U.S. Admits Use of Waterboarding

WASHINGTON (AP) – Senate Democrats demanded a criminal investigation into waterboarding by government interrogators Tuesday after the Bush administration acknowledged for the first time that the tactic was used on three terror suspects.

In congressional testimony Tuesday, CIA Director Michael Hayden became the first administration official to publicly acknowledge the agency used waterboarding on detainees following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Waterboarding involves strapping a suspect down and pouring water over his cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning. It has been traced back hundreds of years, to the Spanish Inquisition, and is condemned by nations around the world.

“We used it against these three detainees because of the circumstances at the time,” Hayden told the Senate Intelligence Committee. “There was the belief that additional catastrophic attacks against the homeland were inevitable. And we had limited knowledge about al-Qaida and its workings. Those two realities have changed.”

Hayden said Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri were waterboarded in 2002 and 2003. Hayden banned the technique in 2006, but National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell told senators during the same hearing Tuesday that waterboarding remains in the CIA arsenal – so long as it as the specific consent of the president and legal approval of the attorney general.

That prompted Sen. Dick Durbin, the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat and a member of the Judiciary Committee, to call on the Justice Department to open a criminal inquiry into whether past use of waterboarding violated any law. The Pentagon has banned its employees from using waterboarding to extract information from detainees, and FBI Director Robert Mueller said his investigators do not use coercive tactics in interviewing terror suspects.

Durbin, already frustrated with Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s refusal last week to define waterboarding a form of torture as critics have, said he would block the nomination of the Justice Department’s No. 2 official if the criminal inquiry isn’t opened.

It was a particularly sharp threat by Durbin, who represents Illinois – the same state that U.S. District Judge Mark Filip of Chicago, the deputy attorney general nominee, calls home.

“In light of the Justice Department’s continued non-responsiveness to Congress on the issue of torture, including your disappointing testimony on waterboarding last week, I have reluctantly concluded that placing a hold on Judge Filip’s nomination is my only recourse for eliciting timely and complete responses to important questions on torture,” Durbin wrote in a letter to Mukasey on Tuesday.

He added: “A Justice Department investigation should explore whether waterboarding was authorized and whether those who authorized it violated the law.”

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse declined to comment except to say that the department “is reviewing the letter carefully.”

The delay in confirming Filip could leave the Justice Department in leadership limbo following a year of internal upheaval and scandal, Mukasey, sworn in as attorney general in November, has made rebuilding the department a top priority for the final 11 months of the Bush administration.

Human Rights Watch, which has been calling on the government to outlaw waterboarding as a form of illegal torture, called Hayden’s testimony “an explicit admission of criminal activity.”

Joanne Mariner, the group’s counterterrorism director, said Hayden’s tesitimony “gives the lie” to the administration’s claims that the CIA has not used torture. “Waterboarding is torture, and torture is a crime,” she said.

Critics say waterboarding has been outlawed under the U.N.’s Convention Against Torture, which prohibits treatment resulting in long-term physical or mental damage. They also say it should be recognized as banned under the U.S. 2006 Military Commissions Act, which prohibits treatment of terror suspects that is described as “cruel, inhuman and degrading.” The act, however, does not explicitly prohibit waterboarding by name.

During his own Senate appearance last week, Mukasey refused to declare waterboarding illegal, prompting Democrats to accuse him of potentially allowing the harsh interrogation tactic to be used in the future.

The attorney general said then he has reviewed Justice Department memos about the CIA’s interrogation program and concluded that the spy agency doesn’t currently engage in waterboarding. Beyond that, Mukasey would not discuss the legality of the classified program for fear of what he described as tipping off U.S. enemies about interrogation methods.

The Justice Department has long resisted exposing the Bush administration and its employees to criminal or civil charges or even international war crimes waterboarding is declared illegal. Hayden said interrogations have been conducted by both intelligence agents and government contractors interrogators but denied that the practice, as he described it, has been outsourced.

“This is a governmental activity under governmental direction and control in which the participant may be both government employees and contractors,” he said in an exchange with Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California.

McConnell, the nation’s spy chief, said in Tuesday’s testimony that waterboarding “taken to its extreme, could be death; you could drown someone.” But he, too, refused to declare it illegal in hypothetical cases.

