Cheney's Confession Should Lead to Criminal Investigation of Bush's Torture Policies

All it took was two words. Two simple words from Dick Cheney -- two words we're used to seeing in a completely different context -- settled a question I had been ambivalent about since Barack Obama was elected president last month. The question was, "Should Democrats go after Bush administration officials for the extra-legal activity of the last eight years?" Thanks to Cheney, I think that the Justice Department should investigate the criminal activities of, at the very least, the soon-to-be (but not soon enough) ex-vice president relating to the U.S. practice of torturing prisoners.

What were the two words? "I do." ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl interviewed Cheney on Monday and, at one point, asked him:

"[O]ne of those tactics, of course, widely reported was waterboarding. And that seems to be a tactic we no longer use. Even that you think was appropriate?"

To which Cheney replied: "I do."

Earlier in the interview, Karl asked Cheney,

"Did you authorize the tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?"

and Cheney replied:

"I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it."

(Keith Olbermann pointed out on Countdown last night that Cheney lied when he made that statement, since he and Bush first authorized the tactics used against Mohammed, and then the CIA came back looking for confirmation of the legality of the practices. Olbermann cited the bipartisan senate report on the abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib on this point.)

In other words, the sitting vice president of the United States of America went on national television and admitted to millions of viewers that he was a war criminal.

Think I'm exaggerating? I'm not. Waterboarding has been established in international law as a form of torture that is unlawful. After World War II, American prosecutors cited waterboarding as a war crime committed by Japanese officers. They used different names, like the "water cure" and "water torture," but the practice was essentially the same.

Cheney denies that the U.S. tortured prisoners during the Bush years, but his denial is weak, since he is admitting to putting into place practices that have nearly universally been considered to be torture.

Let's be clear what we are talking about here: As Evan Wallach, a judge in the U.S. Court of International Trade who teaches the law of war at Brooklyn Law School and New York Law School, and a former JAG officer, wrote in the Washington Post in November 2007:

"The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death."

In another article by Wallach, he describes the practice in more detail, using testimony by American military personnel who experienced waterboarding. It is chilling to read, so disturbing that I have chosen not to reproduce the passages here. If you want to read it for yourself, click on the link and do so. Let's just say that the practice is more than just unpleasant; it results in the victim experiencing actual drowning.

As angry as I was (and continue to be) about the blatant disregard for the constitution and the rule of law showed by Bush and his administration, I was always hesitant over whether going after them would do more harm than good. When the Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006, there were calls by many on the left for the party to bring impeachment charges against Bush, Cheney and others. Rep. Dennis Kucinich did, in fact, introduce impeachment resolutions against Bush and Cheney, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not allow the resolutions to move forward in the chamber.

After living through the ridiculous and baseless impeachment charges brought by the Republicans against Bill Clinton, I am leery of Congress using the impeachment hammer inappropriately. I also felt like such action would turn the truly abhorrent actions of the Bush administration into a political circus, having the effect of giving Bush and his cronies cover for their shocking behavior. "See, the Democrats are trying to score political points." And since, with 49 Republicans in the senate, it was highly unlikely any convictions would be secured, impeachment attempts would have handed Bush and the others exonerations, making it look like they had not committed any wrongful acts.

So I opposed bringing impeachment charges against anyone in the Bush administration. But the idea of Obama's Justice Department examining possible criminal charges against them raised different issues. In 2009, when Obama takes over, the country will be facing an array of difficult problems, including the worst economic downturn since World War II and wars in two countries, not to mention potentially explosvie situations in Asia from the Middle East to Pakistan. Remember, all it takes is 41 Republican senators to filibuster and kill any legislation. Addressing these problems will require Obama to gain at least some support from the Republicans. The question becomes: Do we want the new administration fighting the battles of the last president or working full-time on the problems facing the country today? Related to that, do the Democrats want to drive the Republicans into defense mode, leading to obstruction, or is it time to try and forge a more civil relationship so that Obama can get his programs through Congress?

But at the same time, I was troubled at the precedent that would be set by allowing government officials to flout the law and not be held responsible for their illegal actions. The message should be sent at all times that nobody is above the law. Say what you want about corruption in Illinois, but no shortage of the state's recent governors have found themselves behind bars (or, possibly, in Rod Blagojevich's case, on his way). Something seemed wrong -- and weak -- to me about letting Bush spend eight years taking actions that struck at the heart of American democracy, and then not holding his administration responsible for its actions. What kind of message would that send?

