Search
RSS Feed
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
Blogs Eric Reads
Waterboarding Americans? Now That’s Torture
First of all, a hello and Happy New Year to everyone! I’m back from my trip to Israel. Pictures will be along shortly.
Now, let’s talk about waterboarding. It’s a very controversial issue these days. Some people say it’s torture. Some people say it’s not torture. Still others won’t even bother to answer the question. That’s why, no matter how many times we watched waterboarding in action, nobody could definitively say where it fell on the spectrum of legality in the United States.
Until now.
Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has cleared up the question of whether waterboarding is torture once and for all. His answer… well, see for yourself.
U.S. intelligence chief Mike McConnell said in a magazine interview that waterboarding would be torture if it was used against him personally, but stopped short of condemning the controversial interrogation technique.
Wait, what? There’s no possible way that last sentence could be right… is there?
McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, was quoted in the New Yorker edition released on Sunday as defining torture as “something that would cause excruciating pain.”
Asked if waterboarding — the practice of covering a person’s face with a cloth and then dripping water on it to bring on a feeling of drowning — fit that definition, McConnell said that for him personally, it would.
“If I had water draining into my nose, oh God, I just can’t imagine how painful!” McConnell said in the article. “Whether it’s torture by anybody else’s definition, for me it would be torture.”
But he rejected a suggestion that he personally condemned the practice.
Wow. So, if somebody strapped you down and tried to convince you you were drowning, that would be torture. But do it to someone else… and you can’t say? Only the twisted mind of a true Bushite could justify this unique kind of hypocrisy.
Thanks for clearing up those sticky legal questions, Mike. Anyone waterboarding Americans: torture. Americans waterboarding anyone else: not torture.
Hey, world! This could be you!
Kit Bond Keeps Digging on Waterboarding
The other day, Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) played down waterboarding, saying that it’s just like swimming. Today, Sen. Bond decided to clarify his remarks, although he kept up the pretense that we aren’t actually using waterboarding even though everyone knows that we are.
Bond explains that there are multiple types of waterboarding. There’s the freestyle, the backstroke, the sidestroke… oh, wait, that was yesterday. Nevermind.
One of the types of waterboarding is the kind that the Japanese used on American POWs during World War II, and for which they were convicted of war crimes. That, of course, is torture. There’s also the “practice” waterboarding that we use on our soldiers as part of an interrogation survival training course, which is not torture.
Now, Bond is so caught up parroting that we don’t use waterboarding that he doesn’t quite mention where what the United States is doing at Guantanamo and elsewhere fits on this spectrum, but it looks to me like there are two categories of waterboarding.
- Something one country does to punish and interrorgate its enemies (torture).
- Something one country does to teach its own, volunteer soldiers how to survive such tactics (not torture).
Which of those two categories does Kit Bond think the United States fits into?
Watch Kit Bond “clarify” here.
Bush Should Listen to the Generals on Torture
Over the entire course of the Iraq War, any time that the Democratic Congress has attempted to take any action relating to the running of the war, President Bush has responded that, unlike Congress, he “listens to the generals” when he decides what to do. He’s done it again, and again, and again.
So why isn’t Bush listening to the generals when it comes to torture?
Yesterday, the House passed a bill by a vote of 222-199 the would ban the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation methods,” which we in the real world call torture. Instead, the CIA would be limited to the interrogation tools approved by the military in 2006, meaning that the CIA would not be prohibited from:
forcing detainees to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; placing hoods or sacks over detainees’ heads or duct tape over their eyes; beating, shocking, or burning detainees; threatening them with military dogs; exposing them to extreme heat or cold; conducting mock executions; depriving them of food, water, or medical care; and waterboarding.
Immediately after the bill was passed, the White House issued a veto threat, stating a number of objections with the bill including the provision prohibiting torture.
For all his clamoring about listening to the generals, it seems like President Bush is ignoring the generals on this one. After the vote, thirty retired generals and admirals sent a letter to John Rockefeller and Silvestre Reyes, chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees, respectively, begging them to pass the legislation over Bush’s veto. They wrote:
We believe it is vital to the safety of our men and women in uniform that the United States not sanction the use of interrogation methods it would find unacceptable if inflicted by the enemy against captured Americans. That principle, embedded in the Army Field Manual, has guided generations of American military personnel in combat.
The current situation, in which the military operates under one set of interrogation rules that are public and the CIA operates under a separate, secret set of rules, is unwise and impractical. In order to ensure adherence across the government to the requirements of the Geneva Conventions and to maintain the integrity of the humane treatment standards on which our own troops rely, we believe that all U.S. personnel - military and civilian - should be held to a single standard of humane treatment reflected in the Army Field Manual.
