Cheney Defends U.S. Use Of Waterboarding

But CIA Chief Says Legality Of Controversial Interrogation Technique Is Now Doubtful

(CBS/AP)  The debate over waterboarding flared Thursday on Capitol Hill, with the CIA director raising doubts about whether it's currently legal and the attorney general refusing to investigate U.S. interrogators who have used the technique on terror detainees.

Vice President Dick Cheney, meanwhile, said "it's a good thing" that top al Qaeda figures underwent the harsh interrogation tactic in 2002 and 2003, claiming they were forced to give up information that helped protect the country and saved "thousands" of American lives.

"It's a good thing we had them in custody, and it's a good thing we found out what they knew," said Cheney, speaking Thursday to a meeting of conservative Republicans in Washington.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, President Bush has "made the right decisions for the right reasons," Cheney said.

"I've been proud to stand by him, the decisions he made. And would I support those same decisions today? You're damn right I would," he said to enthusiastic applause at the Conservative Political Action Conference. [See expanded remarks below.]

Waterboarding involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his or her cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning. It is condemned by nations around the world; critics, including U.S. military interrogators, call it a form of torture.

Despite U.S. and international laws which recognize waterboarding as torture - a technique which dates back at least to the Spanish Inquisition, and for which U.S. courts have obtained convictions as a war crime - CIA Director Michael Hayden said the use of waterboarding by the U.S. was legal in 2002 and 2003 because a Justice Department lawyer signed a secret legal opinion claiming terror detainees were not protected by the Geneva Convention's ban on torture.

When that opinion was rescinded after it became public in 2004, other secret opinions were written declaring extreme intrerrogation methods could be approved by the president.

Such authorizations were at odds with public statements by President Bush and then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who declared torture to be “abhorrent” and which indicated that the waterboarding of detainees was not allowed by the U.S.

During 2002-2003, the administration said this week, waterboarding was in fact authorized for use on three detainees - accused al Qaeda members Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri - because of widespread belief among U.S. intelligence officials that catastrophic attacks by al Qaeda were imminent.

Even after the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that al Qaeda prisoners were subject to Geneva Convention protections, the president in July signed an executive order approving "enhanced" interrogation techniques on certain prisoners. As revealed in The New York Times, the order, approved by the White House Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), authorizes the CIA to use such techniques banned by international law.

Under the provisions of the secret order, waterboarding could only be authorized by the president.

Intelligence experts have not only denounced the use of waterboarding, saying that intelligence obtained through that method is questionable, but have allowed that its use exposes those who authorize it to indictment on charges of war crimes.

[As a side note, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said this week that the president is demanding that Steven Bradbury, who signed off on secret legal opinions allowing the use of waterboarding, be appointed to the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, a post which requires Senate confirmation.

Reid charges the president with purposely holding up more than 84 post nominations for federal agencies and judgeships, refusing to move forward on them unless the Senate OKs Bradbury. Meanwhile, the president blamed Congress for holding up the nominations, without mentioning Bradbury, whose duties at OLC (according to a former OLC head) could include writing an "advance pardon" excusing lawbreaking by the Executive Branch.]

CIA: Waterboarding Not In The Current Program

In 2006, the Central Intelligence Agency banned waterboarding by its personnel in the wake of a Supreme Court decision and new laws on the treatment of U.S. detainees.

"It is not included in the current program, and in my own view, the view of my lawyers and the Department of Justice, it is not certain that that technique would be considered to be lawful under current statute," Hayden told the House Intelligence Committee.

But White House spokesman Tony Fratto admitted Thursday that while waterboarding is not currently used, its legal use could be approved by the president if the attorney general and intelligence heads said it would garner important intelligence.

"I'm not in a position, and no one is in a position, to rule anything in or out," Fratto said, when asked if torture might be used, despite current law.

On Thursday, Attorney General Michael Mukasey pushed back against Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee demanding to know whether he would prosecute U.S. interrogators who used waterboarding in the past.

"Are you ready to start a criminal investigation into whether this confirmed use of waterboarding by U.S. agents was illegal?" the committee's chairman, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., asked, calling the technique an "odious practice."

"No, I am not," Mukasey answered bluntly.

He said the Justice Department could not investigate or prosecute people for actions that it had authorized earlier.

Mukasey has refused to say publicly whether he considers waterboarding legal. On Thursday he said it "was found to be permissible under the law as it existed" in the years immediately following 9/11.

Critics say waterboarding violates the U.N. Convention Against Torture and U.S. laws outlining legal treatment of detainees. The Justice Department long has resisted exposing the Bush administration and its employees to criminal or civil charges or even international war crimes if waterboarding were declared illegal.

Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA, called Thursday's testimony an example of "the gold standard of double standards."

"Everyone in the world knows that waterboarding is torture and illegal," Cox said. "The U.S. government admits having done it. Yet the highest law enforcement official in the land refuses to investigate this scandal."

[johnadams001]

Was Cheney really the one who was most responsible for these torture techniques? His recent comments might suggest so. The Military Tribunal for the Far East hung seven Japanese generals in 1946 for tolerating waterboarding in their commands? Ranks below were sentences to fifteen years hard labor for the same. The Japanese were torturing captured American airmen in the name of Japan's homeland security and the US justice system considered it a serious crime, punished by death. Did Cheney break laws? Does a Vice President not need to face the same justice system that all Americans must abide by or is Cheney above the law? Remember Nixon?

[chefjas1960]

When will the left understand. Terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention. Terrorists do not abide by teh Geneva convention. Terrorists specifically target and attack innocent civilians (especially women and children) and kill them in horrible and evil ways on purpose. Terrorists torture and behead their captives. Treating terrorists as disciplined, professionals soldiers defending their nation out of patriotism is wrong-headed. Treating them as thieves or gangsters by giving them a "fair and impartial trial" is putting us all at risk while they laugh at us and our system. Have you seen the way they laugh and sneer at our court system? We can "set a higher standard", but that doesn't have to be much to be higher than the standard they set for themselves. Simply refraining from killing or permanently disfiguring them is a very high standard for them and certainly several orders of magnitude higher than what they implement. So far, no prisoner of the US has had scars inflicted upon them during their time of captivity. All have been adequately fed and received medical care. All have been permitted to meet with both human rights advocates and legal counsel. Scaring them a bit is not torture! Police in the US use "scare" tactics on common crooks every day! Yet no one says this is torture! In fact, we expect and applaud our police for obtaining confessions from real criminals. Treating terrorists to standards higher than we treat our own citizens is surely idiotic. You want hearings? GO FOR IT! Then we can expose the raging hypocrisy of Pelosi and her ilk. When the next 911 occurs, I'm sure knyghtwolf and his pals will be the ones with the "load" in their pants!

[mountainzen]

Darth Cheney wants to know where the secret rebel base is. It''s on Hoth! Along with the weapons of mass destruction!

[inventagod]

PNAC traitors
Demolition of WTC7
Cheney running NORAD on 9/11
Lies to invade Iraq
Ashcroft Color Warning System during election run-up
Rumsfeld and torture
Wolfowitz
Halliburton
Rendition flights
Bu$h
Gates
Death of Gitmo ''dupes''

Just counting Republicon blessings.
OK, off to work to pay more taxes...

[offtheback]

Where are all of the neonazis? Could it be they can''t or won''t defend the uncontionable statements made by our one heartbeet away?

[knyghtwolf]

cfin5, after a while of listening to others comment about the thrilling adventures of Dikk & George, one would LOVE to hear how they have been debased into a painful situations similar to those they have inflicted upon others, the ONLY persons I intended to offend was the members of bush regime, and no one else.

[watcher269-2009]

The office of Vice President *** Cheney is seeking to block the release of videotaped depositions given by two aides who witnessed a physical encounter between an Iraq war opponent and Cheney.

In a motion filed Saturday, Cheney''s office contended that the videotapes could be used to invade the privacy and embarrass two aides called to testify about the encounter in a civil lawsuit.

The motion for a protective order expressed particular concern that both aides'' faces could wind up on YouTube.com.

"As courts have recognized, using digital technology, a video recording can easily be ''cut and spliced,'' so as to embarrass and even humiliate a witness," Cheney''s lawyers wrote in a U.S. District Court filing.

"That much can readily be seen from a visit to YouTube. . . . A simple query using the search term ''deposition'' yields over 400 video clips, in which many of the deponents are made to look boorish, mendacious, or unintelligent."

The plaintiff, Steven Howards of Golden, is suing Secret Service agents who arrested him after he approached Cheney at a Beaver Creek mall in 2006 and told the vice president his policies in Iraq were "disgusting."

Eagle County prosecutors dismissed a criminal charge of harassment filed against Howards.

[cfin5]

Posted by knyghtwolf at 09:22 PM : Feb 10, 2008------Please don''t tell us your an adult.

[iceman_1960]

"Cheney Defends U.S. Use Of Waterboarding"

Is anybody in their right mind still defending Cheney ?

[raphae1]

You can watch a 9 minute excerpt of the Oversight Hearing on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SPdd5fxzG0

The performance of AG Mukasey is truly embarrassing.

[jokevote]

Well we might as well give up our freedom. You people would rather have all these people that plague the world with suicide bombings, U.S. citizens beheaded u.s. soldiers Shot in the head on national T.V.. Set free so they can continue there rampaige of our freedom. That will show them.

