", OPINION: DECLARATIONS APRIL 24, 2009 Past, President and Future
Obama was right to resist reopening the torture debate.By PEGGY NOONAN
What makes it hard at the moment to write sympathetically of Barack Obama is the loud chorus of approbation arising from his supporters in journalism as they mark the hundred days. Drudge calls it the "Best President Ever" campaign. It is marked by an abandonment of critical thinking among otherwise thoughtful men and women who comprise, roughly speaking, the grown-ups of journalism, the old hands of the MSM who have been through many presidents and should know better. They are insisting too much. If they were utterly confident, they wouldn't be. This is yet another Obama pseudo decision or 'policy' that manifest his imaturity and ignorance regarding basic leadership principles. Next up is his responsibility towards Cap and Trade or letting Congress threaten business and those Democratic state representatives with much more onerous EPA regs RE C)2 as a 'Polutant". Is Obama, or anybody for that matter in control of the Democratic Party?
In the area of foreign affairs, one of the arguments for candidate Barack Obama was that he would put a new stamp"new ways, new style and content"on America's approach to the world. This might allow some in the world"occasional allies, foes, irritated sympathizers"to recalibrate and make positive readjustments in their attitude toward Washington. With George W. Bush, everyone got dug in, and the ground froze. After 9/11 he cut like a sword and divided: You were with us or against us. He launched a war that angered major allies. For seven years there was constant agitation, and the world was allowed to make a caricature of U.S. leadership. There was no capture of Osama bin Laden, the man who made 9/11 and whose seizure would have provided a unifying Western rallying point and inspired instructive admiration: Those Yanks get their man.
A second foreign-affairs argument for Mr. Obama is that we had entered the age of weapons of mass destruction (we'd entered it before 9/11, but only after that date did everyone know) under solely Republican rule. Which allowed anyone who wanted to, to perceive it, or play it, as a Republican war, a Republican drama. There were potential benefits in a change in leadership, one being that the Democrats would now share authority and responsibility for the age and its difficulties. They'd get the daily raw threat file, they'd apply their view of the world and do their best. A primary virtue of that: On the day something bad happened"and that day will come, and no one in the entire U.S. intelligence community will tell you otherwise"we would as a nation be spared, as we got through it, the added burden of the terrible, cleaving, partisan divisiveness of 2000-08. This would help hold us together in a hard time.
Is Mr. Obama putting a new style and approach on the age? Yes. On the occasion of the hundred days one can say: So far, so good. (We are limiting this discussion to foreign policy because in terms of domestic policy there are only so many ways to say "Oy.") There is an air of moderation, a temperate approach. Mr. Obama shakes hands with everyone, as is appropriate, for if American presidents dined only with leaders of high moral caliber and democratic disposition, they'd often sit alone at the table of nations. Though the controversy was that Mr. Obama shook Hugo Chavez's hand at the summit last week, the news was the desperation with which Mr. Chavez tried to get in the picture with him. It's not terrible when they want to be in the picture with you. It all depends on what you do with the proximity and in the ensuing conversation.
But now a hard issue has arisen, and it may well have bad foreign-policy implications.
Mr. Obama has had great and understandable difficulty in balancing competing claims regarding how to treat government information on prisoner abuse. The White House debated, decided to release Bush-era memos, then said they wouldn't allow anyone to be prosecuted, then said maybe they would. It was flat-footed, confusing. The only impressive Obama we saw on the question this week was the one described by "a senior White House official" in the Washington Post. He or she was quoted saying, of the internal administration debates, that the president was concerned that a 9/11-style commission "would ratchet the whole thing up," and "His whole thing is: I banned all this. This chapter is over. What we don't need now is to become a sort of feeding frenzy where we go back and relitigate this."
Assuming the official spoke accurately of Mr. Obama's attitude, the president was wise in his reservations.
