Bush to Veto Legislation Barring Use of Waterboarding

Bush to Veto Legislation Barring Use of Waterboarding

Saturday , March 08, 2008

President Bush is poised to veto legislation that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding — a technique that simulates drowning — and other harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects.

The president planned to talk about the veto in his Saturday radio address.

Bush has said the bill would harm the government's ability to prevent future attacks. Supporters of the legislation argue that it preserves the United States' right to collect critical intelligence while boosting the country's moral standing abroad.

"The bill would take away one of the most valuable tools on the war on terror, the CIA program to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives," deputy White House press secretary Tony Fratto said Friday.

The bill would restrict the CIA to using only the 19 interrogation techniques listed in the Army field manual.

The legislation would bar the CIA from using waterboarding, sensory deprivation or other coercive methods to break a prisoner who refuses to answer questions. Those practices were banned by the military in 2006, but the president wants the harsh interrogation methods to be a part of the CIA's toolbox.

Backers of the legislation, which cleared the House in December and won Senate approval last month, say the interrogation methods used by the military are sufficient.

"President Bush's veto will be one of the most shameful acts of his presidency," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a statement Friday. "Unless Congress overrides the veto, it will go down in history as a flagrant insult to the rule of law and a serious stain on the good name of America in the eyes of the world."

He noted that the Army field manual contends that harsh interrogation is a "poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the (interrogator) wants to hear."

Canuck wrote:Not sure if you guys saw this:

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2/886604349?page=NewsArticle&id=5261&news_iv_ctrl=1041

Figure this is linked to this thread.

Scooby01_98 wrote:I don't know, talking to some veterans of the vietnam war neither side was perfect and that was your regular army types that were suppose to be following the geneva convention. I look at it as more of the way we look at nuclear weapons. We have them, we have the option, we just don't have to use them.

Another problem is a lot of people want war to be nice and tidy. More of a police action (freeze you're under arrest) instead of destroying the enemy. Remember the goal is to kill more of them than they kill of us.

So I say we should have the option. The military shouldn't have to consult with an attorney before they interigate the enemy, or for that matter shoot the enemy on the battlefield.