Bush Vetos Interrogation Bill
Posted on March 8, 2008
As the left freak out on this, keep in mind that the technique the media painted to be evil, waterboarding, has been used on three terrorists, all of whom had vital information on attacks in the planning stages. They also revealed that information after being subjected to this technique. Now a Democrat sponsored bill has attempted to ban this and other “harsh” techniques from being allowed when interrogating terrorists. Of course, they think that treating terrorists kindly is more important than the security of the nation. Even scarier, they think that the terrorist we capture will actually cooperate and reveal information more effectively if we play nicey nice. Bush has vetoed the bill.
President Bush said Saturday that he has vetoed legislation meant to ban the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics because it “would take away one of the most valuable tools on the war on terror.â€
In his weekly radio address, Bush said, “This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe.â€
Congress approved an intelligence authorization bill that contains the waterboarding provision on slim majorities, far short of the two-thirds needed to override a presidential veto.
Bush’s long-expected veto 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 president argued Saturday that the agency needs to use tougher methods than the U.S. military to wrest information from terrorism suspects.
“Limiting the CIA’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. . . . If we were to shut down this program and restrict the CIA to methods in the Field Manual, we could lose vital information from senior al-Qaeda terrorists, and that could cost American lives,†Bush said.
And that argument will be dismissed by the Democrats and their leftist fellow travelers, because political gain is vastly more important to them than the security of the country.
» Filed Under ACLU, News, Politics As Usual, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
25 Responses to “Bush Vetos Interrogation Bill”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Can’t we all just get along?
So as long a technique is used rarely and gets results, it’s A-OK in your book? Why stop with waterboarding then? I’m sure we can dream up some techniques that would be even more “effective”. Aren’t we risking lives by not using even more “advanced interrogation techniques”?
So, what would you rather have us do, Molby- ask guys like Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, “Pretty please?”
Yes, Panday. Superb deductive reasoning. I can’t imagine why people bash our public school system.
I can see exactly why people bash it: it’s too much to teach people like you to answer a question directly.
Excuse me? I asked three pretty simple and direct questions. Rather than answer any of them, you tossed out one that implied multiple fallacies.
But if I must answer your question before you’ll answer mine, so be it.
I would like us to use any and all techniques that are generally considered acceptable by civilized nations. No more; no less.
“Civilized nations” is a vague term. And ethnocentric, to boot.
The Chinese, for example, have a very old and sophisticated civilization. Yet they go beyond the fraternity hazing of waterboarding and do things which actually leave marks.
What you’re really implying by “civilized” is “European”, “left wing”, and “socialist”, isn’t it?
No, I mean civilized.
From Cambridge:
Only #1 and 2, along with the examples given at the Cambridge Dictionary , apply to a country. As I pointed out earlier, China’s civilization is very old and sophisticated. I don’t think you’d like how they would deal with the likes of a Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, however.
You complained earlier by asking if a tactic was okay as long as it worked. Let me ask you if tactics which don’t work are okay as long as they’re “civilized”.
Yeah, dictionaries tend to do that. I supplied the entire definition so as not to be accused of cherry-picking. Do we agree that the first definition is most applicable to this context?
Luckily, the first definition accomodates China and other totalitarian nations. (emphasis added below)
1. The adjective “civilized” was in reference to the nation, not the technique. It’s a subtle, but important difference. If you haven’t noticed yet, I choose my language very carefully. Unless you read it carefully, we’ll have hard time communicating effectively.
2. Refer back to my answer in comment 6. (emphasis added)
You still didn’t answer the question, and I’ll rephrase it so you quit hair-splitting: would you like to use those considered acceptable by civilized nations, even if they don’t work?
I didn’t answer it directly because it struck me as a pointless hypothetical, but if you insist…
No, if the techniques absolutely, positively didn’t work, I wouldn’t use them. I don’t waste resources on futile efforts.
So, would you advocate doing things that do work, instead, or are the rights of (foreign terrorist) Khaled Sheikh Mohammed more important than those of the people (Americans) his organization is trying to kill?
So in your hypothetical waterboarding is the only technique that ever works? I hope you realize how ridiculous that is, but whatever. No, I would not cross the line, even in that hypothetical situation.
My turn? Here’s a crazy hypothetical for you. If you know an American will die unless you nuke a (foreign) populated area. Do you do it?
Now that we’ve covered both of the outliers, can we stick to the real world where risk isn’t binary?
Not ever, no. But it does work, and it works quickly, unlike any technique you would endorse. Keep in mind that suicide bombers, nerve gas, and portable nukes, the ticking bomb scenario much more relevant now than before.
Here’s something you should think about for a while: The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.
As for your question, I would nuke a place if the benefits outweighed the costs. So, unless your hypothetical American is, say, the only person in the world with the cure for cancer, and your populated area is filled only with adult jihadis and members of Code Pink, then the benefits wouldn’t be greater, would they?
That’s about the dumbest question I’ve seen you ask. I was enjoying this discussion until then.
Ok, so we’re back in the real world with a laundry list of interrogation techniques varying success rates (and speeds), fallability, and unintended consequences.
Feel free to propose a specific scenario where you think it would be a good idea to use a technique that is generally considered to be immoral by civilized nations.
I’ve heard and considered that meme before. Usually it’s stated as “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” In fact, I think there was even a book.
It’s blatantly fallacious. It was designed to be amended. If you think certain portions of it no longer apply in this world, feel free to amend it.