A problem with the release of the documents is that it opens the way"it probably forces the way"to congressional hearings, or a commission, or an independent prosecutor. It is hard at this point to imagine that what will follow will not prove destructive to"old-fashioned phrase coming"the good of the country.
Torture is bad, and as to whether the procedures outlined in the memos constituted torture, you could do worse than follow the wisdom of John McCain, who says, "Waterboarding is torture, period." This is something he'd know about. Abuse is wrong not only in a specific and immediate sense but in a larger one: It coarsens and damages the nation that does it while undermining its reputation in the world and its trust in itself. I freely admit it is easy to say this on a pretty day in spring 2009, and might not have been when 3,000 Americans had just been killed. In New York it took months for us to lose the terrible, burnt-plastic smell of the smoke. The earliest memos were written by men who still had the smell of smoke in their noses.
Why have reservations, then, about release of the memos and the investigations that will no doubt follow?
For these reasons. Prisoner abuse has been banned. Mr. Obama himself, as he notes in the quote above, banned it. It's over. The press, with great difficulty, and if arguably belatedly, did and is doing its job: It uncovered and revealed the abuse. The historians are descending, as they should. Hearings, commissions or prosecutors would suck all the oxygen out of the room and come to obsess the capital, taking focus off two actual, immediate and pressing emergencies, the economy and the age of terror. Hearings, especially, would likely tear up the country as we descended into opposing camps. They would damage or burden America's intelligence services, and likely result in the abuse of those who acted from high motives, having been advised their actions were legal. As for the memo writers, some of whose constitutional theories were apparently tilted to the extreme in favor of the executive, it is hard to see how it would help future administrations, or this one, to have such advice, however incorrectly formulated, criminalized.
Finally, hearings would not take place only in America. They would take place in the world, in this world, the one with extremists and terrible weapons. It is hard to believe hearings, with grandstanding senators playing to the crowd, would not descend into an auto-da-fé, a public burning of sinners, with charges, countercharges, leaks and graphic testimony. This would be a self-immolating exercise that would both excite and inform America's foes. And possibly inspire them.
Meanwhile, a resurgent Taliban is moving toward Islamabad and, possibly, the Pakistani nuclear arsenal; Israel and Iran are at loggerheads; and Iraq and Afghanistan continue as live and difficult wars. And that's just one small part of the world.
What a time to open a new front, and have a new fight, and not about what is but what was.
Hard not to believe it wouldn't be better to leave this one to history, and the historians. Absent that, a commission is better than a public prosecutor with an endless prosecution, and a public prosecutor is better than congressional hearings. Really, almost anything would be better than that."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124052010393349643.html#printMode
Homeland secretary apologizes to veterans group
By EILEEN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer Eileen Sullivan, Associated Press Writer 54 mins ago
WASHINGTON " Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano met with the American Legion on Friday to apologize for a right-wing extremism report written by her agency, and the veterans group walked away from the meeting mollified.
Napolitano blamed one of her agency's analysts for prematurely sending out the intelligence assessment to law enforcement, according to Craig Roberts, an American Legion member who attended the meeting. The report says veterans returning from Iraq or Afghanistan could be susceptible to right-wing recruiters or commit lone acts of violence.
"She essentially admitted fault within her office," Roberts said.
Legion National Commander David Rehbein said, "I think the session in Secretary Napolitano's office will go a long way to help our returning veterans in the future."
After the meeting, Napolitano issued a statement saying the department "has fixed the internal process that allowed this document to be released before it was ready."
The report, one of Homeland Security's periodic assessments, warned that right-wing extremists could use the bad state of the U.S. economy and the election of the country's first black president to recruit members. The analysis said veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars could be targeted by the groups.
It drew angry reactions from Rehbein, conservative bloggers and Republican members of Congress who took to the House floor this week to criticize Napolitano, confirmed to her Cabinet position less than 100 days ago.
"Has this Homeland Security secretary gone absolutely stark raving mad?" Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn, said Wednesday.
"I think the appropriate thing for her to do would be to step down," Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, told Fox News on Thursday.
