Ashcroft: Waterboarding Defines Many Things, Not Just One Thing
Speaking at the University of Texas at Austin, former Attorney General John Ashcroft was approached by Bryan Hannah, an Iraq war vet who served in the First Calvary Division as an artillery man from October 2006 until January 2008. I confess to being a bit put off by Hannah’s approach, but I’m similarly incredulous about Ashcroft, who said the term “waterboarding” is being thrown around recklessly, that the word doesn’t define a particular idea, but rather a broad set of ideas.
Ashcroft: There are things that you could call waterboarding that I am firmly convinced are not torture. There are things that you could call waterboarding that might be torture.
Ashcroft has now become part of the Bush Legacy Tour. He played to a semi-enthusiastic crowd, some of whom had protest signs like, “It’s okay, I wasn’t using my civil liberties, anyway.”
Ashcroft spent much of the night discussing the Patriot Act, explaining what he believes to be the fundamentals of the act: roving wire taps and increased communication between law enforcement agencies. Ashcroft tried to explain the importance of the law in protecting American lives. Many agreed and showed their support with applause. Others disagreed in low-groaning boos.
“I think history will be very kind to [former President George W. Bush],” Ashcroft said as he began discussing the powers of the president, drawing cheers and gasps.
Ashcroft acknowledged the fact that Bush is not a perfect man and made some mistakes.
However, he made sure to express his support of the former administration, describing many of its policy decisions as “necessary.”
Most bizarre was this Ashcroft remark: “I don’t know of anybody who says that the president shouldn’t have any authority to declare war. The deliverability and lethality [of weapons] are at a different level today.” Of course, there is that pesky document called the Constitution that gives only Congress the authority to wage war. But why let a little thing like that get in the way of policy?
Ashcroft also said, “I don’t have a mark on my conscience.” Of course, that’s the problem. (h/t Think Progress)
This is about what I would have expected from another “quality” Bush appointee = an Attorney General who obviously never read the Constitution. Then again, we all know that knowledge of the Constitution was never the Bush/Cheney regimes’ strong suit.
March 26th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
“There are things that you could call ‘waterboarding’ that I am firmly convinced are not torture. There are things that you could call ‘waterboarding’ that might be torture.”
There are people you could call “Americans” who are virtually indistinguishable from former officers of the KGB and they would eagerly annihilate every last vestige of what makes us “American” without suffering so much as a twinge of conscience.
average james Reply:
March 27th, 2009 at 2:09 am
Just a thought,
If waterboarding is not torture, how come these hardened suicidal terrorists gave up information? Were these detainees terrorists? Weren’t they willing to die for their cause? Maybe it was just some rough and scary game that got them to divulge their secrets. They(Bush administration) do claim that it was effective as an info gathering “tool”. Hmmm…..if it smells like a duck…
March 26th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
you mean going to war without going to war…like VietNam…started by democrats…
I think it’s interesting you would bring this up…since Dems overwhelmingly supported the Iraq War and did authorize it, through the approved constitutional means.
TDro319 Reply:
March 26th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Combat operations in Viet Nam started in 1955. Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) was president at the time.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
March 27th, 2009 at 9:04 am
I thought we went through this once…major hostilities and actionable combat troops…and the major part that prompted protest occurred under democrats…
It’s like saying that we’ve started a war with Switzerland because our embassy has armed guards, to say that Vietnam started with Eisenhower.
March 26th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
he does make good point that things like Abu Ghra;alskdb do get punished…so as atrocious as it was, the good news is that we punish offenders.
but I think he’s being disengenuous about waterboarding…waterboarding is torture.
March 26th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
They authorized the President to have the AUTHORITY to use force. Bush CHOSE to use force. He was not REQUIRED to do so by Congress. There is a difference. It was a mistake all the way around in any event.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
March 26th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Here’s a stick and I give you permission to hit your brother with it…10 minutes later…I can’t believe you hit your brother with that stick I gave you and gave you permission to hit him with
great argument Phillipd….
phillipd Reply:
March 26th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Were not talking about children, although in the case of George W. Bush it probably is apt. False comparison.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
March 26th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
it’s the same thing…exact same thing…your infantile mind just can’t process it.
