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.
Duh,
Has Abu Ghraib already fallen down the memory hole?
Please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse
and note the last sentence of the second paragraph:
Janis Karpinski, the commander of Abu Ghraib, demoted for her lack of oversight regarding the abuse, estimated later that 90% of detainees in the prison were innocent.
The US has made releases of those formerly classified as enemy combatants contingent upon their signing releases stating that they will not sue regarding their treatment–talk about signing a contract “under duress”…
There are vast resources that can point you to the information you seek–try googling.
In short, there have been news reports too numerous to count over the past ten years about detainees being cleared and released after suffering years of confinement as so-called enemy combatants; I really don’t know where to start. Have you been following this topic all these years? (It’s not like I’ve kept a scrap book with their names and photos…)
rafflaw,
You’re going to need a bigger shovel.
Please cite the portion of the Geneva Convention that applies to unlawful combatants. When you’re done you can show us what authority Cheney was operating under when he “ordered and authorized illegal interrogation techniques”.
You call me an apologist because you need to make it personal. That’s not acceptable. If you get backed into a corner just admit that you were just repeating something you heard and someone will likely provide support for your claim. If it exists.
Torture has not and will not generate reliable intelligence.
Torture enrages groups whose members it is used on, risking our long-term national security.
The lack of torture prosecutions is further evidence that there is a ruling class.
Torture is an active policy of the US government and will eventually be used for lesser and lesser crimes on more and more people, primarily US citizens.
We know about only a small fraction of the torture done by or at the request of the United States.
Americans do not understand how widely US torture policy is known and understood as a hallmark of a rogue nation.
Torture’s ultimate benefit to government is silencing dissent.
Kathleen,
well said. Duh is just an apologist for illegal activities. I wonder if he would blow off the scores who died in US detention?
Duh,
many of them were tortured when grabbed and sent to black sites for even more torture and then they were eventually released sometimes 4-7 years later. Waterboarding is just one torture technique that the United States and the world have outlawed. Cheney was not just talking about waterboarding. Cheney ordered and authorized illegal interrogation techniques that the Bush regime tried to rename as “enhanced” interrogation techniques. One more question Duh. Why would they have a pretty good case only if they were waterboarded and not if they were subjected to the other illegal techniques that were utilized by the US under orders from Bush/Cheney?
kathleen said “How do they explain torturing those who were later found to actually be innocent (AKA: civilians)?”
Who are these innocent people who were tortured?
rafflaw said “Besides, hundreds of the so-called unlawful enemy combatants, as designated by Bush/Cheney et al, were in fact totally innocent.”
Were any of them waterboarded? If so, I think they would have a pretty good case.
Defending the practice of torture on the basis of it being done to “enemy combatants” is disingenuous, to say the least. How do they explain torturing those who were later found to actually be innocent (AKA: civilians)? Rather turns the notion of justice on its head.
The crux of the matter is fundamental to our system of government, in that we are all subject to the Rule of Law which is not some vague thing, but rather it is the founding principle of our system of government which specifically “provides that decisions should be made by the application of […] laws without the intervention of discretion in their application”–allowing discretion in the application of laws is an invitation to tyranny.
Would any District Attorney seriously address a crime that was committed with the preference, for expedience’s sake to let it go, to simply “move forward”? Such a suggestion makes a complete mockery of the Rule of Law. “Moving forward” in willful ignorance simply is not an ethical or lawful option, and makes us all complicit in these illegal (and yes, evil) acts.
Gyges
1, February 15, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Duh,
“Really? So, no experts say that it doesn’t work?”
What jumped out at me was,”…not systematically reliable.”
That’s not exactly the same things as it doesn’t work.
It sounds like the gas pedal on a Toyota Corolla.
Duh
1, February 15, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Alan & SM,
“Torture has been practiced for a very long time. Do you think it continues to be practiced because it is not effective?
Have you ever considered that the claims of torture being ineffective are made public so that the enemy doesn’t work to improve their technique?”
Phil Jones says it doesn’t work, that’s good enough for me.
rafflaw said “even unlawful enemy combatants are entitled to Geneva protections”
Show me.
Alan,
Show me the law you are citing. Show me where it says that waterboarding is torture. Then show me where it states that law applies to unlawful enemy combatants. When you’re done, you can tell me what these unlawful enemy combatants have done to those that they have captured.
