Senate Votes To Ban Waterboarding
Posted February 14th, 2008 by Da King
Yesterday, the Senate passed H.R. 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2008. The Act included a ban on waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques. It passed by a vote of 51 to 45, with 4 not voting. The vote was largely upon partisan lines, with Democrats voting for the ban and Republicans voting against it. Here is a roll call of the Senate vote.
Among our senatorial presidential candidates, John McCain voted against the ban. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were 2 of the 4 senators who did not vote. McCain's vote is interesting, because in the past he has come out against waterboarding. McCain could have other reasons for voting against H.R. 2082, since it is also an appropriations act, but at first glance, this sure looks like a position reversal by McCain, which almost certainly will be reported as him caving to the conservative base (a curious move, since he already has the Republican nomination in the bag). The Obama and Clinton non-votes are also interesting, because they didn't take a position on a controversial issue and a close vote. At least McCain cast a vote, even if it does open him up to charges of waffling. Obama and Clinton didn't show any leadership. You can bet "scheduling conflicts" will be the reported reason for their absence. I can't say as I blame Obama too much from a tactical standpoint here. Not being "on the record" has served him fabulously well in his presidential campaign of soaring rhetoric. I assume if he does become president, he will henceforth become "present and accounted for". Leadership is a nice quality for a president.
The White House has long said it would veto this type of legislation, with president Bush saying it “would prevent the president from taking the lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack in wartime.” Bush's problem is, waterboarding isn't looking all that legal these days. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 prohibits cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment for all detainees in U.S. custody, including CIA prisoners. It limits interrogation techniques to those contained in the Army Field Manual, which doesn't include waterboarding. The justice department also said it doubts that waterboarding is legal now.
At this time, waterboarding is still technically an option available to the CIA, but it requires the consent of the Attorney General and the president on a case-by-case basis. CIA chief Michael Hayden says waterboarding has not been used since 2003. Hayden also says he prohibited waterboarding as a CIA technique in 2006, doubting it's legality in light of the new laws. Bush's position is weak and getting weaker.
The Democrats outcry against harsh interrogation techniques by the Bush administration has resonated far and wide these days, with tons of partisan rhetoric being bandied about, but back in 2002, the Democrats were singing a very different tune. At that time, so close to the devastation of the 9/11 attacks, the Democrats who were briefed on the interrogation techniques were not only supportive of waterboarding and other harsh techniques, they even wanted more done to extract the needed information about future Al Qaeda attacks from high level Al Qaeda detainees, such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (one of the 3 who were ever waterboarded by the CIA). You can read a Washington Post article about it here. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was one of those briefed. From that article comes the following:
Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.
With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).
Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."
How times change, eh ? Or, perhaps I should say, how politics change. Opponents of waterboarding say that the world isn't an episode of 24, with Jack Bauer running out of time to prevent an imminent terrorist attack. They are correct. 99.9% of the time is isn't.
But .1% of the time it IS. And what do we do then, after harsh interrogation techniques are expressly prohibited by law, when the needed information is paramount ? Do we tell someone like Khalid Shakh Mohammed that if he tells us what we need to know, we'll give him a cookie ? It's probably more likely that someone in the CIA would break the law anyway, if the information was important enough, don't you think ? Then the Democrats can prosecute that someone for saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of americans, because he poured water down the next Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's nose. So I'd vote nay on that ban. I would leave it with waterboarding requiring the express approval of the attorney general and the president on a case-by-case basis, that would stop it from being abused, but I wouldn't ban it altogether, whether you want to call it torture or not. Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one, as Mr. Spock would say.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
You were so right when you said, ". . . how politics change. Of course, the Democrats who were told about water boarding as members of the Intelligence committees tend to remember what went on differently than the Republicans. For pity's sake they have decided to use water boarding as a weapon against Bush. Sure they don't remember the same things. That damnable Goss just thought they understood what they heard. Goss was just the chairman of the committee and he had to stay awake when they were being briefed.
