I have long argued in my column as well as numerous blog postings that our country is legally bound to prosecute people responsible for ordering torture during the Bush Administration. There is no question that water boarding is torture as recognized by President Obama, Attorney General Holder, the United Nations and virtually every expert in this field. However, while you may want to try to rewrite legal precedent (as did John Yoo and Jay Bybee in their infamous Torture Memos), you should not try to rewrite history. That is what former Vice President Dick Cheney appears to be doing this month. He told Chuck Todd on Sunday that we never prosecuted anyone for water boarding — an assertion that I and others have repeatedly raised over the years. The statement is simply false and adds historical revisionism to legal revisionism in our sordid foray into torture.
On NBC’s “Meet the Press” this last Sunday, Todd asked: “When you say waterboarding is not torture then why did we prosecute Japanese soldiers?”
Cheney responded:
“Not for waterboarding. They did an awful lot of other stuff. To draw some kind of moral equivalent between waterboarding judged by our Justice Department not to be torture and what the Japanese did with the Bataan Death March, with slaughter of thousands of Americans, with the rape of Nanking and all of the other crimes they committed, that’s an outrage. It’s a really cheap shot, Chuck, to even try to draw a parallel between the Japanese who were prosecuted for war crimes after World War II and what we did with waterboarding three individuals — all of whom are guilty and participated in the 9/11 attacks.”
In fact, we did prosecute. Indeed, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East convicted and ultimately executed Japanese war criminals Akira Muto and Iwane Matsui for atrocities at Nanking. This included water boarding prisoner, though it was called “the water treatment” where “the victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach until he lost consciousness.”
Moreover, in 1947, we prosecuted Yukio Asano for the following these specific acts:
Specification 1: That in or about July or August, 1943, the accused Yukio Asano, did willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Morris O. Killough, an American Prisoner of War, by beating and kicking him, by fastening him on a stretcher and pouring water up his nostrils.
Specification 2: That on or about 15 May, 1944, at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch Camp Number 3, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Yukio Asano, did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Thomas B. Armitage, William O. Cash and Munroe Dave Woodall, American Prisoners of War, by beating and kicking them, by forcing water into their mouths and noses, and by pressing lighted cigarettes against their bodies.
Specification 5. That between 1 April, 1943 and 31 December, 1943, the accused Yukio Asano, did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture John Henry Burton, an American Prisoner of War, by beating him, and by fastening him head downward on a stretcher and forcing water into his nose.
Asanao was sentenced to 15 years confinement at hard labor.
As noted by the Washington Post, First Lt. Seitara Hata, Sgt. Major Takeo Kita and Sgt. Hideji Nakamura faced similar charges. As noted by the Post, the testimony included that of Cpt. William Arno Bluehe who said “After beating me for a while they would lash me to a stretcher, then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness. When I revived they would repeat the beatings and ‘water cure’ . . . . The tortures and beatings continued for about six hours.”
Then there was Thomas B. Armitage:
“[We] were strapped to stretchers and warm water poured down our nostrils until we were about ready to pass out. [The Japanese] strapped him to a stretcher and elevated his feet and then poured on his face so that it was almost impossible for him to get his breath. [The victim] was then taken into the corridor, strapped to a stretcher, which was tilted so that his head was toward the floor and feet resting on a nearby sink.Water was then poured down his nose and mouth for about twenty minutes. Then I was taken into the hallway of the barracks. Both of the Japanese still insisting I was guilty and urging me to confess.”
Likewise, during the Vietnam War, an American soldier was court-martialed for water boarding a prisoner.
Ironically, while the Senate Report works hard to exonerate the Senators themselves from their past knowledge as well as Bush and Cheney, Cheney to his credit has admitted that both he and Bush were fully informed of the use of program.
The cost of our torture program — and the failure to prosecute a single official for it (or the destruction of evidence and false statements revealed in its aftermath) will continue to cost this country dearly. Countries like Iran, North Korea, and China have already cited our use of water boarding to defend against their own abuses. When our soldiers or citizens are water boarded in the future, countries will play back Cheney’s words and others to say that such abuse is not torture. When we demand that officials in other countries be prosecuted for torture, they will mock our hypocrisy and own history. As much as history may be an inconvenient contradiction for people like Cheney, it will remain unrevised and unvarnished. We have prosecuted both Americans and foreigners for water boarding and we were right to do so. That is not the history that we should work to forget.
