On Saturday President Bush vetoed legislation that would have prohibited the CIA from using waterboarding and other coercive interrogation methods beyond the 19 techniques approved in the Army Field Manual. On Tuesday the House of Representatives voted 225-188 to override the veto, a 37-vote majority but 51 votes short of the 2/3 necessary to overcome the president's veto.
Because of the bill's failure, the intelligence authorization contained in it will not go into effect. Television ads quickly appeared blaming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for leaving America unprotected against terrorists. The ads called on citizens to contact their congressional representatives to urge passage of an intelligence bill without the restrictions.
In his Saturday radio address Bush explained, "I cannot sign into law a bill that would prevent me, and future presidents, from authorizing the CIA to conduct a separate, lawful intelligence program, and from taking all lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack."
Bush's logic is specious on two counts here. First, it was not congressional Democrats who scuttled the Intelligence Authorization bill. It was Bush's veto that did that. They passed a bill that continued U.S. intelligence efforts except for the banned practices. He decided he would rather have no bill than agree to one that does not let him torture.
Second, U.S. law already specifically bans waterboarding. It is not lawful. His use of the term "lawful" twice in one sentence does not change that fact. Congress passes the laws. Bush's opinion that something ought to be lawful does not make it so.
In terms of the presidential race, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supported the ban. John McCain, who was tortured himself as a prisoner of war and who used to oppose torture, sided with Bush. When told earlier in the Iraq War that Americans should torture captives because insurgents there sometimes did so, McCain famously said, "It's not about who they are. It's about who we are." Who we are has apparently changed, in his view.
As columnist Eugene Robinson points out, if Osama Bin Laden were to perform such dangerous and sadistic practices on Americans it would be regarded as evil. Bush asks us to believe, however, that if we do it it is moral. His tortured logic is as unpersuasive as it is hypocritical.
4 comments:
Why would McCain change his views, knowing full well that the Democratic nominee will more likely bring this up in the general election?
I am not for torturing, I believe once you start, where will it end?
I am very surprise at McCain, though, since he was torture himself.
Good question, Omar. I wish I knew the answer. No doubt the Democratic nominee will bring this up. I am surprised too. Here are some possibilities. It could be McCain felt it was better to pass a flawed bill than have none at all. Maybe he's changed his mind. Maybe Bush demanded his support on this in exchange for his endorsement. Or maybe McCain felt it would shore up his support among conservatives. What do you think?
I think you may be right on two counts, I do see Bush requesting that McCain support some of "his vision" in order to secure Bush' endorsement. And I too feel he is trying to draw support from conservatives at all costs.
I would not be surprise if he chose Huckabee for a running mate, I know Romney threw his hat in, but I am sure McCain will throw it right back at him.
So then what would you have us do Natoli? Cater to terrorism and ask us to give them all a fair and balanced trial that costs Americans millions of dollars in court cases and appeals? I think Bush would know that truth serum falls under "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" maybe that is why he is for the CIA members doing their job. Getting our soldier's heads cut off isn't really a civil concept! You and I both know history. Does the name General John Pershings mean anything? Phillipines didn't have to worry about terrorism for quite awhile after him! I am not for torture, I am for methods of combating an enemy and ending the threat--because I value American lives over foreign terrorists! Eugene Robinson is a mooncalf and doesn't have any concept on the tactical ways of war!
Wouldn't you consider someone assaulting you for your beliefs, economics, or orientation to be in the wrong? Terrorism struck first! And people are saying that we are wrong for defending ourselves? Hmmm, I don't hear anyone say, "Why is that person sueing for an assault? He should be better than that." It is the same concept.
So again I finally ask, what to do then? Because all we do by saying, "Oh let's not engage in such dark in heinous acts," allows us not to alleviate the problem. I don't see the problem lessening at all. Do you?
Post a Comment