Torture memos released

[Good Old Neon]

Though you could certainly accuse him of using hyperbole to emphasize his point, there does exist a troubling connection between one’s willingness to accept the use of torture, and one’s religious beliefs – as indicated by the accompanying poll. I should add that Andrew Sullivan is a devout catholic – lest he be accused of practicing militant atheism.

 

On a list of “evil”, immoral behavior, personally, I’d put torture right up there near the very top along side rape and murder.

[Atticus]

I know Sullivan's heart is usually in the right place, but he gets downright absurd with some of his statistical algebra at times.

 

my choosing not to put my hand on a hot stove-top does not equate to "Scottish/Germans hate fire"

[Good Old Neon]

I know Sullivan's heart is usually in the right place, but he gets downright absurd with some of his statistical algebra at times.

 

my choosing not to put my hand on a hot stove-top does not equate to "Scottish/Germans hate fire"

 

I’m willing to forgive Andrew’s hyperbolic trespasses because, a.) I respect his passionate embrace of topics I consider important and worthy of discussion, and b.) because he is one among a handful of conservatives willing to write critically of his (supposed) peers. I think we’d be in a much more beneficial place, as a country, if the conservative movement looked to him, and others like him for leadership, rather than the irredeemable dipshits that have been allowed to hijack the party.

 

Though I do not always agree with his views or the conservative philosophy more generally (conservative here having nothing to do with Palin, Hannity, Coulter or the countless other talking heads and politicians that label themselves as such), I do respect its core tenants, smaller government, personal responsibility, etc.

[Good Old Neon]

Now this could get very interesting indeed - from Andrew Sullivan:

 

Cheney: "I Was A Big Supporter Of Waterboarding"

 

That seems to me to be the big news out of Jonathan Karl's interview with the former vice-president today. There is not a court in the United States or in the world that does not consider waterboarding torture. The Red Cross certainly does, and it's the governing body in international law. It is certainly torture according to the UN Convention on Torture and the Geneva Conventions. The British government, America's closest Western ally, certainly believes it is torture. No legal authority of any type in the US or the world has ever doubted that waterboarding is torture. To have subjected an individual to waterboarding once is torture under US and international law. To subject someone to it 183 times is so categorically torture is it almost absurd to even write this sentence.

 

To give the Wikipedia definition:

 

Waterboarding is a torture technique that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards; water is then poured over the face into breathing passages, causing the captive to believe he or she is dying.[1][2] In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex.[3] It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, if uninterrupted, death.[4] Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years.[5]

 

So the former vice-president has just confessed to a war crime. I repeat: the former vice-president has just confessed to a war crime.

 

There is no statute of limitations for such a crime; and the penalty under law is either the death penalty or a prison sentence for life:

 

Nations who are party to these treaties must enact and enforce legislation penalizing any of these crimes.[9] Nations are also obligated to search for persons alleged to commit these crimes, or ordered them to be committed, and to bring them to trial regardless of their nationality and regardless of the place where the crimes took place. The principle of universal jurisdiction also applies to the enforcement of grave breaches. Toward this end, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia were established by the United Nations to prosecute alleged violations.

 

The question is therefore not if, but when, he is convicted as a war criminal - in his lifetime or posthumously.

 

In fact, the attorney general of the United States is legally obliged to prosecute someone who has openly admitted such a war crime or be in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention on Torture. For Eric Holder to ignore this duty subjects him too to prosecution. If the US government fails to enforce the provision against torture, the UN or a foreign court can initiate an investigation and prosecution.

 

These are not my opinions and they are not hyperbole. They are legal facts. Either this country is governed by the rule of law or it isn't. Cheney's clear admission of his central role in authorizing waterboarding and the clear evidence that such waterboarding did indeed take place means that prosecution must proceed.

 

Cheney himself just set in motion a chain of events that the civilized world must see to its conclusion or cease to be the civilized world. For such a high official to escape the clear letter of these treaties and conventions, and to openly brag of it, renders such treaties and conventions meaningless.

[mountain bed]

Absolutely. Holder needs to get with it ASAP.

 

I'm inclined to think that they're going to drag their feet on this. Hoping that a man pushing 70, with numerous heart attacks, will simply expire.

[Atticus]

Cheney: "I Was A Big Supporter Of Waterboarding"

 

So the former vice-president has just confessed to a war crime. I repeat: the former vice-president has just confessed to a war crime.

