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, Mike A.
Duh, I see the debate continues. In all candor, you have been reduced to simply being bullheaded on this issue. From all of the accounts I have read over the last few years, the sensation produced by waterboarding is that of drowning. If you don’t believe that drowning produces imminent fear of death, you are not a rational person. Moreover, your interpretation of the statutory language expressly conflicts with judicial decisions on the issue. You may have an academic argument to make, but that will require something other than a purely subjective opinion. Perhaps you should submit to waterboarding under circumstances in which you are not permitted to control the procedure. Then get back to us.
Tuesday, Feb 16, 2010 11:17 EST
Dick Cheney’s taunting
by Glenn Greenwald Dick Cheney’s
http://salon.com/news/politics/dick_cheney/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/02/16/cheney
(and a few other related articles)
Anonymously Yours:
“Don’t you think that this is a polarization issue? That has been used as a weapon against Pelosi? I am not claiming that she is too bright but stupid she is not.”
If you happen to see this, could you elaborate?
Duh,
Let me save us some time:
I’ll ask, “what part of the definition isn’t met?”
You’ll say, “the pain isn’t severe”
Then I’ll say “So you are one of those armchair experts who are willing to disregard the testimony of doctors and those who have been water boarded, because someone with no first hand knowledge of this despicable act told you it wasn’t that bad.”
If I’m wrong, then please let me exactly what part of the U.S. understanding of “torture” isn’t met by water-boarding?
Why Won’t U.S. Judges / Prosecutors Enforce the Law?
We know of gutless judges here in the U.S. because of nothing being done regarding the U.S. Government’s innumerable war crimes for years. Hitler had the same type of legal system – sellouts, fascists – Nazis!
There is no question waterboarding is torture. Only a small minority of wingnuts think otherwise.
“II. The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following understandings, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:
(1)(a) That with reference to Article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from: (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.”
Under that definition, I don’t think waterboarding would be considered to be torture.
Duh,
Yes. And?
rafflaw,
You are aware that the SCOTUS decision in Hamdan was virtually erased by the updated military commissions act, aren’t you?
kathleen,
“I heard Janis Karpinski make that same statement on the air, and if you have a source for her recanting, please provide it.”
Kapinski was demoted because she did not know what was going on in her prisons. She was the one that originally stated that she was unaware of what had been taking place. To later change her mind, after being demoted, is highly suspect.
Gyges,
Didn’t the U.S. ratify the UN Convention against torture with certain exceptions and declarations?
Why would Obama prosecute his 8th cousin? Cheney and Obama are 8th cousins. Thats FACT.
So Cheney is in favour of waterboarding, therefore he will not object to the suggestion that he be waterboarded over the Plame leak.
Nation of the chickenhawks
Duh,
Now that we’ve established that any reasonable person would consider Water boarding torture under U.S. laws, let’s look at that pesky UN convention and see if it applies to “enemy combatants.”
Let’s see Article 2 says “Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. ”
No circumstances whatsoever would include the identity of the person being tortured, but in case you’re still wondering, here’s Article 4:
“Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offenses punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.”
Well “all acts” would seem to include acts against non-nationals as well as nationals.
Hmmmm, but how do we know that it happened within the jurisdiction of the U.S.? Luckily we have Article 5
“1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
(a) When the offenses are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
(b) When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
(c) When the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.”
I forget are CIA agents considered U.S. nationals?
Tim,
The UN definition applies because we ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, which according to the Constitution means it is “The Law of the Land” which means that according to US law:
“…the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”
So that’s why the UN definition relevant to the discussion, because not only is it the UN definition, it’s the legal definition in the U.S. as well.
Now as to the severity of the pain and suffering, I refer you to two people who have been waterboarded for the express purpose of proving that it’s not torture: Christopher Hitchens and Eric Muller. Both of who recanted their early views and stated without hesitation that it was torture.
puzzling wrote: “Torture’s ultimate benefit to government is silencing dissent.” BINGO! That is the only thing torture is “good” for–creating fear and terror among the masses, of great value to despots and tyrants.
Duh, I heard Janis Karpinski make that same statement on the air, and if you have a source for her recanting, please provide it.
Duh,
I think if you read the Hamdan case it will answer your questions. I would have answered more quickly, but my first response must have gotten blocked due to the length or the links to the sources. “In a major defeat for President George W. Bush with potentially far-reaching implications for his conduct of the “war on terror”, the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday ruled that military tribunals established by the Pentagon to try suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba violated the U.S. constitution.
Writing for a 5-3 court majority, Justice John Paul Stevens also rejected the administration’s long-held position that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to suspected al Qaeda detainees or so-called “unlawful combatants”.
In so doing, Stevens appeared also to reject the administration’s legal claims that the Authorisation for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress after the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, combined with his position as commander-in-chief in wartime, gave Bush sweeping powers to ignore existing laws and treaties.” http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33808 Here is a link to the full Hamdan decision for you. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZO.html Isn’t the Supreme Court the ultimate authority in the US for deciding what is legal or not?
Who is backed into a corner now?
rafflaw said “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?”
You missed the point. They would have a pretty good case because they were not unlawful enemy combatants. As such they would enjoy the benefits of the laws protecting noncombatants. There are rules that cover their treatment. Those same rules don’t apply to unlawful enemy combatants.
“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”…”
That sounds like a contract that would hold up in an international court. Doesn’t it?
If there are vast resources, you should be able to provide more than a Wikipedia article, that references a salon article that is based on the recanted statement of one person.
My quotation marks got lost, above. Should have been:
“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.”
– from the link provided.