Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Former President George W. Bush, following in the footsteps of his former Vice President Dick Cheney, admitted to authorizing the torture of at least one detainee during an appearance in Grand Rapids. CNN reports:
In some of his most candid comments since leaving the White House, former President George W. Bush said Wednesday he has no regrets about authorizing the controversial waterboarding technique to interrogate terrorist suspects and wouldn't hesitate to do so again."Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," the former president said during an appearance at the Economic Club of Grand Rapids, Michigan, according to the Grand Rapids Press.
There is no question that waterboarding is torture; we have tried and put to death soldiers from other countries for waterboarding our own troops and even convicted and tried and imprisoned American soldiers for doing it as well. And there is no question that torture is illegal in the United States, under both statutory and treaty law.
The UN Convention on Torture, which was pushed through and signed by President Ronald Reagan, could not be more explicit in obligating the United States to prosecute anyone in this country that authorizes or engages in torture. It also could not be more clear that there are no possible circumstances that can be used to justify the use of torture. Article 2 of that convention says:
Article 2.1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
The definition of torture from Article 1 is similarly unambiguous:
1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
President Bush just admitted to violating that convention.
Politics
Comments
Where are the so-called "Citizen Grand Juries" for this case?
Posted by: Zippy the Pinhead | June 4, 2010 9:44 AM
Yes, but, nothing will happen. The crimes of Bush and Cheney will be overlooked. To paraphrase Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, 'To protect them in their old age'.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | June 4, 2010 9:48 AM
I am against protecting them in their dotage but I might settle for having them (and their families) just STFU.
Posted by: MikeMa | June 4, 2010 9:58 AM
I'm by far no fan of Bush, but I have to point out that "Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed" is not the same as "Yeah, I authorized the waterboarding." The former is an admission that the act was carried out by the administration in question, a point that is uncontested now, whereas the latter is an explicit acknowledgement of an active role in the decision to do so.
I really hope that evidence for the latter surfaces eventually, but for now we should at least be honest enough to admit that the current evidence only covers the former.
Posted by: Mystyk | June 4, 2010 10:00 AM
The next revision to the Pledge of Allegiance will strike the outdated "and justice for all" verbiage.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | June 4, 2010 10:19 AM
Mystyk wrote:
No, we already have that evidence. The CIA insisted on having written authorization from the president himself and they got it. That was the whole point of demanding the Yoo/Bybee torture memos, to provide legal cover for that. We didn't need this admission to have incontrovertible evidence that Bush specifically authorized it. The White House explicitly approved waterboarding and a whole range of "enhanced interrogation techniques" to be used. That has long been in the public record.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 4, 2010 10:29 AM
So, if know that a crime has been committed and I aid the person who committed that crime to escape, all I need do is say: "I didn't authorise that crime" and it's all hunky-dory, gotcha. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | June 4, 2010 10:48 AM
To pile on to Ed's rebuttal of Mystyk, the President followed the statements Ed quotes at that same event noting, "I [Bush] would do it [torture/waterboard] again if it saved lives" [paraphrased].
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 4, 2010 11:14 AM
Great. Bush thinks he's Ollie North.
Posted by: Brownian | June 4, 2010 12:16 PM
@Mystyk
Did you perchance follow the link to the CNN article? If you had, then you would have seen this:
Sounds to me like he's saying that he authorized it.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | June 4, 2010 12:58 PM
I haven't paid enough attention to this issue... What are the precedents where we tried and executed people for waterboarding Americans? Is there much room for weaselling (like, "it wasn't for the waterboarding but for something else they did?") I'd love to have some case studies to cite next time this comes up in conversation with a friend...
Posted by: jaranath | June 4, 2010 12:59 PM
My understanding was that we had the Yoo/Bybee memos, but not a memorandum bearing Bush's "autograph" or a direct admission on that scale. I don't think a reasonable person would believe those as having the same authoritative weight, and technically only the latter would be a "smoking gun" to prosecute Bush even if the Yoo/Bybee memos carried the same weight from the standpoint of those actually conducting the torture.
