US News
Bush vetoes torture-ban law, saying it ties CIA hands
Mar 8, 2008, 16:34 GMT
United States President George W. Bush makes. EPA/Ron Sachs / Pool
Washington - US President George W Bush Saturday vetoed a law that would prevent the CIA from using torture-like waterboarding and other forms of coercion on prisoners.
The move provoked charges by Congressional leaders that Bush was compromising the nation's moral authority and putting American military and diplomatic staff at risk of harsh interrogation tactics abroad.
Bush said the law would bind the hands of the CIA in questioning 'hardened terrorists.'
'It would eliminate all the alterative procedures we've developed to question the world's most dangerous and violent terrorists,' Bush said in his weekly radio address.
The bill passed Congress by margins too narrow to provide the two- thirds majority needed to override the veto. It would require the CIA and other intelligence agencies to follow US army regulations in questioning prisoners.
'The president has once again compromised the moral leadership of our nation,' said Senate majority leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, in a statement.
The opposition centre-left Democratic leadership provided a list of military leaders, including General David Petraeus, commanding general of Iraq, who believe torture is wrong and fails to obtain good information.
In intense debate since December, the White House has refused to rule out the possibility of using waterboarding, which simulates drowning.
CIA director Michael Hayden has admitted to Congress that the agency used the technique to get information from three top al-Qaeda operatives, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks who was captured in Pakistan in 2003.
Congress previously banned waterboarding and other harsh tactics, but the Bush administration said the law did not apply to intelligence agencies.
The top US law enforcement official, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, has refused to tell the Senate whether he believed waterboarding was legal or not.
Lawmakers based the content of the bill on the contents of the US Army's handbook for interrogation techniques which expressly prohibits mock drownings and other use of force. Bush approved techniques other than those allowed in the Army Field Manual in an executive order last July.
Bush said the CIA programme to question terrorist leaders and operatives had produced 'critical intelligence that has helped us prevent a number of attacks.'
He cited the foiling of several attacks, including plots to attack a US Marine camp in Djibouti and the US consulate in Karachi, and plans to crash passenger planes into Library Tower in Los Angeles and Heathrow Airport or buildings in downtown London.
'Were it not for this programme, our intelligence community believes that al-Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland,' Bush said.
The rights group Human Rights Watch said Bush had defied a majority of Congress 'to allow the use of interrogation techniques that any reasonable observer would call torture.'
'President Bush will go down in history as the torture president,' said Jennifer Daskal, senior counsel at Human Rights Watch, in a statement.
Whether the CIA is engaging in torture became a hot topic in Washington after the secret service admitted to destroying video evidence of its harsh interrogation tactics.
The CIA claims to have stopped using waterboarding, which it views as completely legal, in 2003.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
Yes the same bill John McCain flip-flopped on. Bush and McCain---close friends!
I like McCain now, more than ever. If there is one guy who can pass judgement on what constitutes torture, it's McCain. He made the hard choice. The libnazis would still find a way to pillory him.
We're in a new era. The enemy no longer wears a uniform. He kills civilians as the first, not last course of action. He hides behind antiquated laws of sovreign nations, while those natins are supposed to abide by rules never intended to protect terrorists.
This was Bush's biggest failure: not getting a Constitutional amendment to deal with all of the legal nexus. Now, it's in the courts for years.
I wouldn't torture them either. I'd put a bullet in their head if they did not talk or throw the out of a helicopter. Time to wake up folks.
You ought to be a writer for Bush and McCain. War - good Peace - bad.
'Bush and McCain---close friends!'
I would guess that sometime during the South Carolina campaign about 7 years ago when people were getting phone calls about the 'black' child that the McCain's adopted eer, let me rephrase that, about the child that the McCain's rescued from an incredibly grim life, that any potential 'closeness' went away until the end of time.
bush and mccain are butthole buddies ...xoxoxo
To Wrong Again.....
'I would guess that sometime during the South Carolina campaign about 7 years ago when people were getting phone calls about the 'black' child that the McCain's adopted eer, let me rephrase that, about the child that the McCain's rescued from an incredibly grim life, that any potential 'closeness' went away until the end of time.'
