Bush to veto intel bill with interrogation restrictions
posted at 9:10 am on March 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
President Bush will veto the recently passed intelligence authorization bill over restrictions on CIA interrogation techniques. He will explain the veto in his weekly radio address, claiming that it takes vital tools away from counterterrorism agents during a conflict when such tools are most needed. The conflict sets up a showdown with Congress, in the presidential election, and with a media apparently determined to misreport it:
President Bush today will veto legislation meant to ban the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics and will argue that the agency needs to use tougher methods than the U.S. military to wrest information from terrorism suspects, administration officials said. …
Although long expected, Bush’s formal move to veto the bill reignites the Washington debate over the proper limits of the U.S. interrogation policies and whether the CIA has engaged in torture by subjecting prisoners to severe tactics, including waterboarding, a type of simulated drowning.
The issue also has potential ramifications for GOP presidential nominee John McCain (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of coercive interrogation tactics who nonetheless backed the Bush administration in opposing the CIA waterboarding ban. The Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), both support the ban, though neither was present for last month’s Senate vote for the bill that Bush is to veto.
The legislation would have limited the CIA to using 19 less-aggressive tactics outlined in a U.S. Army field manual on interrogations. Besides ruling out waterboarding, that restriction would effectively ban temperature extremes, extended forced standing and other harsh methods that the CIA used on al-Qaeda prisoners after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
John McCain absolutely did not support waterboarding, and the Post misrepresents the issue entirely. John McCain supports the veto not because he supports waterboarding, but because McCain believes it already to be illegal. He has made this plain ever since this bill came to the floor for its vote. His bill in 2006 already made the practice illegal, at least in his opinion, and the portion of this bill that addresses that is superfluous.
More than that, McCain sees it as dangerously limiting to the CIA, for two reasons. First, the Army field manual applies to a different set of circumstances than the CIA faces, primarily because the Army faces a different enemy in the field and has a much different mission than the CIA. The AFM appropriately limits the actions of its interrogators, but it isn’t the ur-text of what constitutes and doesn’t constitute torture. Just because a method doesn’t make it into the AFM doesn’t mean that it’s torture under international convention.
Secondly — and this can’t be said strongly enough — it is wildly inappropriate to publish the limits of interrogatory technique for the CIA. That should be left to the imagination of our enemie, again for two reasons. One, the publication allows our enemies to prepare themselves for the limit of the techniques published, making successful interrogation much more difficult to achieve. Second, having the limits remain unknown allows fear of what might happen to make less-intensive techniques more effective.
McCain opposed the bill for these reasons, not because he supposedly reversed himself on waterboarding. The problems with this legislation don’t involve techniques as much as it involves strategic stupidity.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
Why is taking a jihadi captive preferable to killing him? How many kidnappings and hostages have been taken to be then used as leverage to force the jihadis release? How long does it take us to learn that? It sure hasn’t worked for the Israelis. And, what do those jihadis do once released? Second, higher moral ground should include protection of innocent Americans from further attacks, shouldn’t it?
a capella on March 9, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Higher moral ground? Thanks for the laugh, while they’re sawing your head off and the heads of those you love.
I don’t care what we do to the jihadis. Don’t care if we waterboard their brains out. Too bad we don’t have more torture techniques. Don’t care if these were techniques used in previous wars either. In otherwords, I don’t care what we do, as long as we can ensure the lives of people in our country.
moonsbreath on March 9, 2008 at 12:20 PM
I didn’t say taking a terrorist prisoner is preferable to killing them in a fire fight.
I said once they are captured we should treat our prisoners humanely, the same as we would expect any of our servicemembers taken prisoner to be treated.
On the battlefield, use all possible means to destory and kill all enemy with lowest risk to our own forces. Tomahawk missile, artillery, laser guided munitions, a daisy cutter. Use it all without hesitation.
If a terrorist is captured, give them a trial, once found guilty give them the death penalty, and then carry out the sentence as quickly as possible.