If I was mistaken as to the existence of a direct "smoking gun" admission of liability, whether written or spoken, then I apologize, but the quote used for this post is not such. It is, as spoken, an admission that torture was carried out. I would take Michael Heath's addition as being closer to an admission than the initial quote, but even that isn't the same as him saying "I authorized it."
Posted by: Mystyk | June 4, 2010 1:03 PM
Doesn't par. 3 of Article 2 specifically state that is not a defense for the members of the CIA involved in the torture?
If they really wanted to be heroes they'd have gone to great lengths to ensure the administration didn't know about the torture before it was committed. I'm thinking these guys wanted to make sure they could drag Bush and Cheney down with them if things went bad.
Posted by: itzac | June 4, 2010 1:30 PM
On a somewhat related note, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi makes a pretty good case for, well, you get the idea.
Posted by: itzac | June 4, 2010 1:39 PM
Serious charges.
Nobody's got the guts to prosecute.
Our politicians are above the law.
Example: Hillary and her cattle futures.
Posted by: asdf | June 4, 2010 1:47 PM
Dick Cheney admitted to torture awhile ago during a televised interview, and still Obama refuses to prosecute. He clearly doesn't believe in accountability, but come on! Can't he realize that this makes a mockery of our legal system?
Posted by: vjack | June 4, 2010 2:15 PM
Mystyk @ 12,
Bush and Rumsfeld (when applicable) signed authorizations to do this, the Yoo/Bybee memos were merely reports attempting to justify the orders signed by the President. In fact all the atrocities we discovered via photographs at abu Ghraib were consistent with the orders signed by Bush and Rumsfeld.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 4, 2010 2:23 PM
Mystyk, it seems to me that "I'd do it again" makes "I did it" quite obvious, no? What other interpretation is there? That he meant "I'd hire the people who did do it again?" And if so, what of it? Then he'd be acknowledging that with foreknowledge of the actions they'd take, he'd put them in a position to do so with the intent that they would commit the action "to save lives".
Posted by: jaranath | June 4, 2010 2:35 PM
http://tinyurl.com/37xk5qr
Posted by: Juice | June 4, 2010 3:15 PM
Ed, you said :
"There is no question that waterboarding is torture; we have tried and put to death soldiers from other countries for waterboarding our own troops..." (my bold)
I'd really like an example of that. Being executed for waterboarding someone, terrible though it is, sounds somewhat extreme.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | June 4, 2010 3:26 PM
Well...if we fail to abide by The UN Convention on Torture, then we lose the right to hold other countries accountable to it. That's the problem with breaking treaties/signed agreements between countries. If you break it, you lose the moral and legal ground to go after any other country that breaks it against you.
By not abiding by this treaty, our government is making the world a much more dangerous place for all of us in the long run.
Posted by: Daelda | June 4, 2010 3:48 PM
I could be completely wrong on this and it's probably an ill-advised post, but this has had me incensed from the get-go. IIRC, the Military Commissions Act put whoever they wanted in a 5th category, outside of HC, Geneva, etc. And I'm pretty sure there was some wording in there where the get-out-of-jail-free was retroactive, as well. I voted for Obama. I haven't given up on him. Yet. But... yeah, and Pelosi hasn't impressed much either.
Posted by: pdett | June 4, 2010 3:52 PM
NoAstronomer you asked,
I'd really like an example of that. Being executed for waterboarding someone, terrible though it is, sounds somewhat extreme.
If I'm not mistaken, a number of Japanese solders were executed for waterboarding prisoners, although they also practiced other other forms of torture, waterboarding was among the methods cited in the charges.
Posted by: carver | June 4, 2010 4:04 PM
Carver: That's what I was afraid of. If it's just one of a lot of different methods and abuses, it becomes far too easy to insist waterboarding itself wasn't THE main charge, or a charge worth serious punishment. Of course, even getting them to admit it's a charge at all would be a start...
Posted by: jaranath | June 4, 2010 4:14 PM
pdett (#22):
Well, what are you waiting for?