What I can’t stand is people who speak glowingly of the Constitution, our Founders, and our rule of law, yet simultaneously reserve the right to disregard the core of our legal system whenever they feel it’s convenient.
So you really should purge that meme from your brain. You can argue that the Constitution doesn’t apply to certain persons if you’d like, but if you honestly think it can be arbitrarily suspended, we have nothing further to discuss.
Are all such decisions to be made primarily by a cost/benefit analysis? If so, who does the analysis and makes that decision?
Intentionally so. I was trying to rival comment #3.
[b]test[/b] test
Feel free to propose a specific scenario where you think it would be a good idea to use a technique that is generally considered to be immoral by civilized nations.
I already did. Another scenario would be the 9/11 hijacking.
I’ve heard and considered that meme before. Usually it’s stated as “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.†In fact, I think there was even a book.
It’s blatantly fallacious. It was designed to be amended. If you think certain portions of it no longer apply in this world, feel free to amend it.
Sure. We always have time for that. In short, you would rather, if someone like OBL were captured alive in the mountains, bring him all the way back and put him on trial because, hey, he has rights, instead of waterboard him and find out what operations are already in progress. With any luck, if he isn’t waterboarded and made to talk, one of the operations in progress is in your home town and not mine.
Instead of worrying about any memes, you should worry about the fact that your ideology trumps your common sense. Holding your hands over your ears and closing your eyes while chanting “due process” really is insane.
Are all such decisions to be made primarily by a cost/benefit analysis? If so, who does the analysis and makes that decision?
The same people who decide to go to war in the first place, wouldn’t you think? Or do you think a national referendum should have decided something like the Cuban Missile Crisis?
Another dumb question on your part.
stupid html tags…
Nowhere near specific enough for these purposes. Is it 9/10 or 9/12? 9/1? What do we know about the person in custody? What do we suspect? Any corroborating intel? What do we know about the plot? What do we suspect?
So be it. If I were afraid to die, I wouldn’t get in my car every day. There are many things more deadly than al Qaeda and I don’t piss on the rule of law for them either.
You have time for that right now. If you think the only way to be safe is to give the President absolute power via the War Powers clause, amend the Constitution to say so. Otherwise, you have to respect the balance of power laid down by our founders or admit that you don’t give a crap about the rule of law.
My common sense tells me that if you give politicians an inch, they’ll take a mile. That’s why the law, which already gives them a ton of latitude, must be held above the men.
A democracy where the men can suspend the rule of law at will is no democracy at all.
Like I said earlier, if you don’t even understand that, there’s no point in talking further.
Molby,
The Rule of Law, eh?
So, if that’s so important to you, then why advocate that foreign terrorists be treated as criminals, with all rights of due process?
Why do that when we can treat them as the Geneva Convention says we can, which is basically as if they have no rights at all? Technically speaking, not only could we waterboard people like KSM, we could quarter him like a deer on pay-per-view and display the parts on the Capitol steps, since we’re allowed to execute him on the spot.
What’s the point in gifting them anything under the Bill of Rights? Why contrive rights for foreign terrorists who don’t have any- some sentimental nonsense about all human life being special?
Andrerw McCarthy was right when he said the Left won’t be satisfied until soldiers are mirandizing them on the battlefield.
It depends on how they came to be classified as “foreign terrorists”. There are some situations that merit treatment as a POW or Enemy Combatant and others where criminal charges (either military or domestic) are more appropriate.
The devil is in the details and you never seem interested in discussing them. It seems the whole world is black and white to you.
I suggest you re-read the treaty. Your comprehension of it seems incorrect.
You make the common mistake of thinking our rights come from our government. You’re wrong. The sound you just heard was our Founders rolling in their graves. I suggest you brush up on 18th century philosophy.
Laughable strawman. Bad monkey.
Whereas the whole world may seem black and white to me, you want to nuance everything into grayness. Nothing gets accomplished with hair-splitting indecision.
It’s up to you to prove that I’m wrong in that an enemy terrorist can be killed summarily. If you can do that to them, then waterboarding and imprisonment is certainly a lesser punishment.
As for your remark on the Founding Fathers, you’ve forgotten your history. Do you honestly think that a group which included a large number of slave owners would ever object to waterboarding the likes of KSM? If you do, then you’re guilty of historical revisionism.
They conceal this information in things called “books”, in case you’re interested. Poor, little boy.
The world is gray. If you find it easier to ignore that fact, suit yourself.
What does nuance have to do with indecision? Throw me in any situation you please and I’ll make a decision. But you have to actually describe the situation. I’m not 14; I’m not going to make blanket statements about vague situations.
Summarily killing a detainee is not permissible. If you’re content to go through your life mistaken, so be it.
Again, you’re not accurately comprehending my words. My statement about the Founders was in regards to your understanding of rights, not specifically to KSM. I’m not going to speculate about what they would do if they were alive today. The important thing to know about the Founders is that they were on the leading edge of an intellectual movement and they created the first, albeit imperfect, implementation of those ideas.
The this conversation ceased to be useful many posts ago. Have the last word if you like.
Okay, I’ll throw you a decision which doesn’t need a description from me because you can find it yourself: you’re the one who makes the decision on whether or not to waterboard KSM. Do you do it, or not?
You’re wrong about the Geneva Convention. Soldiers who fight out of uniform, terrorists, spies, as well as those who commit atrocities can be summarily executed.
The last word? Great. Your positions are intellectually crepuscular. This conversation ceased in its usefulness because of your ignorance on things like the Geneva Convention and proclivity for hair-splitting.