All I have said, and I still say, the U.S. should not torture prisoners. Our servicemembers who are captured will most likely be tortured regardless of how we treat our prisoners. But that’s not the point is it? Is anyone really arguing that we conduct ourselves like our enemies do?
Hog Wild on March 9, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Stay focused there, Devil Dog. I want you to focus like a laser beam. You’re straying from the topic.
Understand that the bill that is in question contains tools that are not used by the typical rank and file serviceman or woman.
You’re talking about something different. Still focusing like a laser beam? Read the first paragraph of the article:
Your job as a Marine would have been to handle prisoners until they are ready for interrogation. That’s it. The five “S” gives you the rules to follow when handling POW’s. They are not instructions for interrogation.
Those instructions are mentioned here:
So your concern over torture is unfounded. Yes, young gyrene, the U.S. does interrogate POW’s, to the point that we have field manuals to guide specially trained intelligence officers on the methods of extracting information from POW’s. We’ve been doing it for years.
That is the reality.
Et tu Brute on March 9, 2008 at 12:25 PM
I haven’t seen that argument presented, although a few may have been a bit off the wall. For the purposes of this discussion, I fail to see how waterboarding equates with what our enemies do. 2 minutes of psychological stress to 3 guys possessing valuable, life saving info just doesn’t compare with hanging dozens up on a meathook to intimidate the rest.
a capella on March 9, 2008 at 12:34 PM
None of those tactics include waterboarding, correct?
Just trying to clarify the argument here because I am getting confused as to what we are talking about.
Squid Shark on March 9, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Why wouldn’t it? I assume the CIA is part of the U.S., although at times like the latest NIE estimate, I wonder.
a capella on March 9, 2008 at 12:45 PM
a capella,
The army field manual does not include waterboarding.
Squid Shark on March 9, 2008 at 12:47 PM
This was his statement.Since he did not refer to a specific armed service, I assumed he was not talking about them.
a capella on March 9, 2008 at 12:56 PM
You’ve been confused since you got here. Your revelation comes as no surprise to the board, but apparently a surprise to you.
Again, your conviction on this issue and your presence in this discussion are both irrelevant.
Et tu Brute on March 9, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Fair enough, if I am irrelevant, please ignore me.
Squid Shark on March 9, 2008 at 2:17 PM
As I understand, the AFM is the standard for the interrogation and is generally what is being referred to.
Squid Shark on March 9, 2008 at 2:22 PM
I thought I was on topic pretty well.
I went back and read Ed’s first post again. “Waterboarding” is mentioned 5 times in that post. “Torture” is mentioned 3 times. “Interrogation” is mentioned 5 times. So this thread is about the interrogation of terrorist prisoners and the question as to if waterboarding and other techniques is torture or not, and how McCain’s position has been distorted by the MSM.
McCain has said waterboarding is torture, I think from his experiences that it’s safe to say McCain knows what he is talking about.
Do I care of have personal objections to the treatment of terrorists? No, of course not. I would like nothing better than to see every terrorist on the planet disappear in a puff of smoke.
What I do care about, and the point that I am not getting across here is, even if waterboarding and other interrogation techniques isn’t really torture but only percieved as torture, that works against us. It whips up sympathy for those being waterboarded and their cause (their cause = U.S. destruction) and may even help them with their recruiting efforts. It also energizes their people to do something, and the most convienent target right now is U.S. servicemembers deployed abroad.
So if a person does indeed care for those in uniform and deployed into harm’s way, supporting something that whips up support for those who confront our servicemembers is strategically a mistake. We want to destroy their will to fight, not work them up into a lather. It doesn’t matter if the motivation is real or percieved, the motivation can still work against us. And that’s my only objection to real or percieved torture of terrorist prisoners. Someone in uniform will have to pay the tab on that bill. It won’t be a CIA operative or Jack and Jane American civilian.