Posted by: tmplikeachilles | June 4, 2010 4:18 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Prosecuting Bush and the rest of his Idiot Cabinet will be a huge waste of resources. Not only have these clown got the money to hold of the case for years, but it's almost guaranteed that the GOP and the Republicans will back them all they way to court.
And even if they finally get wrestled into court, if they somehow get convicted they'll only be given fines or become martyrs to the Republican Party...no doubt hailed and immortalized for their stand against the evil terrorist-loving democrats. And guess who gets nailed in the fallout.
Posted by: Scott M | June 4, 2010 5:18 PM
@tmplikeachilles
In all fairness, I said it was probably ill-advised. Perhaps I was too optimistic. It's a marathon, not a sprint. I'm still on board, with the hope that groundwork is being laid for better days ahead. But I hate to see the Bush/Cheneys of the world get away with what I consider despicable acts.
Posted by: pdett | June 4, 2010 5:22 PM
Scott M: This isn't a matter of political expediency, it's a matter of law. Law is the fundamental basis of government, if the people who write the laws don't obey them, why should anyone else?
A government that doesn't follow it's own laws is unworthy of allegiance, respect or even existence.
Posted by: James K | June 4, 2010 5:42 PM
Shorter Scott M: "Let the bastards win."
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 4, 2010 5:44 PM
Kissinger has never been prosecuted for war crime (Vietnam & Argentina to name two), neither will BushCo.
Posted by: Seamus Ruah | June 4, 2010 7:15 PM
Somehow I doubt the ICC would give them fines for what they did.
Posted by: Alex | June 4, 2010 7:55 PM
On a somewhat related note, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi makes a pretty good case for, well, you get the idea.
Yeah, I saw Vince Bugliosi on C-Span a few months before the election. He was practically on fire, all revved up to have Bush arrested ten minutes after Obama or McCain was sworn in. It was a very exciting idea, but nothing came of it. Not that I really expected it to, but what happened - he couldn't get a judge to issue a warrant, or is he just a nutcase?
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | June 4, 2010 8:06 PM
Obama and his team are such cowards, they will never charge anyone in the Bush administration with anything, no matter what the admissions or other evidence.
Posted by: Randy | June 4, 2010 8:55 PM
So I sound like I'm giving up. Fine...I'm giving up. The prosecution will fire charges, the GOP and their allies will rally around Bush and his pals, and when they finally see the inside of a court in about a decade there will be a whole lot of noise and then they'll either got off completely or have to pay a fine and everyone will forget about them.
And of course the Republicans will whine a lot about how this is all just some liberal plot to sieze power or pave the way for Sharia law or some other such garbage, and the Dems will deny it with their usual lukewarm defensiveness...and Bush and Cheney and the rest will make a fortune off of the books they write.
If I thought that there'd me some actual justice done, that there might be a chance for putting these bastards away for their actions then I'd be cheering it on. As far as I can tell, though, it's just a pipe dream. Like nailing Kissinger for his garbage.
Posted by: Scott M | June 4, 2010 9:03 PM
@ Michael Heath
In fact all the atrocities we discovered via photographs at abu Ghraib were consistent with the orders signed by Bush and Rumsfeld.
I am soooo tired of all the hyperventilating and bug-eyed conspiracy mongering when it comes to things that Bush & Cheney are supposed to have done. But atrocities? Please - Take a pill.
Furthermore words have meaning. If you call a naked pyramid an atrocity then what do call it when Islamo-fascists behead three non-Muslim schoolgirls for being in the wrong place at the right time? Is it a super-mega-uber-atrocity or more like justified defense against the evil imperialists? Quit taking a dump on the dictionary you useful idiot!