This is hardly an unreasonable request. Protect the safety of our men and women in uniform. Adhere to the Geneva Convention. Uphold our integrity. Why wouldn’t Bush want to do all of these things? Shouldn’t the safety of the troops be one of the president’s most important wartime obligations?
But Bush is ignoring these generals and admirals. Their service to the United States doesn’t give them any leverage with him. Of course, they are all retired, so Bush can just say he’s listening to his current generals on the ground in Iraq, right? You know, like Dave Petraeus?
General David Petraeus underscored this point in an open letter to the troops in May in which he cautioned against the use of interrogation techniques not authorized by the Field Manual:
What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight. . . . is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect…. Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone “talk;” however, what the individual says may be of questionable value. In fact, our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that was published last year shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.
Even General Petraeus agrees that torture is wrong! Mr. Bush, if you’re going to continue to shield your actions with the claim that you are listening to the generals, then could you at least take a little step back and actually listen? Especially to the ones like General Petraeus, who already tell you what you want to hear on a regular basis. For their sake and for the sake of all of our soldiers, rescind your veto threat so that the next time you say “This government does not torture” we can actually believe you.
Waterboarding: Just Like Taking a Swim
Missouri’s own Senator Kit Bond is the expert on what is and is not torture. And what’s at the top of the “Not Torture” list? Waterboarding, of course.
GWEN IFILL: Do you think that waterboarding, as I described it, constitutes torture?
SEN. KIT BOND: There are different ways of doing it. It’s like swimming, freestyle, backstroke. The waterboarding could be used almost to define some of the techniques that our trainees are put through, but that’s beside the point. It’s not being used.
It was a long time ago, but I still remember my first swimming lesson at summer camp. They taught us the breaststroke, the backstroke, and then they waterboarded us!
Yeah, right. Do the right-wingers really think we’re going to believe that waterboarding is like a day at the beach? Even though we have the video evidence showing what it really is?
And what’s that last bit about waterboarding “not being used.” Bullshit, Senator. The United States uses waterboarding, and the whole world knows it. Why isn’t lying under oath of office not considered “lying under oath?”
Watch Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) lie through his teeth to the American public below.
Get Flash to see this player.
U.S. Media Says Torture is OK
Whenever anyone from the Bush Administration says anything, regardless of whether they have the evidence to back it up, they can take comfort knowing that their trusted lapdogs in the U.S. media will report it as the whole, unadulterated truth. Yesterday, ABC News reported that John Kiriakou, leader of a CIA team that captured and waterboarded a crazy, schizophrenic al-Qaeda operative named Abu Zubaydah, revealed that he believes waterboarding to be torture, but necessary:
A leader of the CIA team that captured the first major al Qaeda figure, Abu Zubaydah, says subjecting him to waterboarding was torture but necessary.
In the first public comment by any CIA officer involved in handling high-value al Qaeda targets, John Kiriakou, now retired, said the technique broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds.
“The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate,” said Kiriakou in an interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News’ “World News With Charles Gibson” and “Nightline.”
“Well,” I said to myself, “we are a nation of laws, and the law says that torture is illegal.” And I went to bed thinking that I would wake up to see the traditional media finally ripping apart the Bush Administration. “Bush Administration Tortures” the papers would say, “Ex-CIA Agent admits government broke federal and international law.”
But those weren’t the headlines I saw this morning. No, the U.S. traditional media has accepted Kiriakou’s assertion that waterboarding provided valuable information on face value, and has given George Bush and his cronies a free pass to continue doing whatever they please–laws be damned!–for the next year.
MSNBC: Waterboarding ‘probably saved lives’
The Day: Ex-agent: Waterboarding got results
Dallas-Fort Worth Star-Telegram: Waterboarding is torture but worked, ex-agent says
USA Today: Ex-spy describes waterboarding as torture, says it broke al-Qaeda figure in seconds
Bloomberg: Ex-CIA Agent Says Waterboarding May Be Torture, Yields Results
FOXNews: Report: CIA Agent Says Waterboarding is ‘Torture, But Necessary’
Baltimore Sun: Waterboarding worked wonders, ex-agent says
In every instance, the American media has pounced on the “success” of waterboarding without stopping to ask for any evidence of success other than the word of one former CIA agent. And the fact that it’s torture? Apparently that doesn’t matter to the U.S. traditional media as long as the Bush Administration says that it’s working.