"Janet Napolitano should resign or be fired," Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, said on Wednesday.
(Commenting on Peggy Noonan's thoughtful essay):
Implicit in these thoughts are all kinds of sauces that go just as well with the gander as they do with the goose. The Bush Admin wisely determined an investigation into and the demonizing (to say nothing of actually trying to prosecute the former executive branch for its pursuit of constitutional imperatives) of the Clintonian wisdom that eschewed the demise of Osama Bin Laden was not in our county's best interest-- Bush found that it was a decision made in the past in just that context and could not justifiably be judged with the chronological snobbery and arrogance of hindsight.
For those who just fell off the turnip truck: What happens when another party comes to power? Is this a precedent the liberals really want to set? If this internecine power struggle were isolated it would not matter, but the U.S. ( as Georgeb1 has noted) is surrounded by self perceived Lilliputians who would only welcome such self imposed weaking constraints upon America.
JM
Friday, April 17, 2009
Obama administration pledge not to prosecute CIA interrogators draws criticsm
Brian Jackson at 8:55 AM ET
[JURIST] US President Barack Obama on Thursday asserted his intention [statement] not to investigate individuals who used or authorized enhanced interrogation techniques the same day the Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] released memos [JURIST report] outlining CIA use of these techniques. The president urged the country to look forward, rather than to the past, saying:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/04/obama-administration-pledge-not-to.php
New Interrogation Details Emerge
As It Releases Justice Dept. Memos, Administration Reassures CIA Questioners
By Carrie Johnson and Julie Tate
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 17, 2009
Justice Department documents released yesterday offer the fullest account to date of Bush administration interrogation tactics, including previously unacknowledged strategies of slamming a prisoner into a wall and placing an insect near a detainee terrified of bugs.
Authorities said they will not prosecute CIA officers who used harsh interrogation techniques with the department's legal blessing. But in a carefully worded statement, they left open the possibility that operatives and higher-level administration officials could face jeopardy if they ventured beyond the boundaries drawn by the Bush lawyers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/16/AR2009041602768.html?wprss=rss_politics/administration
Feinstein Asks Obama to Reserve Judgment on Torture Prosecutions
Written by Jason Leopold
Monday, 20 April 2009 14:02
By Jason Leopold
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein urged President Barack Obama Monday to reserve judgment about whether or not Bush administration officials should be prosecuted for torture until her committee completes its review of the CIA's so-called "enhanced interrogation" program in six to eight months
http://www.pubrecord.org/torture/846.html?task=view
Obama Won’t Bar Inquiry, or Penalty, on Interrogations
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: April 22, 2009
WASHINGTON " President Obama left the door open Tuesday to creating a bipartisan commission that would investigate the Bush administration’s use of harsh interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects, and did not rule out action by the Justice Department against those who fashioned the legal rationale for those techniques.
The remarks, in response to questions from reporters in the Oval Office, amounted to a shift for the White House. The president had repeatedly said that the nation should look forward rather than focusing on the past, and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said Sunday in a television interview that Mr. Obama believed that “those who devised policy” should not be prosecuted.
But under intense pressure from Democrats on Capitol Hill and human rights organizations to investigate, the president suggested Tuesday that he would not stand in the way of a full inquiry into what he has called “a dark and painful chapter” in the nation’s history.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22intel.html?_r=1
April 23, 2009
Categories: Pelosi
Pelosi briefed on waterboarding in '02 [UPDATED]
Nancy Pelosi denies knowing U.S. officials used waterboarding " but GOP operatives are pointing to a 2007 Washington Post story which describes an hour-long 2002 briefing in which Pelosi was told about enhanced interrogation techniques in graphic detail.