Posted by: Magnus Thanu | June 4, 2010 9:09 PM
How's the Spanish Case going? - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | June 4, 2010 10:30 PM
Magnus Thanu:
You mean what they had ordered done, no one is challenging the empirical record regarding the Bush Administration's use of torture and only a handful of Bush Administration officials are not calling torture by its name. Denial's a bitch. Citation: http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=305734
Magnus Thanu:
Insults wrapped around a cogent argument are welcomed. However creating a strawman (humiliation picture) while denying the reality that innocent people were tortured and some killed using methods authorized by and administrated by the Bush Administration won't get your argument to resonate very well around here. So yes, I'm extremely comfortable using the word 'atrocity' to describe a U.S. President authorizing the systemic use of torture against even innocent people an atrocity. Especially because its blowback effects also resulted in its use becoming the #1 motivation for people to join al Qaeda in Iraq where they killed American soldiers.
In addition, pointing to atrocious behavior by one group as an argument rebutting atrocious behavior by another is not even a coherent argument, especially when both groups end up killing their prisoners, some innocent, some known to be innocent, some tortured to death who were later found to be innocent.
I must thank-you for keeping the record alive, i.e., every conservative argument I've encountered challenging my posts this year has that commenter impotently projecting at least one of their own failed traits onto to me, i.e., your quip, "Quit taking a dump on the dictionary you useful idiot!" The entertainment value I get out of counting those up (here I'd argue two) is well worth dealing with the fierce denial that's also always attendant.
Merriam-Webster - atrocity (2 link max, which is why I don't embed link)
Merriam-Webster - atrocious
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 5, 2010 12:26 AM
DOJ Inspector General's report on torture, which I couldn't add to above comment as citation given two-link limit: http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0805/final.pdf
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 5, 2010 12:32 AM
Whoa...Michael Heath, you got a book with all about words in it, like that, what supports your arguments? That's owsome.
I stand by my plan: Tomorrow, Obama pardons Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Bybee, Rumsfeld, and everybody else remotely involved in the decisions. Let the wingnuts figure out whether to shit or go blind on that one.
Finally, regarding Ed's original post:
"...admitted to authorizing the torture of at least one detainee during an appearance in Grand Rapids."
Torturing them at Bagram or at some forgotten Tiktaalikistanian shithole or in a basement at Camp Peary is one thing. But torturing them during a speaking appearance in Grand Rapids, in front of all these witnesses? Over the top. Think of the children!
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | June 5, 2010 12:49 AM
This is what happens when frat boys are given power. Torture is just hazing to these idiots.
Posted by: Lowsix | June 5, 2010 2:15 AM
I'd definitely prefer pardoning them over pretending they did nothing wrong, which so far seems to be the official position.
Posted by: Nemo | June 5, 2010 2:28 AM
I agree with Scott M that a prosecution in the US would be ineffective. However, a UN war crimes tribunal might be able to deal with it without some of the repercussions, BS, and delays. At the very least I think it would have a better shot at it.
Posted by: darius | June 5, 2010 7:07 AM
Moral reciprocalism is irrelevant to those humans who have power.
Posted by: Dornier Pfeil | June 5, 2010 8:56 AM
Dick Cheney admitted to torture awhile ago during a televised interview, and still Obama refuses to prosecute. - vjack
Why is it up to Obama? (This is a genuine enquiry - as a non-American, there may be some legal point I'm unfamiliar with, but in democratic states, the general rule is that the chief executive and government have nothing to do with decisions on launching a criminal prosecution.)
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 5, 2010 11:35 AM
Knockgoats - In the U.S. the federal law enforcement agency reports into the Executive branch where the President as Chief Executive appoints the nation's chief law enforcement officer and therefore has some control over the priorities and energy to investigate federal crimes, especially when it comes to suspected crimes by political leaders.
In addition Presidential Administrations after Reagan (inclusive) have a treaty obligation to investigate and prosecute torture or they become criminally culpable per the terms of the treaty.
The president's administration also argues in federal court on behalf of the U.S.
None of these descriptions include how the President is responsible for prosecuting the law when it comes to the Geneva Conventions which prohibit mistreatment of detainees or military law, where I'm not sure how the mechanics work-out in terms of his responsibility through his role as Commander in Chief of the military.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 5, 2010 1:04 PM
Of course Bush admits it. Many admire him for it, and Obama has already promised that he'll see that no one who committed war crimes in the Bush Administration need fear an investigation or prosecution. The powerful must take care of each other, after all.