Hog Wild on March 9, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Another great post Hog, thank you…
Squid Shark on March 9, 2008 at 2:54 PM
I want to be sure I understand you here. Are you are saying the only tab to be paid on the waterboarding issue will be paid by those in uniform if it is done? What about the bill to be paid if it isn’t done and we have a preventable catastrophe?Doesn’t this attach greater value to the welfare of the uniformed segment of our population than the rest? Is this the tradeoff you are advocating?
a capella on March 9, 2008 at 3:14 PM
I dont think that this is the tradeoff at all. I am still unconvinced of the “necessity” of waterboarding to prevent the “time bomb” scenario.
Squid Shark on March 9, 2008 at 3:16 PM
It seems pretty straightforward to me. If you care to offer an alternative method with the same degree of efficacy, I’ll listen. Provide comparative data.
a capella on March 9, 2008 at 3:25 PM
There is none and there’s rub…
So do we err on the side of convenience or on the side of morality. Apparently we have chosen convenience, thats the way it is I suppose.
Squid Shark on March 9, 2008 at 3:59 PM
I guess if it is not moral to want my family protected from terrorist activities, you’ve caught me.
a capella on March 9, 2008 at 5:26 PM
It is a tricky situation, you are sold on the thought that waterboarding the the only way to protect your family, I am not. There is the difference.
Squid Shark on March 9, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Nope. You were wrong.
And you have been corrected.
Et tu Brute on March 9, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Hog, I thought you were bringing up clear and relevant points.
The service and experience that you bring to this argument is much appreciated.
Squid Shark on March 9, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Yet, you are unable to offer me those equally effective or superior alternatives. I’m basing my conclusion on historical observation of efficacy; it appears your conclusion is not based on the same.
a capella on March 9, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Standard field techniques have worked fine for us for years. We have received information just fine without waterboarding for hundreds of years using the AFM. Seems like a good track record of efficacy to me.
Squid Shark on March 9, 2008 at 6:19 PM
You also thought wrong. First it was Hog. Then you.
Now that makes two of you on the wrong side.
This is a clear indication that your debate has been reduced to a pathetic ploy of seeking anyone with a common view (as you’ve been trying since yesterday when you finally realized that your position is porous and indefensible, and consequentially, pure garbage), however wrong or misinformed, in an effort to find a safe harbor from the continual assault of reasoned criticism and scrutiny of your admitted emotionally based rhetoric from members of this board.
Yours is now the desperate gambit of someone who has lost the fight and prays for any way to redeem some sense of pride.
BZZT! I’ll take “Failed Torture Debates” for $500, Alex.
Et tu Brute on March 9, 2008 at 6:19 PM
I am sorry why are you even bothering to talk to me, I am irrelevant, remember?
This is my last response to you. I will continue to people who don’t operate from a false sense of superior intellect.
Squid Shark on March 9, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Sorry.
Squid Shark on March 9, 2008 at 6:23 PM
We’ll see how long that lasts.
Your wasteful and selfish debate is beaten and now you know it. You and your “debate” have been deservedly marginalized because you made it that way.
You have only yourself to blame.
Now deal with it.
Et tu Brute on March 9, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Hog,
Ed has made similar points in past posts on CQ.
I think that this is a key point, if we sit here and are having a debate about whether or not torture is ok, then we have nearly lost this battle I think. It is not the Jihadis but the “Arab Street” we are talking about. If this were strictly a religious conflict, It would not be winnable with this type of thinking alone. However, I have seen this through the prism of a cultural and economic conflict as well. If we can keep the Arab Street from replenishing the ranks of AQ (through security, economic, and political assistance), we will be able to win this thing.
Squid Shark on March 9, 2008 at 6:29 PM
NO WATERBOARDER IS ILLEGAL!
STAY HOME ‘08
DfDeportation on March 9, 2008 at 7:02 PM
Insightful
Squid Shark on March 9, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Hog Wild wrote:
So, you’ll join us in wholeheartedly and completely condemning the New York Times for making such a huge issue of that insanely silly little sex ring’s escapades at Abu Graib, right? Because we don’t want to provide our enemies with reasons to get worked up into a lather.
