The House yesterday voted to pass a bill that would prohibit the CIA and other intelligence agencies, as well as the military, from using “waterboarding” and other torture techniques on anyone held in detention by our government. The bill would also require all detainees held in US custody to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, eliminating the hair splitting distinctions made by the Bush administration’s legal team to justify ignoring our obligations under those treaties. The vote was 222 to 199 in favor (yes, that means some Democrats — in this case numbering ten — voted against an explicit ban on torture). Nonetheless, it’s a empty gesture since, as anyone could have predicted, Bush has already stated he will veto the bill, known as the “Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008” (HR 2082) if it ever comes before him for his signature.
Defying a veto threat from President Bush, the House of Representatives voted Thursday to prohibit waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods used by the Central Intelligence Agency against high-level prisoners from Al Qaeda. […]
. . . The measure, part of the intelligence authorization bill, would restrict all American interrogators to techniques included in the Army Field Manual, which prohibits the use of physical force.
In a statement this week, the White House said the president would veto the bill, as a ban on harsh interrogations “would prevent the president from taking the lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack in wartime.”
Specifically, HR 2082 requires compliance with the 2006 version of the Army Field Manual, which specifically prohibits the use of . . .
. . . water-boarding – which simulates drowning, electrocution, sensory deprivation, mock executions, the use of attack dogs, the induction of hypothermia and the withholding of food, water or medical care.
The manual also specifies that the Geneva Conventions must be applied to all detainees, thus eliminating separate standards for the questioning of prisoners of war and those considered “unlawful enemy combatants”.
Naturally enough, the Bushies have a number of objections to this attempt by Democrats to limit their ability to mistreat, abuse and otherwise “harshly interrogate” terror suspects, which they consider both perfectly legal and also necessary to obtain intelligence to save American lives from the threat of a rampaging Islamofascism (or so they say for the public record).
The Office of Management and Budget said that limiting the CIA to techniques authorised by the Army Field Manual “would prevent the United States from conducting lawful interrogations of senior al-Qaeda terrorists to obtain intelligence needed to protect Americans from attack”. […]
In July 2007, Mr Bush signed a controversial executive order on the treatment of suspects detained by the CIA.
It defined the American commitment to the Geneva Conventions’ prohibition on cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment and torture by reference to the US legal code, which says torture is “specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”.
But the executive order did not outlaw the agency’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques”. The list of allowable techniques has not been published.
The bill now goes to the Senate where I predict that the provisions banning torture and requiring compliance with the Geneva Conventions will be stripped out or watered down, because I just don’t think there are enough Senators, Democrats or Republicans, who will want to vote for a measure that will be portrayed as “coddling” terrorists. And should those provisions somehow be approved, President “I’m the Commander Codpiece in Chief” Bush will follow through on his veto threat.
What the House vote does show is that Republicans are firmly committed to laying claim to the “Party of Torture.” Only five Republicans voted in favor of HR 2082 (For the record, here are their names: Roscoe Bartlett, MD; Wayne Gilchrest, MD; Timothy Johnson, Il; Walter Jones, NC; and Chris Smith, NJ). That’s a mere 2.5 % of the 199 Republican Representatives in the House. An amazing statistic considering Bush’s approval ratings have been mired in the low 30% to mid 20% range for nearly two years.
You would think at least a few more of them would have a conscience, or at least recognize that they are condemning our country to the same status as other regimes which torture their prisoners and commit other human rights abuses. Or that Bush’s standings in the polls simply do not justify following him blindly off a cliff into further electoral losses next year like a bunch of lemmings. That blind obedience to their Leader’s wishes, no matter how delusional or immoral or politically suicidal just seems incomprehensible to me.
But then, I don’t understand the unwillingness of so many Democrats to confront Bush on these fundamental issues of civil liberties and human rights abuses, lies and deceits (which led us into an illegal war that’s killed thousands and costs us roughly Three Quarters of a Billion Dollars per day, among other outrages), of corruption out the wazoo, the traitorous outing of a covert CIA agent, the politicization of our military and our intelligence community, ad nauseam. I guess truly opposing a unitary executive rogue President (and his heartless Veep, too) by holding hearings on impeachment is just too much hard work for them.
So we will continue on, with no real change in sight. One party is seemingly insanely thirsty for more war, more death and the continuing destruction of our democracy, our Constitution and our rights. Meanwhile the other party is too timid to do anything more than hold meaningless hearings and cast symbolic votes which accomplish nothing other than to provide Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi a chance to pat themselves on the back and/or whine about Bush’s refusal to play by the rules. Complaints, by the way which ring hollow, and which reek with the rankest hypocrisy, since both of these Democratic Leaders refuse to even consider the one thing that might rein in the criminal organization known as the Bush/Cheney White House: Impeachment.
What a travesty our politics has become.
What you said, Steven!
What I really wonder is this. It is often expressed in the Democratic blogosphere, almost a perfunctory view at times, that in spite of all the capitulation, enabling and outright support of this administration’s policies, that 2008 will be just a landslide year for Democrats. That Republicans, by virtue of their embracing of all the extremist views of this President and his minions, will go down in a massive ball of flames due to their loyal support of torture, illegal spying, illegal wars and the general air of criminality which has surrounded them. The American people will finally render their verdict on the most unpopular and unacceptable conduct in the modern political era by virtue of a political massacre at the polls.
This view is almost accepted in many areas as indisputable. But what makes it so? What makes anyone think that by the time we get around to the eleventh hour of this political season, a time when significant numbers voters are just finally making up their minds, that voters will pull the lever for a Democrat, simply because he is not a Republican? Because it seems, from much of the Democratic conduct we have witnessed of late, that this is the thinking of much of the Democratic leadership. But we are seeing, played out day by day in the media circus, conduct by Democrats which only persists in creating a frame in voter’s minds that the two parties have become more or less homogenized; melded to the point where the actual differences between them are only in their semantics. Look no further than what you spell out here in this post regarding the conduct of Harry Reid. In the end, at the final bell, what is the REAL difference between what happens as a result of Reid’s conduct or what the final outcome would be if Mitch McConnell were calling the shots? In the end, torture is still official U.S. policy. Or telecom immunity is given. Or Bush still gets his money, and more, for his war of the day.
What then is accomplished? A self congratulatory Senatorial circle jerk is about the only way it can be described.
Bush’s assault on civil liberties, human rights abuses, lies and deceits. They are as much the Democrat’s now as they are Mr. Bush’s. It is a now a distinction without a difference. Complicity is complete, the only contrary views being purely semantic and theatrical. Kisses on the cheek to an increasingly enraged base.
Indeed, Steven. Indeed.
ah ha…the sop to go along with the slaps:
hmmm…you really think this is gonna create enough positive spin to cya, harry?
lTMF’sA
Christmas is usually a time when controversial nominees for top federal jobs wait for Santa, in the form of the president of the United States, to come down the chimney with their recess appointments.
Was this bullshit recess appointment thing a ‘usual’ occurrence before W assumed office?
I don’t think so, Wa-Po.
.
(LA Times) Aug. 1, 2005 – Presidents since George Washington have made appointments during congressional recesses to fill positions in the executive and judicial branches. Under the Constitution, the president can make temporary appointments while the Senate is in recess, without Senate approval. The appointment lasts through the end of the following one-year session of Congress.
President Clinton: 140 recess appointments over two terms.
The first President Bush made 77 recess appointments over one term, and President Reagan made 243 over two terms.
FAQ – Recess Appointments [pdf]
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."from his inauguration, through june of this year, via congressional research reports:
the really interesting number’s going to be how many pardons, including blanket ones, chimpy issues before he leaves.
lTMF’sA