Dan Abrams of The Daily Beast interviewed first former AG John Ashcroft and second former AG Alberto Gonzales, and they told him that, although it may be torture now, it wasn’t torture then, and besides, it worked:
Judge Gonzales, I’m going to ask you a very direct question. And it relates to something you just said. Do you believe waterboarding is torture?
AG: Here’s what I’ll say. I think that the U.S. government provided advice to CIA interrogators based upon the best legal reasoning by the lawyers in the Department of Justice. Was it torture, when that advice was given? No. Were the interrogations harsh? Yes. Did they save lives? Absolutely.
[Applause]
Did they get it right? I’m asking your legal opinion. Waterboarding is—they define it in all the memos how waterboarding is defined—and if we need it defined I’m happy to read from it—how torture is defined. Do you think legally that waterboarding is torture?
AG: Dan, when I served in the administration, the position of the administration was that under certain conditions and circumstances, this technique would be lawful.
Abrams asks if the lawyers got it wrong:
JA: I don’t think they got it wrong. It’s different now.
It’s different in what sense?
JA: Because the law has been changed. [John Ashcroft called me after the event to correct a mistake he made. He wanted to let me know that, in retrospect and after conducting more research on the matter, he realized that no such change in the law was ever enacted.]
The definition of torture?
JA: Yes! The definition of torture.
So the answer then, it sounds like, is the only reason you still believe the legal assessment was correct was because there’s been a change in the law?
JA: I believe that the work of the department by these professionals came to the right conclusion.
That waterboarding is not torture.
JA: That, as described, and as commented on in their memorandum, that it was not torture.
Abrams asks if it was a close call:
So let me ask, in your view, this was a close call. It sounds like you’re saying this was a close call because there was a legal judgment made, and you think that they made the right call.
AG: It was a very close call. These are very, very difficult issues.
Okay, so let’s review what we’ve learned here (or, at least, what I’ve learned):
- Waterboarding was not torture then. It may be torture now, but it wasn’t torture then.
- It was almost torture. But it wasn’t torture.
- It was harsh, almost torture, but not torture, and it saved lives. Absolutely, it saved lives. No question. And Alberto Gonzales has the right security clearance, so you know when he says it saved lives, it saved lives. You can’t say it didn’t. You didn’t see the classified reports. You are not going to see the classified reports. He did see the classified reports. And he is here to tell you: Those interrogations, which were harsh, but not torture, at least not back then, saved lives.
- Legally, waterboarding is torture. But when Alberto Gonzales served in the administration, the administration decided that under certain conditions and circumstances, waterboarding would be legal. And fortunately, their use of waterboarding met those conditions and circumstances.
- The lawyers did not get it wrong. It was different then. It’s different now. They passed a law.
- Errr, I’m sorry, that’s wrong. I just double-checked. The law didn’t change.
- It was a close call; it was almost torture, but it wasn’t torture.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.