@Olly ~
“So answer the question: Would you support the use of torture if the lives of innocent people (including your own family) were at risk and every other legal option had been exhausted?”
The answer for me is yes. The majority of the American people support your belief too.
Paul,
Most Americans think this stuff happens only to foreigners in foreign lands. This is a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil tortured before trial and the trial was a kangaroo court. A federal judge was allowed to stay on the bench after participating in this process.
What should scare Americans is there really is no clear definition of “torture”. According to a former FBI field agent that specializes in terrorism, Michael German, the top domestic terror threat are “environmental rights activists” (that have never killed anyone).
If non-violent environmentalists are viewed as the top terror threat since 2005, why not members of the NRA, Tea Party or the NAACP? If the definition has no meaning none of us are safe.
Ross – explain to me how it was a kangaroo court.
Right again BFM.
Yes, because torture doesn’t work. I would however be all for getting info in a less violent way. I believe everyone who is against torture has already said as much.
You’re still dodging a very simple question: would you deny the use of torture to save the lives of innocent people, including your own family, if every other legal option had been exhausted?
It’s a yes or no question.
“You’re still dodging a very simple question: would you deny the use of torture to save the lives of innocent people, including your own family, if every other legal option had been exhausted?…It’s a yes or no question.”
What part of no don’t you understand. NO.
Not only that we will take the strongest measures to prosecute those who do.
BTW, this was an easy answer because it is based on a false assumption.
‘Would you torture if god would open the gates of heaven for you?’ NO. easy answer, NO. If there were a god he would have a special place for torturers and it sure would not be by his side.
And if you are having difficulty understanding, please ask again so that I can do my part to help you understand NO.
“Until there is some reason to believe that torture has any efficacy there would be no reason to use it so we would not.”
Dodge!
“If it is morally justifiable to stone a criminal to death, which is punitive (or even kill someone out of self-defense or to save a life that is threatened), would it not follow that it would be morally justified to torture a criminal to get information out of him in order to save a life? If we choose not to torture someone so we can save a life, then we are placing the dignity of the criminal over the life and dignity of the innocent person who is about to die—something the Bible doesn’t do.
As Jesus said of the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18, “In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. ‘This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.’”
http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/17/yes-christians-can-support-torture/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=0498dc9fd5-RSS_DAILY_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-0498dc9fd5-79248369
” If we choose not to torture someone so we can save a life, then we are placing the dignity of the criminal over the life and dignity of the innocent person who is about to die—something the Bible doesn’t do.”
Of course when it comes to torture it is purely hypothetical we know the subject is a criminal.
The person might be a terrorist or he might just be a cab driver, or an accountant, or a lawyer. There might be a plot or there might just be a bunch of dots we connected. There might be a bomb somewhere or maybe there is just a suitcase. Maybe the airline tickets are for co conspirators or maybe they are for a vacation.
And even if the person is part of a plot he might know where the bomb is or maybe or adversaries know enough to use ‘need to know’ just like we do.
How many 10 of thousands worked worked of fat man and little boy in WWII and did not have a clue they were working on atomic bombs. How many might have guessed there were working on poison gas for a weapon. What would torture have revealed about the most devastating weapon of the war.
The bible is a wonderful thing. It gives small men certainty.
But the world is more complex than the child like parables so favored by true believers.
What we need are effective methods sanctioned by law. And that requires a bit more thought than the child like belief that we can just beat the information out of any Joe we drag in off the street.
Unfortunately, for all of us, we don’t see much of that around here.
bfm – General LeMay was privy to classified information coming from Enigma and was ordered not to fly missions. They were afraid he would be shot down, captured and tortured for the information. He continued to fly the occasional mission.
Every American should be alarmed by the Jose Padilla case. Padilla was a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil tortured prior to charge and prior to guilty verdict. This tyranny could easily be used against a member of the Tea Party, NRA or NAACP.
