Bush to Veto Torture Bill

[chomerics]

Man, this guy just gets worse and worse. He decides to use his first veto on a bill which takes care of the torture fiasco :doh: Man, wait until the public gets a hold of the second set of pictures, they'll be screaming for an impeachment vote if Bush uses his first veto on this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/07/wus207.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/07/ixworld.html

Bush will veto anti-torture law after Senate revolt

By Francis Harris in Washington

(Filed: 07/10/2005)

The Bush administration pledged yesterday to veto legislation banning the torture of prisoners by US troops after an overwhelming and almost unprecedented revolt by loyalist congressmen.

The mutiny was the latest setback for an administration facing an increasingly independent and bloody-minded legislature. But it also marked a key moment in Congress's campaign to curtail the huge powers it has granted the White House since 2001 in its war against terrorism.

The late-night Senate vote saw the measure forbidding torture passed by 90 to nine, with most Republicans backing the measure. Most senators said the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal and similar allegations at the Guantanamo Bay prison rendered the result a foregone conclusion.

The administration's extraordinary isolation was underlined when the Senate Republican majority leader, Bill Frist, supported the amendment.

The man behind the legislation, Republican Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner in Vietnam, said the move was backed by American soldiers. His amendment would prohibit the "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of prisoners in the custody of America's defence department.

The vote was one of the largest and best supported congressional revolts during President George W Bush's five years in office and shocked the White House.

"We have put out a Statement of Administration Policy saying that his advisers would recommend that he vetoes it if it contains such language," White House spokesman Scott McClellan warned yesterday.

The administration said Congress was attempting to tie its hands in the war against terrorism.

The veto would be Mr Bush's first use of his most extreme legislative option. But senators pointed out that a presidential veto can be overturned by a two-thirds majority in both houses.

For now the amendment's fate depends on negotiations between the Senate and the lower chamber, the House of Representatives, which is more loyal to the administration.

But senators said they were confident that most of the language would survive and that the issue could pose an extremely awkward dilemma for the president.

The amendment was attached to the $440 billion (£247 billion) defence spending bill and if Mr Bush vetoes the amendment, he would have to veto the entire bill.

That would leave America's armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan short of cash as early as the middle of next month.

[dreamingwolf]

its really a spending bill

add

I thought we didnt condone torture so whats the point?

[chomerics]

its really a spending bill

Oh really? And THAT is why Bush would veto it?

[@DCGoldPants]

Its the money he requsted I thought.

Why would he veto that?

[Larry]

Gee,

When John Kerry voted against the Homeland Security bill, because it also contained a union busting ammendment in it, then everybody in the world announced that John Kerry was either anti-national security, or that he obviously thought unions were more important than protecting the nation.

I wonder if anybody will say the same thing about Bush (that torture is more important than the War)?

[Fred Jones]

I would really like to see what happens if he decides to veto this bill. If he was a Dem Pres he would get heavily critisized with the usual rhetoric.

[Prosperity]

He doesn't have the balls to veto the bill

[Cdowwe]

Gee,

When John Kerry voted against the Homeland Security bill, because it also contained a union busting ammendment in it, then everybody in the world announced that John Kerry was either anti-national security, or that he obviously thought unions were more important than protecting the nation.

I wonder if anybody will say the same thing about Bush (that torture is more important than the War)?

I think he got most of the publicity because of his forgetfulness....I voted for it, I didnt, I voted for it before I voted against it. Thats what most of the hell he got was for.

[Destino]

Gee,

When John Kerry voted against the Homeland Security bill, because it also contained a union busting ammendment in it, then everybody in the world announced that John Kerry was either anti-national security, or that he obviously thought unions were more important than protecting the nation.

I wonder if anybody will say the same thing about Bush (that torture is more important than the War)?

The "liberal media" sure did Kerry a favor by allowing that little piece of GOP made up campaign strategy to reign supreme didn't they. It shocks me that obvious lies, created by removing context, go unquestioned and people still think the media is working for the democrats. Had the media wanted to they could have slammed the Bush campaign for lying hard.....they choose to let it go and maybe write a few features on the swift boat liars.

What the democrats need is to grow a pair of balls allowing them to lie as effectively as the GOP. Otherwise they are basically the same party these days.

[NoCalMike]

The funniest thing is, I was listening to Ed Schultz's radio show today, and he had audio clips of Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reily at seperate times both explaining that the media is now on "their side" Now of course you will never catch them saying it on TELEVISION, but they will say it when they are talking to their loyal base.

[dreamingwolf]

was torture legal? is that why this is happening?

[Ignatius J.]

there is no law on torture that this white house feels it needs to follow when dealing with people within ambiguous jurisdictions.

