« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Justice Dept. Official: CIA Waterboarding Was Subject to "Strict Limitations"
The CIA's use of waterboarding was legal and not torture, a Justice Deparment official argued this morning, because it was a "procedure subject to strict limitations and safeguards" that made it substantially different from historical uses of the technique by the Japanese and the Spanish Inquisition.
Steven Bradbury, the Justice Department official who heads up the Office of Legal Counsel, is testifying before a House Judiciary subcommittee this morning. And he made an unexpected argument when Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) asked him whether waterboarding violated the law against torture.
It did not, he said. And he argued that what the CIA did bears "no resemblance" to what torturers in time past have done. "There's been a lot of discussion in the public about historical uses of waterboarding," he said. But the "only thing in common is the use of water," he said. Here's video:
The Spanish and Japanese use of "water torture," he said, "involved the forced consumption of a mass amount of water." Asked by a Republican whether Bradbury was aware of any "modern use" of waterboarding that involved the "lungs filling with water," Bradbury said no.
The Japanese forced the ingestion of so much water that it was "beyond the capacity of the victim's stomach." Weight or pressure was then applied by standing or jumping on the stomach of the victim, sometimes leading to "blood coming of the victim's mouth." The Spanish Inquisition would use the technique to the point of "agony or death."
But the CIA wasn't doing that, he argued. "Strict time limits" were involved -- presumably governing the length of time that interrogators could induce the sensation of drowning. There were "safeguards" and "restrictions" that made it a much more controlled procedure. Because of that, he said, the technique did not amount to torture.
But Bradbury said that subsequent laws and Supreme Court decisions passed in 2005 and 2006 had changed his office's analysis, and in 2006 the CIA removed waterboarding from its authorized battery of interrogation techniques.
Update: Once again, here's former Navy instructor describing the technique of waterboarding, and here's a video demonstration.
Comments (19)
Oh well since they did it in such a controlled way, it obviously wasn't bad. Just because the "terrorists" thought they would die and were sufficating doesn't mean they were tortured.
Now that it's all cleared up, lets go to lunch.
February 14, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lord have mercy..is there a school these guys go to where they learn this skewed logic? Perhaps a how-to manual of double talk Bushisms?
February 14, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Curious, the abuses they first were supposedly "not doing," is now admitted to subject to oversight, rules, and supervision. We don't need a copy o fa tape, or witnesses: The US leadership has admitted they had policies, documents, training, and reviews which did oversee specific war crimes.
Rules related to "overseeing" waterboarding are rules only Congress can make. The President has no rule making power, that is a legislative power. However, waterboarding, as Prisoner of War abuse, is illegal under the Geneva.
Geneva prohibits all abuses; and whether waterboarding is or isn't "torture" is meaningless relative to Geneva. Congress and the President have no joint, separate, special, or classified "power" to unilaterially abrogate Geneva and issue rules permitting war crimes.
Notice the common pattern: First claiming they were "not doing" something that was illegal; then contradicting themselves and saying they had "oversight" of what they were supposedly "not doing". This is similar the President's claim of "not doing" warrantless surveillance, then asserting he was "self-overseeing" the program.
- Where are the policies of the President related to these "special oversight rules" which "permitted" war crimes, prisoner abuse, and violations of Geneva?
- Which supervisory training, reviews, and written comments were made of the "practice waterboarding" to ensure that the procedures as implemented did fully comply with the President's written guidance on the illegal abuse of POWs in violation of Geneva?
- What role did the President give to the Congress, if any, in "determining" the rules of this waterboarding were or were not lawful?
- When were members of Congress -- as was done with the "special FISA rules for the President's illegal FISA violations" -- asked to comment on these 'special rules' overseeing illegal POW abuse?
- Where are the copies of the Members of Congress comments, letters, and briefings related to these supposed "oversight rules" which they were provided, briefied on, and knew about?
February 14, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You gotta give'em this: the first liar doesn't have a chance. Oh, that's right. Yes he does. And the second and the third and... I keep thinking "what a treacherous web we weave once we practice to deceive." But it seems to work for them. Even their inconsistencies are overlooked.
February 14, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live blogged this at DailyKos, and the final questions were on does Pres. Bush have to power under Article 2 to still order Waterboarding. WHile not giving a straight answer Bradbury hinted at that if the OLC, or DOJ wrote a opinion that he coudl order it, then the Pres. could follow their advise. It's the same twisted logic they have used in the past, are using now, and that originated in the Bybee Memo. Expect them to use the "Intent" defense from the Bybee Memo a lot in the future, it is what they have hung their hats on for future defenses in court and anywhere else.
February 14, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is absurdly appealing to confusion and false uncertainty -- you're asking whether it is "debatable" whether war crimes are or are not legal: "[F]inal questions were on does Pres. Bush have to power under Article 2 to still order Waterboarding." It's not a "final" question nor speculative, but a matter of international war crimes relative to certain, clearly promulgated standards: Geneva. It's an alleged war crime which belongs not in the public "debate" forum of Congress, but in the Judicial branch for adjudication as an alleged war crime.