March 26th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Guido wrote: so as atrocious as it was, the good news is that we punish offenders.
Except, of course, the officers in command of the facility, whose responsibility it was to see this kinda of thing not happen in the first place.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
March 26th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
is it proven they were complicit or knew about it???? I don’t have the facts…but leaders aren’t automatically punished for the misdeeds of their underlings.
phillipd Reply:
March 26th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
ALL military officers are responsible for the conduct of men under their command while on duty. Every officer knows and accepts this tenet.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
March 26th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
responsible…as in when they do something wrong they punish them…
If there is evidence that the commanding officers allowed it to happen or didn’t stop it…ok punish them…but you don’t punish people based on what other people did.
March 26th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Ah, the Singing Senator from Missouri, beaten by a dead man and kicked upstairs to become one of the worst Attorneys General of the United States.
History will be just about as kind to Ashcroft as it will be to George Bush, I’d imagine. And in Missouri, his legacy is already mudded up quite a bit.
phillipd Reply:
March 26th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Sarah, why did you have to mention the singing?…..NO, no, not “Let the Eagles soar”…..I will hear this in my head all day. :)
Sarah Reply:
March 26th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
It’s much worse. They recorded a gospel CD. And their rendition of “Elvira” is just …yig.
Larry “Hang around in airports” Craig
John “No naked statues please” Ashcroft
Trent “Strom Thurmond had it right” Lott
and Jeffords left the party.
flap Reply:
March 27th, 2009 at 10:37 am
By the way, that “guy who was beaten by a dead man” was classy enough to LET the dead man’s wife have the Senate seat. By the law, it was Ashcroft’s.
Truman was reviled after he left office. He isn’t now.
March 26th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Alan said: Of course, there is that pesky document called the Constitution that gives only Congress the authority to wage war.
K: Congress DID declare war, did they not? Oh, THATS right, they DID!
WIKI: With the support of large bipartisan majorities, the US Congress passed the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq on October 11, 2002, providing the Bush Administration with the legal basis for the U.S. invasion under US law. The resolution asserts the authorization by the Constitution of the United States and the United States Congress for the President to fight anti-United States violence.
K: So, Bush did NOT declare war – Congress did. So what are Alan’s panties in a bunch over a mistatement on the part of a guy not in the govt?
March 26th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to “wage war” Alan. It gives Congress the authority to declare war.
READ THE REAL CONSTITUTION ALAN. Not the revised liberal version.
libpatriot Reply:
March 27th, 2009 at 1:12 am
Willy, you’re right, even if I don’t care for that “revised liberal version” part. If Ashcroft had said “wage” instead of “declare”, he would have been right. But since Ashcroft apparently said “declare”, and Alan typed “wage” instead of “declare” in his posted rebuttal, they’re both mistaken and you are right.
March 26th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
The President is the Commander in Chief. The head General per say. If Congress had the authority to wage war we would then have 535 Generals. What sense does that make?
Come on Alan. Get your facts right.
libpatriot Reply:
March 27th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Right again, Willy.
(Sigh)
EricG Reply:
March 27th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
lol, get YOUR facts straight.
Congress is the ONLY authority to wage war. Get it straight before you stand up on that soapbox. Skinned knees get painful.
535 Generals … um that’s stupid as a third grader’s commentary. You know how one becomes a General right? Then do you know how someone becomes a Congress member? Somehow I just don’t want to draw out this diagram anymore than that.
Alan is right. And the only thing you said that’s correct is that Obama is Commander in Chief of the USA military. Don’t you forget it.
March 26th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
“”Congress DID declare war, did they not? Oh, THATS right, they DID!”"
You ARE joking, right Willy?
March 27th, 2009 at 1:22 am
They don’t waterboard saints. They waterboard BAD GUYS !!!!! WAKE UP !!!! BE an AMERICAN !!!!!
EricG Reply:
March 27th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
You are sick! I get so sick of you idiots! You ever been arrested!?! Well your guilty of whatever they arrested you for. You rapist, murderer, terrorist, thief!
You and the rest these foaming idiots claiming patriotism are the BAD GUYS!
You are not Americans. Not anymore. Not until you stop calling for destruction of our national pride in the name of sick and insane policies.
Jerry, you are a piece of scum. Don’t care to be nice to you anymore. You go in the ‘enemy’ box as long as you hold this Anti-Life position.
Danielle Reply:
March 27th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Jerry,
EricG is right. You’re constantly talking about “Be An American”, but some of the most hateful un-American things come out of your mouth.
March 27th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Of corse after [they] silence Limbaugh the believers are NEXT !!!!!!!
EricG Reply:
March 27th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Screw Limbaugh. Just a stupid radio-media agent who is good at lying to people who don’t like to think.
You enjoy his show? Really? There’s almost nothing said that is truthful from the opening to the closing.
You must really like being called a fool to get into that stuff.
Because that’s what he does all day.
“Your all idiots, America! I love how stupid you guys are!” -Limbaugh daily thoughts
Kregg Reply:
March 27th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Eric said: Screw Limbaugh. Just a stupid radio-media agent who is good at lying to people who don’t like to think.
K: Lets see, Eric made $8,000 last year in the marketplace. Limbaugh made about $100,000,000 in that same marketplace. Given the chance, I’d adopt Limbaugh’s ’stupidity’ over Erics ‘brilliance’.
March 27th, 2009 at 7:50 am
“The President is the Commander in Chief. The head General per say.”
The president, as commander-in-chief, should be setting national strategic objectives. That’s not what generals do. Not even close.
“If Congress had the authority to wage war we would then have 535 Generals.”
No member of congress is ever going to fulfill a role like that of a general, not unless they put on the uniform, so your comment seems just a bit irrational.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
March 27th, 2009 at 9:57 am
do you get what he’s trying to say though?
read between the lines…
Congress’s role is to decide if war is the right course.
The President’s role is to decide (with advisors) the strategic objective (using your words)
The General’s job is to carry out the objective from a tactical perspective.
EricG Reply:
March 27th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Read the Constitution some time.
Congress and Congress alone can wage war and continue to pay for a war once started.
They should all have to fight. Like Ozzy said.
March 27th, 2009 at 9:46 am
I know this is a bit off topic, but is jerrysrollin actually Michael Savage?
EricG Reply:
March 27th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
No, that’s not Savage. Savage won’t do the net-thing beyond just opening up his lame ass website without a public email contact.
A perfect example of a piece of trash broadcaster:
One who doesn’t let the public contact him except by his terms.
Offenders include but not limited to: Limbaugh, Savage, Humphries
(Just try sending Rush an email; can you say ‘auto-delete’?)
March 27th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Michael Savages little turd.
EricG Reply:
March 27th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
LOL, that’s pretty good.
March 27th, 2009 at 10:41 am
The American people have spoken. Nuff said.
March 27th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Ashcroft is Anti-American.
Ashcroft is Anti-Constitutional liberty. Anti-freedom. Anti-code of conduct.
“.. but I’m similarly incredulous about Ashcroft, who said the term “waterboarding” is being thrown around recklessly, that the word doesn’t define a particular idea, but rather a broad set of ideas.”
What complete and utter nonsense. Liar. Liar, Ashcroft. Liar.
“Most bizarre was this Ashcroft remark: “I don’t know of anybody who says that the president shouldn’t have any authority to declare war. The deliverability and lethality [of weapons] are at a different level today.”
See … I like your blog and your site Alan. But really. Come on!
Let me do it then:
War Powers Resolution Act
Bush Co changed it around so Bush didn’t have to formally declare war. If he had to we would have been spared the second Iraqi Conflict.
Get ready internet. I think the whole media, Alan included, are useless cowards these days. I guess I have to pick up the slack.
WHY!?!?!
The Iraq War is and remains an illegal action. George W. Bush is and remains a war criminal against the United States of America.
There is also a very clear charge of treason against him for using the federal budget as his own personal plaything and being so negligent as an economic steward that no conclusion except that is was a devised plan to destroy the economy for personal or political gain.
That’s right. FOX, PBS, MSNBC, EIB, ABC, CBS, C-SPAN, heck all the PRESS …
YOUR ALL COWARDS! TRY DOING YOUR JOBS! DYING FOR A STORY, GETTING DEFAMED! THAT’S YOUR JOB YOU MACKEREL HEADS!! TAKE A STAND OR GET OFF THE STAGE!