Our enemies that operate within the rules set forth at the Geneva Convention have no fear of being treated ruthlessly by the U.S.
If I was in charge of “America’s reputation”, the message would be clear. Unlawful enemy combatants have no rights or privileges. Lawful enemy combatants will be treated IAW the GC. I won’t sacrifice my own in order to be friends with others.
Duh,
Alan is correct and you may not want to hear it, but even unlawful enemy combatants are entitled to Geneva protections. Besides, hundreds of the so-called unlawful enemy combatants, as designated by Bush/Cheney et al, were in fact totally innocent. Are you suggesting that just because any President says they are enemy combatants, it is ok to do anything to them? If torture is ok, even though there is no evidence that they are actually combatants or members of the enemy? Can you kill them without recourse? Torture is illegal, period, no matter who you do it to and the international community has already agreed to that. It is time to bring all criminals to justice. No matter who they are or were.
Henry
1, February 15, 2010 at 11:24 am
“Tsutsugamushi, I agree with you that prosecutorial discretion should not be used to forgo prosecuting torture. But you seem to miss the point that prosecutorial discretion MAY NOT be used to forgo prosecuting torture, because the Geneva Conventions REQUIRE that torture be prosecuted. Obama is not merely making a bad choice in not prosecuting; he is breaking the law.”
Again, our carrier battle groups are bigger than yours. Who’s going to prosecute Obama?
Hello President Pelosi? I don’t think so.
@Duh: We did not outlaw torture to protect the victim. We outlawed it to protect our own troops who someday might fall into enemy hands; we outlawed it to protect our reputation in the world and our ability to form alliances and relationships; we outlawed it so others will help us, for example, by providing us with information that they would not if they thought we would use it to torture; we outlawed it because we realized it does not produce useful intelligence, and in fact harms our ability to engage in effective interrogations techniques that actually do provide actionable information; we outlawed it to protect our own sense of humanity and ethics, and to express our own revulsion for the practice, etc. Your statements about what the victim deserves are completely irrelevant.
Artist Formerly Known As FFL
“How do you price something like our system of law? How do you price something like human rights? How do you price lives? That is the plainly impossible task you are faced with when using CBA.”
My question is, why is the Obama administration spending so much prosecuting KSM when they not only said he’s guilty but as good as executed?
I suppose they could release him on the Bonneville Salt Flats and give him a fighting chance against a Predator with a Hellfire missle.
29 Tsutsugamushi
1, February 15, 2010 at 11:17 am
“I appreciate that at times we do not have sufficient means to prosecute every suspected criminal. However, certain crimes are/should be beyond debate, and should never require a cost vs. benefit rationale. Those types of crimes, for me, would include crimes against humanity.”
Here’s the thing for me though. Everytime I hear people talk about waterboarding I get this Larry Miller voice in my head: We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. We offed Saddam Hussein. We waterboarded KSM. Hold on! Go back! We waterboarded KSM. Oh yeah-that’s the last straw. Time to prosecute.
No president is ever going to go after a prior administration for something like this. They won’t be hoisted on their own effing petard.
The UN spends half of their time and money raping 12 year olds so really, who would have the moral authority much less military power to follow something like this through?
Then there’s the Blackwater Praetorian Guard. I guess your best bet is to get a gated subdivision in Dallas renamed “Elba”.
In 1947 a Japanese officer was found guilty of committing war crimes, but those crimes included a different version of waterboarding. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.
The Japanese officer did it to a U.S. civilian, not an unlawful enemy combatant.
In Texas, the waterboarding was performed by the Sheriff and his deputies on U.S. Citizens, not unlawful enemy combatants.
Unlawful enemy combatants are deserving of no protections. They’re not civilians and they’re not soldiers. Unlawful enemy combatants are the lowest form of life on the planet. We’re not going to see anyone prosecuted for waterboarding unlawful enemy combatants. While the international community is not likely to make a statement condoning waterboarding, they are likely to look away when it comes to waterboarding unlawful enemy combatants. They consider unlawful enemy combatants to operate outside of international law. As such, they seem willing to let them suffer the consequences.
I am appalled that some people defend torture with so much conviction. I know it can be difficult for some to understand the full meaning of something that they haven’t been in direct contact with, but I still can’t believe it when I see it.
Mike A.,
The moles are well paid by the RNC is my guess.