waterboarding.org

Q: During your confirmation hearings you were unable to conclude your view on whether waterboarding was torture or not. I wondered if you had an update on that issue.

A: I wasn't, well, yeah in a sense I was unable because, not because I'd never heard of it which has been caricatured but because the way anybody had done it if they had done it as far as I knew at the time was an if, with what safeguards and limits had not been described to me because I was not, to use a Washington-ism, "read in" on the program. And so I was literally unable to answer the question whether it came within the statute or not because I didn't know what the what was other than somebody's portrayal on television. And since then I have learned what the what was and I am now not unable but rather unwilling simply because whatever that was which is still classified is now out of the program as the CIA director has confirmed. No, I think it was, I confirmed that it was out of the program, he confirmed that it had actually been done to three people, and the short answer is, I mustn't, in my view, opine on it because in order for it to get into the program there would have to be a request from the director of the CIA. He would have to describe precisely what it is he proposes to do with what limits with what safeguards and to whom. In other words how do you select these people and why, and the why in the past has always been and would always be I assume to get what's called operable intelligence. It's not about confessions, or wasn't. It's about getting operable intelligence I.E. information that you can use to prevent another 9/11 or something like it. And that, meaning putting it back in the program as far as I know, is not on anybody's list of things to do. I mean I would then have to be - to go through the whole process that was gone through before, getting an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, express my conclusion, and present it to the President. None of that has happened and I shouldn't go around and won't go around sort of freewheeling and saying "Yeah I think it's torture" or "It's terrible" or whatever. I mean I did say it was terrible - it is. But I can't ... There's an anti-torture statute. There are also several other statutes that have been passed since, including the Detainee Treatment Act, that define additional kinds of treatment that are not permissible. So it would have to be evaluated not only as to whether it was torture but also as to whether it violated any of those other statutes. So there's a much finer screen for it to pass through. A long answer to a short question.