Ted Cruz, who has long been an outspoken opponent of torture, reversed himself during Saturday’s Republican presidential debate when he endorsed an extreme and discredited definition of torture: that anything that inflicts less pain than losing an organ doesn’t count.
That definition, which Cruz said was “generally recognized,” is anything but. It comes from a 2003 Justice Department memo that the department later rescinded, acknowledging that it was full of slipshod legal arguments, clouded by ideology, and written under pressure from CIA officials who had already begun to torture terror suspects.
It’s such an extreme definition that it calls into question whether the treatment Cruz’s father endured in a Cuban prison — which the Texas senator has previously pointed to as his motivation to oppose torture — would qualify.
In his 2015 book, A Time for Truth, Cruz tells the story of his father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, who, as a teenager, fought in support of Fidel Castro’s revolution. After an informant for the Batista regime turned him in, Rafael was imprisoned. Cruz describes his torture:
They threw him in a rotten cell, acrid with the smell of blood, grim, and urine. Men with clubs beat him. His captors broke his nose when they kicked him in the head with their army boot. They bashed in his front teeth until they dangled from his mouth. In each round of beatings the pain was unbearable.
In the book, Cruz quotes his father as saying: “You know, the Cubans weren’t fancy with their torture methods. They would just come into your jail cell every couple of hours and beat the crap out of you.”
Cruz has often said that his father’s suffering was a source of inspiration. “When you grow up in the home of an immigrant who’s seen prison and torture, who’s seen freedom stripped away,” Cruz told the Associated Press, “you grow up with an acute appreciation for how precious and fragile our liberty is.”
After the release of the Senate torture report in 2014, Cruz told the Heritage Foundation that “Torture is wrong. Unambiguously. Period. The end.” Cruz has said that “America does not need torture to protect itself,” and last June, he voted for an amendment sponsored by Sen. John McCain, which required that overseas interrogations comply with regulations in the U.S. Army Field Manual.
Cruz’s stand on torture put him at odds with many of his Republican colleagues. Twenty-two Republican senators opposed the amendment, including rival presidential candidate Marco Rubio. According to a new Pew Survey, a large majority of Republican voters — 73 percent — think torture can be justified against people suspected of terrorism.
At Saturday’s Republican debate, when Cruz was asked whether waterboarding is torture, he replied that it is not. “Under the law, torture is excruciating pain equivalent to losing organs and systems,” he said. So waterboarding “does not meet the generally recognized definition of torture.”
President George W. Bush adopted a similar position: He admitted that he authorized waterboarding on national television, while maintaining that “The United States does not torture. It’s against our laws, and it’s against our values. I have not authorized it, and I will not authorize it.”
During Saturday’s debate, Cruz went on to say that he would bring waterboarding back, but not “in any sort of widespread use.”
GOP frontrunner Donald Trump said that he would “bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.” Cruz’s more limited endorsement of torture led Trump, at a rally on Monday, to repeat an insult from the crowd, calling Cruz a “pussy.”
Ted Cruz’s blood has communist roots not very american
Honestly, even that standard would bar a lot of current torture. I had a burst appendix as a kid. I have been pepper-sprayed for peacefully protesting against the wars. I have sensory processing issues and get hammered by backup beepers. Speaking from personal experience, the first was agony, but I could still think, and I could still see and hear something other than the pain, and I could still barely walk. Cruz’s standard would bar the second and third.
It’s not “the law.” That definition of torture was in a discredited memo written by John Yoo. The law is U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113c, Section 2340. It is quite clear. It says : (1) “torture” is an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or control. There have been various analyses of where Yoo got his incorrect definition, and it was produced entirely to protect administration officials from punishment for their criminal acts.
I don’t know why it entertains me so much to see people just dance around the truth. The effort one puts into avoiding the obvious…
Cruz’s Harvard Law education apparently taught him to make semi-clever and moralistic arguments for stupid and immoral policies. He professes Christianity while appealing to the lowest, basest aspects of human nature, in the teeth of Jesus’s advocacy for peace, love, compassion and kindness. His comments about making sand glow, i.e., using nuclear weapons, are enough to disqualify him from consideration by any voter with a modicum of decency.