“Everything I know is it is a legal technique used in a specific set of circumstances,” McConnell said. “You have to know the circumstances to make a legal judgment,” McConnell said.

via\\AOL News

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Civil liberties and human rights, Federal government, Intelligence, Iraq War, Legal, Reports/Studies/Books, US Foreign Policy, War on Terror
One comment on “U.S. Admits Use of Waterboarding
  1. Anonymous says:

    Now that George Bush and Michael Hayden have publicly confessed to government waterboarding in a press conference on February 6, 2008, and in testimony before Congress on February 5, 2008, you may find the following information useful:

    The law review article referenced below (available at no cost at: http://www.law.utah.edu/_webfiles/ULRarticles/150/150.pdf ) makes clear that waterboarding is torture and is a crime and a war crime punishable under a number of treaties to which the United States is a party and several U.S. statutes.

    The article also explains that there is no defense available due to either (1) prior legal advice, or (2) circumstances (including, without limitation, terrorist acts – see citations in Footnotes 21 and 25 in the article), contrary to the claims of Bush and Hayden.

    The law review article (see pages 359 to 374) also establishes that under a number of treaties to which the United States is a party, the U.S. has an obligation to initiate an official investigation regarding confessed acts of torture. For example, the 1984 U.N. Convention Against Torture, (1465 UNTS 85), Article 12 reads as follows:

    “Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.” (NOTE: The article also explains why “territory under its jurisdiction” includes GITMO and all DOD and CIA secret detention sites for the United States.)

    The following case, among others, has held that waterboarding is torture:

    In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation, 910 F. Supp. 1460, 1463 (District of Hawaii, 1995)

    Waterboarding is torture regardless of the surrounding circumstances – there is no circumstantial or necessity defense to torture claims.

    It is time for the appointment of a special prosecutor – General Mukasey must recuse himself because of his refusal to publicly state that waterboarding is criminal torture. As explained in the law review article and elsewhere, the following individuals played primary roles in the authorization of waterboarding and should be immediately identified as the primary subjects of the investigation:

    George W. Bush
    Richard “Dick” Cheney
    John Ashcroft
    Alberto Gonzales
    Donald Rumsfeld
    George J. Tenet
    John E. McLaughlin
    Porter Goss
    David Addington
    Jay S. Bybee
    John Yoo
    Jack Goldsmith
    General Ricardo Sanchez
    General Geoffrey Miller
    General Janis Karpinski

    Bush/Cheney Pardon Calendar

    Under the circumstances – a public confession of criminal acts by George W. Bush — you should expect that immediately after the November elections George W. Bush will pardon all of the people listed above, then resign. At that point, Richard “Dick” Cheney would become President, and you should expect that in that capacity Cheney will immediately pardon George W. Bush.

    Immediate Appointment of Special Prosecutor

    As a result of the expected pardons, a special prosecutor should be appointed immediately

    Commencement of Impeachment Proceedings

    As a result of the expected pardons, on the day after the November elections, the House of Representatives should impeach George W. Bush and Richard “Dick” Cheney for high crimes — torture — violating the following statutes, among others:

    18 USC 3231
    18 USC Sections 2340-2340A
    18 USC 2441

    Please note the strategic importance of simply presenting the impeachment to members of the House with no hearings and an immediate vote on the day after the November elections. There is no reason for hearings or delay, since George W. Bush has admitted the criminal act that is the basis of the impeachment.

    International Crimes Not Subject to Pardon Power

    It is worth pointing out that torture violations of the Law of War and international treaties are not subject to the Presidential pardon power. We will see these individuals on trial in the Hague for their publicly confessed war crimes.

    “Above the Law: Unlawful Executive Authorizations Regarding Detainee Treatment, Secret Renditions, Domestic Spying and Claims to Unchecked Executive Power,” Jordan J. Paust, Utah Law Review, 2007, Number 2, Pages 345 to 419

    Article available free at: http://www.law.utah.edu/_webfiles/ULRarticles/150/150.pdf

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Stats (July 2006-)
  • 149,241 unique hits
This site may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.
%d bloggers like this: