Former Vice President Dick Cheney came out this weekend in an interview with ABC’s Jonathan Karl to proclaim “I was a big supporter of waterboarding.” It is an astonishing public admission since waterboarding is not just illegal but a war crime. It is akin to the Vice President saying that he supported bank robbery or murder-for-hire as a public policy.
The ability of Cheney to openly brag about his taste for torture is the direct result of President Barack Obama blocking any investigation or prosecution of war crimes. For political reasons, Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have refused to carry out our clear obligations under international law to prosecute for such waterboarding. Indeed, before taking office, various high-ranking officials stated that both Obama and Holder assured them that they would not allow such prosecutions. While they denied it at the time, those accounts are consistent with their actions following inauguration. 
By the way, this is the same man who insisted that acknowledging waterboarding was barred under national security laws — a position accepted by ranking Democrats who were eager to avoid the issue during the Bush Administration.
We have now come to this: a Vice President who feels perfectly comfortable in bragging out his support for a torture program. It is a moment that is more of an indictment of Obama than (the unindicted) Cheney. It is fruit that comes from an Administration that chose politics over principle — even at the cost of precedent forged in the Nuremberg trials and the Geneva Conventions. Cheney’s statement should be a moment of unspeakable national shame.
For the full interview, click here.
Thanks, rafflaw. I just wish I knew why squelching lies from the Bush/Cheney cabal is like playing whack-a-mole.
Evil, as a force that drives certain individuals to extraordinary lengths, always embodies certain characteristics:
Evil people are artists of disguise, morally and physically. (Think of the child molester dressed in the robes of a priest presiding at the communion table.)
Scapegoating others for his errors is a common tactic of evil.
And in the end, no matter how hard he tries, evil has to brag.
For those who have not already done so, read M. Scott Peck’s “People of the Lie” and then take another long, hard look at Cheney.
Well said Mike A! Mr. Watson has been watching Fox News too much.
Tom Watson, ignorant people simply don’t know the truth. Wilfully ignorant people could know the truth, but intentionally avoid it. Then there are the liars, those who know the truth, but persist in denying it because they either disagree or believe that the truth does not square with their views of the universe. Neither your “opinion” nor mine have any more relevance to the criminality of waterboarding than they do to the question of whether gravity exists. We court-martialed U.S. troops for waterboarding as far back as the Spanish-American War. We prosecuted Japanese officers for waterboarding after World War II. In 1983, during Ronald Reagan’s first term, four east Texas deputy sheriffs were sentenced to four years in federal prison for waterboarding. The sheriff who authorized it was sentenced to ten. Those are facts. If you don’t like the facts, the appropriate remedy is to lobby for a change in the law so that it fits more neatly into your personal views of what ought to constitute “torture.” In the meantime, you ought to at least refrain from torturing the truth.
Tim Watson,
The United States has prosecuted our own soldiers for waterboarding and enemy soldiers for doing it so it has already been decided by US courts that it is a crime.
@Tim Watson: Maybe we should have a trial on this question and let the jury decide.
I don’t understand why a UN definition applies, but it is refreshing to note that you all have “come to the conclusion that waterboarding fits the definition”, a classic expression of opinion. Tieing a prisoner’s hands behind his back, throwing the other end of the rope over a pipe or rafter above the prisoner, and pulling the prisoner’s arms upward until both shoulders are dislocated, leaving the prisoner in excrutiating pain and with permanent injury (a commonplace action by the NVA)…now THAT’S torture. Compared to that, waterboarding is a day in the park.
Whether faux drowning with no infliction of physical pain or injury, permanent or otherwise, is “torture” is not really a matter of opinion. It’s not, without torturing the definition of torture (UN’s or Wikepedia’s). If not an ideological hatred of all things Bush, what could be the basis for choosing to do so?
Tim Watson, I refer you to my post of 12:10 p.m. I guess you fall into the category 3 argument group.
Water boarding isn’t torture!?!?
I dispute that, but even so, then there wasn’t ANY torture? Cheney knew about it all.
And how do they determine WHO to apply the torture to??
How many innocents were tortured with the “guilty”??
Plus how bad would it have had to been for Alyssa Peterson to kill herself over their treatment??
People WERE tortured and Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Rice knew about it!
These people need to go on trial.
Tim,
Or rather than hating Bush it could be that we all have read the legal definition of torture from the UN Convention Against Torture, and have come to the conclusion that water boarding fits the definition.
I think Cheney has one foot in the grave (poor health). And I think THAT is why he admits to his sin (even if he is proud of it).
That said, screw the Hague.
> Waterboarding is not torture, a position that no one here seems to have considered.
Considered and rejected long ago. Waterboarding is torture (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding#Classification_as_torture ), and it is BTW just as ineffective as all other forms of torture, so we don’t need to get into any arguments about when it might be ok.
Waterboarding is not torture, a position that no one here seems to have considered. Torture is what the NVA did to captured American pilots. Waterboarding is not particulary painful, does no harm, and leaves no permanent injury…as a matter of fact, faux drowning is damned unpleasant but is otherwise harmless.
One has to hate Bush (and Cheney, etc.) to confuse waterboarding with torture. Apparently everyone here does just that.
@meso
You are correct, I omitted that part: the party admission exception to the hearsay rule only applies when the statement is offered by an opposing party, see for example the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence, section 801(d)(2)(A), http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/guide-to-evidence/801.htm, and the proposed evidence remains subject to other objections such as relevance, etc.
I was not aware of the confession corroboration rule. Interestingly, Massachusetts was that last holdout and did not adopt that rule until 1984. See http://masscases.com/cases/app/55/55massappct821.html. It appears you are correct that there would have to be some other evidence that a crime was committed. Thank you for taking the time to enlighten me.
I sort of like the idea of the politicians knowing that if they commit crimes they are prosecuted. I would go one step further and look at passing bad laws/legislation as criminal behavior too.
Alan:
Sorry to take issue with you on the law, but out of court statements by a party are only admissible if they are contrary to that party’s position at trial. Thus, a self-serving statement would not be admissible as a hearsay exception/exemption. Also, in Virginia as in most states, your statement that you had sex with a minor would not land you in jail, as a confession without some corroboration will not, in and of itself, support a conviction. However, the corroboration need only be slight to prove a corpus dilecti if all the facts necessary to prove the crime are admitted. Canady v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 331, 333, 200 S.E.2d 575, 576 (1973)
> Is a public admission the same as an admission under oath?
Any alleged statement by a party is admissible for the truth of the matter. The prosecution must first produce admissible evidence that the statement was made and the defendant can then deny or explain the statement, or chose to remain silent. Its then up to the jury to decide what they believe. Note that this applies equally to private statements, even ones allegedly made to police informants who are testifying pursuant to a leniency deal with the prosecution. For example, if I am willing to take the stand and testify that I overheard you say in a bar that you had sex with your 10 year old daughter, you can then be prosecuted and convicted of child rape based solely on my testimony. See for example the prosecution and conviction of Michael Skakel.
Is a public admission the same as an admission under oath? Can both be treated the same by law?
I suggest we wait until the special investigator, Mr. Durham, gives his report to Mr. Holder and see if Mr. Holder initiates charges before we start fulminating on whether the Obama administration is “soft on war crimes”.
Mr. Durham had been tasked by the Bush’s AG Mukasey to investigate the CIA destruction of tapes of interrogations, and by the Obama’s AG Holder to reopen that investigation and expand it to techniques the CIA used in interrogations including those overseas.
I would not be surprised if it took longer than 6 months to complete that investigation. Until we hear that no charges will result from these investigations, I will be content to wait on events. Not everything should be a 24 hour turnaround – especially justice.