If you read the actual case, he was basically alleged to be linked to an alleged person alleged to be linked to an alleged terrorist. It is essentially a legal house of cards and a federal judge actually allowed this case to proceed.
This U.S. citizen that was tortured received a lengthy prison sentence. He may or not have been guilty but this Kangaroo Court process is extremely dangerous to all Americans.
The government can accuse anyone of anything and a federal judge is allowed to remain on the bench after participating in this corruption by the Department of Justice and Department of Defense.
Ross – the US Constitution does not guarantee that if you are innocent you will be found not guilty, just that if you are found guilty you will have gotten a fair trial. Did Padilla get a fair trial?
Coward!
For the reading impaired: the question is not whether the use of torture is/is not legal, it’s whether there exist circumstances when it should be used if every other legal option has been exhausted?
So answer the question: Would you support the use of torture if the lives of innocent people (including your own family) were at risk and every other legal option had been exhausted?
No more hiding behind JT; no more dodging. Do you have the integrity to answer the question?
“For the reading impaired: the question is not whether the use of torture is/is not legal, it’s whether there exist circumstances when it should be used if every other legal option has been exhausted? ”
We have answered that question several times. But for those with cognitive difficulties we will answer it again.
Until there is some reason to believe that torture has any efficacy there would be no reason to use it so we would not. Further we will take the strongest measures possible to prosecute for war crimes who do.
If that needs repeating, just ask. We are always glad to reach out to those with difficulties and help them understand.
bfm – torture has efficacy for some. Not for others. There is a rather infamous case of a mobster who needed information so he put the guy’s head in a vise. He had to keep closing it until an eye popped out, but he got the information he wanted.
We have to separate “fact” from “suspicion” – that’s the big problem since 9/11, there is very little facts/evidence while we are treating suspicion and accusation as proof.
BFM, lol.
Inga – have I ever told you that you didn’t know your place? Since you laughed at bfm’s comment, I now know what kind of humor you like.
Thank you Karen.
There is so much need for integrity in government but it won’t ever happen if the people don’t model it and demand it. What passes for it these days is integrity to a political party; this blog does a great job of proving that point over and over.
The only people being completely honest in these discussions readily admit they would support the use of torture to save innocent lives, especially those of their own family. Admitting that does not make one a monster. Using torture before exhausting all other options is not anything anyone here is supporting; at least not from my perspective.
Integrity requires one first admit what limits they would place on these techniques when it involved the lives of innocent people, including their own family members. Without that, then the rest of it is partisan BS and undeserving of any consideration.
BFM @2:10 AM, exactly. I bet she didn’t hear that part of the interview in which the torturer said, “other methods broke him” eventually. I watched both interviews.
If we can all get above petty partisanship, all Americans should decide what kind of government we want to leave to our children and future generations?
Do we want a “James Madison model” of government or a Cold War version of the “Eric Honaker model” of government in East Germany – the latter totalitarian model is the path were are currently on.
Regardless of whose fault it is, what direction doe we want to go in? We have to correct course if we want the James Madison model for future Americans.
I think every president is guilty of some kind of unfair treatment of our enemies. Obama has even droned innocent Americans but I see no uproar over it. I’m sure Bush 41 and Clinton and even Franklin Roosevelt is guilty of torture of some kind. Lets just go get them and hang all of our formerly elected presidents and vice presidents from a tree. Cheney is nearly dead for goodness sakes, he has a dead heart kept alive by drugs and a battery. Carter is in the midst of dementia. Clinton already has a weak heart and is forced to wake up to Hillary every morning. Every single president has been guilty of torture all the way back to George Washington. It’s the nature of the job and do you think they care what we the people think when it comes to our countries safety. You can’t cherry pick who is guilty of this and who isn’t. Their all guilty of it!
BFM:
There is a difference between political “policies” (that operate within legal and constitutional boundaries) vs. “felonies and war crimes”.
When the Bush Administration and Congress enacted torture into federal law, it was the first time in over 200 years of American history.
