Schieffer let Cheney falsely equate harsh interrogation techniques, U.S. military training
SUMMARY: Bob Schieffer did not challenge Dick Cheney's false comparison between the harsh techniques used in the interrogations of CIA detainees and those used in the U.S. military's training programs, nor Cheney's repetition of the myth that more than 60 former Guantánamo detainees have returned to the fight.
On the May 10 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer did not challenge former Vice President Dick Cheney's false comparison between the harsh techniques used in the interrogations of CIA detainees and those used in the U.S. military's training programs. Cheney asserted that "[t]he fact of the matter is these techniques that we're talking about are used on our own people. In the SERE [Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape] program that, in effect, trains our people with respect to capture and evasion and so forth, and escape, a lot of them go through these same exact procedures." However, as Media Matters for America has noted, officials familiar with both the techniques used in harsh interrogations and those used in military training programs have said that such a comparison is false; those who undergo certain interrogation techniques in such training programs are aware that there are safeguards and know they can stop the training immediately if necessary.
According to a recently released May 2005 Office of Legal Counsel memo by Steven G. Bradbury, the Bush administration's principal deputy assistant attorney general at the time, individuals undergoing the U.S. military's SERE training are "obviously in a very different situation from detainees undergoing interrogation; SERE trainees know it is part of a training program, not a real-life interrogation regime, they presumably know it will last only a short time, and they presumably have assurances that they will not be significantly harmed by the training." Moreover, a report released on April 22 by the Senate Armed Services Committee states that "[t]here are fundamental differences between a SERE school exercise and a real world interrogation."
Later during the interview, Schieffer did not challenge Cheney's repetition of the myth that more than 60 former Guantánamo Bay detainees have returned to the fight. Cheney asserted that "we've released hundreds [from Guantánamo], already, of the less-threatening types. About 12 percent of them ... went back into the fight, as terrorists." Sixty is 12 percent of the approximately 500 detainees who have been either transferred or released from the Guantánamo Bay detention center since it opened in January 2002. In fact, the Department of Defense has stated that 18 former Guantánamo detainees have been "confirmed" as having "return[ed] to the fight." During a January 13 press conference, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell announced "updated recidivism numbers of people who have been at Guantanamo": "We now believe ... that the overall known terrorist reengagement rate" is "11 percent. The new numbers are, we believe, 18 confirmed and 43 suspected of returning to the fight. So 61 in all former Guantanamo detainees are confirmed or suspected of returning to the fight."
Even the Pentagon's claim that it has confirmed that 18 former Guantánamo detainees have "return[ed] to the fight" has been questioned by analysts. For instance, CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen stated on the January 23 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360: "[W]hen you really boil it down, the actual number of people whose names we know are about eight out of the 520 that have been released [from Guantánamo], so a little above 1 percent, that we can actually say with certainty have engaged in anti-American terrorism or insurgence activities since they have been released. ... If the Pentagon releases more information about specific people, I think it would be possible to -- to potentially agree with them. But, right now, that information isn't out there."
Additionally, as Media Matters has noted, Seton Hall Law School professor Mark Denbeaux has disputed the Pentagon's figures, asserting that the Defense Department's most recent "attempt to enumerate the number of detainees who have returned to the battlefield is false by the Department of Defense's own data and prior reports." Denbeaux has written several reports about Guantánamo detainees, including reports challenging the Pentagon's definition of "battlefield" capture and the Pentagon's published detainee recidivism rates.
From the May 10 edition of CBS's Face the Nation:
SCHIEFFER: What do you say to those, Mr. Vice President, who say that when we employ these kind of tactics -- which are, after all, the tactics that the other side uses -- that when we adopt their methods that we're weakening security, not enhancing security, because it sort of makes a mockery of what we tell the rest of the world?
CHENEY: Well, then you'd have to say that, in effect, we are prepared to sacrifice American lives rather than run an intelligent interrogation program that would provide us the information we would need to protect America.
The fact of the matter is these techniques that we're talking about are used on our own people. In the SERE program that, in effect, trains our people with respect to capture and evasion and so forth, and escape, a lot of them go through these same exact procedures.
SCHIEFFER: Do you --
CHENEY: Now --
SCHIEFFER: Is what you're saying here is that we should do anything if we could get information?
[...]
SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you about Guantánamo. President Obama said it's going to be closed within a year; it's proved to be a little more complicated than perhaps some in the administration thought it was going to be. Now you've got Congress in a real uproar about if these people are brought to prisons in this country.
We've had resolutions introduced up there on the Hill that, unless a state legislature gives the go ahead, you can't put them into a prison any place in that particular state. But can we ask other countries to take these people back, Mr. Vice President, if we're not willing to take them back in this country?