Of course, the whistleblowers from the Bush Administration are a different story. They discomfited the powerful and revealed serious problems that were being covered-up. No mercy for those guys!!! Prison for them for sure! Too bad for them that they're now powerful and wealthy.
Obama is quite a puzzle. And Eric Holder as well. I simply do not understand their outlook. "We will not prosecute crimes that occurred in the past. We will look to the future." That didn't protect the whistleblowers, but it has certainly protected Bush, Cheney, and all the guys who tortured totally innocent people (the Canadian guy, the German guy, and others)---and we'll fight any effort by those whom we mistakenly tortured to get recompense for their suffering or even acknowledge that we did wrong.
I find those stand contemptible.
Posted by: Leisureguy | June 5, 2010 1:25 PM
Scott M's notion (that we should ignore lawbreaking if prosecuting it might be troublesome) sets an interesting new standard for justice. It's certainly easier, and I think that is the system used in some other countries, but I don't know how effective it is in creating the kind of society we want.
BTW, in my comment above: "now" s/b "not":
Posted by: Leisureguy | June 5, 2010 2:40 PM
Not merely "troublesome". Utterly useless and counter-productive. Read the rest of my post.
Think it won't happen?
Posted by: Scott M | June 5, 2010 3:45 PM
With all of the hearty arrest shrub for torture why is everyone ignoring the fact that not only the current prez offshore these chores but also publicly authorized the killing of an american citizen who is not in a theater of operations with no trial or hearing wherever he may be in the world regardless of whether he is with his immediate family. Things are not getting better
Posted by: broboxley | June 5, 2010 7:35 PM
I do not understand? PZ echoes this on his forum too. Then let's do something. How do we find an attorney to prosecute him?
Lets not type about it on the net. Lets do it
t_schwartz317@sbcglobal.net
Posted by: Tony | June 6, 2010 1:07 PM
I am always so baffled by the theists, anti-theists, racists, nazi's or sexists... People that like to bitch about things on the net... Yet, that is the extent of their action. Then when nothing changes they bitch more.
No matter how disgusting their actions. . . At least Israel is not afraid to act. No matter how stupid their arguments at least christians argue them for change, texas being a recent example. No matter how brutal at least Muslims lay down their lives for their pathetic Gods.
If Bush really did act illegally, the author of this article seems to believe he did let's do something. Or like most this article was just written to stir up some emotions then be forgotten about.
I haven't the slightest clue where to start. However, I am capable of following complex and detailed instructions. I am here to do what ever might be needed? I have $100 USD for a donation to an attorney, I make my computer available. I am not the most articulate or effective writer but I have 1tb of free hd to store files on, I can type 60 words a minute. I have 24/7 internet access. I am not afraid to sign public petition. I am not the leader type, most are not. Most are the stir up emotions then go hide type - both sides. It is very strange to me.
Anyhow, my primary personal email is listed above, that is an Indiana area code. I am not hiding. Let's do something. Or let's stop pretending you care and talk about issues we are willing to take action on.
Since we no longer need to impeach let's convict. If allowable by law seek execution. If not just imprison if violations can be proven in our courts.
Posted by: Tony | June 6, 2010 1:21 PM
Let's proceed to put the bitches Cheney-Shrub into the penetentiary!
And make sure the great Obama-Biden administration stays clean of all that slime!
Remember that Reagan-Bush got off from their impeachable and dimissable from office Iran-Contra Affair, and the idiot Republicannot put another stain on their party with the stupid impeachment of our near-great president Clinton - no. three after Pres.'s Lincolhn and FDR in economic accomplishments and hign in civil rights.
Rembember that bith Bush was a reckless, AWOL poilot, double-failed businessman with golden parachutes [ unlike PRE.'S Grant and truamn.], goverrnor ? and failed president who lied us into war!
Posted by: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth | June 7, 2010 2:43 PM
Sorry for the typos!
Posted by: Morgan-Lynn Griggs Lamberth | June 7, 2010 2:46 PM