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.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-human-rights/now-can-torture-survivor-khaled-el-masri-have-his-apology
Nick,
During that same time period the FBI also blacklisted Martin Luther King, Jr. (a non-violent Baptist minister) and tried to coerce him into committing suicide.
Blacklisting is actually far more evil than torture and false imprisonment.
You made our point actually. There is always mission-creep. It may start with punishing bad guys but eventually harms the innocent also.
There is some sweet justice though: Martin Luther King, Jr. has a mega-monument on the National Mall in Washington, DC between the monuments of other great Americans like Lincoln, Jefferson and FDR.
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover’s name will no longer appear on any government buildings in a few years. History does sort the heroes from the villains!
@Inga
I note that video is a few years old.
Yet in the years since those words we don’t have any new compelling information that torture practiced by the CIA produced useful information.
Are their laws that are broken because to follow the law would put oneself or others in harm’s way? Yes. Do we prosecute every law that is broken? No. We have rules for war. We have rules of engagement. And then we have command authority that provides the senior in command discretionary power to act within a manner that is intended to honor the oath they took. If they bypass option a) and option b) without just cause, then prosecute them. But if a) and b) do not work and the threat still exists then do what it takes to honor that oath.
Quite frankly, I believe it’s the dishonor of the oath at the highest levels of government that has established a growing culture that believes you honor yourself first and rule of law be damned.
http://youtu.be/7sY-LOyQvFo
Jonathan Turley answered the question, “Does torture work?”
Nick, by mistake I just posted a question to you that actually is about statements made by someone else.
You may care to respond but it was not my intention to attribute that position to you.
My bad.
I know there are liberals here who would love to see Bush and Cheney tortured.
“Of course we don’t prosecute for taking action; horrible, terrible action that injures one but saves many; unless of course it’s an opportunity to destroy the other political party.”
So your argument is that torturers are like civilians in a hostage situation, and hostages violate the law when they defend themselves, but we don’t usually prosecute them because we recognize their dire situation… so by analogy we should not prosecute torturers either?
And further the only reason anyone would want to prosecute a torturer is for political purposes?
Did I get that right?
As Trooper York pointed out the other day. The FBI tortured KKK terrorists in Miss. in order to find the bodies of slain civil rights leaders. Liberals loved that.
It is clear we need to start prosecuting the leadership at the DOJ (starting with the Counter-Intelligence divisions that violate the U.S. Constitution) and other national security agencies that are still defending torture and indefinite detention. The FBI Counter-Intel Division should be closed down completely and given to the CIA since they are a foreign agency.
If they have no remorse let’s prosecute them!
So when Professor Turley says torture doesn’t work, he is telling a LIE?
Inga – when JT says that torture never works I would say he was misinformed. And attorneys don’t lie, they misspeak.
Olly’s question was “would you DENY the use of torture” …… No “support” the use of torture…
Myr, You’re on the wrong thread, the threat to our Constitution is being discussed on the Apologia post JT just made.
What should now be clear to all Americans is that over half our population doesn’t care about the law or our Constitution.
“well recognized legal standards”. Meaning what, prosecutorial discretion? Yes, I know you blew through 8 red lights at 80 mph but we are not going to prosecute you because your wife would have bled out.
Of course we don’t prosecute for taking action; horrible, terrible action that injures one but saves many; unless of course it’s an opportunity to destroy the other political party.
Thank you Msjettexas. I believe everyone’s gut reaction is to say “he!! yes”. But then all of their paradigms begin massaging that answer to fit something that runs against that gut reaction. I also agree the vast majority that support such a use also favor prosecution for it’s abuse.
“Correction to above: there really is no definition of “terrorism””
Do you mean there is no definition or there is no definition you agree with?
I am good with terrorism is the use of violence or threat of violence against civilian or non combatant populations to further social or political goals.
That may not cover every hypothetical we might dream up. But I think that sweeps in most of the stuff that concerns me today.
We can add “torture doesn’t work” to the 3 great lies
The checks in the mail
I’ll still love you in the morning
The 3rd one will get my comment deleted
A blanket statement like “torture doesn’t work” is a lie on its face. It does work well w/ some people all the way to it not working w/ some, and most people falling in the well known bell curve.
The flat ass lie that it “DOESN’T WORK” is because liars and creeps like Feinstein, who is almost as creepy as Cheney, know that the vast majority of people think using torture is acceptable. So, this blatant lie is a lame attempt to swing public opinion.
Americans face a far greater danger from a totalitarian police state. There are no terrorist threats that could harm us as much as destroying the rule of law.
Innocent Americans that were tortured or blacklisted on U.S. soil have been destroyed and killed by the post 9/11 practices – that is the greatest national security threat we face – lawless government that turns on it’s own citizens.
Correction to above: there really is no definition of “terrorism”
BFM,
Thank you. No, you wouldn’t deny it’s use but you would prosecute those that did use it. And when the Justice Department is faced with the prospect of prosecuting them, they will have to weigh the evidence to determine if it was absolutely necessary. Kind of like not prosecuting those that took down Flight 93 short of it’s target. Didn’t they technically brake the law?
” Kind of like not prosecuting those that took down Flight 93 short of it’s target. Didn’t they technically brake the law?”
As I understand you question you are asking if civilians on Flight 93 broke the law trying to recapture the plane?
I would have to say in my opinion no. They acted within well recognized legal standards to defend themselves and others on the plane.
Perhaps you would care to explain why you think their actions could be considered a violation and how their actions are related to torture.