I think harvard law school teaches people how to lie and be as least transparent as possible. remember Obama he went to Harvard Law School and he is full of crap. the first thing he sighned as president is to get rid of gitmo and low and behold it is still operational
“… the first thing he sighned as president is to get rid of gitmo and low and behold it is still operational”
You might want to review high school civics.
Oh yeah, we’ve come a long way from the barbarism of old, haven’t we? Freedom and liberty are nice catchwords used to make us feel good while we torture those not blessed with our inalienable rights.
It’s a sad state of affairs when these American politicians reach for their pathetic, litigious definitions for something we all know.
Anyone who thinks waterboarding “does not meet the definition of torture” should experience it for himself. Including, of course, Senator Ted Cruz.
Also, torture only serves the purpose of satisfying the sadistic instincts of torturers, it is proved to be absolutely useless to collect any sort of information.
“… it is proved to be absolutely useless to collect any sort of information.” Well, that’s not exactly true. It is correct that you cannot rely on any statement from a tortured individual to be true, but the purpose of torture throughout the ages has been to get confessions. I believe Roman jurisprudence required that testimony of a slave could only be admitted if it was obtained through torture, but that’s only one of the flaws of their system. The Inquisition, the NKVD, the Chinese, whose techniques we copied, the Gestapo, the North Vietnamese, all were only interested in getting confessions. Torture works pretty well for that. None of those groups were interested in truth, only in obtaining confessions.
check out the photo in the header.
… from the look on his face, i ‘m picking think ol’ man Cruz trusts that young whipper-snapper
If you are unwilling to fight in the imperialist wars yourself then you should not be sending other young men to do it for you. If you are unwilling to be tortured yourself then you should not send others to do the torturing for you.
I sincerely doubt that old man Cruz fought for Castro…my guess is Batista. He was going to University in Texas in 1957…Castro did his thing in 1959.
They were in the bush from ’53 onward.
Actually, that sounds about right. He wouldn’t say his father was beaten by Batista goons otherwise. Interestingly, Cruz’s father was a victim of American imperialism, but I bet he doesn’t realize that.
I generally don’t post same comment on different stories but this amuses me and maybe it would someone else:
Reminds me of the Niemoller quote:
When the hoi polloi tar and feathered the banking, hedge fund, Goldman Sachs and health insurance executives together with right-wing anti-humanist economists,
I remained silent;
I was not one of them and it simply appeared to me they reaped what they sowed.
When the hoi polloi locked up the lobbyists for big oil and gas,
I remained silent;
I only drove a car about 5K miles a year and cut down my meat consumption to once a week so I could have cared less.
When the hoi polloi voted out the back-stabbing “no we can’t” DINO pragmatists like Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer and the rest of the nominal “liberals” in the US Congress,
I did not speak out;
I was as least principled if not perfect in acting consistent with my “liberal/social democratic/progressive” principles rather than simply giving them lip service for access to votes and power and a lifetime taxpayer funded sinecure.
When the hoi polloi locked up the war-mongering generals, politicians, military contractors and alphabet agency spooks and assassins,
I did not speak out;
Because fuck em they stand for almost everything I’m against and they are very lucky they weren’t the object of the saying “live by the sword die by the sword” simply by virtue of the hoi polloi being more humane and moral than they ever were.
Then the world became a much better place. The end.
The USA is signatory to the following treaties which are become part of US law, domestic & international. Torture is against these signatory treaties & the US Constitution: the Eight Amendment, the Third Geneva Convention (1950), the UN Convention Against Torture (1985), the War Crimes Act (1996),the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the Nuremberg Principles (1950). What constitutes a war crime or crime against humanity is found in these laws, no exceptions.
