CHENEY MISREPRESENTS CRITICS OF HIS POLICIES ON TORTURE

Dick Cheney in his speech the other day (May 21, 2009) at the American Enterprise Institute came out with many distortions, obfuscations and misrepresentations. Here's one:

"Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them."

First of all, Cheney identifies "American values" as "moral values." Now I support "moral values," but we critics of the Bush/Cheney torture procedures object on the basis, not merely of moral values, but primarily because of legal and constitutional values. The constitution provides that everyone be free with basic human liberties and that no one should be subject to procedures that deny due process. It is these constitutional values that condemn Cheney and his "enhanced interrogation methods" under the law. Maybe Cheney is right to say moral values do not prevent CIA thugs from waterboarding or otherwise torturing terrorist suspects, but certainly constitutional values do.

The fact is, these constitutional values based on the individual rights of all are most important when the country is under attack or when it thinks it is the target of terrorists. If not, imagine the chaos that would result if "terrorists" were seen everywhere? That's what happened in the 500 year life of the Inquisition. Pious folk saw the work of the devil everywhere. Every town had its witches, its heretics, its ungodly. And most of these unfortunates were subject to the same practices as Dick Cheney defends - trial by water, trial by fire, trial on the rack, and other cruel and reprehensible tests.

Furthermore, if waterboarding such people were legal in the case of suspected terrorists, why not ratchet up to the hot branding iron or the rack? Especially if the suspect or witness refuses to talk or to admit what we suspect. There is no end to the regime of torture. Once a little is accepted, no manner of cruelty will go unused.

CHENEY CLAIMS TORTURE SAVED THOUSANDS OF LIVES

Dan Froomkin in his blog in today's washingtonpost.com points me to the dangerous and silly utterances of Dick Cheney when appearing on CBS Face the Nation yesterday. Apparently Cheney is still pushing the line that his "harsh interrogation methods" saved thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of lives. And that most Americans would support such "methods" if they knew how effective they were.

First of all, Froomkin points out that there is no credible evidence that torture or waterboarding produced any actionable intelligence that saved lives. Zubayda was waterboarded some 80 times and Khalid Sheik Mohammed over 150. If waterboarding were so effective as Cheney implies, how come it had to be done on multiple occasions to these two prisoners.

But more importantly, even if torture and waterboarding did produce evidence that the government used, would it ever be morally justified? Can we sacrifice the life of an individual for the good of the nation? Do the rights of the majority trump the rights of the individual? Morally, there is no way to justify waterboarding or Cheney's other harsh interrogation methods.

Furthermore, from a legal perspective, waterboarding is a supreme offense against the U.S. Constitution. The rights of an individual are supreme in the Constitution. Consider the Bill of Rights. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and freedom from being tortured by the state. If the individual did not possess these basic and fundamental rights in the U.S., then the U.S. would not be the land of the free or the paragon of democracy.

Historically, states and regimes have always resorted to torture and especially to waterboarding to make the accused tell "the truth." Consider the practices of the Inquisition where the Church turned "heretics" over to the king and the state for tests by water and/or by fire. Imagine if the Church suspected you were in consorts with Satan. Would you confess if you were subject to the trial by water? Would you admit that you were in fellowship with the devil? Suppose it were a test by fire, such as with hot irons? How long would you last without confessing "everything"?

Cheney claims that his interrogation techniques saved thousands of lives. That still is not justification for using them on suspects. If Cheney persists in his argument for this constitutionally abhorrent and immoral practice, I suggest that he himself undergo both water and fire and see how long he can endure without admitting he was the 20th hijacker.

OPINIONS THAT TORTURE WORKS NOT BASED ON EVIDENCE

Richard Cohen claims torture works. He writes in The Washington Post today that he believes torture is morally reprehensible but nevertheless he thinks it is effective:

"Yet the debate over torture has been infected with silly arguments about utility: whether it works or not. Of course it works -- sometimes or rarely, but if a proverbial bomb is ticking, that may just be the one time it works. I refer you to the 1995 interrogation by Philippine authorities of Abdul Hakim Murad, an al-Qaeda terrorist who served up extremely useful information about a plot to blow up airliners when he was told that he was about to be turned over to Israel's Mossad. As George Orwell suggested in "1984," everyone has his own idea of torture."

