8/7/2019 03-09-08 IPS-Just Water Boarding Under the Bridge William Fis

1/2

53406522.doc Page 1 of 2

Just Waterboarding Under the BridgeWilliam Fisher

NEW YORK, Mar 9 (IPS) - U.S. President George W. Bush appeared headed toward anothertrain wreck with Congress as he carried out his threat to veto an intelligence bill thatwould have banned the Central Intelligence Agency from using waterboarding and other"enhanced interrogation techniques" in questioning terrorism suspects.

The bill, passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, would have limited theCIA to using 19 less-aggressive interrogation tactics outlined in a U.S. Army Field Manual. Themeasure would have ended the use of simulated drowning, temperature extremes and otherharsh tactics that the CIA used on al-Qaeda prisoners after the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks.

Congress does not appear to have the votes to override the Bush veto, which he announced inhis weekly radio address on Saturday. His support comes principally from Senate Republicans,including the Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain.

McCain was one of the principal authors and champions of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2006,which banned harsh interrogation techniques by the U.S. military, but did not cover the CIA.President Bush signed the bill into law, but issued a "signing statement" claiming executiveauthority to ignore the law if it was necessary for national security purposes.

"Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation" of lawsand treaties, McCain said at the time.

But McCain sided with the Bush administration on the waterboarding ban by the CIA. He said themeasure went too far by applying military standards to intelligence agencies. He also said currentlaws already forbid waterboarding.

Human rights activists have been sharply critical of McCain's vote. Typical is Michael Ratner ofthe Centre for Constitutional Rights, a legal advocacy group that has defended a number ofdetainees at Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba, and mobilised pro-bono legal representation formany others.

He told IPS, "That Senator McCain voted against the legislation ending torture -- which included aban on water torture -- gives lie to the assertion that he cares about fundamental human rights.He is a craven opportunist and worse, an aider and abettor of torture."

The two Democratic presidential contenders, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama,have said waterboarding is clearly illegal and should be banned, but neither voted on the Senatemeasure because they were campaigning elsewhere.

The Senate passed the bill during the same week in which the Bush administration announcedplans to try six prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for alleged involvement in the Sep. 11attacks. Five of the six were subjected to harsh CIA tactics.

Bush's veto is the latest battle in the administration's war with Congress on the limitations placedby the U.S. Constitution on the executive branch of government. Under the Constitution,Congress is a co-equal branch, as is the judiciary. Bush has claimed that the Constitutionrequires him to protect and defend the U.S. people, and that this responsibility requires greatlyexpanded powers for the White House.

Another ongoing power battle with Congress involved the President's authorisation of theNational Security Agency (NSA), one of 16 U.S. intelligence organisations, to conductsurveillance of telephone and email messages without court approval. In 1978, Congress passedthe Foreign Surveillance Act (FISA), which set up a special court and required the Administration

8/7/2019 03-09-08 IPS-Just Water Boarding Under the Bridge William Fis

2/2

53406522.doc Page 2 of 2

to secure warrants from that court based on a showing of probable cause. Without approval fromthe FISA Court, President Bush launched a "terrorist surveillance" program shortly after theattacks of 9/11, recruiting private telecommunications companies to assist in that effort.

Congressional action on a FISA revision is currently being blocked by a debate about whetherthese telecom companies should receive "retroactive immunity" from prosecution, thoughPresident Bush claims they broke no laws.

Waterboarding has become a proxy for these types of expanded executive branch powers. AJustice Department (DOJ) senior official, Steven G. Bradbury, acting head of the DOJ's Office ofLegal Counsel, recently joined his boss, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, in testifying tocongress that "there has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use ofwaterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law."

Waterboarding, a form of mock drowning, has been prosecuted as torture in the U.S. for morethan a century. After World War Two, the U.S. prosecuted Japanese soldiers who used thetechnique against U.S. prisoners of war

But human rights groups and civil liberties advocates argue that waterboarding amounts to illegaltorture.

Prof. David Cole of the Georgetown University law school told IPS, "It is a tragedy of historic

dimensions that the president of the United States has now stood up for torture. After repeatedlyinsisting that 'we don't torture', President Bush has vetoed a bill that would have held theexecutive branch accountable to that promise. We can only hope that Congress has the will tooverride this bill, and that the American people have the will to elect a president who is trulycommitted to getting the CIA out of the torture business." Cole is one of the nation's preeminentConstitutional scholars.

His view is echoed by Mary Shaw of Amnesty International USA, who told IPS that "Use ofwaterboarding and other 'enhanced interrogation techniques' is in clear violation of severaldomestic and international laws and treaties. The Bush administration must be stopped fromusing the 'war on terror' as an excuse to violate basic human rights. Congress must not let theveto stand."

A view about what Congress can do in the face of the president's veto was expressed by the

CCR'S Ratner. He told IPS that Congress "does not need a veto-proof two-thirds majority to cutfunds off from any U.S. agency, e.g. the CIA that engages in practices not authorised by the ArmyField Manual. It simply does not need to fund torture -- 51 votes are enough to end funding in theSenate or a similar bare majority in the House."

"The charade of a Democratic Congress blaming Bush alone for the torture programme is justthat -- a charade," he added.

The Army manual forbids eight harsh techniques, including waterboarding, mock executions, useof beatings and electric shocks, forced nakedness and sexual acts, and causing hypothermia orheat injuries.

Some of the most vocal criticism of the Bush administration's stance on torture has come fromformer military leaders. More than 30 three- and four-star retired generals have urged theadoption of a single interrogation standard, and warned that the use of abusive interrogation

techniques is both ineffective and unwise.The latest to take this position is Brigadier General James Cullen (Ret.), former chief judge of theU.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals. He recently told Amy Goodman, a radio talk show host,"We hear a lot of arguments to try to justify 'enhanced interrogation techniques,' but we knowexactly what we're talking about. It's torture in different packaging." He said "torture is just astupid way of going about it."

Other military leaders have taken similar positions. General David Petraeus, commanding generalof multinational forces in Iraq, recently called the military's interrogation techniques an effectiveand humane way to gather information from the enemy.