 

actually, from the quote you've posted (and I limit my response to same, since I've read nothing about this other than your post), Cheney only admitted to supporting waterboarding. Supporting something is not a crime. (actually waterboarding someone or ordering someone else to waterboard someone may be, I don't know). If I publicly state that I support having sex with Julie Bowen, it doesn't mean that I've had sex with Julie Bowen.

 

Cheney himself just set in motion a chain of events that the civilized world must see to its conclusion or cease to be the civilized world.

These are not my opinions and they are not hyperbole.

 

that's a matter of opinion

[Atticus]

hmm...

[MattZ]

actually, from the quote you've posted (and I limit my response to same, since I've read nothing about this other than your post), Cheney only admitted to supporting waterboarding. Supporting something is not a crime. (actually waterboarding someone or ordering someone else to waterboard someone may be, I don't know). If I publicly state that I support having sex with Julie Bowen, it doesn't mean that I've had sex with Julie Bowen.

 

Poon, come on. That's quite the splitting of hairs. Are you a lawyer or something?

 

Seriously, though, maybe Cheney only admitted to supporting a war crime/toture. But it was torture that was carried out by the Bush Administration on his watch. This policy was presumably authorized by someone in the administration. If we've got the torture, and we've got the high ranking official openly admitting that he supported it, what more do you need? Are you debating whether the country waterboarded detainees? I don't think that's even debatable.

 

Your analogy misses the point. You haven't had sex with Julie Bowen (I dont think). This country did waterboard detainees.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Your analogy misses the point. You haven't had sex with Julie Bowen (I dont think). This country did waterboard detainees.

 

I think in a case where we are discerning whether someone denied others rights and due process after they supposedly committed crimes, splitting hairs about their supposed crimes is that much more important.

[MattZ]

I think in a case where we are discerning whether someone denied others rights and due process after they supposedly committed crimes, splitting hairs about their supposed crimes is that much more important.

 

Of course it is important. But would Cheney only be guilty if he was standing in the room ordering the interrogator to pour the water? Or as a high ranking official in the government, would advocating it as a way to interrogate or being the architect of the policy be enough? An adminstration that makes torture, as its official policy, an interrogation technique, is (arguably) guilty of war crimes. I am not on a personal crusade here. Just seems to me that "Cheney advocated it does not = war crime" seems to miss the point of the criticism.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Of course it is important. But would Cheney only be guilty if he was standing in the room ordering the interrogator to pour the water? Or as a high ranking official in the government, would advocating it as a way to interrogate or being the architect of the policy be enough? An adminstration that makes torture, as its official policy, an interrogation technique, is (arguably) guilty of war crimes. I am not on a personal crusade here. Just seems to me that "Cheney advocated it does not = war crime" seems to miss the point of the criticism.

 

Poon wasn't splitting hairs about Cheney "being an architect of the policy." Supporting something is not the same as implementing a policy. He could implement a policy and not support it (which wouldn't really matter as far as prosecuting him for his actions), and he could also support a policy without being the one who implemented it. He could even support such a policy and have no idea who was responsible for implementing it.

[Good Old Neon]

Believe it or not, I'm not a board certified attorney, I dabble in law, but usually on the wrong side of it, but anyways, the following link may be of use in determining Cheney's culpability.

 

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006558

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Poon wasn't splitting hairs

 

I got nothing...I just wanted to see this again.

[MattZ]

Poon wasn't splitting hairs about Cheney "being an architect of the policy." Supporting something is not the same as implementing a policy. He could implement a policy and not support it (which wouldn't really matter as far as prosecuting him for his actions), and he could also support a policy without being the one who implemented it. He could even support such a policy and have no idea who was responsible for implementing it.

 

Have you read the transcript of the interview and the context in which he said it? He takes credit for winning battles in the administration over interrogation techniques.

 

I dont know as much as I should about the history of the prosecution of war crimes, but it seems reasonable to me that the highest ranking officials of an administration that advocated it, and were responsible (in whole or in part) for its adoption as policy, would be considered guilty of war crimes.

 

Again, if we accept, for argument's sake, that waterboarding = torture = war crimes, where would the buck stop for you? Who would be guilty in the administration? Do you think there is a memo somewhere signed by one person saying "I hereby adopt waterboarding as policy" and it would be him or her who is guilty?

 

EDIT: Again, I am not suggesting that simply supporting a policy makes one guilty of anything. Seems there's plenty of evidence that Cheney was doing more than advocating and there's certainly plenty of questions that this interview raises that deserve answers.