Two unnamed officials told the paper that Pelosi, then a member of the Democratic minority, didn't raise substantial objections.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0409/Pelosi_briefed_on_waterboarding_in_02_.html
Obama Reverses Stance On Enhanced Interrogation "Truth" Commission
Posted by HughS
Published: April 23, 2009 - 9:42 PM
President Obama's Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said today that the President is reconsidering comments he made Tuesday that a Truth Commission would be a proper venue to investigate alleged abuses by Bush administration officials on the matter of aggressive interrogation.
On Tuesday, Obama raised the prospect of legal consequences for Bush administration officials who authorized harsh interrogation techniques applied to "high value" terrorism suspects, and said if Congress is intent on investigating the tactics, an independent commission might provide a less partisan forum than a congressional panel.
Today the President was having second thoughts....
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs sought to clarify the president's views this afternoon, telling reporters at the daily White House briefing that "the president determined the concept didn't seem altogether workable in this case." Gibbs added, "The last few days might be evidence of why something like this might just become a political back and forth."
Let me decode that comment for readers: the President has been taking a whipping on this issue since Tuesday unlike anything he has experienced since taking office. The New York Times summed this up nicely yesterday:
Mr. Obama and his allies need to discredit the techniques he has banned. Otherwise, in the event of a future terrorist attack, critics may blame his decision to rein in C.I.A. interrogators.
Congratulations to the Times for getting it right. They succinctly described
what most Americans intuitively believe about this issue in spite of the non stop screeching on the Left about torture. It's a political calculation for the President wherein he determined that he will be a net loser by allowing the prosecution of his predecessor's staff. Dick Cheney has won this debate.
http://obama.wsj.com/article/0dL0adJdl4c0W?q=Robert+Gibbs
The Declaration of Cumaná: Capitalism 'threatens life on the planet'
By various | April 24, 2009
We, the Heads of State and Government of Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela, member countries of ALBA, consider that the Draft Declaration of the 5th Summit of the Americas is insufficient and unacceptable for the following reasons:
The Declaration does not provide answers to the Global Economic Crisis, even though this crisis constitutes the greatest challenge faced by humanity in the last decades and is the most serious threat of the current times to the welfare of our peoples.
The Declaration unfairly excludes Cuba, without mentioning the consensus in the region condemning the blockade and isolation to which the people and the government of Cuba have incessantly been exposed in a criminal manner.
For this reason, we, the member countries of ALBA believe that there is no consensus for the adoption of this draft declaration because of the reasons above stated, and accordingly, we propose to hold a thorough debate on the following topics:
1. Capitalism is leading humanity and the planet to extinction. What we are experiencing is a global economic crisis of a systemic and structural nature, not another cyclic crisis. Those who think that with a taxpayer money injection and some regulatory measures this crisis will end are wrong. The financial system is in crisis because it trades bonds with six times the real value of the assets and services produced and rendered in the world, this is not a “system regulation failure”, but a integrating part of the capitalist system that speculates with all assets and values with a view to obtain the maximum profit possible. Until now, the economic crisis has generated over 100 million additional hungry persons and has slashed over 50 million jobs, and these figures show an upward trend.
2. Capitalism has caused the environmental crisis, by submitting the necessary conditions for life in the planet, to the predominance of market and profit. Each year we consume one third more of what the planet is able to regenerate. With this squandering binge of the capitalist system, we are going to need two planets Earth by the year 2030.
3. The global economic crisis, climate change, the food crisis and the energy crisis are the result of the decay of capitalism, which threatens to end life and the planet. To avert this outcome, it is necessary to develop and model an alternative to the capitalist system. A system based on:
- solidarity and complementarity, not competition;
- a system in harmony with our mother earth and not plundering of human resources;
- a system of cultural diversity and not cultural destruction and imposition of cultural values and lifestyles alien to the realities of our countries;
- a system of peace based on social justice and not on imperialist policies and wars;
- in summary, a system that recovers the human condition of our societies and peoples and does not reduce them to mere consumers or merchandise.
