President’s veto of intelligence bill is the right move, but his rationale is not
By JR Hoeft | Saturday, March 8th, 2008 | PoliticsIn today’s presidential radio address, President Bush stated that he vetoed the intelligence authorization bill because it would not allow for “one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror” to be used anymore.
“The main reason this program [CIA program to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives] has been effective is that it allows the CIA to use specialized interrogation procedures to question a small number of the most dangerous terrorists under careful supervision,” said the president.
At this point, anyone who favors freedom, our way of life, and U.S. moral superiority has to look at this line of thinking and shake their head.
Use of techniques like water-boarding, although they may have some form of effectiveness in yielding information, sets-back U.S. credibility when it comes to ideological things like the U.S. as: an honorable society, a promoter of freedom and justice, a land where people are treated fairly and humanely under the law, etc.
We our supposed to be the exception, not the rule. The whole point of terrorism is to make us change our way of life…and it appears that they have succeeded.
The president’s approach is short-sighted, and does not consider future wars or military conflict in which the U.S. is involved that might lead to Americans being taken prisoner. In our current war, it’s not as if Al Quaeda participates in the Geneva Convention (there are several gruesome videos online to prove it); however, if, in the future, we are in another nation-state war, will our enemy feel compelled to treat U.S. POWs fairly, knowing that our government is capable of not treating prisoners fairly? Would our current actions be prohibitive in our future ability to take action against those states that mistreat U.S. POWs?
Therefore, part of Mr. Bush’s rationale for vetoing the bill is not necessarily in keeping completely with U.S. standards.
However, the veto was still the right thing to do. But you have to look to Sen. John McCain to see why.
McCain has been clear that he does not support the president’s philosophy on this issue; he already believes waterboarding is illegal with respect to the Geneva Convention and should not be conducted or used as a technique. Period.
“I have been outspoken in opposition to using torture against our enemies,” McCain said the Federalist Society. “The moral strength that enables people to stand up to tyranny in other countries resides in their conviction that were the situation to be reversed they would not avail themselves of the abuses of power that they have suffered.”
However, he does oppose this particular bill because it spells out for our enemies the limitations of our interrogation techniques so that they can train and be prepared, in the event that they should become a prisoner.
When the a hitter knows that a fastball is the only thing a pitcher can throw, they’re far more apt to sit on it and smack a home run. Same thing here. If our enemies know that our hands are tied to the U.S. Army Field Manual, then they will be ready for whatever techniques we try.
“Limiting the CIA’s interrogation methods to those in the Army Field Manual would be dangerous because the manual is publicly available and easily accessible on the Internet,” said the president.
So even the president knows that telegraphing the pitch is, generally, a bad move.
I know, this is a nuanced argument — and may even be semantical. Certainly the left will say that McCain is just like Bush and supports torture…
“It is shameful that George Bush and John McCain lack the courage to ban torture,” said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.
But, the only thing this should tell us is that once again subtlety, compromise, and judgment will be lost in politics as usual by our friends on the left.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
18 Responses to "President’s veto of intelligence bill is the right move, but his rationale is not"
I see where you are coming from but how far must we go, and how many times must we get kicked around in the name of being above it all.
Fact is, we did not use enough force going into Iraq because we were scared of collateral damage and of course the fact that America could not stomach any US losses. We see how well that worked.
Now we are going to advertise that anyone who is captured need only keep their mouth shut to keep info away from us. Water boarding? Ok, I can see why that is useless, but sleep depredation, loud noise, etc are also being attacked as torture. How far is far enough?
If this is how we are going to work then maybe we SHOULD just pack it in and consider the naïve appeasement approach to terrorism… saying “please” and “sorry” and ask them nicely to leave us alone.
A bit simplistic? Of course, but I say this to make a point. We live in a nation that is OUTRAGED over steroid use and the Patriots filming signals but want to give the enemy time tables, playbooks and tell them what they need to do to avoid telling us when they are going to kill us.
Something to think about, that is all I am saying, but sadly, this has nothing to do with what is right, wrong or indifferent. This has nothing to do with what is the best way to protect America… it is, as all important issues are, about childish point keeping between Bush and Democrats.
I have said once I will say it again, Bush could cure Cancer and Democrats would attack Bush for not doing it sooner and then say the disease itself was his fault. Republicans are not better. But I am sure my comment will be answered with talking points and “Bush bad” or “Dems bad” lines or “Well you said, blah blah blah”. Meanwhile some third world savage plots our death.
In the end what are we worrying about? Being seen as ‘mean’? Come on. Hell if hooking terrorists up to car batteries prevents attacks then all I have to say is, black negative and red is positive. The next time Americans are attacked and killed I guess we can go to their funerals with a sense of dignity, right? I mean a dignity that will be appreciated and hailed the world around, especially by the enemy… Yeah, that makes it all worth it.
