« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
House Bid to Override Bush Anti-Torture Veto Fails
The House just voted down an attempt to override the President's veto of the intelligence authorization bill late last week. The final tally was 225-188 (with five Republicans voting for the override and three Dems voting against) about sixty votes short of the two-thirds needed.
So Republicans stood strong behind the president. Almost all Republicans, including Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC), have agreed with his take that robbing the CIA of its battery of "enhanced interrogation" techniques (which have included waterboarding and inducing hypothermia) "could cost American lives." Of course, a number of military officials and the FBI have a different take.
The bill would have restricted the CIA to the Army Field Manual's guidelines for interrogation.
Josh
Zachary
Despicable.
March 11, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
No surprises, but still sad. I'm a little confused as to why McCain felt it necessary to register a vote; couldn't he have just shut up about it, been absent for the day, and looked a little less like a hypocrite?
March 11, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is fascinating that this is happening on the same day the State Department releases its annual report on worldwide human rights.
March 11, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone else find it interesting that although Bush is the Commander in Chief of the military... the military considers waterboarding inhumane and illegal, whereas it is perfectly okay for a clandestine group (CIA) with secrecy, little accountability and unknown assets to do the same.
Remarkable... that in secrecy... done to civilians... torture is perfectly acceptable, whereas in the open... done to those trained to kill... it is wrong.
Isn't this a normal scenario... hide those things which decent human beings abhor. Reminds me of the dungeons, hidden away during mideival times, used for the same purposes... and always with a good excuse from the sadistic owner...
March 11, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points. By its nature, once a covert activity like rendition is disclosed, and current/former White House counsel publicly comment on the rendition/cover activity, the activity is no longer covert not a state secret.
It is an open program subject to war crimes prosecutions. Hitler could not have argued that the Holocaust was a state secret: It was a crime against humanity. The US government cannot similarly shield war crimes behind a state secret claim. Such a shield would impermissibly permit war crimes, evidence destruction, and witness retalation.
The CIA is given power to engage in illegal activity. But when agents are caught engaging in war crimes, they can be charged with war crimes. Those who issued the orders to the CIA agents, or refused to enforce the laws of war against the CIA could be subsequent prosecuted for war crimes. yet, this means civilian policy makers could be prosecuted for war crimes.
The Congress, through the Geneva Conventions, has lawfully constrained how the President's power may be used. The President does not have unconstrained power, even during wartime.
When Congress passed Geneva, it intended for Geneva to apply to all US government personnel, contractors, and people who were operating under the President's direction. However, if the President wants to pretend that US agents/contractors were "not" under his command, then they are unlawful combatants. This is a subsequent war crime.
It is arguably and allegedly a reckless, frivolous legal argument by current and former White House counsel associated with the Federalist Society to assert that the Constitution does not confer rights on POWs as a defense to POW abuse. This is meaningless. The US Constitution confers legal obligations, through the treaty requirements, on all US Members of Congress, legal counsel, and the President to enforce the laws of war. Geneva isn't just a shield to POWs, but is a leash on the US government, contractors, legal counsel, and Members of Congress in ensuring that US government power is not abused against POWs.
The legal counsel associated with the Federalist Society, and former/current WH counsel are alleged to be complicit with alleged frivolous legal arguments designed to ensure the laws of war are not enforced; and with allegedly ensuring abuses against POWs are not subject to any grand jury, war crimes tribunal, or impeachment effort. Arguably, the alleged reckless conduct of the Federalist Society legal counsel, and former WH legal counsel raises serious and substantial questions about the legal counsel's alleged incompetence, fiduciary compliance, and ability to independently be trusted to perform their legal obligations as counsel under the US Constitution.
March 11, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Failure of Congress to enforce Geneva and limit the President from violating the laws of war against POWs, does not mean the President has a green light to abuse POWs.
Geneva remains the standard. The failure of the Congress to explicitly state Geneva-prohibitions will be enforced does not mean other reviews cannot occur. Other reviews could include examining US government policies, procedures, training, and oversight. These alleged illegal policies appear to include Presidential statements, directives, memoranda and other things which permitted previous illegal abuse against POWs.
These alleged war crimes touch many people in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. They could be be prosecuted as war crimes against the President, legal counsel providing frivolous legal advice, and other legal counsel who refused to report war crimes to the DC Disciplinary Board for investigation in re disbarment.