4. As a concrete expression of the new reality of the continent, we, Caribbean and Latin American countries, have commenced to build our own institutionalization, an institutionalization that is based on a common history dating back to our independence revolution and constitutes a concrete tool for deepening the social, economic and cultural transformation processes that will consolidate our full sovereignty.
ALBA-TCP, Petrocaribe or UNASUR, mentioning merely the most recently created, are solidarity-based mechanisms of unity created in the midst of such transformations with the obvious intention of boosting the efforts of our peoples to attain their own freedom. To face the serious effects of the global economic crisis, we, the ALBA-TCP countries, have adopted innovative and transforming measures that seek real alternatives to the inadequate international economic order, not to boost their failed institutions. Thus, we have implemented a Regional Clearance Unitary System, the SUCRE, which includes a Common Unit of Account, a Clearance Chamber and a Single Reserve System. Similarly, we have encouraged the constitution of grand-national companies to satisfy the essential needs of our peoples and establish fair and complementary trade mechanisms that leave behind the absurd logic of unbridled competition.
5. We question the G20 for having tripled the resources of the International Monetary Fund when the real need is to establish a new world economic order that includes the full transformation of the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, entities that have contributed to this global economic crisis with their neoliberal policies.
6. The solutions to the global economic crisis and the definition of a new international financial scheme should be adopted with the participation of the 192 countries that will meet in the United Nations Conference on the International Financial Crisis to be held on June 1-3 to propose the creation of a new international economic order.
7. As for climate change, developed countries are in an environmental debt to the world because they are responsible for 70% of historical carbon emissions into the atmosphere since 1750. Developed countries should pay off their debt to humankind and the planet; they should provide significant resources to a fund so that developing countries can embark upon a growth model which does not repeat the serious impacts of the capitalist industrialization.
8. Solutions to the energy, food and climate change crises should be comprehensive and interdependent. We cannot solve a problem by creating new ones in fundamental areas for life. For instance, the widespread use of agricultural fuels has an adverse effect on food prices and the use of essential resources, such as water, land and forests.
9. We condemn the discrimination against migrants in any of its forms. Migration is a human right, not a crime. Therefore, we request the United States government an urgent reform of its migration policies in order to stop deportations and massive raids and allow for reunion of families. We further demand the removal of the wall that separates and divides us, instead of uniting us.
In this regard, we petition for the abrogation of the Law of Cuban Adjustment and removal of the discriminatory, selective Dry Feet, Wet Feet policy that has claimed human losses. Bankers who stole the money and resources from our countries are the true responsible, not migrant workers. Human rights should come first, particularly human rights of the underprivileged, downtrodden sectors in our society, that is, migrants without identity papers. Free movement of people and human rights for everybody, regardless of their migration status, are a must for integration. Brain drain is a way of plundering skilled human resources exercised by rich countries.
10. Basic education, health, water, energy and telecommunications services should be declared human rights and cannot be subject to private deal or marketed by the World Trade Organization. These services are and should be essentially public utilities of universal access.
11. We wish a world where all, big and small, countries have the same rights and where there is no empire. We advocate non-intervention. There is the need to strengthen, as the only legitimate means for discussion and assessment of bilateral and multilateral agendas in the hemisphere, the foundations for mutual respect between states and governments, based on the principle of non-interference of a state in the internal affairs of another state, and inviolability of sovereignty and self-determination of the peoples.
We request the new Government of the United States, the arrival of which has given rise to some expectations in the hemisphere and the world, to finish the longstanding and dire tradition of interventionism and aggression that has characterized the actions of the US governments throughout history, and particularly intensified during the Administration of President George W. Bush. By the same token, we request the new Government of the United States to abandon interventionist practices, such as cover-up operations, parallel diplomacy, media wars aimed at disturbing states and governments, and funding of destabilizing groups. Building on a world where varied economic, political, social and cultural approaches are acknowledged and respected is of the essence.
