abetting". At what point does the use of torture itself become a much larger threat to civilization than any terrorist act? I would submit that that point has already been reached, and exceeded. Investigation of and prosecution for acts of torture MUST commence, for the survival of that civilization.
Torture has a proven, failing track record that reaches all the way back to the Spanish Inquisition and earlier. Torture as a means of extracting a confession, any confession, does work. But a (false) confession is hardly the same as a successful effort to extract viable information. Therein is the rub.
The fact that Bill O'Reilly cannot discern the difference between "a confession" and "useful intel" would / should lead any viewer to ascertain that BOR himself is a PIN-HEAD.
Great work, Jami -- good for you.
..what if a decision was made to torture to gain the information and it was the wrong information (as it probably would be), would the torturer be willing to face the consequences of his actions?
If the only way to get to work on time, is it OK to break the speed limit? If the only way to pay your mortgage, is it OK to rob a bank? If its the only to protect America, is it OK to torture? In every scenario, there must be consequences for illegal actions. No one has the guts or feels its their patriotic duty to stand up in front of a jury to admit their crimes!
Illegal actions should have legal consequences.
Eliminating legal consequences spells the death-knell for the rule of law. Do the Corporatist politicians really endorse the death of law? Or of the Constitution? Our "noble" politicians had better be oh-so-careful about what they wish for, as well as their Corporate masters. If the next 10 songs on the old jukebox are "Helter Skelter", there are any number of people who have already demonstrated a proclivity to get up and dance.
Anarchy does not last forever. I seem to recall a quite violent response to the lack of social and legal justice that happened in France, and the medical outcome for those under "review" was not pretty.
Just saying ...
Looks like the weasal is trying to come arounf without out and out saying it. I realize that dealing with the Anal retentive short sighted Intellectually challenged Morons on the right who Lack Critical Thinking and are only into Self service. Yup! lack of serving in the Military sure shows the lack of intestinal fortitude with these Flag waving Gutless Cowards. the BOY doesn't have a clue.
It is not as if anybody got a blowjob or anything...
Forgive me for leaving the path for a moment. People can say what they will about Joe Biden but the tribute he is giving right now regarding Sen. Kennedy is beautiful and sincerely heartfelt.
I don't get cable, so I looked at C-SPAN, CNN, and MSNBC online -- couldn't find him. Could you tell me where you were seeing that, please? Thanks!
You can see it over at Kos now and read the transcript in the comments section.
Bill will have her killed first --
she made him look like a blow hard... and we cannot bring up the
'meme' that justice is applied regardless of political affiliation.
I think bill is trying to avoid hard Obama bashing and leave that to that shit, Beck. Even in this he is trying to side with the president while pissing on Holder.
Fox must have made a decision to let Beck run bat shit crazy and that will make the rest not look as nuts. I'm not sure where Hannity fits in but I'd say he's closer to the beck crazy end of the spectrum.
n/t
say about the boycott on their (cult) leader...
http://theloop21.com/news/glenn-beck-suspensi...
Sorry, I won't click on anything that has his name in the link. Dude, I just had a shower and I don't wanna get dirty now.
Last I heard he had lost 36 sponsors.
Let's hope others follow suit.
The link doesn't go to becks site or any site to faux noiz.
..buying from CVS who also bailed on beck.
Good for UPS and UPS Stores. They were big beck sponsors.
O'Mousedick is sooo stupid. Did you know that O'Reilly says higher Canadian life expectancy is "to be expected" because "we have 10 times as many people..." So O'Dipshit says that because we have 10 times as many people die die faster?
n/t
Jesuit school in the 1950's. He was making pervert calls to Cardinal Spellman.
http://www.excatholicsforchrist.com/images/sp...
Hmmm... looks alittle like, J. Edgar Hoover.
that must mean he has an MBA. heh
..polite conversation, I vomit. No I don't but I do point out the "..she was dressed provocatively so she deserved to be raped.." and the "..he was probably having fun with the sexual predator who kidnapped him from his family.." lines bor had quibbly thrown out in the past. People who watch bor usually don't believe it even when its shown to them in b&w. Again, another measure of the intellect of bor's crowd.
to hear O'Reilly support the kidnapping, raping, torturing and murdering of men, women and children. But it doesn't surprise me at all. As you point out he's made his support of those crimes known before now.
This here torture/ random murder stuff sure looks a lot like treason. Billy o knows the end of traitors to us and the human race is not pretty.
Puh-leeeeeeeeze!! The polls have been designed to sway responses away from supporting prosecution!!
Furthermore, there are huge numbers of us who support prosecuting these criminals!
Jamie should have called Billo on his first lie, that "no one wants torture investigated." She might have said something like, "You are certainly expending a lot of time and energy characterizing as a 'witchhunt' the burgeoning effort to bring these war criminals to justice, Bill." (And, if I had the opportunity to address bloviating Billo about this issue, I'd have to call him a "bloody wanker.")
..this is not a political issue but a criminal one. Mentioning polls is tedious; they have no bearing on the issue at hand. The sooner dopes like bor who want to see w and the crime family continue to live the life of ease on our nickel realize that..oh wait, they'll never get it.
...how about that old undeclared "bogus war" we got goin' on in Afghanistan?...
...and the continuing illegal occupation of Iraq?
with regard to the military stranglehold upon this nation, NOTHING has changed. These so-called "wars" we have in Iraq and Afghanistan are indeed BOGUS and totally illegal. They are bilking this nation of its treasure at a time when children are forced to skip meals because the economy sucks so much. It is disgusting that we ignore this.
..w screwed it up and wouldn't let our troops really go after bin Laden. I never supported Iraq and was asking on day one whether w would be found a war criminal when they couldn't find WMD's. We're trying to get out of Iraq and it's going to take some time but we wish it would be sooner rather than later. I'm beginning to think we'll have to start addressing exiting Afghanistan the same way we addressed leaving Vietnam.
love that jamie! nice to see she didn't go over to the dark side like kimberly newsome and reatains her dignity.
Are all GOP cowards of the justice and truth that our constitution defends?
has anyone ever just reached across the table and punched Bill O'Reilly in the face?
Never in my life, have I see a man who could benefit more from an ass-kicking.
Seriously, I think Bill O'Reilly would be a better person with a little bit different perspective, if he experienced a little bullying. Namely, an ass kicking.
I'm not saying I want to do it. Kicking someone's ass requires touching and we just don't make enough bleach for me to touch that thing.
Once upon a time there was a way to put people like O'Reilly in their place. It forced people like O'Reilly to put up or shut up.
You may have heard about it. A certain former US Senator actually told another talking head that he wanted it back.
It's called dueling.
You can guess which kinds of people got it outlawed.
O'Reilly's a bully. He would cry and run away if someone did that, which would be awesome. Jeremy Glick certainly had every right to slug him a few years ago...
O'Lielly never, ever has his facts straight and interrupts constantly when a guest proves him ignorantly wrong and a bald faced liar. He's always proven to be a very willing Reslug Dick Licker, like many of his close Reslug buddies.
I haven't seen Jami Floyd speak before, but was quite impressed with how she held up in the O'Reilly hot air wind tunnel. She was able to make her points forcefully, but also managed to keep O'Reilly on a simmer so that he didn't boil over and drown out her whole message.
That was the first BillO clip in a long time that didn't leave me wanting to throw something at the monitor. Don't worry, I know it's a fluke.
Jami Floyd received her political science degree from Binghamton University in 1986.
Oh how convenient that O'Fraud uses "the polls" when they support what he wants them to support. "The polls", of course, are convenient when he doesn't say WHICH polls, WHOSE polls, WHAT they really say, WHEN they were "polled", or HOW the question was phrased.
But let's not forget that the new Rasputin of the conservative cause is a guy who took great pride in showing how "the polls" can be manipulated to give you just the right answers you want.
So when Mister Shower-Falafel talks about "the polls", we don't really know if it came from ANY kind of "poll" or if he just made it all up to validate his own delusions.
So, President Obama should order Attorney General Holder to ignore the law in this case, because Obama would prefer not to prosecute. What's wrong with that?
Substitute the name Sonya Sotomayor in that sentence and see if it still makes sense to you.
b/c she dissed the Billo the pervert's advances...
Some may have missed this link from Finnigan
http://trueslant.com/jeffhoard/2009/08/25/fnc...
this is a classic example of the repube party..lies and fear. say something not true and make it sound like gospel truth..."poles show Americans think this is a witch hunt". always add that dose of fear "you will be killed". repeat repeat repeat.
nice to see someone stand up and speak out against this for a change. may we have more please.
"all the polls show that Americans do not want this" Sorry? What? No one has asked me what I think.......oh, right, I don't watch FOX news
She did a nice job- illuminated Bill's utter contempt for due process, the constitution, and law
She is my new hero for standing up to BillO's rank hypocrisy and bullshit! She swatted down his talking points like they were drunken fruitflies!
Three words for BillO: RULE OF LAW
Who is making that quote from the '04 memo that reads "...our program was a success."?
eeeee
I love how BoorO pulls out some "memo" from his ass that says the torture program was a success! Whatever
Actually there are some memos saying the imprisonment and interrogation has produced some positive results.
But even they hesitate to say torture produced these results, or simply more traditional and effective ways of questioning prisoners.
and of course, BillO, conveniently leaves omits these qualifiers.
xxx
And tell him that if he doesn't like it, he should just toss it in the garbage. That's how every democrat should debate these fools. Just give them an opportunity to either embrace it of trash it. That's how we separate real patriots from traitors like O'Reilly.
Bill O'Reilly was just handed a sweet "whippen" in objectivity. He will never have Jami Floyd on his program again.
I notice a pattern to the conservative reasoning in proving what the public wants: Polls. O'Reilly is not the one, and Fox is not the only network using bias polling to claim issues. MSNBC has gotten so good at the use of polls with a pick and choose practice that compliments the bias special commentators who they put on shows like Hardball. In the moment that they are used, they make every claim they need to make a bias opinion.
I have always wondered how they can make any objective claim with the use of polls. There are so many, and at times, they vary in numbers. So, who's to say which poll is right?
Joseph
Login or Register to post comments.