One would think your statement above was correct, but didn't you see them hugging on TV this week. Bush even did a 'soft shoe' waiting on McCain. If John McCain would have come out and said that he didn't want anything to do with the biggest slime ball ever elected to the office of President, then I would think he had a backbone. He didn't, he feels like he needs Bush's money, but that will be his downfall.
No matter what the idiot of this board (SP4) says, Bush will cost McCain this election---just watch.
Someone has forgotten the 2000 Primaries????
Maybe you were children?
Bush is doing his party's work. Besides, the thing that has libnazis crapping themselves is that McCain isn't much of a conservative. Heck, you remove the endless scandals and the philandering husband and McCain looks politically like Hillary, just a little! I may not even vote for this guy...but probably will.
Classic!
You cannot condone torture.
'but didn't you see them hugging on TV this week.'
Nope.
'Bush even did a 'soft shoe' waiting on McCain.'
I saw that.
' If John McCain would have come out and said that he didn't want anything to do with the biggest slime ball ever elected to the office of President, then I would think he had a backbone.'
I will think that you will find that John McCain has very little to do with Warren G. Harding or Bill Clinton.
'Bush will cost McCain this election'
Bush is not running in the next election. Time to grow up and get your head around that.
The presidency not the man. This is the mark of a disciplined person.
I'm gonna post what I've posted befor on varoius sites. Your daughter,son wifelover-whoever you love the most is being held by terrorists. Our people have someone, some terrorist type, that probably (not certainly) has info on how to save your loved one. Do you honestly say,under these conditions 'NO-absolutely no waterboarding'? It's a pretty simple, straightforward question. I have yet to get a pretty simple straightforward answer to date. If you're against waterboarding in general but wwould make an exception in the case of your loved one, you're a hypocrite and you need to examine yourself. People that have one set of rules for themselves and another for the rest of the universe are warped-period.
'Nope.'
Must not have watched it all, or as usual only telling a half truth?
'I saw that.'
Only saw half?
'I will think that you will find that John McCain has very little to do with Warren G. Harding or Bill Clinton.'
You are a dreamer. We all know how great Clinton was, and this guy even tops President Harding. The damage has been done, is being done and will continue to be done, by this Texas Cowboy.
'Bush is not running in the next election. Time to grow up and get your head around that.'
Again you point out the obvious. Cleaver way to try and get an invalid point across. Even though the Texas Cowboy is not running, he will be a factor in the race for McCain---and just like your claims that Mr. McCain is leading in the polls, only half true.
..that Bush's last 7 years may affect the outcome, but not because he shook hands with McCain...
We have a saying in the republican party: '...in 1968, Richard Nixon was elected President..'
Four months ago, his campaign was all but stopped.
there is no consensus or standard definition for the word torture or terrorist. of course I agree torture is wrong
Of course terrorist don't get the protection of the european whiners (I think its the geneva conventions). All they deserve is a suitable de-briefing and a bullet in the head. Just like Franklin Roosevelt did with german spies in WW2.
Every nation on earth has taken license with that can be construed as torture. Is it wrong? yes. Is it necessary? Depends.
Terrorists function via enabling people and countries, their enemies being hamstrung by laws, etc. This is just another case of Geneva out of control. If it protects everyone, no one will abide by it, and most nations do not. That being the case, whats good does Geneva do?
Is it lack of imagination that leads to the conclusion that torture is efficient.Ask people who were tortured and you'll find out they all say the same thing;you'll say anything to stop the torture.Anything...Which means you invent stories,preferably the kind of stories your butcher wants to hear.There is enough evidence to pinpoint to the fact that torture leads to false information,like the case of Saddam's WMD .THe interrogators want to hear something and the prisoner will invariably confirm that ,right or wrong.In the end the only reason why Kathy and her noeocn friends condone this is just cruelty and hatred .Period too.
By thez way,the last post of SP4 just reveals what kind of freak monster he is,throwing away the geneva conventions owns him a place on the list of Hitler and Stalin,Pol Pot and a few others .His remarks should ring an alarm bell to all that thought neoxcons and republicans with similar attitude,like Bush and Cheney care for human rights .They do not ,evidence for that provided by SP4,the ultimate fascist.
I see a lot of american posters today saying that water boarding is ok.
They have to justify it to themselves because the only other option is to admit finally to themselves that their government and security services are in fact according to Geneva and international law,WAR CRIMINALS.