CHENEY: Well, we have asked other countries to take them back, and they've refused. I can remember a situation before we left office where we were trying to find a home for some Uighurs who were generally believed not to be all that big a threat. They ended up in Albania, because Albania was the only country in the world that would take them. What's left -- we've released hundreds, already, of the less-threatening types. About 12 percent of them, nonetheless, went back into the fight, as terrorists.
The group that's left, the 245 or so, these are the worst of the worst. This is the hard core. You'd have a recidivism rate out of this group of maybe 50 or 60 percent. They want to get out, because they want to kill more Americans. And they're -- you're just going to find it very difficult to send them any place. Now, as I say, there's been some talk on the part of the administration about putting them in the United States. I think that's going to be a tough sell. I don't know a single congressional district in this country that's going to want to say, "Gee, great. They're sending us 20 Al Qaeda terrorists."
It's a graphic demonstration of why Guantánamo is important. We had to have a place, a facility, where we could capture these people and hold them until they were no longer a danger to the United States. If you bring them to the United States, they acquire all kinds of legal rights. And as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed said when we captured him, he said, "I'll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer." That's the kind of problem you're going to have with these terrorists. So --
SCHIEFFER: Let's talk quickly about your party.
CIA-Pentagon Killers Torture Nearly 100 to Death -- After Downing Street
A SERE trainer exposing US servicemen to torture techniques is not guilty of torturing his trainees. An interrogator exposing suspected terrorists to torture techniques is guilty of torturing those detainees.
It's really simple, Mr Schieffer. How could you let Dick Cheney get away with equating those two different scenarios?
They claimed that at Guantanamo, U.S. "rights" didn't go into play. But what about Cuban law and Cuban rights?
The Bushies tried to have it both ways-- calling it a "war," but not granting POW status (which would prevent interrogation.) Then calling them "criminals," but not granting them any criminal rights or status.
"Torture" is a term that can be applied to waterboarding. But not in a legal sense as it was practiced at Guantanimo. It has a specific legal definition and the administration was careful to ensure that their practices would fall outside of that definition.
Besides which, The Geneva Convention is specific in defining what a "prisoner of war" is and the combatants serving with Al Quaida and the Taliban did not fall under that definition.
Also, adherence to the treaty is subject to the other side also adhering to it. In the attack on 9-11, as well as in many other actions, both organizations violated the treaty. The troops of Iraq on the other hand, mostly were covered by that treaty in the conflicts initial stage before the mission to overthrow the government was accomplished. Those that participated in the subsequent insurgency and inter-sectarian attacks were not.
The pentagon report sited in MMFA's original article does NOT contradict the statement that 60 former detainees have returned to combat. It says that 18 are known for certain to have and another 43 are suspected to have. Dick Cheney was not issuing a report on detainee recidivism. He was talking about the folly of releasing combatants while the combat is still going on. His number of "60" correctly reflects the number believed to have returned to combat.
MMFA failed to make its case against Cheney's remarks and has failed to make its case against Schieffer's questioning. Cheney's remarks are more defensible as adhering to a standard of truth than MMFA's article on his remarks. MMFA provides a valuable resource but only if they are scrupulous in their analysis. When they fail to be so, they destroy their own reputation more than that of their subjects. There is no need for these marginal and irrelevant citations. The Left has sufficient grounds to argue the potential superiority of its solutions. This kind of behavior diminishes the reliability of MMFA and only appeals to its most thoughtless supporters. What will get them to say "rah! rah!" will not convince the undecided or frustrate those committed to the other side. On the contrary, it gives us fuel to demonstrate the intellectual inferiority of your side's point of view. As a partisan on the Right, I don't mind that. It helps to neutralize your potential impact. But as a former partisan on the Left, I know that there are much better grounds on which to contest the Right than the supposition that they are morally, intelectually or educationally inferior. Neither side can justify that claim. Pointing out the falacies in MMFA's presentations and its believer's responses is not nearly challenging enough and I'd hoped that somewhare on the Left there might be people actually capable of dealing with real issues.
True, they are not Prisoners of war which is not the ONLY protected class of person according to the Geneva Convention. I corretcted you before on this. On the off chance FACTS mean anything to you
From www.icrc.org:
This assertion promotes the argument that persons who fail to qualify for prisoner of war status under Geneva Convention III are categorically outside of the protections of the Geneva Conventions. However, Geneva Convention IV, Article 4 provides protected status to persons "who find themselves . . . in the hands of a party to the conflict", unless they fail to meet certain nationality criteria or are covered by the other Geneva Conventions. Detainees not protected by those other Conventions, and who do meet the nationality criteria for coverage under Geneva Convention IV do, indeed, 'have a label in the law of war conventions'. That label is "civilian", or "protected person" under Geneva Convention IV – even if they are definitely suspected of activity hostile to the security of the detaining State or of being "unlawful combatants". Persons who do not meet the nationality criteria are covered by Article 75 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. This article forms part of customary international law.