12. With regard to the U.S. blockade against Cuba and the exclusion of the latter from the Summit of the Americas, we, the member states of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America, reassert the Declaration adopted by all Latin American and Caribbean countries last December 16, 2008, on the need to end the economic, trade and financial blockade imposed by the Government of the United States of America on Cuba, including the implementation of the so-called Helms-Burton Act. The declaration sets forth in its fundamental paragraphs the following:
“CONSIDERING the resolutions approved by the United Nations General Assembly on the need to finish the economic, trade and financial blockade imposed by the United States on Cuba, and the statements on such blockade, which have been approved in numerous international meetings.
“WE AFFIRM that the application of unilateral, coercive measures affecting the wellbeing of peoples and hindering integration processes is unacceptable when defending free exchange and the transparent practice of international trade.
“WE STRONGLY REPEL the enforcement of laws and measures contrary to International Law, such as the Helms-Burton Act, and we urge the Government of the United States of America to finish such enforcement.
“WE REQUEST the Government of the United States of America to comply with the provisions set forth in 17 successive resolutions approved by the United Nations General Assembly and put an end to the economic, trade and financial blockade on Cuba.”
Additionally, we consider that the attempts at imposing the isolation of Cuba have failed, as nowadays Cuba forms an integral part of the Latin American and Caribbean region; it is a member of the Rio Group and other hemispheric organizations and mechanisms, which develops a policy of cooperation, in solidarity with the countries in the hemisphere; which promotes full integration of Latin American and Caribbean peoples. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to justify its exclusion from the mechanism of the Summit of the Americas.
13. Developed countries have spent at least USD 8 billion to rescue a collapsing financial structure. They are the same that fail to allocate the small sums of money to attain the Millennium Goals or 0.7% of the GDP for the Official Development Assistance. Never before the hypocrisy of the wording of rich countries had been so apparent. Cooperation should be established without conditions and fit in the agendas of recipient countries by making arrangements easier; providing access to the resources, and prioritizing social inclusion issues.
14. The legitimate struggle against drug trafficking and organized crime, and any other form of the so-called “new threats” must not be used as an excuse to undertake actions of interference and intervention against our countries.
15. We are firmly convinced that the change, where everybody repose hope, can come only from organization, mobilization and unity of our peoples.
As the Liberator wisely said:
Unity of our peoples is not a mere illusion of men, but an inexorable decree of destiny. " Simón Bolívar
http://rabble.ca/news/2009/04/declaration-cuman%C3%A1-capitalism-threatens-life-planet
More confusion in the conservative party:
Quote:
..."Janet Napolitano should resign or be fired," Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, said on Wednesday.
Most of what Obama is spending was necessitated
What happens when another party comes to power? Is this a precedent the liberals really want to set? If this internecine power struggle were isolated it would not matter, but the U.S. ( as Georgeb1 has noted) is surrounded by self perceived Lilliputians who would only welcome such self imposed weaking constraints upon America.
cicerone imposter wrote:
More confusion in the conservative party:
Quote:
..."Janet Napolitano should resign or be fired," Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, said on Wednesday.
yeah. let's take advice from a texan. like that worked so good for the last 8 years.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Begala Mangles Facts In Torture Debate [Mark Hemingway]
There was a recent exchange on Anderson Cooper's CNN program between Ari Fleischer and Paul Begala about torture. You can watch it here, but Begala loudly announced at one point that:
Our country executed Japanese soldiers who waterboarded American POWs. We excuted them for the same for the same crime we are now committing ourselves.
Fleischer, normally spry in such circumstances, didn't have a have a response immediately and an awkward silence ensued. Some Daily Kos diarist observed:
Thus ensued a good five seconds of the most satisfying awkward television silence I have ever experienced in my young life.
There's just one problem. What Begala said isn't true. Begala appears to be referencing Yukio Asano, a Japanese soldier convicted of war crimes. His case was popularized " in the context of waterboarding " by Ted Kennedy. See this Washington Post article from 2006:
"Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. "We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II," he said.
