The Interrogations Bill veto
President Bush just vetoed bill H.R. 2082, the "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008." Not a big surprise, since he said he would. The margin of passage in the House and Senate was too low to override the President's veto. So this thing is dead in the water. The media reports it this way: "Bush vetoes bill banning waterboarding", and the pundits follow suit. Problem is, the bill concerned a lot more than just waterboarding, which is already illegal now in any case, due to various legislation passed during the last few years.
With his characteristic hysteria, Andrew Sullivan says:George W. Bush vetoes a bill in order to keep using torture techniques perfected by the Nazis and deployed by the Khmer Rouge.
Actually, Bush gave a very long and detailed decription on why he vetoed it, and he specifically said it had nothing to do with waterboarding:The United States opposes torture, and I remain committed to following international and domestic law regarding the humane treatment of people in its custody, including the "Detainee Treatment Act of 2005."
His primary objections seem to be: 1) Applying US military guidelines for prisoners who are not POWs and are not captured or held by the US military, 2) Creating a redundant intelligence inspector general, when that job already exists at several levels, and 3) various procedural changes, such as divulging more classified information to Congress and adding the directors of the National Security Agency and National Reconnaissance Office to the list of positions that must be confirmed by Congress.
My disagreement over section 327 is not over any particular interrogation technique; for instance, it is not over waterboarding, which is not part of the current CIA program.
I usually have opinions about anything connected to interrogations or intelligence work, but not this time. This bill is so long and so full of legalese that I just don't have time to analyze it. But its complicated nature might be a good argument against it all by itself. But if you are in a masochistic mood, go ahead and read the whole thing.
Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed 
4 comments:
The Democrats knew this thing wouldn't be passed, and padded it with a lot of extras just to make sure of it. Then they call out the town criers and call it "The Waterboarding Bill", even though it has little to do with waterboarding.
This is just to create another hammer to bash the republicans with in November. That's all it is.
some of our resident bloggers are duped my this bill too.
I try to think of it like a teacher. We just need to be patient with the message, and be prepared to repeat it over and over until it sinks in.
Manwhore.
"His primary objections seem to be: 1) Applying US military guidelines for prisoners who are not POWs and are not captured or held by the US military"
Isn't this just a semantic trick used by the US? Calling them "hostile combattants" or whatever doesn't really make a difference, does it?
No, John has been very thorough to point out that this has little to do with American misdeeds, and more to do with spin.
Toss the rock at America, and tell your friends you're not really an asshole. america was.
He's explicitly pointed out where a number of nations have done the same with no problem.
And, to the Europeans, a bonus. If you're the bad guy they'll root for you and even excuse your bullshit behaviour even if you beahead someone on youtube.
Manwhore
Post a Comment