CIA Director Confirms Use of Waterboarding

Caitlin Howarth
The CIA has confirmed, in testimony to Congress, the use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques.’ According to director Michael Hayden, the CIA has used such techniques on “less than a third” of its detainees.
“Hayden said the technique, the use of which has drawn harsh criticism, has not been used in almost five years because the agency has more knowledge to bring to bear in questioning detainees.”

Hayden has also asserted that, to the best of his knowledge, the use of torture techniques is legal under certain circumstances, and that “You have to know the circumstances to be able to make the judgment.”

I wonder what circumstances Hayden is talking about. Since he asserts that the techniques were used more frequently when interrogators had less information and fewer resources to bring to bear (in other words, when interrogators couldn’t do a proper, legal, and infinitely more valuable interrogation), I assume that the circumstances he’s talking about are those when the CIA is feeling desperate and down on its luck. It’s not surprising – that’s when torture is usually used. And that’s why it doesn’t yield results.

Quotes taken from coverage by Congressional Quarterly:

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=cqmidday-000002666099

One Response to “CIA Director Confirms Use of Waterboarding”

  1. Tom Paine 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