[News] Claiming impunity, Bush vetoes bill and justifies torture again

[Anti-Imperialist News]

"The main reason this program has been effective 
is that it allows the C.I.A. to use specialized 
interrogation procedures to question a small 
number of the most dangerous terrorists under 
careful supervision. The bill Congress sent me 
would deprive the C.I.A. of the authority to use 
these safe and lawful techniques. Instead, it 
would restrict the C.I.A.’s range of acceptable 
interrogation methods to those provided in the 
Army field manual. The procedures in this manual 
were designed for use by soldiers questioning 
lawful combatants captured on the battlefield. 
They were not intended for intelligence 
professionals trained to question hardened terrorists.

Limiting the C.I.A.’s interrogation methods to 
those in the Army field manual would be dangerous 
because the manual is publicly available and 
easily accessible on the Internet. Shortly after 
9/11, we learned that key Al Qaeda operatives had 
been trained to resist the methods outlined in 
the manual. And this is why we created 
alternative procedures to question the most 
dangerous Al Qaeda operatives, particularly those 
who might have knowledge of attacks planned on 
our homeland. The best source of information 
about terrorist attacks is the terrorists 
themselves. If we were to shut down this program 
and restrict the C.I.A. to methods in the field 
manual, we could lose vital information from 
senior Al Qaeda terrorists, and that could cost American lives."
- George Bush

March 8, 2008


Bush Vetoes Bill That Would Limit Interrogations

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/washington/08cnd-policy.html?hp
By 
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/steven_lee_myers/index.html?inline=nyt-per>STEVEN 
LEE MYERS

WASHINGTON ­ President Bush on Saturday further 
cemented his legacy of fighting for strong 
executive powers, using his veto to shut down a 
congressional effort to limit the 
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org>Central 
Intelligence Agency’s latitude to subject 
terrorism suspects to harsh interrogation 
techniques that are prohibited by the military and law enforcement agencies.

Mr. Bush vetoed a bill that would have explicitly 
prohibited the agency from using such 
interrogation methods, which include 
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/torture/waterboarding/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>waterboarding, 
a technique in which restrained prisoners are 
threatened with drowning and that has been the 
subject of intense criticism at home and abroad.

Mr. Bush’s veto deepens his battle with 
increasingly assertive Democrats in Congress over 
issues at the heart of his legacy. As his 
presidency winds down, he has made it clear he 
does not intend to bend in this or other 
confrontations with Congress on issues from the 
war in Iraq to contempt charges against his chief 
of staff, 
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/joshua_b_bolten/index.html?inline=nyt-per>Joshua 
B. Bolten, and former counsel, 
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/harriet_e_miers/index.html?inline=nyt-per>Harriet 
E. Miers.

Mr. Bush announced the veto in the usual format 
of his weekly radio address, which is distributed 
to stations across the country each Saturday. In 
his remarks, he unflinchingly defended an 
interrogation program that has prompted critics 
to accuse him not only of authorizing torture 
previously but also of refusing to ban it in the future.

“Because the danger remains,” he said, referring 
to threats from 
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org>Al 
Qaeda and other terrorist groups, “we need to 
ensure our intelligence officials have all the 
tools they need to stop the terrorists.”

Mr. Bush’s veto ­ only the ninth of his 
presidency, but the eighth in the last 10 months 
with Democrats in control of Congress ­ 
underscored his determination to preserve many of 
the executive prerogatives his administration has 
claimed in the name of fighting terrorism, and to 
cement them into law before he steps down.

Mr. Bush is now fighting with Congress over the 
expansion of powers under the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act and over the depth 
of the American security commitments to Iraq once 
the 
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org>United 
Nations mandate for the international forces 
there expires at the end of the year.

The administration has also moved ahead with the 
first military tribunals of those detained at 
Guantánamo, including 
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/khalid_shaikh_mohammed/index.html?inline=nyt-per>Khalid 
Shaikh Mohammed, a mastermind of the attacks of 
Sept. 11, 2001, despite calls to try suspects in civilian courts.

All are issues that turn on presidential powers 
and all will define Mr. Bush’s legacy for decades 
to come. And as he has through most of his 
presidency, he built his case on the threat of terrorism.

“The fact that we have not been attacked over the 
past six and a half years is not a matter of 
chance,” Mr. Bush said in his radio remarks, 
echoing comments he made on Thursday at a 
ceremony marking the fifth anniversary of the 
creation of the 
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/homeland_security_department/index.html?inline=nyt-org>Department 
of Homeland Security.