One can only deduce, then, the USA could care less about International Law.
The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, after World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list was water-based interrogation, known as ‘waterboarding,’ according to the charging documents. A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps.
… that is absolutely hilarious Damiano (please stop before i wet my pants).
in case y’all have been in a coma the past 100+ years (or happen to believe the bullshit your main$tream media spouts by the bucket-load >> my grovelling apologies go out to Barrett Brown for the questionable hyphen)
… the good ol’ U$A has NEVER given a shit about international law.
… the good ol’ U$A RARELY gives a shit about domestic law.
and crimes against humanity are a matter of JUSTICE not a matter of LAW.
… and NO my brother, JUSTICE and LAW are not even distant cousins, let alone synonyms.
it would be more difficult to find examples of the U$A adhering to these treaties than wiping their arse with them (please excuse me, i meant using them as toilet tissue – the uncouthness comes from living outside the Empire – y’all are so well mannered and polite – as rrheard & Macroman prove below).
… have a great weekend.
Owen, I can dream, can’t I?
Now I have to spend the rest of the day trying to figure out what “grim” smells like.
with a comment like that i’m glad this isn’t live leak !
Ted and Carly just look evil to me. Creepy evil. Donald just looks stupid and no mater how many hateful stupid things he says he’s still just stupid.
Yeah, but we’ve always been told not to judge books by their cover.
For conservatives who actually believe in things like limited government, lower taxes, and the constitution, Cruz’s words and actions are great – unlike the Bush types who say whatever they need to to get elected and do the opposite.
So, while I concede he does indeed does LOOK like used car salesman, he’s worth hearing out, and has a voting record consistent with what he says.
So not only is Ted “Anchor Baby” Cruz not eligible to be President, according to Donald the Grand Inquisitor, TABC’s father was a “commie” who fought for Castro and his fellow “revolutionary” commies?
Just wait until the Grand Inquisitor gets his jaws on that bone. Should be hilarious.
Cruz is eligible, though, right?
Suppose it depends on which lawyer you ask. Although I have a well researched opinion, I’m not willing to share it with you unless you pay my going rate. I think he’s got a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected POTUS so I could honestly care less.
And if by some freak stroke of luck he does, he’ll just double down on your flawed and simplistic economic worldview and when the shit really hits the fan the majority of thinking humans will know exactly who to blame and what ideology. Maybe then the remainder of sane America will clean house and let you kooks voluntarily secede taking the shitiest parts of the South and Central United States with you.
The remainder of America can then unite with Canada to form a decent country and build a big shiny wall around our new nation to keep you guys out when you are left with nothing but all-white shit-flinging contests, country music, tractor pulls and gun ranges driving your “economy” such as it is. My guess is you’ll end up resorting to a return of indentured servitude or slavery as that is the most “economically efficient” in your “capitalist” economic worldview. But it won’t be enough and it will suck to be you.
So I wish you well Mr. 1%. I thought in the other column you said you had to “go to work” and for all us freeloaders who are sapping off your tax contributions to leave you alone so you can rake in your $300K + a year salary “teaching” your “economic theories” to dupes and right-wing ideologues?
Thanks. I already knew already since I’m a better lawyer than you anyway. He is eligible. If you think otherwise, you’re stupid.
Yawwwwwwwn.
Paraphrasing Macroman: “cuz I already since already knew already since already cuzin youz stupid.”
Hell most teenagers I know can deliver a better insult.
As I said, I wouldn’t share a legal opinion with you on any topic without being paid since you appear to have the scratch there Mr. 1% crying his river of rich man’s tears about his horrible horrible tax burden. But since you’re a big believer in capitalism and your insights are worth so so so so very much to the dupes and ideologues that choose to sit through your boring classes, why would I give mine away for nothing? That’s capitalist way, amirite my brother? If it’s relatively scarce it’s valuable, amirite my brother?