[mountain bed]

Believe it or not, I'm not a board certified attorney, I dabble in law, but usually on the wrong side of it, but anyways, the following link may be of use in determining Cheney's culpability.

 

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006558

Not bad, but I will still need to consult my legal guru Jonathan Turley and get his take on this.

[Guest Speed Racer]

If he knew about it and did not stop it, then he would be guilty. I have no problems prosecuting him for war crimes he had knowledge of but did not stop. I also don't care either way if he supported them or not. But saying you support a form of torture is not at all equivalent to admitting you allowed that form of torture to occur.

[MattZ]

But saying you support a form of torture is not at all equivalent to admitting you allowed that form of torture to occur.

 

Again, have you read the transcript of the interview?

[Guest Speed Racer]

Yes, and in the relevant portion he says he supported waterboarding and opposed stopping waterboarding techniques. Not splitting hairs - he doesn't say he implemented it.

[MattZ]

Yes, and in the relevant portion he says he supported waterboarding and opposed stopping waterboarding techniques. Not splitting hairs - he doesn't say he implemented it.

 

This is the relevant portion I was talking about (emphasis added):

 

 

KARL: Did you more often win or lose those battles, especially as you got to the second term?

 

CHENEY: Well, I suppose it depends on which battle you're talking about. I won some; I lost some. I can't...

 

 

In your version of events, he only advocated it, and the policies happened to be implemented, so he techically "won", but he didn't implement them himself. And we aren't splitting hairs?

[Guest Speed Racer]

In your version of events, he only advocated it, and the policies happened to be implemented, so he techically "won", but he didn't implement them himself. And we aren't splitting hairs?

 

I never said we weren't splitting hairs (ETA: well, I did once, but you know what I mean); in fact, I said that doing so was important in a case like this. I think you can use the phrase, "I won some, I lost some" and refer to the battles on the basis of which side you were on, purely as a matter of opinion, without having taken any action.

 

If I were on a jury and that was the best you handed me, I would be unconvinced.

[MattZ]

Not splitting hairs - he doesn't say he implemented it.

 

 

I never said we weren't splitting hairs

 

?

 

If I were on a jury and that was the best you handed me, I would be unconvinced.

 

Ok, but my point wasn't to suggest that we hang the guy for war crimes based on the interview. Just that he's the VP - he doesnt implement policy. He advocates policy. And the buck stops with him and the President (I think) for the policies. Alas, let's move on.

[LouieB]

Someone needs to start waterboarding Cheney so he starts to tell the truth for a change.

 

LouieB

[Central Scrutinizer]

If he knew about it and did not stop it, then he would be guilty. I have no problems prosecuting him for war crimes he had knowledge of but did not stop. I also don't care either way if he supported them or not. But saying you support a form of torture is not at all equivalent to admitting you allowed that form of torture to occur.

As Truman said, the buck stops here. If the activity was going on under the administration's watch, then he is implicitly tied to the act.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Ok, but my point wasn't to suggest that we hang the guy for war crimes based on the interview. Just that he's the VP - he doesnt implement policy. He advocates policy. And the buck stops with him and the President (I think) for the policies. Alas, let's move on.

 

No, I agree, but I still think it's very, very important to acknowledge that saying you agree with someone does not imply that you have knowledge that what you agree with is going on.

[Atticus]

Cheney: "I Was A Big Supporter Of Waterboarding"

 

So the former vice-president has just confessed to a war crime. I repeat: the former vice-president has just confessed to a war crime.

 

These are not my opinions and they are not hyperbole. They are legal facts.

 

actually, from the quote you've posted (and I limit my response to same, since I've read nothing about this other than your post), Cheney only admitted to supporting waterboarding. Supporting something is not a crime. (actually waterboarding someone or ordering someone else to waterboard someone may be, I don't know). If I publicly state that I support having sex with Julie Bowen, it doesn't mean that I've had sex with Julie Bowen.

 

 

If we've got the torture, and we've got the high ranking official openly admitting that he supported it, what more do you need?

 

considering that we're talking about putting someone in prison, I would need, I don't know... evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of a causal connection between specific events of torture and the person we're putting in prison. and so should all of you. it's kind of the basis of our criminal justice system.

 

My post was directed at Sullivan's continual causal connections of things like "Cheney says he supported waterboarding" = legal fact supporting the imprisonment of Cheney this afternoon, and if that doesn't happen, the free world no longer exists.

 

if it is so absolutely clear to Sullivan that Cheney committed a war crime, why does he not cite the specific law that was violated and the evidence that satisfies the jurisdiction's evidentiary burden?