I was torn. And then Dick Cheney uttered those two simple words: "I do." And the scales tipped. Here's the thing: If members of the Bush administration would have at least acted like they might have done something wrong, a truth-and-reconciliation-type Congressional commission like the one currently under consideration could have found out what happened, and we could have learned our lesson and moved on. At least maybe. But if Cheney is going to go on national television and endorse torture, I feel like he has tied the hands of the country. How can we change our image, both to the rest of the world and to our own citizens, if we allow a sitting vice president to confess to supporting a policy of torture and do nothing about it?

No, Cheney has tipped the scale. I would hope that he has now forced the hand of Obama's choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder (yes, it will be Holder, the GOP whines about Marc Rich and Elian Gonzalez are acts of pathetic grandstanding that should go nowhere). I think Holder now has to investigate, in some fashion, allegations of criminal activity by members of the Bush administration, at the very least relating to torture. And he should do so, even if Bush pardons some or all of the actors involved.

Of all of Bush's enablers, Cheney was always the most unapologetic and brazen about defending the misdeeds of the administration. It will be only fitting if his decision to openly confess to aiding in torture leads to investigations of the Bush administration's illegal actions. There was a time I wasn't sure if such a course of action was wise. Thanks to Cheney, I now think we have no choice in the matter. Let's hope Obama and Holder agree.

Comments

[ObjectiveRealist]

Question:

[
After living through the ridiculous and baseless impeachment charges brought by the Republicans against Bill Clinton, I am leery of Congress using the impeachment hammer inappropriately. I also felt like such action would turn the truly abhorrent actions of the Bush administration into a political circus, having the effect of giving Bush and his cronies cover for their shocking behavior. "See, the Democrats are trying to score political points."
]

Why would you consider impeachment for torture, or illegal wiretaps, or falsifying the case for invasion, or corrupt privatization of the military, or outing Valerie Plame, to constitute "using the impeachment hammer inappropriately?" If impeachment was initiated the day that the New York Times broke the wiretapping story, sure, I can see how that would be too hasty. But all these stories have had years of coverage, now. Why couldn't Pelosi do the right thing, once we all knew Cheney-Bush were guilty? Why did it take a confession? And why is even that now a "slam-dunk" case for impeachment? Why are members of Congress, and "moderate" Democrats and swing-voting Republicans willing to bring frivolous impeachment for private sexual misconduct, but not for war crimes?

OK, so Mitchell Bard is FINALLY for impeachment. What took you so long?

[ObjectiveRealist]

Oops.
[
And why is even that now a "slam-dunk" case for impeachment?
]

Should be:
And why is even that not a "slam-dunk" case for impeachment?

[graffen48]

It will be interesting to see how the Obama administration handles this. There are definitely strong arguments as to why Obama would not want to be distracted during these dangerous and unprecedented times, but as you say, this has gone beyond being a "distraction" , and could actually be looked at as a policy decision. A lot of countries will be looking carefully at how this is resolved, with good or bad ramifications depending on our actions. I have a small suggestion, and that is Obama could initiate a very quiet, low key investigation, maybe get all the background information gathered together, and as much legwork as possible without causing a media frenzy.Hire a few intelligent people who don't like the spotlight and know how to operate in relative secrecy. This way, the case moves forward, and Obama has the time to concentrate on immediate issues.

[45245]

nothing is wrong with waterboard­ing.......­get over it

[SENATORCALLENBOWE]

HOW CAN U CONFESS 2 THE DEVIL?

[scooperss]

Shoulda
Coulda
Woulda
Didn't

The nancy pelosi legacy to us all-------­incompeten­ce and enabling another President in the future to go even further than bush did with the reasoning that it was legal by today's standards.

[JALKO]

Think back forty years. We had Nixon, Cheney Rummy, Poindexter,and all the bush cronies. Trickle down economics and drown the USA in the bathtub. My country is in as bad a shape as I have seen it in 56 years. It wasn't stopped then, but it is time to SAY NO MORE. Hold these people accountable and stop the ruining of the USA. NO MORE and let,s start rebuilding America for future generations.

[MarieFara]

(continue)

I'm part of the problem, sitting here and blogging. All I know is that we need to start doing marches again on washington if we want to get this done because it will NEVER Get done because no matter how much I love Obama there are things he will not be able to push through without our support and the Republicans and the other wimpy Democrats will fall in line once they see millions of people wanting justice from Bush and Cheney.

I don't know where to go or how to start but all I know is that I'm tired of blogging about how angry I am, I want to DO something about this and see some accountability.

Sorry I'm a big long winded but this upsets me.

[Mitchell Bard - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for the comment, MarieFara, but I would advise you not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Blogging educates and inspires people to act. Yes, action is important, too. We should be doing both.