March 27th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Eric…slice it however you like it, but Congress authorized the military action…but I suppose it’s just another bill the democrats probably didn’t read before voting.
March 27th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Sure they voted for the resolution to authorize force if needed, not a declaration of war.
But it was at a time when the administration and the media was doing it’s best to keep the people terrorized…..DANGER! TERROR! MUSHROOM CLOUDS, SADDAM HAS ANTHRAX LADEN UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICAL AIMED AT YOUR CHILD’S BEDROOM!!
The public was almost giddy, lacking only their foam finger and shouting USA, WE’RE #1!….a few weeks before an election, everybody who spoke up was with the terrorists.
It took an extreme amount of courage for those who did vote against it, and our current culture doesn’t reward that much.
March 27th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Mark Twain wrote The War Prayer, about the Spanish American War.
I think it is relevant because some things never change, and some of us never learn.
It is long, I post some excerpts :
It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hi$sing and spluttering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by.
It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety’s sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.
(Later, in church, praying for victory):
An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister.
“I come from the Throne — bearing a mes$age from Almighty God!” The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. “He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His mes$enger, shall have explained to you its import — that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of — except he pause and think.
“O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle — be Thou near them!
O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it — for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.
(*After a pause.*) “Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!”
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
March 27th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Ashcroft: “I think history will be kind to George W. Bush”.
Another delusional idiot!
March 27th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Ashcroft: “I don’t have a mark on my conscience”.
Like Alan said, yeah….that’s the problem buddy!
March 27th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Funny, how he forgot to mention:
“On the night of March 10, 2004, as Attorney General John D. Ashcroft lay ill in an intensive-care unit, his deputy, James B. Comey, received an urgent call.
White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and President Bush’s chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., were on their way to the hospital to persuade Ashcroft to reauthorize Bush’s domestic surveillance program, which the Justice Department had just determined was illegal.
In vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Comey said he alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced, sirens blaring, to join Ashcroft in his hospital room, arriving minutes before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft, summoning the strength to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought. Gonzales and Card, who had never acknowledged Comey’s presence in the room, turned and left.”
From the Washington Post
Kregg Reply:
March 28th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Lefty, whats your point? I’d think a guy in a hospital bed who refused to re-authorize a policy he’d decided was wrong even under pressure of a couple of the President’s men would be kind of a moral hero… What are you beefing on him about?
March 28th, 2009 at 8:00 am
Kregg said,
What are you beefing on him about?
………………………………………
Not “beefing on him” at all.
I just think that most people who were abused in that way, would not tow the party line for the abusers.
Kregg Reply:
March 28th, 2009 at 10:49 am
L: I just think that most people who were abused in that way, would not tow the party line for the abusers.
K; Why would you consider the episode you quote as ‘abusing’ Ashcroft?
March 28th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Alan said: Ashcroft tried to explain the importance of the law in protecting American lives. Many agreed and showed their support with applause. Others disagreed in low-groaning boos.
K: It interesting that so many on this board are flaming law-and-order strict constructionists when it comes to condemning ‘harsh interrogation techniques’ but become instantly laissez-faire on the subject of illegal border crossings.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:47 am
From this dictionary definition of ‘torture’ the govt engages in such every tax season:
torture |ˈtôr ch ər| noun
the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something…
moore james Reply:
March 28th, 2009 at 11:35 am
The Bush administration claimed waterboarding was an effective info gathering technique. Would these detainees, many of whom seem to be of the suicidal/zealot type and not afraid of death, give up info as the result of a real scary trick we played on them? This was torture plain and simple, and wrong in any circumstance. We have lost much of our moral high ground over these past years. We have sunk to a level that we would find reprehensible were it some third world despot, but seemingly ok because it’s us? We are the good guys**scratch that** used to be considered the good guys. We were the liberators, the ones who saved people from the kind of treatment we are now guilty of. This, like our economic situation, will take a good deal of effort to get on the proper course. I only hope our standing internationally has not been damaged beyond repair.