But what Cohen forgets or omits is that it works only if you grab the right guy. If you grab some guy like Christopher Hitchens or some other innocent party, thinking him to be a terrorist, torture does not work and will never work.

I say to Richard Cohen, you are no better in your ethics or in your intellectual analysis than the churchmen in the late middle ages who believed that the wrack and the test by water would make "heretics" confess. Out of 100 people subject to the dripping of the water, how many do you think confessed that they were in Satan's service? They all confessed!

So use torture with all 200+ inmates at Guantanamo and they will all admit that they were part of the Qaeda conspiracy.

And by the way don't stop with merely using water torture. Find that old branding iron and heat it very hot. Then resurrect the wrack, you know, the one with the pulleys. I am sure that you will obtain a lot of "useful information."

WATERBOARD ALL THOSE SAYING IT IS NOT TORTURE

Let's have a full and open investigation of how George Bush and Dick Cheney instituted a policy of torture on captives believed to be Qaeda supporters.

Recall that the Inquisition lasted about 400 years in Europe from about 1300 to 1700 when the leaders of the French Enlightenment exposed it and its shameful practices of torture to daylight.

Some of the very same methods used by churchmen in the Inquisition to extract confessions of devil worship and witchcraft show up in what we know about Bush and Cheney's policy of "harsh interrogation methods." Trial by water is a good example. Water has long been used to separate the good from the evil. Suspected thieves and robbers were thrown into the water in 13th Centrury England; if their hair stayed dry, they were exonerated. Officials poured water down the throats of suspects. Most confessed within a few seconds. Of course, even after receiving church absolution, these unfortunates were then taken and burned at the stake in the city center.

Of course water was not the only method. Churchmen used hot coals and the wrack to test the innocence of suspected heretics. Surely God would protect them if pure and innocent. Most were found to be allied with Satan.

Those who claim waterboarding is not torture should watch the video of Christopher Hitchens being recently waterboarded. Hitchens volunteered. He lasted about 20 seconds before he could not take any more. Better yet, defenders of waterboarding - Hannity, Thiessen, Cheney, Rice, Addington, Tenet, et al. - we should waterboard all of them and not stop unless they make a full and complete confession. First let's accuse them of (take your pick): supporting Al Qaeda, practicing witchcraft, planning to detonate a dirty bomb in NYC, being in consort with Satan, practicing socialism, or whatever. Let's see how much water they can stand before they confess.

CHENEY INSISTS TORTURE WAS JUSTIFIED

Dick Cheney is still at it, threatening the country with destruction unless Obama retains harsh interrogation methods (i.e., torture), the hated Patriot Act, as well as unconstitutional eavesdropping of Americans' telephone calls without warrants.

Politico interviewed Cheney today, and among other things, Politico reporters John F. Harris, Mike Allen & Jim Vanderhei quote Cheney as follows:

"Protecting the country’s security is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,” he said. “These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.”"

Here Cheney admits that he engaged in activities which he himself describes as "mean, dirty, nasty ..."

Harris, Allen and Vanderhei quote Cheney on national security:

"“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said."

In other words, Cheney is proud and stands by his implementation of torture on the captured Al Qaeda suspects held at Guantanamo and elsewhere.

But what if the "Al Qaeda terrorist" is only a farm boy or a rustic Afghan villager picked up in Afghanistan and sold to the Americans for U.S. dollars? What if Cheney's "terrorist" turns out to be unconnected with any jihad or has never even heard of Osama bin Laden? Can the U.S. torture this person without any accountability? And what does it say to the rest of the world when everyone finds out that the hard-core" prisoners in U.S. detention camps are totally innocent?

