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.
Mike Appleton,
Amen!
Well said Mike A! The torture proponents are simply in favor of anything Fox News tells them they should be in favor of. The facts are never an obstacle for them.
Ignore the foregoing. The correct quote is as follows:{W}hatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity…all these and the like are a disgrace, and as long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honor due to the Creator.” The fact that otherwise serious-minded people engage in debate over whether it is acceptable to adopt torture and abuse as policies worthy of this nation illustrates the degree to which the body politic has become contaminated over the past eight years.
I have argued on a number of occasions that waterboarding is torture and torture is illegal. I am disturbed by the number of people who honestly assert that the propriety of what we do to other human beings is to be measured by the resulting benefits to ourselves. Arguments based upon the law and secular values do not appear to be the least bit persuasive, so I will attempt a more theological approach. The following is from the encyclical “Veritatis Splendor” of John Paul II: “[W]hatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; There exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object
Tim,
You meant that a high profile lawyer wouldn’t approve of a bunch of people agreeing with him on his website as hyperbole?
Or were you trying to change the subject from the fact that you don’t have anywhere near the quality of evidence to back up your opinion, by painting those who disagree with you as “hate filled” and unthinking?
Since other than simply saying that our reasoning and citations were “bunk” you’ve done absolutely nothing to prove us wrong, I’m leaning towards the second one.
Yes I’m being a jerk. You’re trying to justify something that even if you’re right and it’s not technically torture is still cruel and unusual punishment; this is politer treatment than your arguments deserve.
My comment was intended as hyperbole. Sorry for the confusion.
Tim,
The great thing about written discussions is you can read what’s written. I just skimmed through the conversation (and encourage you to do the same). Guess how many comments I found calling for anything other than a trial for Cheney? Two.
Sure looks like we’re not the ones unwilling to face verifiable facts.
I understand that Professor Turley thinks waterboarding constitutes torture, and that he vigorously disagrees with just about every action taken by everyone in the Bush Administration. But he, at least, argues without emotion (and certainly without hatred) and attemps to be persuasive in a reasoned manner.
I happen to disagree vigorously with Professor Turley on the issue of whether or not waterboarding as conducted by the US on three terrorists in custody is far from any reasonable definition of torture, and I think I am fairly reasonably aware of the facts of the matter (aware enough to know that much of what appears in this comment section as “proof” that waterboarding is torture is pure bunk). Hard as it may be to contemplate, Professor Turley may be wrong on this issue, and I think he is.
But you all (or at least most of you) are not debating an issue or arguing for a point of view. You assume the proposition and in a most vile manner condemn the actors, quarreling among yourselves only whether Cheney should be hung or shot.
That’s what they do at MoveOn.org, and that’s where you all should take this vituperation.
Tim,
Then you must never have read a single word he’s written on Water boarding, nor listened to an interview on the subject, nor looked into some of the cases he takes on.
Buddha,
One lives to be of service, and drink good beer.
From what I know of Professor Turley, he would not engage in the sort of hate-filled diatribes presented here, nor would he approve of them. You all need to move on to MoveOn.Org or some such web site where adherence to fact, moderation in dialogue, and avoidance of serious discourse are not only discouraged but also are positively prohibited. You are convincing no one but yourselves, and you obviously need no convincing.
That’s a shame, on an otherwise refreshing and interesing web site.
George W still thinks that waterboarding is an event in the Winter Olympics.
Nice job, mespo, gyges, raff et al.
From “The Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy”
“Torture includes such practices as searing with hot irons, burning at the stake, electric shock treatment to the genitals, cutting out parts of the body, e.g. tongue, entrails or genitals, severe beatings, suspending by the legs with arms tied behind back, applying thumbscrews, inserting a needle under the fingernails, drilling through an unanesthetized tooth, making a person crouch for hours in the ‘Z’ position, waterboarding (submersion in water or dousing to produce the sensation of drowning), and denying food, water or sleep for days or weeks on end.”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#DefTor
Hey “duh” [by the way, your moniker describes you perfectly….DUHHHH]
The portion that YOU posted YOURSELF says “the threat of imminent death”—–the THREAT of imminent death. You dont think waterboarding produces a THREAT of imminent death? Stop changing the subject douchebag—-NOWHERE in the shit you posted YOURSELF does it say ANYTHING about whether it will CAUSE death—it says “the THREAT of….” meaning it doesnt matter what the intent is of the person inflicting the waterboarding. Are you saying the “threat” can be just WORDS? Are you saying that if you walked up to me and said “Im gonna kill you”, that THAT is torture? After all—that IS a “threat of imminent death”—RIGHT? It CLEARLY was referring to a physical or mental threat of death—whether you think it will happen or not, and whether it is intentional or not. I have no idea why anyone is focusing on DEATH anyway. You dont have to DIE for it to be torture! MOST of the things you posted that constitutes torture had nothing to do with death—so why are you focusing on the death aspect so much? Do you NOT know that the United States prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding Americans during WWII? And why IS that? Because Japan is the ONLY country that is not allowed to waterboard? NO, because its a war crime, thats why.
ardith:
“Re: Support for “waterboarding”. So is most of America in support of it for terrorists.”
************************
I am interested in your moral philosophy that popularity equals propriety. It would have served you well in Salem or Birmingham assuming you were on the popular side and not that of those terrifying witches or African-Americans.
Re: Support for “waterboarding”. So is most of America in support of it for terrorists.
Mike Appleton,
“If you don’t believe that drowning produces imminent fear of death, you are not a rational person.”
Exactly! The statutory language specifically states that we cannot threaten them with loss of life. However, we cannot control what they think.
Waterboarding sucks. It’s scary as hell. It is generally accepted to produce imminent fear of death by all accounts. But it is not intended to cause death. Performing a scary procedure without the intent of killing, and without threatening to kill is not a violation.
Why do you think Congress specifically modified the language from that of the UN? Hmmm? Are you starting to figure out that waterboarding was a tool that Congress considered useful for some time now?
“Moreover, your interpretation of the statutory language expressly conflicts with judicial decisions on the issue.”
I’m not aware of any judicial decisions on the issue. You must have read decisions that I have not. Could you please provide us with a link to them?
Good idea Mike——lets get “duh’ on the table, put a towel over his head and pour away! Lets see how fast he changes his view. From everyone who has been waterboarded–whether it was the detainees, Mancow or Christopher Hutchens—they have ALL said they feel like theyre drowning. Tell me duh——like Mike said—–doesnt drowning produce a fear of imminent death??? Can you find one person on planet Earth that has been rescued from a near-death drowning that will say they did NOT think they were going to die? I bet you couldnt find ONE. The only people who wouldnt say that are…well….the ones who died.