For contrast, let’s look at some of this morning headlines from foreign media:
Sydney Morning Herald: Suspect was tortured, former CIA man says
Philippines Inquirer: Ex-CIA agent admits waterboarding, but calls it torture
Press TV: Ex-CIA agent admits waterboarding
The Australian: Ex-CIA agent admits suspect was tortured
The Daily Telegraph: Ex-CIA agent: We used torture and it worked
Outside of the U.S., the big news story of the day is that the government of the United States officially sanctions torture. Only the Daily Telegraph even mentions Kiriakou’s claims of success, and even then the connotation is drastically different. Compare “We used torture and it worked” with “We used torture but it worked.” Which of those sounds like reporting and which sounds like a pitiful defense?
It looks like most of the media outlets, domestic and foreign, and using the same text from a Washington Post/AFP story, but the similarities in the text only exaggerate the differences in the headlines. The media of this country are being put to shame by their foreign counterparts. Only the foreign press has the stones to report facts–that the the CIA admits to torture–in big, bold letters and leave the Administration’s unsubstantiated claims of success for the fine print. That’s real journalism, and it’s the biggest difference between the traditional media here and the traditional media abroad.
(Cross-posted at DailyKos)
Waterboard John Ashcroft
In a speech yesterday at the University of Colorado, former AG John Ashcroft defended the use of waterboarding to interrogate Muslims suspected terrorists. His reason? No surprise here: 9/11 changed everything.™
Not only that, but Ashcroft was so certain that waterboarding should be used that he even offered to be waterboarded himself!
Let’s waterboard John Ashcroft. Why? Because it is in the best interest of the United States of America.
According to the Rocky Mountain News:
Ashcroft also responded to questions from the audience. The first question came from a woman who asked if Ashcroft would be willing to be subjected to waterboarding.
“The things that I can survive, if it were necessary to do them to me, I would do,” he said.
You can survive waterboarding–the point of waterboarding is for the person being tortured to only think they’re drowning. Still, you must be wondering, what good could come from waterboarding John Ashcroft?
Ashcroft wouldn’t be the first American to be waterboarded. Homeland Security advisor Malcom Nance volunteered to be waterboarded. Current TV’s Kaj Larsen agreed to be videotaped as he was being waterboarded.
And both men unquestioningly agreed that waterboarding is torture.
Perhaps if John Ashcroft experienced waterboarding, something he claims is necessary to protect America, he too might have a change of heart.
(Cross-posted at DailyKos)
Update: To clarify, I am 100% against torture, but if you look at the reports from the two people (linked above) who agreed to be waterboared, the experience convinced them that waterboarding is torture. I would expect Ashcroft to have the same epiphany.
I certainly wouldn’t kidnap him, extraordinarily rendition him to Guantanamo Bay and torture him, but I would suggest taking him up on his offer.
Take Mukasey Up On His Offer
In justifying his vote to support torture Michael Mukasey, Chuck Schumer said Mukasey:
made clear to me [in private] that, were Congress to pass a law banning certain interrogation techniques, we would clearly be acting within our constitutional authority. And he flatly told me that the President would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law, not even under some theory of inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution. He also pledged to enforce such a law and repeated his willingness to leave office rather than participate in a violation of law.
Sen. Kennedy is taking Mukasey up on his offer with S.1943, which will prohibit the following:
(1) Forcing an individual to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner.
(2) Placing a hood or sack over the head of an individual, or using or placing duct tape over the eyes of an individual.
(3) Applying a beating, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain to an individual.
(4) Subjecting an individual to the procedure known as ‘waterboarding’.
(5) Subjecting an individual to threats or attack from a military working dog.
(6) Inducing hypothermia or heat injury in an individual.
(7) Conducting a mock execution of an individual.
(8) Depriving an individual of necessary food, water, or medical care.
For some reason, only five Senators are cosponsoring this badly needed legislation (Why? Are the rest afraid that the least-liked president in American history will say mean things about them), and, of those, Joe Biden is the only presidential candidate supporting it.
Let’s see the presidential contenders show some real leadership. Contact information for each of the candidates who are current Senators is below. My vote will depend on whether or not they will take an affirmative stand against this Administration’s views on illegal torture. Let them know that yours will too.
- Hillary Clinton: (202) 224-4451, email
- Chris Dodd: (202) 224-2823, email
- Barack Obama: (202) 224-2854, email
- John McCain: (202) 224-2235, email
Watch this video and tell me it isn’t torture.
Waterboarding. George Bush claims it isn’t torture. Michael Mukasey won’t call it torture. But DHS Advisor Malcolm Nance and Sen. John McCain both say it is. So what are the rest of us supposed to think?
That’s why Current TV’s Kaj Larsen had himself waterboarded by American Special Forces trainers. Watch this ten minute video, and then tell me that waterboarding isn’t torture.
Get Flash to see this player.