I have a good suggestion what to do with Cheney. Let's subject him to "harsh interrogation methods" and see if he confesses. If waterboarding is no big deal to him, let's try it out on him. To stop the ordeal, we must insist that Cheney confess to be bin Laden's undercover counsellor. I predict Cheney will confess within 30 seconds.

Remind you of anything historical? Oh yes! The Inquisition in Spain and Portugal and the rest of Europe used this very technique of water torture on all those accused of being in consort with Satan. Almost everyone confessed.

SCALIA DOESN'T CARE HOW MANY IN GUANTANAMO ARE INNOCENT - NO HABEAS HEARINGS SHOULD BE ALLOWED

Justice Scalia in his dissent in Boumedienne v. Bush granting habeas corpus relief to the 270 inmates at Guantanamo claims that:

"[t]he Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today."

I would like to ask, how does affording inmates at Guantanamo cause regret to the United States? Does Justice Scalia think that a hearing in front of a judge at the district federal court will cause mayhem and chaos? Or is it that Scalia thinks all 270 inmates are the most dangerous and already convicted in front of an impartial tribunal?

It is like what you would expect some pope of churchman to say during the darkest days of the Inquisition. "We know she is a witch, so burn her at the stake." Scalia gives the impression he like the priest of old already knows each and every one of the 270 is a terrorist.

But what if that were not so? What if there were one innocent person caught up in the rush to give the Americans what they wanted in Afghanistan, people with swarthy complexions and beards who were Islamists? What if of the 270 there were 10 innocents or 100 or 200? Scalia seems to care not a whit for the non-terrorist arrested in the massive dragnet after 2001. And he is not ready to grant them a habeas hearing to find out.

Writes Scalia:

"[This opinion] will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. "

What is Scalia trying to say here? That Boumedienne v. Bush will cause more Americans to be killed? Or that the opinion probably will cause more Americans to be killed? Or that it is not certain that more Americans will be killed? Note the sieve through which those words "almost certainly" flow. Surprising imprecise words from a jurist noted for stressing words' plain meaning.

BUSH BECOMES HEAD TORTURER, VETOES BILL TO STOP CIA WATERBOARDING

Who is this medieval torturer that we have in the White House? Today George Bush vetoes a bill that would ban the CIA from using methods of torture, such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation, forced standing for long hours, and similar harsh methods.

Until the French Enlightenment in the 18th Century, all of these techniques were common. The Inquisition, harshest in Spain and Portugal, but existing all throughout Europe, made use of these same interrogation techniques.

Look what U.S. president George W. Bush has done! He has made the United States a pariah among all civilized nations by reintroducing these methods of torture that the whole civilized world rejects and bans. Bush has made America the Torturer of the World. How long will it take for the U.S. to recover from this reputation?

JUSTICE DEPT. CONTINUES TO DEFEND CIA WATERBOARDING

George Bush and Dick Cheney and the rest of their Constitution-trashing gang must be quite concerned that they will be prosecuted for ordering and implementing torture of Al Qaeda suspects. They seem to be sending everyone out to claim that what was done was really not torture. This claim is bound to fail. It does not pass the test of common sense.

The latest to publicly defend torture is Steven Bradbury, the acting chief of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the Justice Department division that renders legal opinions on such things as the legality of waterboarding. Bradbury appeared before a House subcommittee last week and tried to say that the U.S. practice of waterboarding was not the same as waterboarding as it was done during the Inquisition or by the Japanese in WWII.

Dan Eggen writes in todday's The Washington Post:

"The method was not, he said, like the "water torture" used during the Spanish Inquisition and by autocratic governments into the 20th century, but was subject to "strict time limits, safeguards, restrictions." He added, "The only thing in common is, I think, the use of water."

"Bradbury indicated that no water entered the lungs of the three prisoners who were subjected to the practice, lending credence to previous accounts that the noses and mouths of CIA captives were covered in cloth or cellophane. Cellophane could pose a serious asphyxiation risk, torture experts said."

