10-21-07, 9:36 am

The changing definition of 'war crimes'

Never did I imagine the country that I love would actively advocate torture. I knew there would always be isolated incidents. A rogue intelligence agent, the rare sadistic member of the military, a sick law enforcement or corrections officer – those aberrations are to be expected, given the nature of some men who find themselves in positions of power over other men. We have all heard the admonitions of how power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But I never believed there would come a day when the President of the United States would defend 'enhanced interrogation techniques', while declaring in the same breath, 'The United States does not torture'.

All the available evidence says otherwise. We have all seen the pictures that prove without doubt that the United States does torture – or at least has tortured on occasion. With the Administration's record of using sneaky language to lie by deceptive semantics, it's possible that Bush has been advised by his imaginative team of pseudo-lawyers to use that exact phrase in order to be able to point out at some future war crimes trial that the 'United States' is only a piece of land on the North American Continent and, since land cannot torture, the President didn't lie.

What's worse is that the President does this with a wink and a nod, knowing nobody really believes it, yet he is still unafraid of the People or the Law. He trusts so much in his own righteousness that he doesn't believe torture is wrong as long as he authorizes it, and therefore sees little reason to make a real effort to hide the truth.


Long recognized as an ardent defender of human rights, and champion of the Rule of Law, America has been unceremoniously stripped of her glorious garments of Freedom, Truth, and Justice, and dressed in the dirty rags of Oppression, Deception, and Despotism.

President Bush and his ranks of rapidly disappearing followers have attempted to defend the immoral policies of kidnapping, rendition, and torture. They have tried to convince the nation that the ill-conceived 'war on terror' is unwinnable if we insist on fighting it with honor. They say the harsh interrogation tactics approved by the President do not rise to the level of torture. How short the memory of the nation is!

The 'tools' Bush says are essential to winning a war that he admits will never end, are the same tools used by the Japanese and Hitler's Nazi regime during WWII. It is perplexing that so little has been said in the media about the numerous war crimes trials conducted by U.S. military commissions and international tribunals at the end of that war.

Since the first reports of recent prisoner abuse surfaced, I have heard references to only one or two proceedings following WWII in which people were punished for the torture crimes of 'water treatment' and other harsh interrogation techniques. There were far more convictions than have been reported, and the record is undeniable that the techniques adopted by the Bush administration were considered war crimes by all countries involved in the trials following the collapse of Axis powers.

Many Japanese were convicted for waterboarding prisoners, slapping with an open hand, forcing prisoners into 'stress positions', sleep, food and water deprivation, forced nakedness, and prolonged exposure to extreme cold or hot temperatures. The sentences imposed on the Japanese were often harsh, up to and including hanging.

In the Japanese military, it was common practice for officers to administer open-handed slaps to their own recruits and subordinates for minor infractions. It was an accepted part of their training, and considered by the Japanese to be a normal part of military discipline. They used the same kind of open-handed slaps to discipline POWs. This was prosecuted as a war crime in several cases. Even those Japanese who had not committed any other acts that could be classified as torture were found guilty and sentenced to prison for those slaps which they viewed as an acceptable form of discipline.

The U.S. position on the use of 'water treatment' as torture was indisputably clear. One judge was of the belief that the method was one of the most inhuman forms of barbarism ever devised. Japan's use of the technique as a tool of interrogation was very common and widespread. Details of the war crimes cases below can be found among hundreds more at the U.C. Berkeley War Crimes Study Center.

A U.S. Military Commission at Yokohama, Japan tried four Japanese defendants for torture and mistreatment of American and Allied prisoners at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch Camp. Water torture was among the acts alleged in the specifications.

'Takeo Kita, did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Thomas B. Armitage, William O Cash and Munroe Dave Woodall, American Prisoners of War by beating them, forcing water into their mouths and noses, and by pressing lighted cigarettes against their bodies.'

The witnesses' descriptions painted a grim portrait of the treatment meted out to POWs, and of the use of water torture as a primary means of interrogation.

'He was turned upside down and water poured up his nose and beaten into unconsciousness.'

'...they would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness...'

'...they laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air.... They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water.'

Not only were the perpetrators of the torture tried and convicted, their commanding officers met the same fate, even when there was no proof or witness testimony that they participated, because they didn't prevent the mistreatment of POWs by their enlisted men. Some officers who weren't even in command were punished for not doing anything to stop the abusive treatment.

In one case tried by a U.S. tribunal between Feb. 6-22, 1946 in Yokohama Japan, a physician named Shigeru Aona was charged with permitting his staff to commit 'cruel and brutal atrocities' against POWs. Doctor Aona argued that the prisoners were in poor condition upon arriving at the camp, and denied any abuse or mistreatment. He also claimed that he was not responsible for the actions of soldiers of lower rank, which was the responsibility of the camp commander.

The Judge Advocate found it to be:

'...ridiculous to presume that an officer in the Japanese Army, or any other modern army, could not prevent the mistreatment of prisoners by his enlisted subordinates, or that he had no responsibility for their actions.'

It was determined that Dr. Aona had the authority to restrict the behavior of subordinates, and did restrict their behavior occasionally, but these remedies were not pursued as a 'general rule.' He was found guilty under 'command responsibility', and was sentenced to ten years at hard labor.

Staff Sergeant Kuniichi Araki was tried between June 12-18, 1946 in Yokohama. A member of the medical staff, he was charged with violation of the laws and customs of war, and committing cruel, inhuman and brutal acts, atrocities, and other offenses against Allied POWs. Specifically, he was accused of beatings and water torture. The prosecution presented 17 unsworn affidavits to support accusations that Araki's beating of a prisoner while in his sick bed, and forcing him to stand for roll call contributed to and accelerated his death. He was sentenced to be hanged by the neck until dead. The Judge Advocate stated that the law:

'...denied the right of anyone wrongfully to shorten the life of another no matter what the latter's life expectancy may be. Such action may be considered murder. 'The law declares that one who inflicts injury on another and thereby accelerates his death shall be held criminally responsible therefor.''

