President Bush vetoed a bill that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods such as waterboarding to break suspected terrorists. Bush claims he vetoed the bill because it would "take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror." The bill would limit CIA interrogators to 19 techniques allowed for use by military questioners. However, Bush said the CIA must retain the use of "specialized interrogation procedures" that the military doesn't need because military methods are designed for questioning "lawful combatants captured on the battlefield" while the CIA is dealing with "hardened terrorists" who have been trained to resist the techniques in the Army manual.
The manual already prohibits hooding prisoners, putting duct tape across their eyes, stripping them naked, forcing them to perform or mimic sexual acts, subjecting prisoners to hypothermia or mock executions, beating, electrocuting, or otherwise physically hurting prisoners. However, one of the most controversial interrogation methods is waterboarding which involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his/her cloth-covered face to simulate the sensation of drowning. Currently, waterboarding is a valid method of interrogation for the CIA to use, however, its usage must be approved on a case-by-case basis by the President. Furthermore, the CIA says it has not used waterboarding since 2003 (when it was used against three prisoners). Democrats are currently working to overrule Bush's veto, however it will be an uphill battle for Congress to overturn the veto because it takes a 2/3 majority and the House vote was 222-199 and the Senate's was 51-45.
Do you think the "harsh interrogation" methods attribute to the fact that there have been no major terrorist attacks (in the US) since September 11th? Is using "harsh interrogation" methods justified if it keeps Americans safe? Will the use of waterboarding and other methods of interrogation put Americans at greater risk of being tortured when captured? How will Bush's veto of the bill affect US human rights efforts overseas?
4 comments:
I doubt that it actually helps them stop much terrorism. Besides, what's the difference between "lawful combatants" and "hardened terrorists"? Aren't they both out to kill people? I mean, I guess the terrorists might be a bit more fanatic, but if they really are that fanatic, would they really cave in if they felt their lives were threatened?
In regard to the question: how will Bush's veto of the bill affect US human rights efforts overseas?
I think that it definitely won't help us around the world. People would see us as being pretty hypocritical for supporting human rights, while we ourselves are violating others.
I'd say that it does help recieve some information from the terrorists, but it does look bad internationally. As for the question if waterboarding puts Americans at greater risk from terrorists, I doubt it. They'll attack America just for being America, regardless of interrogation methods.
Torture doesn't generate much useful information. This has been documented repeatedly. People will say whatever their captors want to hear. It throws up distractions and false leads that take resources to track down, and only a barbaric nation would use confessions or evidence procured under torture for a criminal trial.
Supposedly Ramzi Youssef's plot to hijack a dozen airplanes over the Pacific Ocean in the late 90s was uncovered via torture (in another country). I haven't looked into that carefully, but even assuming that this information was very helpful, is there another instance when it helped? And can anyone measure how many new terrorists were created when the worst fears and lies about the US spread around the world turned out to be true?
Check out the Abu Ghraib story, which gave who knows how much fuel to the Iraqi insurgency; Seymour Hersh did some good reporting here, and while the techniques used were not nearly as horrific as waterboarding, the strategy in play was utterly idiotic, not to mention immoral.
The administration claims that it doesn't use these techniques very often, yet they are absolutely critical to retain. Hmm?
Bush will never admit that he gave the green light to torture about the same time he was describing the terrorists as barbarians for not respecting human rights.
I don't really think this is a clash of Civilizations, but if it were, I would like to be unambiguously on the side of the civilized. That is, the side of people that don't torture, even if that puts us ever so slightly at greater risk. I don't think it is much of a risk, but that's not the point. Saving an American life can't be worth infinity.
Post a Comment