Something is bothering me about the last two votes you have reported. I wonder if Senator Graham is trying to set himself up as a Presidential candidate for 2012. He is following Obama and Clinton by not voting. It is obvious that they don't do it so that they aren't down on record on these important votes as Obama has managed to do througout his 4 year history in the Senate. I just wondered if anyone here has any idea what Graham is doing.
Personally, I think that waterboarding to attempt to protect the people of the United States from terrorist attack is pretty smart activity. Why terrorists have to be protected from our government, as it tries to protect us, escapes me as sound reasoning. Surely Rev Red will come along and explain to me how I am wrong.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
It's simple, Roy, it's called the Constitution. You should look into it. It has an interesting history, although it has fallen out of favor since 2000.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:40 am
da truth,
Only american citizens are protected by the Constitution. I don't think KSM and company will be taking the citizenship test any time soon.
Perhaps you meant the Geneva Convention ?
February 15th, 2008 at 11:49 am
da truth,
I would accept an explanation of what waterboarding has to do with the Constitution. In over 25 years of teaching Government to high school kids I just didn't manage to run into any of that kind of thing and I assure you we read the whole thing each and every year. I think that there is some political activity there that doesn't happen to be in the wording of the document. There are possibly some words that escaped me all those years. I tried very hard to be as unbiased as I could but evidently I didn't manage to use any liberal thinking in the reading.
Do you suppose this difference in interpretation could have anything to do with my desire to use strict interpretation and your need to use liberal interpretations that seem to try to make the words fit the thinking of the reader no matter what they may say? Maybe liberal interpretation adds or subtracts some meanings from time to time. Sir, i do not believe in a "living Constitution". I do not believe that we change our interpretations to fit the specific times and our own desires.
Now I hope I have explained how I see the document and given you my beliefs in it to make your explanation simpler. Explain away, but if you must use the "living" form of interpretation I must tell you that it will sail over my head.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
King…you have proven to be a loyal neo-con over the time I've been reading your commentaries. The following,though, is so misguided, it is hard to know where to start…..
"And what do we do then, after harsh interrogation techniques are expressly prohibited by law, when the needed information is paramount ?
So I'd vote nay on that ban. I would leave it with waterboarding requiring the express approval of the attorney general and the president on a case-by-case basis, that would stop it from being abused, but I wouldn't ban it altogether, whether you want to call it torture or not."
Your mistaken assumption is that torture gets good results. Military experts disagree. Jack Bauer and you are experts?
But you embarass yourself when you hand the approval of crimes of savage torture over to 2 men. In the case of the Bush clan…..2 criminal men.
You are arguing for a military dictatorship. What is disturbing here is that you don't seem to understand what you're encouraging with your full acceptance of torture.
You really should rethink your position here. It's no different than bin Laden's.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
If torture doesn't work, why do the spooks want to use it? It would work on me, most definitely.
February 15th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Larry D writes with wisdom, "If torture doesn't work, why do the spooks want to use it? It would work on me, most definitely."
Of course torture works …. but not 100%.
In this regard, torture is like capital punishment. The death penalty does not deter all murders, but it sure cuts down on them. Ditto the laws against armed robbery, etc, etc.
And torture, by the way, was one of the main ways the French army cracked the terrorist cells in Algeria during the French-Algerian war (1954-1962).
But you ask, "Is torture counter-productive?"
The answer is "yes," if it is used indiscriminately. and "yes" again, if torture is used as punishment or out of frustration. But "no," torture is not counter-productive if it is used judicially and in special cases.
February 15th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Roys, I find it hard to believe you would be unbiased about anything. And I'm glad I didn't go to your high school.
"It is not constitutional for the United States to engage in torture in any form, be it waterboarding or anything else."
You know who said that, right Roy? You do, right King? Apparently, the Attorney General knows as little about the Constitution as I do.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Rev,
If you don't think torture gets good results, you should inform yourself of the results the USA got from waterboarding those 3 Al Qaeda guys. They learned Al Qaeda's entire leadership structure and accumulated information about numerous terrorist plots, which were then stopped. Do a google search on John Kiriakou for one source for this info.
People who say harsh interrogation doesn't work are just trying to spin things for political reasons. Of course they work, but like I said, 99.9% of the time they should not be allowed.