[Edger]

One of the things we can all do is join forces to push Eric Holder into living up to his own words. If Mr. Holder, when he becomes Attorney General, is to live up to his own statements and retain the personal and professional integrity he has displayed in his law career thus far, and not by acts of omission become an accessory along with Mr. Mukasey and Ms. Pelosi to the crimes of Bush, Cheney and others in the Bush administration, he will have no choice but to accept the demands of the thousands of US citizens who have signed the Docudharma­/Democrats­.com Citizens Petition for a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute Bush administration war crimes.:

Citizens Petition for a Special Prosecutor here:
http://www.docudharma.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11029

Eric Holder Knows: Bush And Cheney Deserve Fair Trials:
http://www.docudharma.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11058#190419

The Man: Attorney General-Designate Eric Holder Jr. :
http://www.docudharma.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11038

[MarieFara]

(Continue)

I know some people will think I'm being dramatic but we were lied to, the constitution was used as butt wipe (excuse my French) and we sit and blog about how angry we are. Why aren't we marching on Washington???

Obama doesn't like conflict. He sees big picture: He wants to fix the economy and needs bipartisan support to do it, he won't rock the boat by making Republicans angry on things like trial for Cheney. I know it's important to us, but in the grand scheme of things it's not more important than people being able to feed themselves. He like getting things done and putting Bush and Cheney on trial will not help him get ANYTHING done unless it's CLEAR that we're behind him. Unless it's CLEAR to the Republicans that this isn't a "democrat issue" or a "lefty issue" or "those crazy left wings" issue, we need to show them that the AMERICAN PEOPLE are angry, the AMERICAN PEOPLE don't want this swept under a rug, we want it out in the open so that this NEVER happens again.

We need to bring back the "WE THE PEOPLE" and show our strength. If they don't see us and all they do is read our posts, they can always dismiss it as "those left wing nuts"

(To be continued)

[MarieFara]

Frankly I have to admit that I'm getting more mad at us in the blogosphere (yes, me included) than Bush and Cheney. I never thought I would say those words, but they're true.

When rights were denied to blacks, what happened? People marched. No matter the hoses, the dogs, the clubs, etc...
When people disagreed with the Vietnam war same thing happened. They marched.

What has happened to our sense of civil rights??? This is why Cheney and Bush are so brazen, this is why Cheney can say "so", Bush say "so what". Why Cheney is able to sit and tell us "yes, I authorized war crime and what are you going to do about it?" It's because he KNOWS we won't do anything about it. We will sit behind our computers and blog, and blog and blog. I wonder what would've happened if MLK had blogged and not marched. What would've happened if women hadn't marched for their right to vote. Even the opposition to prop 8 gained more traction and more support once people saw that the gay community was out PEACEFULLY in the streets and were TRULY affected. They need to see it's PEOPLE they're dealing with, not words on a screen, not crazies but people.

{to be continued)

[SeriousBlack]

I just watched the documentary "Torturing Democracy" on PBS and I have never been so fing mad. And that's saying something.

Go to www.TorturingDemocracy.org and check it out and if you can watch that and deny that something went seriously wrong with our country during the Bush administration, then... you have got to be out of your mind, to be blunt about it.

[Mitchell Bard - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for the link, SeriousBlack. I always appreciate comments that include resources.

[Danny]

Here's another relevant link

"Stop Senator No" (about how to undo the supposedly sacrosanct 60 Senators "filibuster") by William Greider. The Nation, Dec. 29,2008, p.6.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/greider/print

[notb observer]

When we consider the sheer weight of the Cheney-Bush Administration's abuse and treasonous behavior, we cannot but conclude that it goes well beyond simple "malpractice". There was a clear intent to mislead the public and their representatives, as well as to usurp the lovers of government.
There is nothing that has com out of this Administration that resembles the truth. Whether it be pardoning the leaker of Valerie Plame's identity when we were told they would be dealt with according to the law, or cherry picking and distorting intelligence to make a case for preemptive war while pretending to exhaust all diplomatic means and then saying "I'm sorry the intelligence was so wrong", or firing US Attorneys who did not engage in partisan politics by investigating or indicting Democratic politicians and then watching as the Attorney General claimed repeatedly that he "could not remember that meeting". To top it all off, the Administration, under the tutelage of Cheney and Rove has made a habit of using non-official e-mails to hatch and coordinate their secret plans.
We have gotten nothing but brazen lies that can only lead to the conclusion that there were deliberate attempts made to grossly abuse the powers of the Executive and circumvent or otherwise ignore the Constitution.
Clinton's "sexual indiscretions" are a farce compared to the machinations of this Administration. There is no choice but to appoint a team of Special Prosecutors to investigate and then impeach !

[JenniferEccles]

Yes there needs to be an investigation but it would be wise to do it after they are out of office and no longer have a right to claim "executive privilege".