Several Japanese soldiers were executed by the Americans after WWII for waterboarding. Here again, Bradbury claimed there was a big difference between what the Japanese did and what CIA agents did to Al Qaeda suspects:

"Bradbury also referred to cases of waterboarding involving Japanese soldiers prosecuted after World War II; one well-known incident involved a type of waterboarding in which a U.S. soldier was forced to ingest large amounts of water and was beaten and stomped.

"The historical examples that have been referenced in public debate have all involved a course of conduct that everyone would agree constituted egregious instances of torture," Bradbury said.""

Bradbury said that a practice needs to be both severe and long-lasting if it really is "torture." A practice or technique such as CIA waterboarding that lasts only a brief period of time therefore would not qualify.

"Under questioning from lawmakers of both parties, Bradbury said pain suffered by a prisoner had to be both severe and long-lasting for an interrogation tactic to be considered torture.

""Something can be quite distressing, uncomfortable, even frightening," Bradbury said, but "if it doesn't involve severe physical pain, and it doesn't last very long, it may not constitute severe physical suffering. That would be the analysis. . . .""

"Bradbury's unusually frank testimony Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee subcommittee stunned many civil liberties advocates and outside legal scholars who have long criticized the Bush administration's secretive and aggressive interrogation policies. . . ."

"Bradbury wrote two secret memos in 2005 that authorized waterboarding, head-slapping and other harsh tactics by the CIA. As a result of that and other issues, Senate Democrats have repeatedly blocked Bradbury's nomination to head the legal counsel's office permanently."

BUSH SEEKS CONFESSIONS OF THOSE WATERBOARDED - BUT OF WHAT VALUE?

What is the matter with the mind set of Bush's political appointees and supporters? Justice Antonin Scalia says it is no simple question whether waterboarding is torture. Bush's Attorney General Michael Mukasey says he does not have enough information to tell whether waterboarding is indeed torture, but he will not hold an investigation into its legality. Republicans in Congress say they support "harsh interrogation methods," meaning waterboarding and torture.

Have these guys ever heard of the Inquisition that terrorized Europe between the 14th and 18th Centuries? How the Church suspected someone of being in consort with the devil, therefore church authorities put him on the rack and turned the screws until he confessed. Or how witches were given the "water treatment" until they admitted they were indeed witches commissioned by the forces of evil.

All these suspects did confess their allegiance to Satan, their diabolical powers, their conspiracy against God and his Church. Surely it must be the same with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others. Waterboard them and they will surely confess.

WHITE HOUSE TRIES TO SPIN ABSOLUTION FOR ORDERING TORTURE

The stuff coming out of the White House on waterboarding and how it isn't torture because some guys in the Office of Legal Counsel (read John Yoo and others) wrote a memo in which they said it wasn't - boggles the legal mind.

An opinion of the John Yoo cannot make something that exists not exist. It is not up to John Yoo to pass upon something like waterboarding and transform it into goldilocks like the alchemists of old.

Is waterboarding torture? We all know that it is. To say the opposite just won't pass the laugh test. If AG Mukasey and Intelligence Czar McConnell are unsure, then by all means they should volunteer to have themselves waterboarded.

Bush and Cheney and the rest of the gang will have some explaining to do in the near future. I mean before the International Court of Justice, and maybe even in front of a U.S. federal judge in the local district court. No self dealing will get them immunity from ordering the CIA to engage in torture.

By the way, I thought the Enlightenment in France in the Eighteenth Century put an end to such barbarisms and vestiges from the Inquisition. But no. Bush and Cheney have plunged Americans back into medieval days when trials by water and fire forced even the purest and most innocent to confess to unspeakable crimes.

TOP LEGAL MILITARY OFFICER WOULD ALLOW EVIDENCE FROM WATERBOARDING

Who is this guy Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann who is overseeing the prosecutors in forthcoming cases at Guantanamo? He believes that the military tribunals should be able to introduce "evidence" obtained through waterboarding. Hasn't he ever heard of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution barring the government from forcing an accused to testify against himself?