March 11, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I wrong in thinking that torture is a pretty clear-cut issue -- it certainly is for me -- and therefore that by standing loyally by their president (not mine) house Republicans have given their opponents this fall a wonderful hammer to bludgeon them with? (Sorry about that imagery, but at least I didn't get into pulling out fingernails.)
March 11, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spineless jelly fish have difficulty swinging sledge hammers.
March 11, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the take in the rest of the world is that the U.S supports the use of torture if it chooses to; which basically gives license to the rest of the world to do the same and further erodes -if that is possible- any moral standing we might have had.
Talk about inspiring terrorism.
March 11, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
314 Days left...
http://www.bushslastday.com/
March 12, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
okay we now have several times on the record how Bush and his minions including John McCain have explictly , intentional & otherwise made clear that torture is ok - that violating the Geneva Conventions is ok . How do we make this issue in the forefront of the remaining time we have before the general election ? We must get Obama& Clinton engaged on this topic. War crimes have been committed -apparently under the guise of "enhanced interrogations "
March 12, 2008 4:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
America is crumbling.
Interesting how America was able to get through the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War threat of 10,000 Soviet nuclear warheads aimed at us, all without legalizing torture.
Only a weak country would be afraid of a few hundred Middle Eastern types.
America should be proud, not weak. Instead, it dismantles the very thing that has made America what it is: the Constitution.
March 12, 2008 5:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll117.xml
Republicans voting YEA were:
Bartlett (MD), Gilchrest (MD), Johnson (IL), Paul (TX), and Smith (NJ)
Democrats voting NAY were:
Kucinich (OH), Marshall (GA), and Waters (CA)
I think Kucinich probably spotted something in the bill he didn't like (or maybe, since you know torture is ALREADY illegal, he thought the bill was rather pointless... would be interesting to see what he has to say). Last I checked he wasn't pro-torture.
Of course, I hate to be the one to point this out, but if Kucinich isn't pro-torture and he voted NAY, then it is entirely possible that Republicans who voted NAY aren't pro-torture either.
Sorry to ruin the fun.
March 12, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who Would Jesus Waterboard?
March 12, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's still illegal, anyway, and should be an impeachable offense. I don't see why Congress feels a need to pass special legislation for the Bush administration, instead of upholding existing laws by prosecuting (impeachment is a prosecution)the lawbreaker-in-chief.
March 12, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is clearly illegal torture, even John McCain says so. And the FBI doesn't want it. And the military doesn't want it.
We're wasting our time on redundant legislation when we could just as well be wasting our time impeaching.
The Republicans have a convenient out on this bill where they can claim they're against torture while still upholding Bush's veto.
Let the charges for the articles of impeachment state that the President authorized illegal torture, and let the Republicans vote against impeaching the President.
Hayden testified to congress that we tortured, and Bush is defending it.
But oh wait that's right... all of the Democrats on the House and Senate judiciary committees knew that the CIA was torturing.
March 12, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Comment on the point about world human rights: Remember, the US was unique in its refusal to ratify the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights --- and with good reason. The US has fallen far behind most of the modern world, and human rights are very routinely disregarded by the US. Our government has engaged in unjustified serial wars for the past half-century, and I think most people understand the violations of human rights that has been central to our military aggression. But I'm not so sure that the general public understands, or cares, how the government routinely disregards international human rights when it comes to the American people. These violations are simply so much a part of American life that we no longer think about it. We can understand Guantanamo, yet don't understand how violations of the most basic human rights is mow very routine in our prisons system. I've yet to hear anyone point out that our welfare "reform" policies are in direct violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Consider the fact that one's treatment by the justice system is determined more by the individual's economic status that the alleged crime. If you become seriously ill, whether you live or die will depend on your insurance. And the list goes on.
March 14, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has everyone here forgotten the events of 9/11??? Our country is perfectly justified in using any and all methods necessary to extract information from those who want to kill us and destroy our way of life. If this includes the use of physical and psychological pain to obtain information, so be it. I am sick to death of all of the whining, bleeding-heart liberal traitors who are in league with those who wish to destroy us. As Barry Goldwater said, "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
June 25, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink