At last week's debate, Republican presidential candidates Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann defended waterboarding. Cain said, "I don't see it as torture. I see it as an enhanced interrogation technique," which is what the Bush administration used to call its policy of torture and abuse. Bachmann declared, "If I were president, I would be willing to use waterboarding. I think it was very effective. It gained information for our country." And after the debate, Mitt Romney's aides told CNN that he does not think waterboarding is torture.
President Obama correctly retorted, "Waterboarding is torture." He added, "Anybody who has actually read about and understands the practice of waterboarding would say that is torture -- and that's not something we do, period."
The United States has long considered waterboarding to be torture. Several federal court opinions refer to waterboarding as torture. Our government prosecuted, convicted and hung Japanese military leaders following World War II for waterboarding. The U.S. War Crimes Act defines torture as a war crime.
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and John Yoo have all admitted participating in decisions to waterboard detainees, knowing that interrogators would carry out their orders. Under the doctrine of command responsibility, commanders all the way up the chain of command to the commander-in-chief can be prosecuted for war crimes if they knew or should have known their subordinates would commit them and the commanders did nothing to stop or prevent it. Therefore, Bush, Cheney, and Yoo have admitted to the commission of war crimes.
But by refusing to investigate them for their admitted torture, the Obama administration has given the Bush officials a free pass.
Moreover, Bachmann was wrong when she claimed torture is effective. Former high level FBI interrogators, including Ali Soufan and Dan Coleman, say the person being tortured will say anything to get the torture to stop -- even providing false information. The best results, interrogators add, are obtained with humane methods.
Obama also accurately noted that waterboarding "is contrary to America's tradition, it's contrary to our ideals. That's not who we are. That's not how we operate. We don't need it in order to prosecute the war on terrorism. We did the right thing by ending that practice. If we want to lead around the world part of our leadership is setting a good example."
Unfortunately, during his hearing to be confirmed as CIA director, David Petraeus told Congress there might be occasions in which we must return to "enhanced interrogation" to get information. Alarmingly, that comment signaled that the Obama administration may return to the use of torture and abuse. That would be unacceptable.
Marjorie Cohn is editor of 'The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse' (NYU Press 2011).
Rev. Richard L. Killmer: Torture and the Danger of Going Back to the Dark Side
The definition of torture under US law also includes mental suffering. Quoting from:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html
“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
Michelle Bachmann, alleged Christian, is 100% FOR the torturing of human beings. Disgusting.
War is not and never will be a pretty, conscientious parade of fairy dust and rainbows....war is ugly, bad, and scary.
the phrase war crimes" is as nonsensical as a phrase can get....
either it IS war or it is NOT war.
Waterboarding is torture.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tehre hasn't been enough political cover to prosecute them without cries of "political withch hunt" by those who bought into the Faux Noise rhetoric all those years. You know how the right wing, with their crocodile tears loves to cry "victim."
I realize that America’s / other country's historical records, (and objective recitation / awareness of same), is NOT their 'strong suit, where 2012’s family-values-evangelical candidates are concerned, but...
Didn't their 'handlers', (with apologies to the staff of municipal / other zoos across the earth), mention the fact that the U.S government put Japanese officials to DEATH for water-boarding, (and other 'War Crimes') in the early post-war 40's?
Have these 'pious-piteous' given up on the election, since even ‘Job-Exporter’ Romney can’t seem to surmount the “
The Japanese were prosecuted for what may have been worse actions than waterboarding, but they were also prosecuted for waterboarding. What they called this torture at the time is irrelevant. If they called it an elephant, it was still what we call waterboarding. American military were also prosecuted for the same act during the Vietnam War.
Why would anyone tell the truth if tortured? He or she would say whatever it takes to make the agony stop. Conservatives like to talk tough, but most would last less than 30 seconds under waterboarding conditions. Many of you have had some experience with torture. I understand that you folks listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Pr Chris
But torture is also against our own laws, and the Geneva Conventions which we want all countries to adhere to. So, I want to know, are these candidates also saying that they will not be bound by our laws? I mean, this is what an elected President gets up on inauguration day and swears on a Bible to do.
Anyone who takes this position should automatically be cut from consideration from public office. It is bad enough we have not prosecuted past office holders who have already broken these laws and ignored the worthlessness and danger of such practices.