Cheney Wrong On Meet The Press

On NBC’s “Meet The Press,” Dick Cheney denied to host Chuck Todd that Japanese soidiers had been prosecuted for waterboarding after World War II.  As the Washington Post shows, Cheney got it wrong.

Chuck Todd: “When you say waterboarding is not torture then why did we prosecute Japanese soldiers?”

Former vice president Richard B. Cheney: “Not for waterboarding. They did an awful lot of other stuff.  To draw some kind of moral equivalent between waterboarding judged by our Justice Department not to be torture and what the Japanese did with the Bataan Death March, with slaughter of thousands of Americans, with the rape of Nanking and all of the other crimes they committed, that’s an outrage. It’s a really cheap shot, Chuck, to even try to draw a parallel between the Japanese who were prosecuted for war crimes after World War II and what we did with waterboarding three individuals — all of whom are guilty and participated in the 9/11 attacks.

Cheney dismissed the question as “a cheap shot” and not worthy of comparison.

What did the Washington Post find?  According to the Washington Post:

At the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), which lasted from April 29, 1946 to Nov. 12, 1948,  there were indeed Japanese war criminals who were tried and ultimately executed for some of the events mentioned by Cheney.

The Post continues:

“The judgment of the IMTFE included a description of the type of torture known as ‘the water treatment,’ in which ‘the victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach until he lost consciousness,’ according to ‘Drop by Drop:  Forgetting the History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts,’ a 2007 article in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, by Judge Evan Wallach. (The article is generally behind a paywall, but a plain type version can be found on the Internet.)”

“…as Wallach makes clear, Japanese soldiers other than the Class A war criminals were also prosecuted for mistreatment of American prisoners—and water torture ‘loomed large in the evidence presented against them.’

“For instance, at the Yokohama Class B and C War Crimes Trials in 1947,Yukio Asano, an interpreter, faced a charge of violating ‘the laws and customs of war…” through various acts of water torture.

Asanao was sentenced to 15 years confinement at hard labor.

First Lt. Seitara Hata, Sgt. Major Takeo Kita and Sgt. Hideji Nakamura faced similar charges.

One American victim, Cpt. William Arno Bluehe, described what happened to him:

“After beating me for a while 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. When I revived they would repeat the beatings and ‘water cure’ . . . . The tortures and beatings continued for about six hours.”

Another soldier, Thomas B. Armitage, provided this testimony about his experience:

“[We] were strapped to stretchers and warm water poured down our nostrils until we were about ready to pass out. [The Japanese] strapped him to a stretcher and elevated his feet and then poured on his face so that it was almost impossible for him to get his breath. [The victim] was then taken into the corridor, strapped to a stretcher, which was tilted so that his head was toward the floor and feet resting on a nearby sink.Water was then poured down his nose and mouth for about twenty minutes. Then I was taken into the hallway of the barracks. Both of the Japanese still insisting I was guilty and urging me to confess.”

Hata received 25 years of hard labor, Nakamura 20 years and Kita 15 years. (More information on waterboarding charges in these trials can be found in an academic article by Wolfgang Form of the University of Marburg.)

Remember, host Chuck Todd asked Cheney, “…why did we prosecute Japanese soldiers?”  

Cheney answered:  “Not for waterboarding,” which was clearly untrue.

Do The Koch Brothers’ Have A Keystone XL Connection?

In March, a Washington Post Web article and print article stated that Koch Industries was the largest leaseholder in Canada’s oil sands. That has since been questioned.  However, further reporting has indicated that Koch Industries is the largest American and foreign holder of leases in Canada’s oil sands based on net acreage, but it might narrowly trail two Canadian companies overall.

Below is a list of individual companies’ net acreage lease holdings in oil sands based on data from the Alberta provincial energy department, corporations’ annual information forms, information from a mapping firm called GeoScout, data from a Calgary-based exploration services firm called Divestco Geomatics and interviews with industry analysts and executives:

●Cenovus Energy (Canada) 1.57 million* (includes rights to an air weapons range)

●Athabasca Oil Corp. (Canada) 1.56 million**

●Koch (U.S.) 1.12 million to 1.47 million***

●Canadian Natural Resources (Canada) 1 million*

●Suncor (Canada) 986,000****

(Sources:)

*company filings with
Canadian securities regulators;
e-mails from company spokesmen

**company Web site:
atha.com/operations/
thermal-oil/

***GeoScout, Alberta
energy department, Divestco

****Divestco

According to the Washington Post, an oil industry official with direct knowledge of Koch’s lease holdings has said that Koch’s leases in the oil-sands region are “closer to 2 million.” (The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect his relationship with the firm.)

This is possible because big companies frequently use brokers or private affiliates to quietly purchase rights without triggering a scramble for nearby acreage. If that is the case, Koch Industries ranks as the largest leaseholder in Alberta.

Koch itself did not reply to questions from the Post about its acreage holdings.

Even without counting possible acreage acquired through brokers or private affiliates, it is clear that Koch Industries through its wholly owned subsidiaries ranks as the largest leaseholder among U.S. or non-Canadian firms and no lower than the third-largest overall.

Figuring out net acreage positions and rankings in the oil-sands region is complex, and a measure of uncertainty is unavoidable.

“It’s so opaque,” said Andrew Leach, a professor at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. “There are so many different layers here.”

The province of Alberta keeps track of designated representatives on oil-sands leases, but the list doesn’t indicate whether those representatives have partners who share the cost of purchase and development. It is a list of gross, not net, lease holdings.

Net ownership could be higher (if a company holds a lot of minority positions in partnerships) or lower (if a designated representative brings in other partners to reduce development costs and spread risks).

Moreover, Canadian government and industry officials note that any company can establish a subsidiary identified only with a number, such as 12345Alberta, and the authoritative industry official says that Koch’s holdings far exceed the acreage listed by name with the Alberta provincial government.

Other oil companies might be doing the same thing, which adds more uncertainty.

The link between Koch and Keystone XL is, however, indirect at best. According to industry sources and provincial government publications, Koch’s oil production in northern Alberta is “negligible.”

Also, Koch has not reserved any space in the Keystone XL pipeline, a process that usually takes place before a pipeline is built.

The pipeline also does not run anywhere near Koch’s refining facilities, and TransCanada, owner of the Keystone routes, says Koch is not expected to be one of the pipeline’s customers.

Still, an activist group that is publicizing the figures about Koch holdings in the oil sands – the International Forum on Globalization (IFG) – is arguing that Koch will benefit indirectly.

The IFG contends that the Keystone XL pipeline will create competition among rail and other pipelines and lower transportation costs for all oil sands producers, bolstering profit margins and making additional reserves economically viable.

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/20/the-biggest-land-owner-in-canadas-oil-sands-isnt-exxon-mobil-or-conoco-phillips-its-the-koch-brothers/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/21/why-we-wrote-about-the-koch-industries-and-its-leases-in-canadas-oil-sands/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/22/are-the-koch-brothers-the-biggest-lease-holder-in-canadas-oil-sands/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/does-koch-industries-hold-most-canadian-oil-sands-leases-its-complicated/2014/04/07/2470e5e4-be70-11e3-b574-f8748871856a_story.html