Just because DoJ OLC says it is "legal" doesn't mean that it is; just because DOJ AG says he will not enforce Geneva violations doesn't mean his decision is legal.
Stop trying to find a "good reason" to explain their non-sense.: "Expect them to use the "Intent" defense from the Bybee Memo a lot in the future, it is what they have hung their hats on for future defenses in court and anywhere else. When one violates the laws of war, they are presuemd to have a criminal intent. This isn't a political issue. It's a matter of internatioanl criminal law.
February 14, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
These people are pitiful, trying to explain that the technique they used was not like war criminals (Japanese in WWII) or the freaking Spanish Inquisition. Are they going to bring back the Rack "new and improved?"
February 14, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason we haven’t had any success in selling impeachment to Congress is because we’ve been calling it the wrong thing.
We just need to start calling it an “Enhanced Congressional Oversight Technique” and then they’ll be all for it.
February 14, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
it wasn't torture that made them 'spill their guts'
February 14, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just awful, everyday I read mre and more and the lies keep on stacking up. Maybe I am naive and this is the way it has always been but that wasn't the America they taught me in school.
Way to go America, freedom huh, prosperity for a chosen few!
February 14, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Bradbury, when I smack you upside the head with a two-by-four it's not going to be anything like "assault", because I'm going to be applying various personal safeguards and restrictions.
February 14, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Bradbury, the Justice Department official who heads up the Office of Legal Counsel, is testifying before a House Judiciary subcommittee this morning. And he made an unexpected argument when Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) asked him whether waterboarding violated the law against torture."
Anybody who didn't see this argument coming just hasn't been paying attention. The crew over at Balkin's blog has highlighted the Admin's emphasis on the claim that physical suffering must be "prolonged" (which finds no support in the statutes, by the way) for quite some time.
And as for these supposed "strict time limits," "safeguards" and "restrictions," anybody want to bet whether the videotapes -- which have, for some reason, been destroyed -- would show those limits and restrictions being ignored?
February 14, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rotten. Just rotten.
February 14, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you think terror suspects would just happily give away information without any physical abuse to them? What is your plan to get information out of them? All of you keep saying don't do this, don't do that, but do not give any solution to the problem.
February 14, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
and if the suspect knows nothing or is innocent? What then, just tell them your sorry and give them a towel?
Torture is illegal
February 14, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The CIA's use of waterboarding was legal and not torture . . . because it was a 'procedure subject to strict limitations and safeguards' that made it substantially different from historical uses of the technique by the Japanese and the Spanish Inquisition."
Actually, the Inquisitors were the first bureaucrats of torture. There were only 3 kinds of torture authorized for use out of the many gruesome techniques available, and their use was modulated and a permanent record made of the proceedings. Why? The point of the Inquisition was to *save people's immortal souls.* The logic was impeccable: any amount of suffering in this life is justifiable to save someone from burning in hell for eternity. Therefore Christian love dictates that we use all the methods at our disposal, including _limited_ physical torture, to persuade you to confess the error of your ways and be reconciled with God. And give up anyone else whose soul might be in peril.
No doubt some Inquisitors were or became sadists, no doubt some were motivated by hatred of Jews and Muslims and heretics. Nevertheless, by their own beliefs they were sincere and justified in their actions, and they took steps to do what they did in an orderly and controlled way.
Just like our Department of Justice and CIA interrogators.
February 14, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So you think terror suspects would just happily give away information without any physical abuse to them? What is your plan to get information out of them? All of you keep saying don't do this, don't do that, but do not give any solution to the problem."
You just advocate sloppy investigating, and laziness.
There is no usable evidence obtained by torture.
February 14, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Waterboarding of any sort is NOT the ingestion of water into the stomach. It is the pouring of water directly into the breathing passages. Intel experts know that it's not simulated drowning, IT IS DROWNING under controlled circumstances. A drowning victim can be brought to the point of unconsciousness repeatedly & revived, then threatened w/repetition of the experience. Bradbury is full of crap.
Experts who have personal & professional integrity, unlike Steven Bradbury, know full well what waterboarding of any sort entails. Some very familiar names signed this letter to Leahy & Specter, sent during last November's Mukasey confirmation hearing:
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/11/05/urgent-letter-from-intelligence-military-diplomatic-and-law-enforcement-professionals/
February 14, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never been a moralist. If someone had my brother or sister detained and tortuing them would realist that information. i would toture them until I had the information and save my borther and sister. I would also admit to the court of law that I torture this guy and this is why I did it. I would then leave it to a jury of my peers to decide if I should be punish.
In my opinion this isn't about toture. This is about the congress right to know and have oversight over the department of justice. Given the extreme case that someone toture and is convicted of a crime of tuture. President Bush has the constitutional right to pardon this person if he felt it was done in the interest of national security.
Toture should be illegal and if we ever need to actually do toture. The president can decide to pardon the person who tuture of his or her crime.
February 14, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink