Speak Out about Bush’s Veto of an Anti-Torture Law

by Danny Fisher

This past Saturday, George W. Bush vetoed legislation that would have banned the CIA from using waterboarding and other severe tactics. In his weekly radio address, Mr. Bush said that banning such methods of interrogation “would take away one of the most valuable tools on the war on terror.” The Washington Post reports:

The legislation would have limited the CIA to 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.

[...]

[Waterboarding] was used on three al-Qaeda suspects held in secret prisons in 2002 and 2003. The tactic involves strapping a prisoner to a board with their head lower than their feet, placing cloth or cellophane over the face and pouring water on their head to make them fear they are drowning.

The practice as used by the CIA bears similarities to the methods of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and by the current dicatorship in Burma, according to congressional testimony and torture experts.

For me, there’s no real debate about all of this. These tactics certainly violate articles of the United States Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Amnesty International is concerned about Bush’s veto too. They’re asking supporters to call their local radio station or write their local paper and say the following:

I am extremely disappointed that President Bush vetoed H.R. 2082, the Intelligence Authorization bill, which prevents the Central Intelligence Agency and other U.S. agents from using waterboarding, sexual humiliation, dogs and other techniques that amount to torture and ill-treatment.

The Bush administration continues its stubborn and reckless disregard for basic decency and values the United States should model.

The president’s action further compounds the incalculable damage to United States’ standing at home and abroad.

I applaud Congress for rejecting the bogus arguments validating torture as an interrogation tactic and passing the bill.

Congress should investigate the tons of credible evidence of illegal and inhumane actions in the Bush administration’s war on terror.

Anyone responsible for illegal and inhumane actions must be prosecuted promptly.

Bush asserting that the United States ‘does not torture,’ as he vetoes anti-torture legislation, rings more hollow than ever.I’ll be sharing my thoughts on this issue with the local media, and I hope you’ll do the same. And tell Amnesty who you called and/or wrote here.

3 Responses to “Speak Out about Bush’s Veto of an Anti-Torture Law”

Daniel P. from Patchogue, Long Island says:

March 11, 2008 at 11:40 pm

I respectfully disagree and I approve of President Bush’s veto of this bill. And obviously a sufficient number of congressional members support his veto also.

My brother-in-law, Dennis Scauso, FDNY, was murdered by Muslim terrorists. I knew him from the age of 11 years old to the age of 46 years old. He leaves a wife and 4 children. If one American life is saved by using whatever legal methods are available, I approve of it.

God Bless the U.S.A.
A Proud Gay American
Lea says:

March 12, 2008 at 12:40 am

Daniel P., I am very sorry for your loss and the loss for your sister and her children. No one should have to go through what your family has experienced.

Nevertheless, I repectfully disagree with your position on this. I know that the “if one American life is saved” is a common sentiment, but I believe that all life is sacred, not just the American ones, and that one’s own life and the honor of one’s family, ancestors, and community is diminished by intentionally engaging in harmful acts. It hurts me to think of what a terrible burden statements such as yours place on young men and women in uniform to protect our lives, when they are faced with a human being who is at their mercy and have a responsibility to try to gather reliable and useful information in order to save lives.

May all beings develop wisdom and mercy.

Again, I’m truly sorry for your loss.
Danny Fisher says:

March 12, 2008 at 1:08 am

Daniel P.:

If one American life is saved by using whatever legal methods are available, I approve of it.

I think we can agree on this. My problem is that waterboarding and other such tactics aren’t within the bounds of the law. Mr. Bush swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which has something to say about not inflicting “cruel and unusual punishments” upon prisoners. Additionally, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, an international human rights instrument adopted by the UN General Assembly, defines “torture” as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” It further states that “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.” Also, that nations have a responsibility to “take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.” All this in mind, Mr. Bush’s veto of anti-torture legislation is just plain wrong.

I’m very sorry for the loss of your brother-in-law. In all the contemplation I have done in the last few years, I’ve come to the conclusion that the best way I can honor his life and the lives of others is by doing all that I can to be a voice of conscience for my country. We all want to keep each other safe. But I’m fairly certain that we don’t want to be a nation that condones practices used by such groups as the Khmer Rouge regime and the Burmese military junta. That’s not us.

Rev. Danny Fisher