In all fairness the slippery slope probably started in the 1970’s with the so-called “War on Drugs” when the U.S. Supreme Court switched the balance of power from the Judicial Branch (judges) to the Executive Branch by allowing searches that violated both the letter & spirit of the 4th Amendment (instead of amending the 4th Amendment).
The U.S. Supreme Court has a constitutional duty to provide “judicial review” (centuries old legal doctrine) – making sure legislation passed by Congress and state legislatures follows the letter & spirit of the U.S. Constitution. You should read the 4th Amendment for yourself, instead of perverting it’s reading in the 1970’s there should have been an effort to amend it.
In my view the 4th Amendment is perfect as written and the U.S. Supreme Court should return power back to judges.
Paul,
As long as the Judicial Branch of government is independent and remains it’s integrity of providing judicial review over the political branches of government, any plaintiff harmed should be able to challenge anything or anyone.
The whole premise of Grand Juries and Petit Juries is to provide a constitutional “check” on both the Executive Branch officials (prosecutors) and the Judicial Branch officials (judges).
When oath-sworn government officials refuse to provide judicial review and enforce the U.S. Constitution – it is perfectly proper for citizen plaintiffs to petition to “convene a grand jury to appoint a special prosecutor”.
This can even be done by a “pro se” plaintiff (without an attorney). So a torture victim, like Jose Padilla, has the authority under the U.S. Constitution to appoint a special prosecutor for a criminal case against any government official like Cheney or Rumsfeld.
The real scandal today is that the U.S. Supreme Court has required defenseless crime victims to provide “evidence” of torture and domestic spying against the most powerful national security agencies on Earth. If there were ever an extraordinary circumstance for judicial intervention – this is it.
The “political” Department of Justice (Executive Branch) has chosen to investigate the crime victims instead of the alleged (Executive Branch) criminals in this case. Even with this conflict of interest multiple Bush & Obama attorneys general refuse to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate these agencies. Public newspapers have confirmed blatant constitutional violations (probable cause) by these agencies for such an investigation.
Ross – you can petition your little heart away, however it does not mean you are going to get it what you wish for.
Since we no longer have the constitutional “rule of law” in the United States and Dick Cheney (and friends) gamed that very system – it’s hard to now use it as a shield for his defense.
Assuming Cheney is convicted, generally speaking with any criminals (including war criminals) showing lack of remorse toward their crime victims earns the convicted tougher punishment.
It should be noted that one of Cheney’s alleged crime victims (totally innocent) simply wanted an official and public apology from their perpetrators, money was not the primary request. Cheney’s response to this crime victim was essentially “FU”. This plaintiff alone could likely have a special prosecutor appointed by a federal judge without Obama or the political DOJ.
Ross – if it was that easy to get a special prosecutor, don’t you think there would be a bunch looking into the Obama scandals?
“BarkinDog – one of the Supreme Court justices at the time of the Nuremberg Trials said that the judgments would not have been upheld by the SC had they been appealed there. The Nuremberg Trials were ‘winner’s justice’ not real justice. People were hung for ex post facto war crimes.”
Right. Who ya’ gonna’ believe the justices, convictions, and executions at Nuremberg or a supreme court justice who never heard the case or issued a legal opinion?
And what ever the standards were at the time of Nuremberg, is there any doubt what the standards are since Nuremberg as expressed in our system of military justice, federal law and international law and treaties?
bfm – Nuremberg was a big deal and better reported than trials today. The justice’s claim was more on the fact that these were ex post facto offenses they were convicted of. As such, they would not have survived an appeal to the SC. Using exactly the same standard you could convict FDR, Truman, Marshall, Eisenhower, Patton, Montgomery, etc.
” Using exactly the same standard you could convict FDR, Truman, Marshall, Eisenhower, Patton, Montgomery, etc.”
So would you advise Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Bybee, Yoo, Gonzales and others to cop a plea – perhaps admit to policies that lead to detainee abuse in order to avoid charges of War Crimes?
bfm – if Inga will not take my advice how can you expect Cheney to?
” if Inga will not take my advice how can you expect Cheney to?”
Some women just don’t know their place, do they, Paul?
bfm – I would not know what place that would be, that Inga should be in. I just wanted you to see how silly your proposition was.