President Bush is poised to veto legislation that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding — a technique that simulates drowning — and other harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects.As far as I can tell what we're talking about H.R. 2082 - a bill presented to him on the 29th of February. This is what he finds so offensive. It's section 327:
SEC. 327. LIMITATION ON INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES.
(a) Limitation- No individual in the custody or under the effective control of an element of the intelligence community or instrumentality thereof, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations.
(b) Instrumentality Defined- In this section, the term `instrumentality', with respect to an element of the intelligence community, means a contractor or subcontractor at any tier of the element of the intelligence community.
Note the language about "contractor or subcontractor". Blackwater, anyone? Maybe next time they can pass some legislation banning gang-rape for the contractors, too. But that's another story.
Some background. The bill passed the House last May by a vote of 225-197 and then passed the Senate by unanimous consent in October. Once it got out of conference, it passed the House 222-199 on December13 2007 and passed Senate 51-45 on February 13 2008.For the record, Senator McCain voted against the bill (i.e. in favor of allowing the CIA its "enhanced techniques") while BOTH Senator Clinton and Senator Obama didn't vote.
Consistency is everything, I guess. And as the moon follows the sun, John McCain supports dubya's veto of this legislation. From the AP:
But we all know dubya's sleight of hand in this. Whatever he says ain't torture, just ain't.His vote was controversial because the manual prohibits waterboarding — a simulated drowning technique that McCain also opposes — yet McCain doesn't want the CIA bound by the manual and its prohibitions.
McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, is well-known for his opposition to waterboarding, which puts him at odds with the Bush administration.
"I knew I would be criticized for it," McCain told reporters Wednesday in Ohio. "I think I can show my record is clear. I said there should be additional techniques allowed to other agencies of government as long as they were not" torture.
WWJD?
14 comments:
Now that the truth is out there, let the word go forth. Without conservatives there would be no torture. W's veto is complete, absolute and irrefutable proof of this simple fact.
Yet again, we have another example of far-left hypocrisy at its worst.
You guys on the left say you are against torture, but if you had it your way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. What about the unimaginable terror that man was inflicting on innocent people?
If you think waterboarding is a crime against humanity, maybe you should read up on the Halabja attack, the 1991 Shiite uprising, and the torture methods used by the Republican Guard. Not to mention, most of the people who comment on this blog are in favor of an immediate withdrawl from Iraq. Aren't you afraid of what AQI, the JAM, and the other terrorists will do to the innocent Iraqis who will be surrendered to the forces of terror if Obama or Clinton becomes president and actually follows through on their pledge?
Whether its leaving Saddam in power or withdrawing too early from Iraq, the far-left policies would surely inflict a lot more suffering on innocent people than any torture issue you can bring up in regards to the USA.
I too am against torture, but you people use it as a political tool to accomplish an agenda...and nothing more.
CH -
You make a lovely, yet wrong-minded argument. Torture and "crimes against humanity" by others are mutually exclusive concepts.
At the end of the day, torture must be seen simply as a "principal." We must decide, as a nation, whether we think torturing people is the right thing to do...regardless of its efficacy. We shouldn't, in the best case, choose our interrogation methods, or our methods of warfare, based on "how well they work." For, if we do, then all hell breaks loose. We go back to using gas on the battlefield, we remove any constraints on nuclear weapons and we simply "go for it" because the ends justify the means....even if no one is really sure that they do.
So what of our vaunted place as a moral compass for other nations? If we "take off the gloves," then we make it much easier for other nations to do so as well....igniting, or as the very least, fueling the fire of human rights violations. Admittedly, many nations simple don't care anyway, but isn't this position, this concept of the United States as a gleaming example of the "best of humanity" part and parcel or our nation character? Isn't it what makes us...us?
And if you want to talk about the suffering of innocent people, don't even get me started. The Bush Administration has no interest in people's suffering. I can't quote the exact numbers, but it appears that our "pacification" program in Iraq has killed nearly as many people as did Saddam himself. I'm sure the Iraqui's are pleased, though I still don't see the rose petals being dropped in the wake of the Humvees....
Piltdown Man
You're wrong, Pilt. Americans have to torture, murder, cheat, and ignore the advice of our allies. After all, we're the good people in the world! It's OK when we do it, just wrong when it's our opponents.
Besides, it works. Torture has staved off dozens of terrorist attacks in Iraq already. Why, there hasn't been a suicide bomb go off in a public market since...oh, wait.
You, Pilt, are one of those far-left hypocrites that has no right arguing with a war-loving fringie like C.H.
C.H. -
Don't you recognise the moral relativism of your argument? It's ok for the US to be a little bit dirty because Saddam Hussein was a whole lot more dirty.
Not-Shitrock
I said absolutely nothing of the sort my friend, please read my whole comment. I clearly stated in that post and in others that I am against torture.
"Why, there hasn't been a suicide bomb go off in a public market since...oh, wait."
Now this really, really bothers me when I hear the so-called "antiwar" movement say things like this. I know this is not your intention, but you are helping the Tafirki murderers tout their accomplishments when you do this.
One of the reasons the mission in Iraq has been so difficult is because the media has brought us pretty much 100% negative news coverage since day 1.
Tell me, what good does that do?
John K. says: Remember one of the secrets here is that the Democrats have no intention of changing a thing if they get elected to the Presidency. After all, after 16 months of congress they have changed what? The Democrats are not opposed to Iraq, they just want to be in charge to get the credit.
C.H., it sounds as though you are trying to be marginally reasonable this once, so I'll answer in kind.
The whole "the media is unfair" myth is approximately 180 degrees from the truth. There are still Americans dying and having limbs blown off. There are still Iraqis being killed and displaced, and the only time we ever hear about Iraq these days is when there is a major disaster. Face it: The press is owned by Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdock, Disney, and large, conservative corporations. It was never leftish, but now it is almost as blood-hungry and supportive of torture as you, McSameAsBush, and Hillary Clinton.
One of the reasons the mission in Iraq has been so difficult is because the media has brought us pretty much 100% negative news coverage since day 1.
Aside from being untrue, as I showed above, this makes no sense. The war is, and has been, prosecuted without public support for three years. How would press coverage matter, even if it were not heavily weighted in favor of the Bush Misadministration.
John K. says: If this war is being prosecuted without public support then cut off the funding. Just cut it off period. The public will support you if what you say is true. Problem is it is not true. Left wing kooks need to talk to people other than left wing kooks.
John K. says: It's my peenie and I'll wiggle it if I want to, wiggle it if I want to, wiggle it if I want to! Look at me and my peenie!
Those of us of the Vietnam military generation rose in indignation against the treatment of our POWs in the "Hanoi Hilton". Whatever was done to them, and probably worse, we now do--or have done--to others. So, torture advocates,the next time ours are captured and tortured, don't come whining: We will have no leg left to stand on.
Ironically, torture does not work. It did not yield timely, current intelligence in the Hanoi Hilton. It does no more for us today. People get captured, the plan is changed, someone else takes over, the information remains compartmented, and sooner or later the mission gets accomplished. It does not destroy--if anything strengthens--the adversary's will to fight and kill you...if he hates you enough, especially if you have caused him to hate you enough. Torture, however, is and always has been, a sadistic way of venting frustration against an enemy one is afraid of...and cannot beat. It did not beat (if nything, strengthened) the French Resistance in WWII my French family belonged to and whose members captured by the Gestapo--and labeled terrorists--were tortured including, among other methods we use today, waterboarding! It was then called “la baignoire”, the bathtub...
And, finally, if our ends justify the means, we have lost the high ground and have nothing left to fight for. JFR,US Army Ret
Post a Comment