Ugh
The American spirit and sense of right and wrong will not be defeated by a car battery.
You want me to spell it out, fine, I’ll spell it out — I would rather see Americans dead and our sense of freedom intact than to see us drift further towards authoritarianism.
Does that seem callous? Not really. Because if America truly is the pillar of right and wrong, we will be supported when we’re bloodied and we will win so overwhelmingly that noone would dare challenge us again. It’s when we sacrifice our values and pursue things that are not of direct consequence to our national security that gets us into trouble.
Thank you Jim for clearly enunciating a true conservative position on this issue. I keep waiting for others, who claim to revere the memory of Reagan to take the same principled stand – a stand worthy of his city on a hill.
Disagree with Bush and Ragnar’s there to salute ya.
Ya know, I remember when folks argued that the way we gathered human intelligence was “beneath us” and we were better people than to deal with “those kinds of people.”
I can see Jim’s idealism, and you make a good point about future wars, but no – i wouldn’t rather see Americans dead (your words) so we can still be boy scouts, dead boy scouts but still boy scouts.
Now, I don’t think waterboarding is anything to defend, but it’s a hell of a lot better than beheadings.
Repeating Carter years of making sure our enemies like us would be a horrific mistake in my view. I wouldn’t want the next terror threat to go unheard because we were afraid to ask.
BK – if we give up who we are, we give up our nation. I’m with Jim, I crave freedom – and I am not willing to give up my freedom in order to preserve this mortal life. The ideals of our immortal nation are more important than my life, or yours, or any other citizens. This is why there is talk about sacrifice in the military. It isn’t just a slogan, it is an ideal to aspire to.
Perhaps the military’s oath of office would be instructive:
I, [name], do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. (So help me God.)
Note, there is nothing in here about protecting the lives of fellow ciitizens – the reason for this is simple. The idea of our nation and our national ideals are FAR more important, and longer lasting than the lives of a few mortal citizens. So yes, give me liberty or give me death. I believe fervently in the aspirations and the ideals of our founding fathers who believed as I do, that those who are willing to surrender a little freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety.
Ragnar, with all due respect, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t gamble with my life without my consent.
How dare you, Brian!
No one is gambling with your life, but honoring the hundreds of thousands of Americans, far better than you or I, who gave up theirs so we could live in freedom.
For us, today, to squander away their sacrifice so quickly, and give up our basic freedoms and fritter away our moral high ground not only is dishonorable, it undercuts the very fabric of who we are as Americans.
If we quickly move towards the gutter of humanity, not only do we not belong as “city on the hill”, we deserve everything we have coming to us.
Ragnar said “The ideals of our immortal nation are more important than my life, or yours”
Gambling with my life is EXACTLY what he said, Jim.
BK – Are you truly so obtuse? Our nation gambles with your life and those of your family on a daily basis, such is the cost of the freedoms guaranteed by our ancestors – who understood far better than you the true cost and benefits of liberty.
You would obviously rather live with the security of the Soviet Union than the freedoms of our nation. Freedom is a two-edged sword, with freedom comes the right to live free – but also the danger of living free. You need to take the time, today, to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That beloved, inspired document that millions of Americans have fought and DIED for, and decide if you want to be on the side of our national treasure, or if you would rather pick up your family and move to a totalitarian state – where you will never be asked to sacrifice for freedom.
How can you possibly claim to remember Reagan’s legacy when you don’t even recall his greatest love, that for our freedoms? – You are emblamatic of those who are anathma to his vision and those of the Founding Fathers.
From Reagan:
Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.
My own $0.02 – I agree with Jim (and McCain, by extension, oddly enough). I didn’t start at this position, being more in line with Jim’s general description of the left’s viewpoint. But your point on counter-training to he army field manual is a strong argument. My only concern – this adminstration has shown on repeated occasions that if you give an inch, they will take a mile – sometimes you don’t have to give anything at all, just not hold on tight enough to the rope.
My understanding of the intent of the bill is not to force the hand of the interrogator in the field, but rather to reign in the administration’s ability to condone and justify “enhanced interrogation techniques”. It has the unfortunate affect of doing both. But how do you do one but not the other? Personally, my gut instinct is more towards eliminating the status of ‘enemy combatant’, and forcing their reclassification as POWs. This by nature brings into play the Geneva Conventions, and all the proscriptions on tortue it entails, without providing a “play book” for counter-interrogation training. It would though have other implications as well…
Of course, its become almost cliche in this discussion to bring up the name, but whatever happened to the lessons learned from Hanns-Joachim Scharff? In some ways, i think that one of the most unfortunate aspects of this is that it may well be driving away the very talented people we need most, where we need them – skilled psychological interrogators. What talented person wants to be assocaited with a profession that is now being dragged through the mud and considered a “torturer”? Or, for that matter, wants to work in a profession where their own skills may be wasted, directed instead from higher up to use methods abhorent to them, especially when much of their own training and/or knowledge tells them that such methods are inherently less effective?