[dreamingwolf]

the important thing here is how do you define torture, you might be suprised to find out that the same methods are used here domestically to interrogate criminals. Your political assualt should be focused more on why they are being detained then how they are interrogated, you have better ground that way. From what you just said we can only ask them to tell us what they know and if they refuse we just have to shrug our shoulders and say ok.

[dreamingwolf]

I ask again, this time from someone who doesnt have a political answer, why was this language put in the bill? Or is it just purely political stab and albiet a brilliant one if it was.

[Ignatius J.]

my answer was "political?"

I really was just trying to answer your question. I'm not sure that there is a clear ban against torturing or extraditing for the purpose of extracting information when it comes to "enemy combatants".

[dreamingwolf]

so you think we are torturing in gitmo is what your saying, or at the very least that they have the green light to torture cause you dont know if we have laws against it?

Your way of thinking is very powerfull politically. Im gonna give it a try.

Democrats are pedophilles

[Ignatius J.]

Dreamingwolf,

come on man, I never said anything of the kind. I don't know what is going on, but the fact that I would like there to be some kind of rule in place doesn't mean that I am accusing someone of anything.

I believe in the rule of law. I think the legislature as a voice of the people should have a say in some kind of code of conduct for any enemies who are taken captive. I never called anyone anything. It's not clear what rules there are, I think this is unacceptable. Whether anything has been done is a separate issue. an equally important issue, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

we have clear laws against pedophelia. I happen to think that's a good thing. what is wrong with similar laws against reprehensible behavior?

[DjTj]

How about we just ask John McCain what he thinks about this bill:

http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Newscenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1611

Wednesday, Oct 05, 2005

Washington D.C. ¬– Senator McCain delivered the following statement today from the Senate floor on the Amendment on (1) the Army Field Manual and (2) Cruel, Inhumane, Degrading Treatment, amendment #1977:

Mr. President, I call up amendment #1977, which is filed at the desk.

The Department of Defense Appropriations bill is one of the most important funding measures considered by Congress. Equally important is the Department of Defense Authorization bill, and it is very unfortunate that we are forced to consider this funding measure without having completed our important work on the authorization bill. Despite the efforts of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, who have worked to bring up and dispense with the authorization bill in a reasonable manner, they have been unable to reach an agreement with the leadership. As a result, the authorizers have filed the authorization bill and a procedural vote will occur on it this evening.

The Senate has an obligation to address the authorizing legislation, just as it has an obligation to deal with the issue that apparently led to the bill being pulled from the floor – America’s treatment of its detainees. Several weeks ago I received a letter from Captain Ian Fishback, a member of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, and a veteran of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. Over 17 months he struggled to get answers from his chain of command to a basic question: what standards apply to the treatment of enemy detainees? But he found no answers. In his remarkable letter, he pleads with Congress, asking us to take action, to establish standards, to clear up the confusion – not for the good of the terrorists, but for the good of our soldiers and our country. The Captain closes his letter by saying, “I strongly urge you to do justice to your men and women in uniform. Give them clear standards of conduct that reflect the ideals they risk their lives for.” I believe that the Congress has a responsibility to answer this call – a call that has come not just from this one brave soldier but from so many of our men and women in uniform.

We owe it to them, Mr. President. We sent them to fight for us in Afghanistan and Iraq. We placed extraordinary pressure on them to extract intelligence from detainees. But then we threw out the rules that our soldiers had trained on, and replaced them with a confusing and constantly changing array of standards. We demanded intelligence without ever clearly telling our troops what was permitted and what was forbidden. And then when things went wrong, we blamed them and we punished them. We have to do better than that.

I can understand why some administration lawyers might want ambiguity, so that every hypothetical option is theoretically open, even those the President has said he does not want to exercise. But war does not occur in theory, and our troops are not served by ambiguity. They are crying out for clarity. The Congress cannot shrink from this duty, we cannot hide our heads, pulling bills from the floor and avoiding votes. We owe it to our soldiers, during this time of war, to take a stand.

And so while I would prefer to offer this amendment to the DOD Authorization bill, I am left with no choice but to offer it to this appropriations measure. I would note that I am offering this amendment in accordance with the options afforded under Rule 16 of the Standing Rules of the Senate. The amendment I will now offer combines the two amendments that I previously filed to the authorizing measure.

This amendment would (1) establish the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees and (2) prohibit cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in the detention of the U.S. government.

Mr. President, to fight terrorism we need intelligence. That much is obvious. What should also be obvious is that the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all our fighting men and women. To do differently would not only offend our values as Americans, but undermine our war effort, because abuse of prisoners harms – not helps – us in the war on terror. First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence, because under torture a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop. Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers U.S. troops who might be captured by the enemy – if not in this war, then in the next. And third, prisoner abuses exact on us a terrible toll in the war of ideas, because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions. American values should win against all others in any war of ideas, and we can’t let prisoner abuse tarnish our image.