And you’ll join us in PROSECUTING TO THE GOD DAMED FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW
philwynk on March 9, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Hog Wild wrote:
So, you’ll join us in condemning the New York Times for publishing 40 front-page stories about that sick little sex play ring at Abu Graib, right? Because we don’t want to provide reasons for the enemy to get worked up into a lather.
And, you’ll join us in condemning those Democrats who have been demagoguing “torture” for the past 4 years, even though they knew PERFECTLY DAMNED WELL what the CIA was doing (because the CIA told them THIRTY FIVE GOD DAMNED TIMES, and the only question they asked was “Is that tough enough?”) but it’s to their political advantage to make a lot of noise about “torture.” Because we don’t want to supply the enemy with reasons to get worked up, right?
Hypocrites. You don’t give a good goddam about destroying their will to fight. You just want to win elections.
I’m going to spit on the next Democrat I see. Hope it’s you. You guys make me puke.
philwynk on March 9, 2008 at 10:32 PM
OK. I have read the previous posts.
Is your yardstick or measuring tool the Geneva Conventions, Law of Land Warfare or some assumed sense of holding a moral high ground vs an Enemy that has zero morals?
Get real! None of the Enemies that I faced over better than 28 years of service gave a fat rats rump about any Conventions or Laws!
Wars are ugly business and I never saw a Lawyer standing next to me with a rifle in hand or under fire in any bad place to be. I have been to three wars and observed rules where the Enemy observed absolutely none.
Have your debate here. It is very entertaining.
Don’t try it when seconds count.
Waterboarding is a waste of potable water.
Sodium Pentathol works far better and more reliably than waterboarding. Sleep deprivation is worthless, after 72 hours the subject has halucinations and you have wasted that time.
High minded debates on this subject are amusing but not practical in the real world. Nuff said.
old trooper on March 10, 2008 at 1:09 AM
I love how, if we oppose waterboarding, we must be lily-livered Democrats….
I hope you spit of me Philly. If you do, in the words of the immortal WFB, I’ll “sock you in your g-ddamn mouth and you’ll stay plastered.”
Have a lovely Monday.
Squid Shark on March 10, 2008 at 3:56 AM
You should know that we have executed spies and saboteurs for simply plotting to commit acts of terrorism. I suppose one can make a distinction between a method of interogation and a form of punishment (interogations are not forms of punishment, per se).
It is popular for the left to point to European left who denounce Gitmo and what they perceive to be heavy handed treatment of illegal combatants. Curiously the press never does a retrospective of European actions in post WWII Africa, or previous colonies where heavy handedness was more often than not the rule, not the exception.
But more on point, the US has previously executed folks who wished us harm.
Ultimately, the outflow from this decision was mixed. It is my understadning that it also provided the framework for military tribunals. You can read more by googling the Milligan precedent
moxie_neanderthal on March 10, 2008 at 7:20 AM
I suppose prolonged navel contemplation might yield the opinion that execution of terrorists intending us harm, in this fashion, was an inmoral act and to cleanse ourselves we should avoid interrogating future suspects using psychological stress to help detemine guilt. I’m sure there is some logic in there somewhere.
a capella on March 10, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Hmmm, since I’m here…can someone show what info has been provided by the miraculous waterboarding technique that’s only been used three times? After all, for you guys to use the ticking time bomb scenario, you must have an instance where that actually happened, right? Well, no, I guess that’s unfair of me, since that means trying to prove a terrorist attack DIDN’T happen because of waterboarding. Still, what did waterboarding KSM provide that other techniques didn’t or couldn’t do? Was it worth the black eye for our international credibility and domestic morale now?
Math_Mage on March 10, 2008 at 12:04 PM
KSM had successfully resisted everything else they tried, and once he broke, he provided info which allowed other bad guys to be caught and other plans to be disrupted. I haven’t noticed a black eye due to the waterboarding, but we might have a couple for giving money and weapons to the PLO offshoots. Speaking of international credibility, how are those EU/Iranian nuclear negotiations going and when does Pelosi’s lap dance for Assad start to pay off?
a capella on March 10, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Squid Shark, good God man. Listen to yourself. Your showing sympathy to the terrorists. We are in a war! These people are plotting attacks against our country RIGHT NOW! And here you are crying about how wrong it is to splash some water on a terrorist’s face because it’s “immoral”. It’s a little hard to believe that you served in the military. The purpose of the military is to protect the country. From what you have been saying here, it doesn’t seem that protecting the country is a priority for you.
