Bush will veto anti-torture law after Senate revolt

By Francis Harris in Washington

(Filed: 07/10/2005)

The Bush administration pledged yesterday to veto legislation banning the torture of prisoners by US troops after an overwhelming and almost unprecedented revolt by loyalist congressmen.

The mutiny was the latest setback for an administration facing an increasingly independent and bloody-minded legislature. But it also marked a key moment in Congress's campaign to curtail the huge powers it has granted the White House since 2001 in its war against terrorism.

The late-night Senate vote saw the measure forbidding torture passed by 90 to nine, with most Republicans backing the measure. Most senators said the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal and similar allegations at the Guantanamo Bay prison rendered the result a foregone conclusion.

The administration's extraordinary isolation was underlined when the Senate Republican majority leader, Bill Frist, supported the amendment.

The man behind the legislation, Republican Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner in Vietnam, said the move was backed by American soldiers. His amendment would prohibit the "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of prisoners in the custody of America's defence department.

The vote was one of the largest and best supported congressional revolts during President George W Bush's five years in office and shocked the White House.

"We have put out a Statement of Administration Policy saying that his advisers would recommend that he vetoes it if it contains such language," White House spokesman Scott McClellan warned yesterday.

The administration said Congress was attempting to tie its hands in the war against terrorism.

The veto would be Mr Bush's first use of his most extreme legislative option. But senators pointed out that a presidential veto can be overturned by a two-thirds majority in both houses.

For now the amendment's fate depends on negotiations between the Senate and the lower chamber, the House of Representatives, which is more loyal to the administration.

But senators said they were confident that most of the language would survive and that the issue could pose an extremely awkward dilemma for the president.

The amendment was attached to the $440 billion (£247 billion) defence spending bill and if Mr Bush vetoes the amendment, he would have to veto the entire bill.

That would leave America's armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan short of cash as early as the middle of next month.

The senate grows a nad?.

7/10/05 (3 months ago)

Typo on article date....

should read 10/7/05

Typo on article date....

should read 10/7/05

I think that W is dead wrong on this one. Really bad for OUR serviceman.

If they really wanted this amendment to stand on it's own, why would they tie it to the spending bill. Bush is right in vetoing it IMO for this reason alone.

Buck, I agree with you on this one.

About time congress grew a pair.

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)

P.S. McCain for president in 08.

Does this mean we can't put panty's on their heads anymore?

Hog

I'm with Dubya on this one. It was BS connecting it to money for the troops. They're daring him to veto it. This is where the Line Item Veto would be a good thing.

Oh Homebrew, McCain is a putz. He will never get the GOP nomination because conservatives know he's a RINO (Republican In Name Only). I'd vote for a conservative democrat before McCain.

1. We shouldn't be torturing prisoners. If we have figured out a way to legally torture prisoners, that loophole should be immediately closed.

2. I don't care if it's tied to the defense bill - even if the president vetoes it, we will just have a continuing resolution. That's not the end of the world.

3. Any official support for the torture of prisoners represents a gross failure of moral judgment and leadership.

4. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are not authoritative sources for a definition of what constitutes torture. If we have not already done so, we need to carefully draw the line between torture and legitimate pressure, and formulate clear policies that support that distinction.

"we need to carefully draw the line between torture and legitimate pressure, and formulate clear policies that support that distinction."

within the last few years we have...

You cannot put a pair of underware on a persons head, take a picture and distribute that over the world wide web..

You can however take a dull knife and saw through a prisoners head and neckbone video tape it and distibute that for viewing pleasures across the globe!

end of story..

Hog

Hog,

You're talking nonsense again.

You CANNOT cut someone's head off and put the film out on display........isn't that illegal?

What you're really saying is that they broke the law, so therefore we should be able to do so as well.....wouldn't that make us just as barbaric as them?

Nope what I am saying is... Geneva Convention does not apply to Terrorists.. in either direction.. but let it be them wearing the shoes and who are the very first bleeding hearts who scream foul play?

the media exploits the views of criticism and the weak feed on it...

Hog

"Nope what I am saying is... Geneva Convention does not apply to Terrorists.. in either direction.. but let it be them wearing the shoes and who are the very first bleeding hearts who scream foul play?"

I agree. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists. Even so, torture itself is objectively wrong and should be prohibited. It is a matter of enacting positive law to reflect natural law.

"the media exploits the views of criticism and the weak feed on it..."

I agree with you on this. I dislike much of the handwringing I've seen over this issue. Even so, torture is morally wrong and should be prohibited.

wjmiskelly,

I also agree that Torture is Morally Wrong and as well be prohibited.. but In a War.. how do you prevent torture from happening? from either side of the coin?

I recall as I'm writing this about the Col. who pulled his 45 out and fired off a round so close to a POW's head that it echoed around the globe and that man was forced to retire... Yet at the time he made the decission to do such an act.. it was to save the lives of many of his fellow commrads in arms... Given yourself in the same situation would you pull your pistol?

Hog

I'm not convinced firing one round constitutes torture. For that matter, I'm not convinced emptying a pistol into the wall would have constituted torture. It seems there is a difference between extreme measures taken in the heat of an interrogation and systematic torture. If we decide that firing weapons in the direction of a prisoner should be considered torture, so be it. But we should make those decisions and then put out the guidelines.

I had an E-7 that worked for me....At his Court Marshall he was demoted to E-1 and sent to 6 months confinement and dishonorably discharged. He was 3 months from retirement on a short tour away from the wife and kids. Unblemished career by the way. Until he decided that while on that short tour he would move his wife and kids back to Bragg, and continue collecting the Variable Housing Allowance for NYC where he had been a recruiter by NOT telling Uncle Sugar that the family was no longer there.

He frauded $16K plus some change out of the Government. Yes he was wrong. Yes he should've been punished. Unfortunately the Army decided to "make an example" with him.

Just prior to his Court Marshall, it was brought into the papers about General Tommy Franks being investigated for fraud against the Government by letting Uncle Sugar pay for his wife's shopping trips aboard US Government planes, claiming her meals on his TDY's, and even her hotel suites while he was in the Middle East. Total he frauded was about $178K I heard (maybe more).

He walked, SFC DelGado is now a civilian non-retiree, with no benefits, but a Bronze Star and Purple Heart plus about 5 other rows of ribbons that he's not allowed to wear anymore.

May as well melt them down and use them for knives to torture prisoners with.

Make sense?

"5 other rows of ribbons that he's not allowed to wear anymore."

other then asking the question as to why he cannot wear these ribbons/medals?

what does that whole topic have to do with torturing POW's or combatants?

not tossing fuel to any fire Adroomi, just got lost in your post.. that should be another topic all together... I'm sure there are others on this forum that could reflect on how the military treated them as well?

Maybe what you are saying is "Do as I Say, not as I Do" here?

Or could also be construed as "It's not who you know, but who you blow"?

wjmiskelly,

I posted a thread a week or so back asking everyone if they thought these Pictures from Abu Gharab (sp) should be opened up to the public? because this is something the Democrats and other org's. want done...

Yes the actions of these lower ranking military members was pretty extreme and should not have happened.. but I strongly feel this was actions authorized from high commands? 10 yrs from now maybe we'll find out.. but right now, during a War on Terror is not the time to be pissing and moaning about it.

The Military Already has the Geneva Convention. they already have General Orders on care and conduct.. what happened at that Prison was something that probably shouldn't have leaked out.. and by far should not have been allowed to happen so indepth, Period? but it did and IMO Rumsfield got his hand cought in the cookie jar again...

Hog