And yet reports of detainee abuse continue to emerge, in large part, I believe, because of confusion in the field as to what is permitted and what is not. The amendment I am proposing will go a long way toward clearing up this confusion.

Army Field Manual

The first part of this amendment would establish the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees. The Army Field Manual and its various editions have served America well, through wars against both regular and irregular foes. It embodies the values Americans have embraced for generations, while preserving the ability of our interrogators to extract critical intelligence from ruthless foes. Never has this been more important than today, in the midst of the war on terror.

The Army Field Manual authorizes interrogation techniques that have proven effective in extracting life-saving information from the most hardened enemy prisoners. It is consistent with our laws and, most importantly, our values. Let us not forget that al-Qaeda sought not just to destroy American lives on September 11, but American values – our way of life and all we cherish. We fight not just to preserve our lives and liberties but also American values, and we will never allow the terrorists to take those away. In this war that we must win - that we will win - we must never simply fight evil with evil.

This amendment would establish the Army Field Manual as the standard for interrogation of all detainees held in DOD custody. The Manual has been developed by the Executive Branch for its own uses, and a new edition, written to take into account the needs of the war on terror and with a new classified annex, is due to be issued soon. My amendment would not set the Field Manual in stone – it could be changed at any time.

The advantage of setting a standard for interrogation based on the Field Manual is to cut down on the significant level of confusion that still exists with respect to which interrogation techniques are allowed. The Armed Services Committee has held hearings with a slew of high-level Defense Department officials, from regional commanders, to judge advocate generals, to the Department’s deputy general counsel. A chief topic of discussion in these hearings was what specific interrogation techniques are permitted in what environments, with which DOD detainees, by whom, and when. And the answers have included a whole lot of confusion. If the Pentagon’s top minds can’t sort these matters out after exhaustive debate and preparation, how in the world do we expect our enlisted men and women to do so?

Confusion about the rules results in abuses in the field. We need a clear, simple, and consistent standard, and we have it in the Army Field Manual on Interrogation. That’s not just my opinion, but that of many more distinguished military minds than mine. I would refer you to a letter expressing strong support for this amendment, signed by 28 former high-ranking military officers, including General Joseph Hoar, who commanded Centcom; General John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; RADM John Hutson and RADM Don Guter, who each served as the Navy’s top JAG; and LTGEN Claudia Kennedy, who served as Deputy Chief of Staff for Army Intelligence. These and other distinguished officers believe that the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere took place in part because our soldiers received ambiguous instructions, which in some cases authorized treatment that went beyond what the Field Manual allows, and that, had the Manual been followed across the board, we could have avoided the prisoner abuse scandal. Mr. President, wouldn’t any of us do whatever we could to have prevented that? By passing this amendment, our service members can follow the Manual consistently from now on. Our troops deserve no less.

Cruel, Inhumane, Degrading Treatment

The second part of this amendment really shouldn’t be objectionable to anyone since I’m actually not proposing anything new. The prohibition against cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment has been a longstanding principle in both law and policy in the United States. Before I get into why this amendment is necessary, let me first review the history.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states simply that “No one shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the U.S. is a signatory, states the same. The binding Convention Against Torture, negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by the Senate, prohibits cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. On last year’s DOD Authorization bill, the Senate passed a bipartisan amendment reaffirming that no detainee in U.S. custody can be subject to torture or cruel treatment, as the U.S. has long defined those terms. All of this seems to be common sense, in accordance with longstanding American values.

But since last year’s DOD bill, a strange legal determination was made that the prohibition in the Convention Against Torture against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment does not legally apply to foreigners held outside the U.S. They can, apparently, be treated inhumanely. This is the administration’s position, even though Judge Abe Soafer, who negotiated the Convention Against Torture for President Reagan, said in a recent letter that the Reagan administration never intended the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment to apply only on U.S. soil.

What all this means is that America is the only country in the world that asserts a legal right to engage in cruel and inhuman treatment. But the crazy thing is that it is not even necessary, because the Administration has said that it will not engage in cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as a matter of policy. What this also means is that confusion about the rules becomes rampant again. We have so many differing legal standards and loopholes that our lawyers and generals are confused – just imagine our troops serving in prisons and the field.

So the amendment I am offering simply codifies what is current policy and reaffirms what was assumed to be existing law for years. In light of the administration’s stated commitment, it should require no change in our current interrogation and detention practices. What it would do is restore clarity on a simple and fundamental question: Does America treat people inhumanely? My answer is no, and from all I’ve seen, America’s answer has always been no.