Not only was Asano not executed, but his 15-year sentence was for a host of crimes besides waterboarding. According to the U.C. Berkeley War Crimes center:
Docket Date: 53/ May 1 - 28, 1947, Yokohama, Japan
Charge: Violation of the Laws and Customs of War: 1. Did willfully and unlawfully mistreat and torture PWs. 2. Did unlawfully take and convert to his own use Red Cross packages and supplies intended for PWs.
Specifications: beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; water torture; burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward
So Asano beat people with clubs and burned them with cigarettes " and I think there's no real debate about whether that consitutes torture. But wait, there's more. Asano practiced a much more severe form of waterboarding, according to the Post:
Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.
In waterboarding as it is practiced by the U.S., cellophane or cloth is placed over the subject's mouth to keep water out of nose and mouth. Asano was pouring water directly into the mouths and noses of subjects which is considerably more harsh and dangerous.
I don't think that any of this settles the debate over whether waterboarding as it was practiced by the CIA is or is not torture, but Begala certainly doesn't know what he's talking about. And it's certainly not accurate to say that the U.S. punished war ciminals from other countries for the same enhanced interrogation techniques we committed in the wake of 9/11
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTA5Mjk2NDM0NTJmYzEyOGMxYzRiZmY1ZjRhYjBmODk=
"I forgot to mention last night that following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding," he told reporters at a campaign event.
"If the United States is in another conflict ... and we have allowed that kind of torture to be inflicted upon people we hold captive, then there is nothing to prevent that enemy from also torturing American prisoners."
There's just one problem. What Begala said isn't true. Begala appears to be referencing Yukio Asano, a Japanese soldier convicted of war crimes. His case was popularized " in the context of waterboarding " by Ted Kennedy. See this Washington Post article from 2006:
"Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. "We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II," he said.
Not only was Asano not executed, but his 15-year sentence was for a host of crimes besides waterboarding.
NRO's Hemingway gets history wrong in accusing Begala of botching facts
Summary: Mark Hemingway claimed that Paul Begala's statement that "[o]ur country executed Japanese soldiers who waterboarded American POWs" is false. However, the United States participated in a tribunal that sentenced numerous Japanese soldiers to death for war crimes including "torture" after a trial in which forms of waterboarding were presented as evidence of torture.
" ... following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding."
History supports McCain's stance on waterboarding
The morning after the CNN/YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, John McCain remained firm in his stand against the use of an interrogation technique called "waterboarding." He cited solid history to buttress his position.
"I forgot to mention last night that following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding," he told reporters at a campaign event.
"If the United States is in another conflict ... and we have allowed that kind of torture to be inflicted upon people we hold captive, then there is nothing to prevent that enemy from also torturing American prisoners."
McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as "water cure," "water torture" and "waterboarding," according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning.
R. John Pritchard, a historian and lawyer who is a top scholar on the trials, said the Japanese felt the ends justified the means. "The rapid and effective collection of intelligence then, as now, was seen as vital to a successful struggle, and in addition, those who were engaged in torture often felt that whatever pain and anguish was suffered by the victims of torture was nothing less than the just deserts of the victims or people close to them," he said.
In a recent journal essay, Judge Evan Wallach, a member of the U.S. Court of International Trade and an adjunct professor in the law of war, writes that the testimony from American soldiers about this form of torture was gruesome and convincing. A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps.
We find McCain's retelling of history to be accurate, so we give him a True.
You didn't even read the piece I posted did you. You cherry picked a couple of lines out of it and ignored anything that was inconvenient to your point.
I was not and am not discussing your point however.....I was only pointing out that you are ignoring any inconvenient facts and/or impropriety on the part of the Obama administration and attempting to make the previous administration the devil personified while ignoring any culpability on the part of the Congress.
Nice to see you citing John McCain as a reliable disciple for your side though.
That could be useful later on when he goes against your ultra leftwing perception about things.
Easy.
If you think that violations of the law should not be investigated or prosecuted, please try and make an intelligent argument.