But without sharing my opinion, maybe an autodidact lawyer such as yourself with mad mad skillz can grapple with this and all the cases and comments contained therein [good primer for non-lawyers]:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/01/guest-post-from-mark-field-regarding-ted-cruzs-eligibility-for-the-presidency#more-78152
But I’ll give you a free hint: although it could and should be a strict legal question [i.e. “justiciable controversy” capable of court granted relief] assuming someone had “standing” to challenge his eligibility [and theoretically there could be various individuals who could given the right circumstances, but I won’t tell you who that would be or under what circumstances], it is quite likely the Supreme Court would punt and not decide the case if it ever got to them [but again I won’t tell you which legal doctrines or theories support why I think they wouldn’t decide the issue without getting paid].
Nevertheless Mr. 1% if you’d ever like to test your better lawyering skillz against me as a pro se litigant I invite you to come on out to Oregon and find out. I’m easy to find. I’ll even let you pick the legal issue or dispute you think you can procedurally navigate successfully all the way to trial without me blowing you out of the water.
Free advice–try a small claims matter against me which is probably the least procedurally complex and built for dummies with econ degrees and those who arguably struggle with reading for comprehension. Shit they even have forms so you don’t have to figure out how to properly format your pleadings.
Hell I’d let you take a default judgment against me and then watch you try and figure out how to collect on it. My guess is you couldn’t figure it out without me tying you in knots for a decade.
Anyhow, given the amount of time you spend here I’m a little shocked nobody is grousing about the 6 figure salary they pay you at Podunk Community College or Ron Paul U.
Either way you’re dryer lint to me.
Holy shit. My response was straightforwardly mocking your canned response. “I know economics better than you and if you disagree you’rd stupid.” Even a teenager could’ve seen that. I would continue mocking the rest but I stopped reading it early. Brevity is the soul of wit. You’re witless.
Witless? Coming from a rich former investment banker who brags about screwing people out of their pensions? Brief or not I don’t find you funny. My guess is very few people do because you’re an arrogant dick who thinks fucking people out of money is funny. I don’t. And neither do most non-sociopaths.
And speaking of witless, you should try coming up with some of your own material instead of parroting mine. That’s what I was getting at about your “wit” being less than the average teenager. Again totally unsurprising coming from a chump who spends his entire life immersed in issues of money and trolls the internet under a fake name. Dryer lint pal–nothing more and nothing less.
I quit my job to teach and write papers to try and change the world for the better. I’m a reformed investment banker.
I am an arrogant dick. Just ask my first wife. The second agrees, but she’s even richer, so I tone it down enough to keep the vacation houses.
Dryer lint dryer lint dryer lint blah blah blah. You’re a broken, really stupid, record. Maybe if you quit repeating yourself you’d have time to beg for your old public defender job back so you can eat something other than humble beans. When you move on to humble pie you can admit you had no idea I was making fun of you in the first comment. Anyway, there’s some poor innocent person out there to screw, better get to it!
@ Macroman
Oh and by the way, as soon as you are willing to come out from behind your pseudonym and openly take ownership of your arrogant rich man former investment banker man bullshit, I might take you slightly more seriously than dryer lint. Until then you are no different than your garden variety anonymous internet coward.
If you ever took me seriously, I’d kill myself. And like Twain (if he wasn’t such a pussy he’d be Clemons) said, “reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.”
Hold the phone. “Castro and his revolutionary commies” enjoyed a term as “freedom fighters”, before being ‘redefined’. That redefinition came after Castro and colleagues refused to front up for the CIA as their new puppet regime in Cuba. —-And after taking arms, etc. from them, gratis, which I suspect was the salt in the wound that provoked their decades long vendetta. So Mr. Cruz senior may very well have been a “freedom fighter” which should means that our junior Mr. Cruz is actually an OK guy. ….Funny how all that works, isn’t it!
I’m impressed. When I was an intern, it was like, “Do you like that black, or with cream? Sugar or Sweet ‘n’ Low?” Alem Emmons is the balls!