Josh White reports in today's The Washington Post:

"Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann, who oversees the prosecutors who will try the detainees at military commissions, said that while "torture" is illegal, he cannot say whether waterboarding violates the law. Nor would he say that such evidence would be barred at trial.

"If the evidence is reliable and probative, and the judge concludes that it is in the best interest of justice to introduce that evidence, ma'am, those are the rules we will follow," Hartmann said in response to questions from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), at a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing.

The government and Hartmann will undoubtedly argue that the cases before the military tribunals are not "criminal" but arising from "warfare." And therefore the protections of the Constitution do not apply. Even if we grant the government's argument, which is not all that strong, what would it say about American justice to use evidence obtained from the rack and convict the accused on its basis. Most conservatives and some Republicans argue that the protections of Constitution do not apply to foreigners and certainly do not apply to foreigners "outside" of the United States. But this shows these persons to be mean-spirited and medieval.

It is not just because of the U.S. Constitution that we enjoy basic rights to life, liberty and the rule of law. It is because of these fundamental rights that the U.S. Constitution is what it is. First came these individual inalienable rights, then came the Constitution, not the other way around.

Shame on Gen. Hartmann for even considering allowing evidence obtained from torture or waterboarding. He reduces U.S. justice to the level of the Inquisition where people confessed to be consorts of the devil after being stretched and burnt on the rack.

SEN. KIT BOND DUCKS ANSWERING, "IS WATERBOARDING TORTURE?"

I watched and heard Kit Bond on The NewsHour tonight bob and weave and escape answering whether he thought waterboarding constituted torture. Bond is the Republican senator from Missouri. Gwen Ifill tried to pin him down, just answer the question yes or no, but Bond refused.

However, he did say that "enhanced interrogation techniques" should be used only on "high value targets (HVT), as if to say that torture should be applied only "when "we know we have an important mastermind or terrorist leader." Bond of course does not call it "torture" but merely refers euphemistically to "enhanced interrogation techniques."

What amazes me is how Republicans parrot Bush's line and refuse to admit straight-out what is apparent and obvious to everyone. Waterboarding is torture and Americans should not engage in it. Not because of the utilitarian argument that if we engage in torture, our "enemies" will do it to American soldiers, and we certainly do not want that. But rather because torture is antithetical to the concept of human dignity and human liberty. No human being or any other creature should be subject to torture.

I thought we learned this lesson from the teachings of the French Enlightenment in the 17th Century. Especially after what happened during the preceding five hundred years of the cruel Inquisition occurring in almost every country in Europe. A person who is tortured will say anything his tormentors want. Even HVTs.

Imagine what happened during the Inquisition when the church authorities captured a suspected heretic. "Let's make him confess. . . . Did you consort with the devil and with evil spirits? . . . No? . . . Well then tighten the screws. . . .How about now? . . . No? . . . Tighten still further. . . .Okay, now you finally confess." And so by torture the inquisitors obtained their desired confession.

Kit Bond refuses to say whether waterboarding is torture. Michael Mukasey, the new AG, refuses to say whether waterboarding is torture. Bush refuses to say whether waterboarding is torture. Okay. Then let's have each one of these doubters forcibly waterboarded.

Let's then interrogate each. Let's ask the subject if he participated in the 9/11 conspiracy and was a friend and conspirator with Mohammed Atta. Don't take "no" for an answer. Don't stop the water torture until the subject makes a full confession.

VALUES OF LEADING THREE REPUBLICANS OFFEND AMERICAN VALUES

I cannot see voting for any of the Republican candidates. Consider the three leaders, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain. All three would give us a redux Bush, maybe a little smarter than W but maybe even more extreme.

John McCain seems the least crazy as well as the most likeable. McCain comes off as genuine, what you see is what you get. On the plus side, he is against torture and water-boarding. But his big negative is that he continues to support this unjustified and illegal war in Iraq.