SoulGlo on March 10, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Hey, I don’t like it that we give money to the PLO, or that we shot ourself in the foot negotiating with the Iranians, or that Pelosi is appeasing Assad (though really, was all the brouhaha about the burka really necessary? It makes intelligent people sound like Turkish secularists who are afraid of burkas being anywhere near a public office). On all those, I think we agree. It’s just the (potential) difference on waterboarding that bears discussion. Squiddie and I are both from Captain Ed’s crew, so we’re new here, but that doesn’t make us lefties (though I am left-handed, hehe).
As for not noticing a black eye, it seems a little difficult to believe that more justification for the Bush = Hitler crowd is a GOOD thing. And if the whole waterboarding/torture issue produces enough bad press to get a Democrat into the White House, we lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan just as quickly as Obama or Hillary can march into office, which would cost perhaps millions of Iraqi lives as well as any hope for stability in the region. If we get attacked domestically, it would be tragic, but it would also provide enough domestic morale to win the war (assuming more look at it from the “you bastards!” viewpoint than the “well, Republicans couldn’t keep us safe” viewpoint). So perhaps it would be better for the war effort to keep our morals than to keep our interrogation techniques, in order to manage the home front. Lastly, you make the claim about KSM again, but a link would be nice.
Math_Mage on March 10, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Oops, I guess it’s not really the PLO anymore, is it? Well, the Fatah is basically the descendant organization of that group, so whatev.
Math_Mage on March 10, 2008 at 1:17 PM
I belive in the rule of law, and the morals of our society. Waterboarding is legal, however I will not say it is moral.
Thanks I am pretty sure I figured that out with all of the multiple deployments and everything…
Do I need to provide you with a list of my deployments and photos. We are not a monolith of thought in the military, we have a fair diversity of opinions, particularly in the officer corps.
Soul, I have lived every day of my adult life making the defense of my country a priority. How I conduct myself in the execution of my duties is what defines me as an officer. I dont see the evidence that waterboarding is an effective technique that is worth the national credibility we squander every time we use it.
Please spare me the “they will hate us anyways” speech. When we get into a conventional war someday, say with China, I would bet dollars to doughnuts all some will be less inclined to follow the “letter of the law” with regard to our downed pilots and sailors in the oil-slicked water.
Squid Shark on March 10, 2008 at 7:00 PM
I cant seem to look at this as a political issue and wring my hands over it costing us an election.
To steal a theme from John McCain, I would rather loose and election than loose our national moral compass.
Squid Shark on March 10, 2008 at 7:03 PM
More distortion of my position to construct a silly straw man…
Squid Shark on March 10, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Yes, I understand the moral dimension of the problem. But you’ve been throwing that at these guys since post one, and it hasn’t even made a dent in their thought processes. I thought a different angle might force them to stop the “they hate us, waterboarding isn’t THAT bad, and it’ll save us all!” mantra. If I add the moral dimension, they would jump all over that and ignore the rest of what I said. You may notice, though, that my closing thought was that it’s most likely better to keep our morals than to keep our interrogation techniques. My argument isn’t that we should throw the morality out of the equation, but rather that EVEN IF WE DO, a pragmatic person would take the moral high ground.
Math_Mage on March 11, 2008 at 1:20 AM
Ack, forgot to mention something. As I recall, the only reason waterboarding was used on KSM was to confirm information that was obtained from other terrorists with other techniques. In other words, it wasn’t even useful in providing time-sensitive information and the like, only in confirming already-available info. How does THAT bolster the case for retaining the technique?
Math_Mage on March 11, 2008 at 1:25 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4