Ragnar, can you disagree with someone without calling them names? Please tell me your debating skills rise above “I know you are, but what am I” at least occasionally.
In the space of a few sentences, you called me obtuse, a Communist, anti-Reagan, and ignorant of the Constitution – simply because I didn’t appreciate how willing you were to give up my life to make sure we treated foreign terrorist enemies with enough tenderness to look good on CNN.
It is in fact you who offered to sacrifice my life and safety, which sounds a lot closer to a totalitarianism stance than my position. If people disagree with the war in Iraq, they get called “unpatriotic.” If people disagree with you, apparently they get called far worse.
When we restrict our capabilities, we do gamble lives. This war in not fought by militaries only. Civilians are attacked, blown up and beheaded… but at least we feel good about ourselves?
and as for “You want me to spell it out, fine, I’ll spell it out — I would rather see Americans dead and our sense of freedom intact than to see us drift further towards authoritarianism.” let me say while that may seem like impressive chest thumping idealism (I could actually hear “Glory, Glory Hallelujah” in the background) I am not sure how you make the jump between interrogation tactics and authoritarianism. Either way, I would rather save lives. I do not see the choice between saving lives and authoritarianism (and BTW aren’t I the one normally accused of being too black and white or jumping to far fetched extremes by those doing the same here now? Hmmm)
I guess if there is another 9/11 we can send you to the families of the dead to say, “Hey, buck up, we have out dignity and lack of a feeling of authoritarianism, so you should be happy!”
We have entered the ‘idealist but not practical’ zone.
I think the talking point of interrogation tactics taking us into authoritarianism is an argument made to scare people into weakness… It is a Dem talking point, uh I mean McCain talking point, uh, oh what’s the difference…
Water boarding is the issue, right? Well Pelosi knew about it for YEARS before she decided to make a political issue out of it, and from what I understand it is rarely used, if at all anymore… so the point is once again political gain at the price of national security. Yeah, that’s smart.
Look, Vietnam was a war lost because it was run by politicians. The war on terrorism appears to be no different. The bad news is, the war on terror costs lives State Side, not just ‘over there’ but hell, it is ok because people will see their favorite people elected right? I mean winning elections is more important than winning wars or saving lives, right? THAT is exactly what I see every day. How is that for “Straight Talk (yuck, that has become such a hack line as well)
The political process sickens me now. The two parties sicken me. We have uber liberals who want to socialize America running against the RINO who chery picks his stances. Wake me when it is 2012 and there is someone I can get excited about and actually believe in.
I really wish there was someone who was running for office that wanted to lead the country not feed their ego and sense of entitlement or sense of it being their turn.
But since I do not follow lemming liberals or fallin line (aka sell out) to the GOP and thier candidate (yuck), I am wrong. I get it. Because remember kids, it is not about the right person or leadership, it is ONLY about the party winning… NO MATTER WHAT! I can not believe people are lecturing me about sticking to ideals while they support a McCain, a Clinton or an Obama. Yeah, all of those guys represent sticking to your guns. No they represent putting a check mark in the win column over everything else.
Seriously…Brian and Squeaky Wheel…you cannot see where this leads towards a more centralized and authoritarian state?
Interesting.
All in the name of “security” I guess. Heaven forbid we take freedom into account.
Seriously, I worry more about national health care and cradle-to-grave “education” a lot more than I worry about what we do to interrogate terrorists.
Brian – if the govt is heading in an overly socialistic direction, it’s not too difficult for the people to use the instruments of democracy to change the direction. However, if authoritarianism begins to take root, it is much harder to reverse course without drastic action. Just ask the opposition party in Russia.
I guess it boils down to what you value more – economic or political freedom. Given a choice, i’d personally prefer sweden over dubai.
And yes, i realize Sweden is a constitutional monarchy, but it functions as a democratic society, moreso by some standards than the US:
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_TABLE_2007_v3.pdf
I guess American “soft power” in the world doesn’t matter anymore. And American idealism is a thing of the past.
We’re supposed to be better than this. We’re supposed to honor the dignity of the human being.
Whatever happened to “truth, justice, and the American way”?
Just because we’re attacked, we check morality at the door?
Look…this all started with me saying that I find waterboarding repulsive — as does Sen. McCain; yet we shouldn’t telegraph the pitch, therefore I agree with the president’s veto — as does Sen. McCain.
JR -
Sigh. I’m with you, I just don’t get it. Aren’t these the ideals upon which our nation was founded? Isn’t this why those good men banded together with their lives and their sacred honor to revolt against the crown? How far we seem to have fallen.
I’m going to go into a dark corner with my Notes on the State of Virginia.
Leave your response