“We have no higher responsibility than stopping 
terrorist attacks,” he added. “And this is no 
time for Congress to abandon practices that have 
a proven track record of keeping America safe.”

The bill Mr. Bush vetoed would have limited all 
American interrogators to techniques allowed in 
the Army Field Manual on Interrogation, which 
prohibits using physical force against prisoners.

Democrats, who supported the legislation as part 
of a larger bill that authorized a vast array of 
intelligence programs, criticized the veto 
sharply, but they do not have the votes to override it.

“This president had the chance to end the torture 
debate for good,” one of its sponsors, Senator 
Diane Feinstein of California, said in a 
statement on Friday evening when it became clear 
Mr. Bush intended to carry out his veto threat. 
“Yet, he chose instead to leave the door open to 
use torture in the future. The United States is not well-served by this.”

The Senate’s majority leader, 
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/harry_reid/index.html?inline=nyt-per>Harry 
Reid of Nevada, said that Mr. Bush disregarded 
the advice of military commanders, including Gen. 
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/david_h_petraeus/index.html?inline=nyt-per>David 
H. Petraeus, who argued that the military’s 
interrogation techniques were effective and that 
the use of any others could create risks for any 
future American prisoners of war.

“He has rejected the Army field manual’s 
recognition that such horrific tactics elicit 
unreliable information, put U.S. troops at risk 
and undermine our counterinsurgency efforts,” Mr. Reid said in a statement.

Democrats vowed to raise the matter again, and 
the debate could spill into the presidential 
campaign, which some Republicans suspect was a 
motive for the Democrats to push the issue.

Senator 
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html?inline=nyt-per>John 
McCain, now the Republican presidential nominee, 
has been an outspoken opponent of torture from 
his own experience as a prisoner of war in 
Vietnam. In this case, however, he supported the 
administration’s position, arguing as Mr. Bush 
did on Saturday that legislation would have 
limited the C.I.A.’s ability to gather intelligence.

Mr. Bush said that the agency should not be bound 
by rules written for soldiers in combat, as 
opposed to highly trained experts dealing with 
hardened terrorists. The bill’s supporters 
countered that the legislation would have banned 
only a handful of techniques whose effective was in dispute in any case.

The administration has also said that 
waterboarding is no longer in use, though 
officials acknowledged last month that it had 
been used in three instances before the middle of 
2003, including against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. 
Officials, however, have left vague the question 
of whether it could be authorized again in extraordinary circumstances.

Mr. Bush asserted, as he has previously, that 
information from the C.I.A.’s interrogations had 
averted terrorist attacks, including plots to 
attack a Marine camp in Djibouti, the American 
consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, Library Tower in 
Los Angeles and passenger planes from Britain. 
And he maintained that the techniques involved 
the exact nature of which remains classified as 
secret ­ were “safe and lawful.”

“Were it not for this program, our intelligence 
community believes that Al Qaeda and its allies 
would have succeeded in launching another attack 
against the American homeland,” Mr. Bush said.

The handling of detainees since 2001 has dogged 
the administration politically, but Mr. Bush and 
his aides have barely conceded any ground to 
critics, even in the face of legal challenges, as 
happened with the prisoners in Guantánamo or the warrant-less wiretapping.

At the core of the administration’s position is a 
conviction that the executive branch must have 
unfettered freedom when it comes to prosecuting war.

Stephen Hess, a president scholar at the 
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/b/brookings_institution/index.html?inline=nyt-org>Brookings 
Institution, said that President Bush’s actions 
were consistent with his efforts to expand 
executive power and his promises to work hard to 
the end of his presidency to protect the results 
of those efforts. Some, he said, could easily be 
undone ­ with a Democratic president signing a 
bill like the one he vetoed on Saturday, for 
example ­ but the more Mr. Bush accomplishes now, 
the more difficult that becomes.

“Every administration is concerned with 
protecting the power of the presidency,” he said. 
“This president has done that with a lot more vigor.”

Representative Bill Delahunt, a Democrat from 
Massachusetts, has been holding hearings on the 
administration’s negotiations with Iraq over the 
legal status of American troops in Iraq beyond 
Mr. Bush’s presidency. He said that the 
administration had rebuffed demands to bring any 
agreement to Congress for approval, and has largely succeeded.

“They’re excellent at manipulating the arguments 
so that if Congress should assert itself, members 
expose themselves to charges of being soft, not 
tough enough on terrorism,” he said. “My view is 
history is going to judge us all.”





Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20080308/4149d34e/attachment.htm>