<html>
<body>
<font size=3><br>
"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.<br><br>
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."<br>
- George Bush<br><br>
March 8, 2008<br><br>
</font><h1><b>Bush Vetoes Bill That Would Limit Interrogations
</b></h1><font size=3>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/washington/08cnd-policy.html?hp" eudora="autourl">
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/washington/08cnd-policy.html?hp<br>
</a>By
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/steven_lee_myers/index.html?inline=nyt-per">
STEVEN LEE MYERS</a><br><br>
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
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org">
Central Intelligence Agency</a>’s latitude to subject terrorism suspects
to harsh interrogation techniques that are prohibited by the military and
law enforcement agencies. <br><br>
Mr. Bush vetoed a bill that would have explicitly prohibited the agency
from using such interrogation methods, which include
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/torture/waterboarding/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier">
waterboarding</a>, a technique in which restrained prisoners are
threatened with drowning and that has been the subject of intense
criticism at home and abroad. <br><br>
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,
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/joshua_b_bolten/index.html?inline=nyt-per">
Joshua B. Bolten</a>, and former counsel,
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/harriet_e_miers/index.html?inline=nyt-per">
Harriet E. Miers</a>. <br><br>
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.
<br><br>
“Because the danger remains,” he said, referring to threats from
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org">
Al Qaeda</a> and other terrorist groups, “we need to ensure our
intelligence officials have all the tools they need to stop the
terrorists.” <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org">
United Nations</a> mandate for the international forces there expires at
the end of the year. <br><br>
The administration has also moved ahead with the first military tribunals
of those detained at Guantánamo, including
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/khalid_shaikh_mohammed/index.html?inline=nyt-per">
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed</a>, a mastermind of the attacks of Sept. 11,
2001, despite calls to try suspects in civilian courts. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
“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
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/homeland_security_department/index.html?inline=nyt-org">
Department of Homeland Security</a>. <br><br>
“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.” <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
“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.” <br><br>
The Senate’s majority leader,
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/harry_reid/index.html?inline=nyt-per">
Harry Reid</a> of Nevada, said that Mr. Bush disregarded the advice of
military commanders, including Gen.
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/david_h_petraeus/index.html?inline=nyt-per">
David H. Petraeus</a>, 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. <br><br>
“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.
<br><br>
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. <br><br>
Senator
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html?inline=nyt-per">
John McCain</a>, 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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.” <br><br>
“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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
Stephen Hess, a president scholar at the
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/b/brookings_institution/index.html?inline=nyt-org">
Brookings Institution</a>, 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.<br><br>
“Every administration is concerned with protecting the power of the
presidency,” he said. “This president has done that with a lot more
vigor.”<br><br>
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.<br><br>
“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.”<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>