Mitt Romney comes off as duplicitous and willing to say anything to help his chances. Mitt generates an unlimited amount of political cynicism. By saying that he would double the size of Guantanamo, he tries to out-do Bush in his cruelty towards suspects caught in Afghanistan and Iraq. We know that Guantanamo is the black hole where once you end up there, whether guilty or not guilty, you lose all right to appeal. You have no right to a trial, you have no right to a lawyer, you have no right to appeal to a federal court for relief under the Great Writ of habeas corpus. And Mitt would double Guantanamo? Has he no decency?

As to Rudy Giuliani, it is clear he has no decency. Rudy comes right out and endorses waterboarding and says he inflicted "harsh" interrogation methods on mafia suspects when he was federal prosecutor in NYC. Rudy never served in the army, has no combat experience, but endorses torture. Maybe his forebears utilized torture during the years of the Inquisition.

I cannot imagine how Republicans or anyone else could vote for any of the above. Unless this is how a person wanted life and society in today's United States - one where war was always the answer, constitutional rights for prisoners did not exist, and torture was the modus operandi du jour.

JUDGE MUKASEY REFUSES TO SAY IF WATER-BOARDING IS TORTURE

Judge Mukasey refuses to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee whether he considers "water-boarding" to be a form of torture. Dan Eggen writes for The Washington Post:

"Attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey told Senate Democrats today that a kind of simulated drowning known as waterboarding is "repugnant," but he does not know whether the interrogation technique violates U.S. laws against torture."

Remember water-boarding has been around since at least the Inquisition as a method of making heretics confess they were in league with the devil. And, frankly, it succeeded in getting people to admit their connection with Satan.

If Judge Mukasey does not have enough information to tell whether it is torture and thus illegal, I have a suggestion. Your Honor, experience it for yourself. Have some CIA agents come around to your chambers with a board with straps for you to lie on and be strapped down. Then have someone put a towel over your nose and mouth and head. Then pour water on top of it so that you are ingesting and breathing in the water. Undergo this "experiment" for at least five minutes.

I am sure that after this test, Judge, you will be most certainly an expert on whether water-boarding is torture. You then will surely testify that water-boarding is illegal both under U.S. and international law because it inflicts terrible psychological pain and destruction upon the victim.

In the meantime, the Senate Judiciary Committee should refuse to vote to let your name out of committee.

TORTURE TO PREVENT ANOTHER 9/11?

Marty Lederman at Balkinization writes today about the outrageous adoption and acceptance of the use of torture by most of the Republican presidential candidates at the debate last Tuesday in South Carolina:

"Don't let the fast-moving Comey affair distract you from the other outrage of the month -- the fact that at the same time high-ranking military leaders are disclaiming torture and abuse in the strongest possible terms, most of the leading presidential candidates of the Republican Party have been tripping over themselves in an effort to be the candidate who will commit to greatest number of war crimes, treaty breaches and statutory violations if he should be so fortunate as to be elected Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy."

Apart from John McCain, the other Republicans, especially Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, seemed to heartily endorse the idea, as in, "what do we do when we catch a terrorist and want to know the details of a forthcoming terrorist operation so that we can prevent another 9/11?"

I have a question for torture's proponents: would you personally confess if you were subject to water-boarding or other "enhanced interrogatory methods?" Or take a technique from the Inquisition and volunteer to be the person accused of heresy. Then suffer something fort et dur, like being compressed between two planks with the screws tightening every 10 minutes. Or being held under water for increasing longer periods, something similar to water-boarding. I am sure you can think of other "effective" methods.

Okay, let's leave Mitt and Rudy out of this. Let's test these methods on George and Dick. Would they confess to being part of Al Qaeda? Would they admit they were planning to set off a dirty bomb? Would they sign a confession no matter what it described?

The answer is yes, even George Bush, even Dick Cheney, would confess to being part of the worst terrorist organization if they were subject to interrogation using torture. They would tell and admit anything they thought their interrogators wanted. And that is the trouble with these methods. A person will say anything to stop the pain, whether physical or mental. Torture as a method does not work and will never work.