[jokevote]

veteran71
if a true veteran you should take the time to evaluate the methods of torture used on U.S soldiers of your time as compared to waterboarding. Today US reporters, citizens, and soldiers have been treated more crutial, tortured then killed - some even have been beheaded. SO I guess this is OK with you. And as far as there being a God many famous people have died days some even minutes after they have mocked GOD Praise GOD. Watch what you say. It just may come back to haunt you.

[alburbooks]

What he said must be aplied to him. He must go to the waterboaring process so the Americans can know, when, how and for what, the Irak war start to be the banner of Halliburton. And the ammerican people will know if waterboaring is good for find the true or is a losst of time if Mr Cheney, keep saying that the war was for american security and no for all people know was, profiter way to go for the federal reserve money.

[inventagod]

I''''m calling for Cheney''''s immediate arrest and trial for war crimes. Anyone out there with me?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by antixlayer at 11:38 PM : Feb 09, 2008

Kudos and bravo!
Unfortunately, those in Congress are also guilty, so there will be no indictments this year. Can you imagine the blackmail and payola going on behind the scenes in Washington today? It all will make great reading in a couple years, when the press gets behind what we citizens deem important...

[neoconrcrazy]

"It''s a good thing we had them in custody, and it''s a good thing we found out what they knew," said Cheney


might be of interest to know "what we found out", that saved thousands of lives. But I''sd guess that''s national security and we^ll just have to trust him.

When we give up our right to know, no need to vote.

[moregunz]

After calling me a sack of something, crzmeat said, "If you would run at a man firing a 38 your[sic] lieing[sic] and trying to feel like a hero your[sic] nothing but a coward"

1. I never said I would "run at a man firing a 38". I am not that stu.pid. Why make up such ridiculous nonsense about me?

2. I never said I had any interest in "feel[ing] like a hero". What made you think I did?

3. I am most definitely not a coward.

4. I am not lying. What would be the point?

You misread or misunderstood what I said, and your response is illogical, even childish.

If you won $40 in a bet due to what I wrote, good for you. However, your friend who lost the bet might want to read what I actually said. Maybe he''ll discover that your prediction wasn''t actually correct and he can get his money back.

PS My reply was predictable simply because I spoke the plain truth. Reality is often quite predictable. Guns are offensive weapons. It''s not a secret. You can''t defend yourself with an offensive weapon, you can only use it to attack. Only the truly in.sane think otherwise.

[Krazcarl]

moregunz....Thank-you you won me 40.00 bucks I predicted your reply your a sorry sack of ****. If you would run at a man firing a 38 your lieing and trying to feel like a hero your nothing but a coward but thanks fot the cash your reply was predictable have a drink on my ignorance I''ll have several on yours...

[moregunz]

"There was a time that I WISH gunownerdan was there I was shot in the chest and a lady was shot in the head and shoulder if Dan was there he would of offered protection as you would not." -crzmeat

1. Just because dan has a gun, doesn''t mean he can protect either himself, his family, or you. The person who fires first kills the other one. The person who fires second doesn''t really ever get a chance to fire... he''s dead. Guns don''t "defend" anyone. They are 100% absolutely OFFENSIVE weapons.

2. You have NO IDEA whether or not I would have offered you protection. In your state of total ignorance, you ASSume that I would not. Given that you appear to be an id.i.ot, that may be true.

However, the point I was previously making was NOT about the inefficacy of guns for protection. My point was that gunownerdan and his buddies are cr.az.ed lu.na.tics who live in constant fear that the government is going to take away their little p3.nis substitutes. How stu.pid is that? The vast majority of the lu.na.tics in our government own guns and suppport the NRA. They aren''t ever going to take away your little toys, so quit being so paranoid!

[Krazcarl]

I cannot and willnot believe that the second in command would come out and publily endorse torture! he should be shot {take him bird hunting and say I''m sorry with a pocket of cash and favors}. 2 He embarrased us as race on this planet. 3 what is wromg in the congress that these money grubbing idiots are still here I will vote for no one in office at this time and I know others that feel the same way if I have to go rebublicain I will they all had a hand in it.

[rudy654-2009]

Excerpt:
When that opinion was rescinded after it became public in 2004, other secret opinions were written declaring extreme intrerrogation methods could be approved by the president.

Such authorizations were at odds with public statements by President Bush and then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who declared torture to be %u201Cabhorrent%u201D and which indicated that the waterboarding of detainees was not allowed by the U.S.
.........
So the President was contradicting himself in public? Is that what is called "lying"? What is this secret opinion krap? How can a secret opinion nullify the law? Am I missing something here?