After world war II the germans found it extremely difficult to come to terms with the fact that their leaders had been so convincing on their reasons for hating the jew and for invading other states. They found it difficult to accept responsibility for the war crimes of their elected representatives.
I suppose to carry on denying it will make the bad taste go away.
Will the realization hit home only after impeachment and war crimes tribunals in the Hague.
The people in question are not legitimate combatants. Therefore, they have no rights as soldiers. Technically, they should be shot on the battlefield, or tried as human rights violators themselves.
You see, Brian, Geneva was created to protect legitimate combatants in war. These would be soldiers fighting for a particular nation.
Who does Geneva really protect? None of the nations we have fought in the last 40 years abide by it, either and no one has been punished for it. If a treaty is not protecting the signatories combatants, what good is it.
Terrorists do not fit this description. Furthermore, Geneva is not law, it is a treaty and can be abrogated.
By the way, Brian, the jews were never combatants, so Geneva never applied to them. If you want a treaty to punish human rights abusers, start with terrorists and not the government of the United States.
Let's take a stroll down memory lane. Who, actually, has ever honored Geneva in the last 40 years? Answer: almost no warring nation. If anyone has towed the line, it would be the United States. Like I explained above, if you protect anyone other than legitimate combatants, what good is it?
No thanks. A treaty that ties one parties hands is not a treaty. By the way, Saddam said in interviews, before his death, he fully intended to restart his WMD program for chemical weapons as soon as the UN inspectors left, and took steps to do so. This being the case, that and the 500 WMD's found, makes you pretty much just a little more than full of crap.
And where was the outrage and trials for all the governments who have tortured legitimate combatants? N. Korea, Vietnam have gotten a pass from the so called world community forever. Iran, Syria, etc., numerous African nations, all have tortured legitimate combatants and the UN, or any other group, has never gone after them for this. it seems to me that this vaunted justice depends entirely on who's being tortured.
It seems to me we should apply the cold war standard of retaliation here. Abrogate Geneva (we are not signatories on certain parts anyways, so it doesn't apply to us) and proclaim a response of equal treatment for terrorists as they have demonstrated on us. If the idea of nuking a whole city is legitimate in the eyes of the world, why is waterboarding one raghead terrorist so repugnant?
This would include torture, the killing of their families and other methods they employ on their enemies. You see the problem with this war is that not enough folks are dying so there is no incentive to win. Governments, including ours, ignore the issues until some event happens.
Sums up why I think the US is so evil.
i like mccain .and sp4 likes mccain now.
so now we will have to put up with sp4 putting everyone down again if someone don't like mccain .so if mccain gets in we all know where sp4's nose will be once again
im blubbering just like sp4 now...
Mikey:
Anytime someone from the UK insinuate we're evil, tell them to focus that razor sharp insight on themselves. Go take a look at how YOU handle the same problems i.e. N. Ireland, MI5, etc.
As for McCain, he's a republican, I'm a republican so, yes, it's likely I'll vote for him. As for liking him, I'd rather have another Bush or Reagan, but one is not available.
Sums up why the UK is so hypocritical.
...f--king love the UK in America. We love the French, The Germans and the Japanese, the Aussies, and anyone from the Caribbean, even the Cubans! Heck, we let 12 million Mexicans just walk over the border! You will never find a nation more open to foreigners in the world!
It's been my experience that, when most Americans meet foreigners, they really want to get to know them. We are also grateful for what their nations have done to help us.
Americans are some of the most self-deprecating people in the world. Heck, we'll be the first to realize how rediculous we look, telling India they don't need nukes when we have 5,000 of them, but realizing that may still not make us wrong.
And if you wish to pass judgement on us, so be it, but don't be surprised when we point out a few things to you. Do we bitch slap terrorists? You're goddamn right we do, just like MI5, Mossad, KGB, or outsource it like they do too. We also put caps in terrorists asses like other nations do, and that we do not apologize for.
I don't mind a high standard like Geneva, just as long as you get every terrorist in the world to sign up first. If not, why not ask the world to pressure them before they pressure us?
page: 1
Advice toMar 8th, 2008 - 17:00:35
American and Allied troops as well as insurgents and terrorists.
DON'T GET CAPTURED!!!
Report this comment