Kregg Reply:
March 28th, 2009 at 11:56 am
The Bush administration claimed waterboarding was an effective info gathering technique. Would these detainees, many of whom seem to be of the suicidal/zealot type and not afraid of death, give up info as the result of a real scary trick we played on them?
K: The clear answer to that is “yes” because we tricked them into thinking they were drowning – but they didn’t drown at all. I’d call it a great ‘real scary’ trick to use on the ’suicidal/zealot type’ who think nothing of chopping heads off on-camera.
This was torture plain and simple, and wrong in any circumstance. We have lost much of our moral high ground over these past years. We have sunk to a level that we would find reprehensible were it some third world despot, but seemingly ok because it’s us? We are the good guys**scratch that** used to be considered the good guys. We were the liberators, the ones who saved people from the kind of treatment we are now guilty of. This, like our economic situation, will take a good deal of effort to get on the proper course. I only hope our standing internationally has not been damaged beyond repair.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:55 am
K; Why would you consider the episode you quote as ‘abusing’ Ashcroft?
………………………..
What do you call it when his deputy has to bring the FBI director with him, because these guys are trying to get him to sign something while he is under pain medication?
Kregg Reply:
March 28th, 2009 at 11:51 am
L: What do you call it when his deputy has to bring the FBI director with him, because these guys are trying to get him to sign something while he is under pain medication?
K: Well, I’d call it an attempt to get a document signed…
March 28th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Well, let’s see…On one hand we have strong opposition to tortue – going against everything America stands for (or used to) – endangering her own troops, alienating much-needed allies, lowering her standing in the world etc etc
…against “laissez-faire” attitude towards the heinous crime of poor Mexicans coming to the US to make better lives for themselves and their families, without *gasp* the proper documents! Of course they have no problem finding work because American businesses love their hard work ethic and willingness to work cheap, but that’s a whole other story, shhh…
Gee. That IS interesting.
*yawn*
Kregg Reply:
March 28th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Frosty, not yet awake, said…against “laissez-faire” attitude towards the heinous crime of poor Mexicans coming to the US to make better lives for themselves and their families, without *gasp* the proper documents! Of course they have no problem finding work because American businesses love their hard work ethic and willingness to work cheap, but that’s a whole other story, shhh… Gee. That IS interesting. *yawn*
K; A law is a law and has a purpose. And, the issue is not one of ‘proper documents’ except for the sleepy. The issue is permission of the people of the US to allow entry and, until those *gasp* documents are issued the US has NOT given it’s collective permission to enter and those who DO commit a felony crime (third degree, I believe).
K: Hey, I’ve got an idea; since you Canucks live in such a utopian society why don’t we gather up 11,000,000 of our best examples of ‘better living by welfare’ and ship over your border without your permission so they can ‘make a better life for themselves and their families…”?
March 28th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Can torture be called anything but wrong by civilized human beings?
Kregg Reply:
March 28th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Moore asked: Can torture be called anything but wrong by civilized human beings?
K: I don’t know, are these the same people who partially deliver a baby only to stab it in the back of it’s neck and suck it’s brains out – and call it ‘choice’?
moore james Reply:
March 28th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Kregg,
I totally agree. Life is precious and an inaliable right. I am pro-life, also anti death penalty. This puts me at odds with many of my fellow liberals, but it’s a big tent.
Um Cara Reply:
March 28th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
>This puts me at odds with many of my fellow
>liberals, but it’s a big tent.
Dude, you are most assuredly not a liberal. I think you meant to say:
K: This puts me at odds with many of my fellow kooks, but it’s a big tent.
Um Cara Reply:
March 28th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Stupid threading system. I don’t know you moore james.
Damn, 2 mistakes in two days.
I.hate.this.new.threading.format
March 28th, 2009 at 11:51 am
K: Well, I’d call it an attempt to get a document signed…
…………………………….
That’s a shame.
March 28th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Well I was trying to figure the profile picture thing and must have changed my name some how. Moore James is me…..average james. I’m also for an open border, 100% government one-payer health care, etc…. I really don’t know what I would technically call my political position, but I identify most often (and strongly) with the liberal point of view. I do however, really try to consider others views, and then agree/disagree. Close-minded immoveable rigidity does not seem like a desirable character trait to me.
March 28th, 2009 at 12:44 pm