The civilian contractors in Iraq, such as Blackwater mercenaries, seem to have immunity from prosecution. Not so for Japanese civilian employee Kensako Baba, who worked at the Kawasaki POW Camp. Tried between Dec. 4-11, 1946 in Yokohama, he was charged along with two of his comrades with 'willfully and unlawfully jointly mistreating a Canadian POW'. Baba and two coworkers 'beat' the POW for breaking a window pane. Baba stated that he slapped the POW twice for 'carelessness when the window pane was broken.'

'When the POW left the pay office, he was not injured at all and bore no marks of physical violence. After this, the accused went to the kitchen and did not know about the POWs later condition. He was called in front of the camp commander who warned them about punishing POWs without his knowledge and told to apologize because of the incident and he did so.'

Those two slaps earned civilian Baba 4 1/2 years at hard labor when he was convicted of a war crime.

Imagine the outrage if members of our military, or civilian contractors in Iraq were given such long sentences for an open-handed slap. The perpetrators of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib committed far worse crimes than many of the Japanese prosecuted and imprisoned at the end of WWII. I don't mean to say that the Japanese never used horribly torturous methods, because in many instances they certainly did. But we didn't stop at punishing just the worst acts. We aggressively punished even the lesser violators.

In the 1946 trial of Sgt-Major Chinsaku Yuki in Manilla, a Filipino lawyer named Ramon Lavarro testified before a U.S. tribunal about the torture Yuki had inflicted on Lavarro and several other Philippine civilians. He described in particular the unbearable water torture he had endured. Lavarro was stripped and bound face-up on a bench. 'Yuki placed some cloth on my face, and then with water from the faucet they poured on me until I became unconscious. He repeated that four or five times.'

'COL KEELEY: You mean he brought water and poured water down your throat? A: No sir, on my face, until I became unconscious. We were lying that way with some cloth on my face and then Yuki poured water on my face continuously. COL KEELEY: And you couldn't breathe? A: No, I could not and so I for a time lost consciousness. I found my consciousness came back again and found Yuki was sitting on my stomach and then I vomited the water from my stomach and the consciousness came back again for me. Q: Where did the water come out when he sat on your stomach? A: From my mouth and all openings of my face and then Yuki would repeat the same treatment and the same procedure to me until I became unconscious again. Q: How many times did that happen? A: Around four or five times from two o'clock up to four o'clock in the afternoon.When I was not able to endure his punishment which I received I told a lie to Yuki – I could not really show anything to Yuki because I was really lying just to stop the torture'.'

Lavarro's testimony was the only direct evidence of Yuki's brutal techniques presented to the tribunal. In closing remarks, the prosecutor candidly noted that:

'...it's on his testimony that we have to determine whether there was any torture or not.'

The tribunal determined that it was torture, and sentenced him to life in prison.

In the case of 1st Lieutenant Saburo Matsumuro, water torture was listed as one of the charges against him. The other charges included beating with a bamboo club for an hour, and forcing POWs to sit on their ankles for an hour. The Judge Advocate, Lt. Col. Allan R. Browne, considered the water torture to be more cruel than the other violations, saying that charge: '...includes the savage and barbarian water treatment and far exceeds in beastiality the 'run of the mine' brutality established in this case.'

He determined that 'water treatment' warranted a longer sentence than did the other charges. Matsumuro was sentenced to 22 years at hard labor.

One interesting fact is that the hard-nosed JAGD Browne, who had no aversion to handing out tough sentences, had a motto that President Bush and A.G. Roberto Gonzales would do well to consider: 'The blackest rogue is entitled to an early trial under the enlightened rules of civilized nations.'

Today, our Presidential candidates spar over who among them would use torture most for the 'good of America'. Our Vice-President condones 'a little dunk in the water'. Our Attorney General believes the Geneva Conventions to be 'quaint', and says it's not torture short of organ failure. Our President looks us in the eye and lies about torture programs that he personally approves and facilitates. Who are we?

Listen to any speech given by the President in recent months, and you will invariably find one sentence repeated over and over: 'My most important responsibility is to protect the American people from attacks by terrorists.'

Mr. President, if you have to torture and humiliate someone in order to protect me, I'd rather not be protected.

I don't care to live in an America that only pays lip service to decency, and honor, and freedom. If it comes down to the choice of being attacked by terrorists or becoming the terrorists, bring on the suicide bombers.

The truth, though, is that we don't have to make that choice. We can effectively protect the country without sacrificing our morals. The rhetoric espoused in every speech the President delivers is specially contrived to promote fear. Whereas a great President once reminded us that the only thing we have to fear is fear, itself, this President would have us be so fearful that we give up every freedom we have in exchange for physical protection, and a false peace of mind.

Any credit that could once be claimed by George Bush for deposing a ruthless dictator and getting rid of Saddam's torture rooms has been negated by the building of his own. In his zeal to win his 'war on terror' by any means, he has taken on the visage of a terrorist.

The record of Japanese war crimes trials demonstrates how far we have strayed from the paths of righteousness. Then, U.S. tribunals exacted harsh punishments, even for comparatively minor infractions. If that was Justice then, what has changed now? Many crimes which so shocked the American conscience after World War II, are now advocated as 'essential tools' in combating terrorism. What was torture in 1947 is still torture in 2007. The definition of torture has not changed - America has. We must ask ourselves who we are, and compare that to who we were. And after we have taken a long, reflective look at ourselves, we must decide who we want to be.