I see Watergate-style hearings in the future with regard to the actions of the Bush Cheney administration. If crimes were committed, they should be held accountable.

[eciaccio]

Any members of either party in Congress who bleat the excuses that prosecuting war criminals would be 'divisive' or 'partisan' or 'obstructive at this time of crisis' should be confronted with this question: should war criminals go free? If that legislator answers yes, he/she is no longer fit to "protect and defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

[scooperss]

Correct.

[mnyegele]

First of all, I can't help noticing the double standard. When Democrats like Blagojevich commit crimes, they go to jail, directly to Jail - Do not pass go, do not collect $ 200,000. But Republicans??? That's a good reason for voting a straight Democratic ticket if there ever was one. I definitely want the book thrown at Blagoyevich, but equally, I strongly want Cheney, Bush & Company tried for war crimes. The Republicans should be spear-heading this drive. The fact that they are not merely confirms my already rock-hard belief that all Republicans are collaborators.
However, I noticed one of the reasons Mitchell Bard alluded to was the filibuster rule. Why do we perpetuate the filibuster? We must demand a change in Senate rules. An entrenched minority of obstructionists must not be allowed to veto the will of the majority. With global warming proceeding at an alarming rate, we cannot permit the Senate to play patty-cake with the planet. We need to demand a reponsive, stream-lined Senate with no filibuster. If the Republicans attempt to play the filibuster card, Obama and his Democratic allies need to resort to a nuclear option - and do this as often as they need to. The Senate must respond to the wishes of the majority.

[Mitchell Bard - Huffpost Blogger]

mnyegele, thanks for your comment. I don't disagree with your point of view. I agere that crimes should be prosecuted and global warming should be addressed.

But when it comes to the filibuster, be careful what you wish for. The Democrats in Congress many not have been nearly as aggressive as we would like, but the filibuster rule was the only thing to stand between Bush and the Republicans running wild (think privatizing social security) between 2002 and 2006. The rule works both ways.

[JosephHill]

Yes...but....The DLC Democrats surrendered their filibuster powers before a shot was even fired in the confirmation 'war' against Bush's Supreme Court nominees. As you say, "The rule works both ways", but only if the opposition party dares to invoke it.

[JosephHill]

"The fact that they are not, merely confirms my already rock-hard belief that all Republicans are collaborators."

Don't look now, but there are plenty of Democrats who chose to 'go along to get along' during the past 8 years. We wouldn't be in the mess we find ourselves in today if more Democrats had had the courage and integrity to challenge this administration at every point where it was obvious (to all of us "outside-t­he-Beltway­" citizens) that the White House Gang were in the process of subverting The Constitution and sacrificing our treasure, our troops, and our freedoms in their quest to 'make the world safe'--AND profitable!--for Haliburton, KBR, Exxon, and any other enterprise that would benefit Bush and Cheney and their wealthy friends who, by the way, shower plenty of campaign funds on more than a few Democrats.

[madisonhack]

Jimmy and Rosylyn Carter walked up Pennsylvania Avenue at Jimmy's Inauguration. Bush was under heavy security, behind bullet-proof glass and was still egged coming to his throne. Carter travels the world, builds houses for needy people with his bare hands, and supervises elections in emerging democracies. What will Bush and Cheney have to look forward to? More shoe throwing? The World Court?

[ciabrat]

Good point. From what I hear, it's precisely for that reason that Bush and Cheney won't be using their passports very much after 1/20/09.

[sloLes]

Creditors control their debtors. And our creditors can destroy the American economy in a few weeks. If these nations push to indict Bush et al at the World Court and then make it clear to us that failure to surrender these people is grounds for sanctions; we will cave. How long do you think that Americans will tolerate no oil shipments? What will occur if none of our creditors will buy our T-notes?

Bush pardons will have no credibility at the World Court. And there are cells ready & waiting for Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and others. It's time to change our plan from investigating and trying these people here. Let's encourage our friends abroad to do it for us.

[lungfish]

The proof that Democracy works will be in the return of the country to a stable, Constitutionally based, system. This means an acknowlegment that the system is out of balance and that the Constitution has been threatened and subverted. Those responsible for this may be found inside the Bush Administration and they need to be held accountable.

This should be done in parallel with the primary order of business focused on stabilizing and rolling back the various changes to the system that the Administration has imposed.

So I think that a full on investigation should be done. ASAP.


Bush is going to have to pardon most of the Administration for almost every man-hour of work they have done since day one. It will be interesting to read the language of the pardons because that will demonstrate where the Administration believes they are most vulnerable.....
I hope this process can be interfered with and these people are held accountable.