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.
Inga:
Do you understand rendition? It is essentially kidnapping someone, then turning them over to another nation for outsourced torture. You okay with the people in the Clinton administration, including Bill Clinton, who ordered that people be tortured?
“Do you understand rendition? It is essentially kidnapping someone, then turning them over to another nation for outsourced torture”
I personally am very concerned about the policy and act of rendition. But it is my understanding that the supreme court has weighed in on the legal act and found it constitutional.
As for rendition to a country for the purpose of having the subject tortured, that was a Bush administration trick.
She specifically mentioned that the Clinton administration did not allow rendition to countries for the purpose of torture – based on the article that you cited:
“The guidelines for Clinton-era renditions required that subjects could be sent only to countries where they were not likely to be tortured — countries that gave assurances to that effect and whose compliance was monitored by the State Department and the intelligence community. It’s impossible to be certain that those standards were upheld every time, but serious efforts were made to see that they were.”
If you have reliable information that your article is incorrect then why not tell us all where that information is located.
Directing readers to an article then directly contradicting that article does not give us confidence that you are using fair argumentation.
BTW, there are plenty of readers like me that don’t care what party or administration used torture – we are ready for prosecution.
bfm – how are you going to believe Clinton on rendition when he lied to the entire country about Monica Lewinski?
“how are you going to believe Clinton on rendition when he lied to the entire country about Monica Lewinski?”
Was the Brookings article based on the testimony of Clinton? I don’t think so, but I could be wrong.
On the other hand if Clinton did not torture the way he did not have sex with that woman, he ought to be a hero to all those torture apologists oops I mean happy campers.
Here is a hypothetical that most military experts would likely agree with and should be debated:
What if prior to the first Gulf War in Iraq, American troops were viewed as sadistic torturers? It be plausible that having a reputation as torturers would result in thousands more U.S. troop casualties from the first Gulf War and many more casualties in future conflicts.
During the first Gulf War thousands of Saddam’s troops peacefully surrendered to U.S. troops (actually happy to see Americans) because they thought we were the good guys and they would be treated humanely if captured.
If we had our current reputation as sadistic torturers and locking people up without trial or charge during the first Gulf War – it is very likely that the Iraqi troops would have never surrendered peacefully resulting in heavy U.S. casualties. It also turns our allies in the region into enemies making an attack on the homeland more likely.
Just a debate point but using torture may cost more U.S. lives longterm than not using torture.
Haz, your article spoke of rendition. Not waterboarding. Also the point #4 states that Clinton allowed rendition only to countries that would not torture. Didn’t you read your own article?
Richard Bruce Cheney is a morally repugnant coward. This man asked for and received five draft deferments during the Vietnam war.
When Cheney became eligible for the draft, during the Vietnam War, he applied for and received five draft deferments. In 1989, The Washington Post writer George C. Wilson interviewed Cheney as the next Secretary of Defense; when asked about his deferments, Cheney reportedly said, “I had other priorities in the ’60s than military service”.[21] Cheney testified during his confirmation hearings in 1989 that he received deferments to finish a college career that lasted six years rather than four, owing to sub-par academic performance and the need to work to pay for his education.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney
Richard Bruce “other priorities” Cheney in his official capacity as Vice President was directly responsible for the following unlawful/immoral actions of the US government and it’s agents following the attacks of 11Sept01:
Torture, kidnapping, elective war based wholly upon lies, the total surveillance state, revocation of habeas corpus and the use of terrorism on civilian populations.
Richard Bruce “other priorities” Cheney and his war criminal, torture apologist ilk think nothing of sending your friends and families off to fight, die and torture in support of their bankrupt stillborn ideologies of wanton power lust while they pound the bully-pulpit from the bravery of being out of range.
Hey personanongrata: How do you feel about that draft dodger William Jeff Clinton? Any animus for ol’ Billy Jeff? Or is that a special thing only for conservatives?
Personanongrata – should we get into Bill Clinton’s draft evasion record? As someone who was draft eligible during Vietnam, my draft board gave me two automatic deferments without my asking, while I was in college. When I realized that it added to the time I was draft eligible, I asked them (politely of course) not to do it any more. Then they immediately tried to draft me. 🙂
In general, I do not condemn anyone for avoiding the draft, but I found Clinton’s to be obnoxious because he blew a Fulbright Scholarship and stayed out of the draft. And I still have a problem with those who ran to Canada. I love our Canadian friends, but they should never have taken the draft dodgers in.
Torture is used today mainly to prevent people from telling what they know about covert, usually-illegal intel operations…such as having Osama recruit the fine folks aka al Quaeda – and the creation/management of groups whose mission is to overthrow or assassinate heads of states like Syria, Venezuela, Ecuador, and many others around the world who are not assisting U.S. banks and energy companies in the plundering of natural resources.
I’m not aware of of Clinton administration using torture.
See my comment made at 1:13, with a link to an article published by left of center Brookings Institute.
Darren Smith:
Good points but “legal risk” of facing a judge or jury can actually be beneficial. In both police work and national security, there is rarely criminal prosecution of government officials if the violation was done in good faith and there are mitigating circumstances – but you never want to make torture legal.
If there is a genuine exigent circumstance, the executive branch official or contractor will break the law and therefore will face a judge or jury. If the law breaking was legitimate there is little risk of prosecution.
That’s the role of judges and juries – to weigh the various factors of a case instead of a black & white interpretation of the law.
There’s a Greek philosophical quote that goes something like, ” Desperate times calls for desperate measures.”
3,000 lives plus, have called for desperate measures. Sometimes time is of the essence and tough decisions have to be made. No one likes this type of interrogation, but if it means saving many lives, it might have to be done.