Your third paragraph is also absolutly wrong. Black letter international law gives all people the RIGHT to fight against foriegn invaders thus see above they ARE protected as per Geneva.
AGAIN you are flat out wrong. Did Dick say SUSPECTED of returning to fighting or did he say they RETURNED to fighting a claim he CANNOT substantiate and repeated as fact. THUS misinformation
Yeah we appreciate the concern trolling but MMFA just isnt going to consult with YOU about what and how they write their threads. As a rightwing partisan you didnt SHOW any fallacies by MMFA you showed YOUR biased interpretations and frankly they arent worth that much
Basically, the Constitution charges the President with the defense of the nation against all threats foreign and domestic. No American Law can supersede American Law and no American Law can grant any other law the power to supersede American Law.
The term, "suspected" appears in the Pentagon report to which he was referring. "Suspected" immplies more than just "we guess, maybe." But the real crux of the matter is you're confusing conversational Englishj applicable in this circumstance with the more precise form that would appear in an official report, etc. A frequent error. Just as you don't hold your own representatives to so exacting a standard when they are speaking off-the-cuff, you would be hypocritical to apply it to Cheney.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples
There is NO coherence whatsoever in your weird claim that no American law can supercede and American law WHAT? At what point DID the US OPT OUT of the Geneva convention? Oh right, THAT NEVER HAPPENED as such since it WAS ratified it remains THE HIGHEST LAW of the land equal to Federal law.
I dont care WHAT definition of suspected you use. What the word suspected CANNOT mean is PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW. Without THAT no punishment is morally acceptable and no nation that wants to call itself civilized will mete OUT punishment without a conviction. That of course is ignoring Maher Arar who NO ONE EVEN SUSPECTED of being a terrorist yet was sent to be tortured to Syria nor Khaled al-Masri who got kidnapped and tortured because he had a name similar to the guy we really wanted. Which would NOT have happened had there been a court proceeding.
Getting back to Cheney if he MEANT suspected he should have SAID suspected this isnt the first time this has been brought up. I am not a hypocrite because YOU want to excuse Cheney with his HISTORY OF OUTRIGHT LYING, for his misinformation. Remember him saying that the Atta meeting in Prague was pretty well confirmed when the Czhech Secret Service said they didnt believe it and the FBI was saying they knew where he was at that time and he wasnt in Prague. Far from being pretty much confirmed it had been pretty much refuted. The man is a baldfaced liar.
That's funny -- I coulda sworn Cheney was an elected official {or at least an appointed one in 2000.}
So many linguistic gymnastics -- all to justify the unjustifiable . . .
I am also unaware of any US law that defines waterboarding as torture. You must also know of a link to that.
Why is waterboarding torture (18 seconds of water being poured in your face or until you truthfully answer a quesiton) and the death penalty is not torture? Are you saying that waterboarding is torture, but life in prison is not torture? What about solitary confinement for life? Shall we ask the torturees which they would prefer -- the "legal" solitary confinement for life or the "illegal" waterboarding for 18 seconds continuing until they divulge the truth.
Finally, even if terrorists were recognized and covered by the
Geneva convention (SCOTUS did this, I believe), they immediately begged out by not adhereing to the convention. If one side doesn't obey the conventions, the other side doesn't have to either. Do the terrorists obey the Geneva Convention?
The simple fact is there were no loud outcrys when waterboarding was told to the public in 2003. None. That is because the congress was well known to be in on it. Now, Nancy and others are trying to rewrite history. The motivation for all this is simple (except in Judge Napolitano's case): Bush bashing. If a Democrat had won the 2000 election, I have no doubt he would have done the same to protect America. I have looked long and hard but I have found nothing suggesting Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi or any Republicans for that matter yelled and screamed about waterboarding in the 2003 time frame. I'm sure someone did, but I can't find it.
It's time to look forward, not back. Otherwise, we have to send Clinton to jail for his purjury conviction, try Truman for killing Japanese civilians, try Roosevelt for imprisoning Japanese Americans, try Jackson for disobeying the Supreme court and Lincoln for suspending habeas corpus.
And after we do all this and at some later date, the other party gets into power, the living law will adapt to new interpretations and who knows might find themselves in jail.