And all your talk of a military dictatorship is inane. Haven't you figured out yet that judge's decisions come down to the opinion of ONE person ? When Bush goes to FISA for a warrant, ONE person decides that issue. When you go to traffic court, ONE person decides that issue. If we aren't going to put any decision-making powers in the hands of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, especially when it comes to matters of national security, then there isn't even a reason to have a president. You are way off the skids on this one. You BDS is hampering your judgement again.
February 17th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Once again. 1)When so-called experts torture a person they are ASSUMING the torturee knows something. 2)They assume that the information tortured out is reliable.
In addition then, I guess, you would also approve of using torture in, at least, isolated criminal cases inside the country. The very same case you attempted to make would also be true from a threat from citizens inside the country.
Just a .1% need for torture, huh? It's like being a little bit pregnant. It's just a silly position to hold.
And while I'm at it…..this idea that Scalia, the Nazi jurist, expounded upon while in Europe about torture and the Constitution…..is ridiculous.
The Congress of the United States was a signee of the Geneva Conventions agreements. Any international contract entered into by Congress is Constitutional.
The question I would like to have answered is…..why is it that you want the U.S. to institutionalize the same evil that we say we're fighting? I don't get that part.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
"When so-called experts torture a person they are ASSUMING the torturee knows something. 2)They assume that the information tortured out is reliable".
In the case of those 3 Al Qaeda guys, they KNEW they knew a lot. And the results checked out. I've even heard that 25% of the actionable intelligence on Al Qaeda came from those 3.
And calling Scalia a "nazi jurist" makes you dumber than a shovel, not to mention small-minded and hateful. Why must you demonize everything you disagree with ? What an ugly trait.
Explain to me the part of the Geneva Convention that applies to Al Qaeda. I don't think it applies to them at all.
I don't want to "institutionalize the same evil we're fighting",but I don't want thousands of americans to die in a terrorist attack either. I know perspective is difficult for you and you see everything as either black or white, but why don't you try to see both sides for once in your life ? A president weighed the lives of americans against some very temporary discomfort for 3 Al Qaeda killers following an attack on the US. This wasn't some theoretical game being played. All decisions are not simple.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Once more….
During the most dangerous time of America's history….the Cold War….the nation did not institutionalize torture. They didn't vote to approve it. There were no presidents and presidential stooges endlessly advocating for it.
Yet now….with a medieval enemy who could never destroy or bring down America…..we have to torture.
It makes no sense. There's no perspective.
I don't suggest that Islamic extremism isn't a problem. But to say since 9-11 the dangers we face are worse than ever and therefore require radical means like torture…..is simply not credible.
The problem today is…….the promotion of fear by our leaders…to the extent that Americans will accept savage and illegal methods to keep them safe. Even if they won't.
Hypothetical once-in-a-billion scenarios are portrayed to justify cruel and unusual acts of barbarity.
It's not acceptable.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Dont despair King,
When Europe and the U.S. last flirted with the concept of an enlightened government whose duty was to remake society and end the injustices and lift man from animal to one of purity we just werent ready. Today we are. We have a sufficient number of enlightened elite to assure that the proper course of ensuring equal outcome for all will be done slowly and gently. Individual responsibility and choice will be replaced by a nurturing governement that will control and direct our lives for the good of society. The golden era is at hand.
February 24th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Fred, this "golden era" sounds a like Comrade Hillary's "village" as in "It Takes A village."
After I graduate (get released) from Hillary's re-education camp, I hope she has a nice comfy place for me there.
February 24th, 2008 at 11:48 am
"Individual responsibility and choice will be replaced by a nurturing governement that will control and direct our lives for the good of society. The golden era is at hand."
Yeah, that's what happened in the late 30's and 40's under Roosevelt. Americans just gave up and let the government rock their cradle.
Why say progressives want "equal outcome" when no one is advocating that position? To be dishonest would be the first place to look.
All this nonsense just because Americans think the rich have had enough advantages and working families have a right to health care in the richest country in history.
February 25th, 2008 at 8:14 am
The ravings of a true class warrior.