First, I am not condoning the use of torture but I want to discuss this pragmatically for a single situation.
One thing worth considering, though it might be difficult to accept, is that if at some point in the future the US government comes completely clean in the matter of torture now and makes a commitment to stop the practice and adhere to the law and treaties if a dire enough threat comes about such as an impending WMD attack against a major US city and a captured terrorist is found to know where it is but won’t say you can probably expect that the torture will be used and the government will cover it up.
They are not going to let tens of thousands of people perish under such an attack. If this unlikely scenario happens those holding this terrorist will do whatever they can to extract the location of the WMD to prevent the attack and there will be plausible deniability afforded to those in high places.
If after the act is prevented and information about the torture becomes public knowledge, they will prolong the investigation of the case for years and if it does not go away and comes to a head they will simply say “Yes, the terrorist WMD attack was prevented, torture was used………..And?”
Just because an act is illegal does not mean that it actually cannot be performed.
If any nation was faced with such a certainly dire situation where tens of thousands of their citizens are going to die otherwise they are also going to do whatever it takes.
During the second world war, both Britain and the United States allowed various attacks to take place, killing hundreds, if not thousands, against their own citizens because they did not want to reveal the fact that they broke their enemies’ cryptography and new the attack was coming. The view was they allowed this to happen for the greater good of winning the war. So governments are going to have to make individual decisions like this as well as what might be used in the imminent WMD scenario.
As uncomfortable and shocking these realities are the are going to occur. Nobody in their right consciousness is going to allow tens of thousands of their countrymen die for an ideal when a tragedy can be prevented in the WMD case or destroy a major strategic advantage that could change the course of the war. A painful choice but perhaps a greater good in a perverse situation such as a world war.
That said we need to concentrate at what happens in wide practice, as is the case with in the field or against regular detainees. That is certainly something to avoid doing with regard to torture. It needs to stop and it needs to stop now. But we should be realistic about there are going to be unique, rare, and individual events where sometimes the law is going to be ignored. It isn’t ideal but it is going to happen eventually.
The problem with the use of torture as described in this article, government officials believed that the WMD situation I described above was omnipresent and clear to protect the US when it was not. That is why they made such a mess of the affair and engaged in the torture. The threat might not have been as dire as they believed.
I’m not aware of of Clinton administration using torture. If they did, then of course they should also be prosecuted. BTW, I don’t like any of any of the Clintons, except Chelsea and her new baby.
Gotta go now…poop patrol before it rains again. This thread has been great practice … now I may impeach my dog. Dratted poop is everywhere! 🙂
Inga…Sigh. I’ll sign no petition, and I have stated several times why. I notice you only got specific on the Bush43 administration…nothing about Clinton? Prior? BDS is a tough addiction. Take 2 aspirin and relax.
Ross @3:32, yes, good start.
Ross…I’d prefer Cheney just disappear in to the ether. Nothing against him or for him, but his time is up…send him home to mommy.
On a similar vein, please tell me that the only leading candidates for 2016 are not Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. Please. You mean to tell me that in a nation of 300+ million souls there is not another field of potential leaders to look at? And pleaase, pretty please don’t propose Senator Warren…last thing we need about now is a Cherokee White Lady in the White house. 🙂
If so, we are toast and don’t know it…yet.
Aridog, sigh. I am aware of the Obama administration’s stance on prosecuting. The are wrong. Sign the petition.
Jettexas, well shame on those cowards. I hope no one votes for any of them again. Think?
Inga – what difference does the major standard bearer for either party make for you, you are going to vote Green, right?
I guess Olly forgot that Professor Turley wrote the article above CLEARLY communicating the illegality and immorality of torture. I suppose Olly doesn’t realize that he also just insulted JT with is comments above. I sometimes think that because JT is representing the House in the ACA lawsuit that conservatives here think that he changed his personal views and legal opinions about other issues, like torture, or global warming. Olly, JT has for years now said in many many different venues that torture is UNEQUIVOCALLY wrong. You paint with a broad brush, which includes JT, do you realize that, or didn’t you read his article above?
No Olly, you seem to want to have your views on torture accepted by everyone else so badly you ignored JT’s words which those who are against torture here agree with. JT has said UNEQUIVOCALLY that torture is immoral and illegal. You are simply trying to slither way from YOUR own words. JT has indicated here and in the many many videos I posted that he thinks that torture is NEVER acceptable under ANY circumstances. Until he says otherwise, will believe his words here and elsewhere.
Oh for pity sake. Start with the top. Bush, Cheney, Haden, Yee, Ashcroft, Bybee…. You aren’t aware of these people’s roles in the torture program?
Inga – if you had not been handed a partisan report by a Democratic committee of the Senate, designed to fire up the base and deflect from Gruber, you would not know who all those people were either.
Pssst: Eric Holder is not taking my calls. Dang.
@Inga ~ No, because he is a minority and that will used against them, as a reason for doing it. That’s the most common reason given for disagreeing with any of Obama’s policies. But they should then impeach his white half! lol
If they choose the “Leahy Truth Commission” route, most “order-takers” will not be criminally prosecuted. Most interrogators didn’t attend law school or pass the legal bar.
If there are prosecutions it will be the government attorneys and higher up. It’s also likely torture doctors will have their medical licenses revoked at least temporarily.
If the government attorneys are disbarred and the torture doctors have their medical licenses revoked even temporarily (2-5 years) that alone will create a strong deterrent.
During the Nuremberg Trials of World War Two having lack of remorse by war criminals resulted in harsher penalties – so people like Cheney is inviting a prison sentence. This can happen without Obama or the DOJ.
Ross –
Can you cite evidence for this?