Mr. President, let me just close by noting that I hold no brief for the prisoners. I do hold a brief for the reputation of the United States of America. We are Americans, and we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they may be. To do otherwise undermines our security, but it also undermines our greatness as a nation. We are not simply any other country. We stand for something more in the world – a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these terrorists, and we will we win. The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don’t deserve our sympathy. But this isn’t about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

[dreamingwolf]

well my friend your umbrella wants to peel back them clear laws against pedophillia, but thats a seperate issue I have with the neo-commie.

I know you wont take my word, but Im gonna try anyways. The US government does not condone torture, taking that one would have to assume that we are not torturing gitmo prisoners(Im assuming thats were your political dig is focussing on).

[dreamingwolf]

love on mccain, none of you will vote for him

[NavyDave]

Liberals trip me out.

Then again forced to listen to Britney, Christina A, the backside boys, pearl jam,coldplay or kanye west everyday could be considered torture.

They snivel about our strong military women taking away the manhood of innocent peaceful people who only fight to keep the peace.... away from a majority of people in Iraq and afghanistan and will try to kill us if given the chance.

Then when we comply with releasing them to their home of origin they show how spineless and hypocritical they are by saying we would be cruel to send the terrorists back home because their nation might torture them.

And if the laws were tough on pedophiles in liberal or heavy activist states O'Reilly and Oprah wouldnt have to devote parts of their show to shame the governors, senators and state legislatures to utilize megan law so Judges and lawyers cant worry more about the pervert and instead look out for the kids.

[Art Monk Fan]

Here's what I don't get, why are we passing a law requiring the military to follow the existing military code of conduct when interogating prisons? That's the standard McCain uses in his bill, the already existing and enforced military code of conduct. We're passing a law requiring our soldiers to do what they're already required to do -- f-ing grandstanding again.

[NavyDave]

ArtMonk fan its called Grandstanding.

Similar to the hundreds of gunlaws on the books added in the nineties for the photo op instead of just enforcing what was already on the books.

[Larry]

Actually, Art,

I think the one thing this bill would do is to clearly state that there are no prisoners that the manual doesn't apply to.

That, to me, cuts into one of the three techniques that are being used as part of this administration's deliberate plan to support torture. The three techniques I keep seeing are:

• Create the most liberal (I don't mean as in "Democrat") definition of torture. (Hence, Gonzales' memo that anything that stops short of "pain consistant with the failure of major bodily organs" doesn't count.)
  
• Intentional lieing. ("Gee, I had no idea that when we had the Men in Black sieze a prisoner that we claim we don't have, and fly him to Egypt, along with a list of questions that we want the Egyptions to ask him while they're not torturing him, that those meanies would be mean to him. And I have no idea that they'll do it the next time we ship somebody, there, either.")
  
• And the "the rules don't apply" technique. It's the "I sprinkled fairy dust over this guy, so the rules don't count" technique.
  

What McCain's rule does is say that "If he's under our controll, then the rules count", and that "the soldiers have to be told what the rules are".

-----

(And I'm really enjoying the attempts by one political "side" to try to deflect this discussion and turn it into a pedophilia thread.)

[Art Monk Fan]

Actually, Art,

I think the one thing this bill would do is to clearly state that there are no prisoners that the manual doesn't apply to.

That, to me, cuts into one of the three techniques that are being used as part of this administration's deliberate plan to support torture. The three techniques I keep seeing are:

• Create the most liberal (I don't mean as in "Democrat") definition of torture. (Hence, Gonzales' memo that anything that stops short of "pain consistant with the failure of major bodily organs" doesn't count.)
  
• Intentional lieing. ("Gee, I had no idea that when we had the Men in Black sieze a prisoner that we claim we don't have, and fly him to Egypt, along with a list of questions that we want the Egyptions to ask him while they're not torturing him, that those meanies would be mean to him. And I have no idea that they'll do it the next time we ship somebody, there, either.")
  
• And the "the rules don't apply" technique. It's the "I sprinkled fairy dust over this guy, so the rules don't count" technique.
  

What McCain's rule does is say that "If he's under our controll, then the rules count", and that "the soldiers have to be told what the rules are".

The first two "techniques" you list above actually prove that the military code of conduct is being enforced. The only reason to alter the list of allowable interrogation techniques or to smuggle prisioners into other nation's hands is to avoid the restrictions of the military code.

The third of your points is a red herring. The military code of conduct and the Geneva Convention are different things. The administration is perfectly correct that the latter does not apply to all enemy combatants. I wont hi-jack this thread with a re-hash of the debate over whether the Conventions should apply to Gitmo prisoners. Suffice it say there is room for a debate on that point. Regardless, this bill does nothing to extend Geneva Convention protections to these prisoners, only the military code of conduct rules which were already being followed.

This bill is superfluous and amounts to grandstanding on the part of the Senate. What's worse is that it will be used by our enemies as an admission of guilt.