08 March 2008
this morning we learned that chimpenfuhrer has vetoed h.r.2082 the intelligence authorization act for fiscal year 2008 or "the waterboarding bill." in his message to the house of representatives, chimpenfuhrer writes that amongst other reasons, he has a problem with section 327.
SEC. 327. LIMITATION ON INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES.
(a) LIMITATION.—No individual in the custody or under the effective control of an element of the intelligence community or instrumentality thereof, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human
Intelligence Collector Operations.
(b) INSTRUMENTALITY DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘instrumentality’’, with respect to an element of the intelligence community, means a contractor or subcontractor at any tier of the element of the intelligence community. ~ page 26
Section 327 of the bill would harm our national security by requiring any element of the Intelligence Community to use only the interrogation methods authorized in the Army Field Manual on Interrogations. It is vitally important that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) be allowed to maintain a separate and classified interrogation program. The Army Field Manual is directed at guiding the actions of nearly three million active duty and reserve military personnel in connection with the detention of lawful combatants during the course of traditional armed conflicts, but terrorists often are trained specifically to resist techniques prescribed in publicly available military regulations such as the Manual. The CIA's ability to conduct a separate and specialized interrogation program for terrorists who possess the most critical information in the War on Terror has helped the United States prevent a number of attacks, including plots to fly passenger airplanes into the Library Tower in Los Angeles and into Heathrow Airport or buildings in downtown London. While details of the current CIA program are classified, the Attorney General has reviewed it and determined that it is lawful under existing domestic and international law, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. I remain committed to an intelligence-gathering program that complies with our legal obligations and our basic values as a people. The United States opposes torture, and I remain committed to following international and domestic law regarding the humane treatment of people in its custody, including the "Detainee Treatment Act of 2005."notice how chimpenfuhrer says that 'waterboarding' "is not part of the current cia program." so if its not part of the current program then whats the problem with going ahead and outlawing it? probably because chimpenfuhrer is lying.
My disagreement over section 327 is not over any particular interrogation technique; for instance, it is not over waterboarding, which is not part of the current CIA program. Rather, my concern is the need to maintain a separate CIA program that will shield from disclosure to al Qaeda and other terrorists the interrogation techniques they may face upon capture. In accordance with a clear purpose of the "Military Commissions Act of 2006," my veto is intended to allow the continuation of a separate and classified CIA interrogation program that the Department of Justice has determined is lawful and that operates according to rules distinct from the more general rules applicable to the Department of Defense. While I will continue to work with the Congress on the implementation of laws passed in this area in recent years, I cannot sign into law a bill that would prevent me, and future Presidents, from authorizing the CIA to conduct a separate, lawful intelligence program, and from taking all lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack.
click here to download 384 page .pdf
in fact, a louisiana favorite son, edward douglass white, who was appointed to the united states supreme court in 1894 and served as chief justice from 1910 to 1921, quoted patrick henry in his dissent in WEEMS v. U.S., 217 U.S. 349 (1910):
That the absence of a guaranty against cruel and unusual punishment was one of the causes of the solicitude by which Henry was possessed is shown by the debates in that convention. Thus Patrick Henry said (3 Elliot, Debates, 447):
'In this business of legislation, your members of Congress will lose the restriction of not imposing excessive fines, demanding excessive bail, and inflicting cruel and unusual punishments. These are prohibited by your Declaration of Rights. What has distinguished our ancestors? That they would not admit of tortures, or cruel and barbarous punishment. But Congress may introduce the practice of the civil law, in preference to that of the common law. They may introduce the practice of France, Spain, and Germany,-of torturing to extort a confession of the crime. They will say that they might as well draw examples from those countries as from Great Britain, and they will tell you that there is such a necessity of strengthening the arm of government that they must have a criminal equity, and extort confession by torture, in order to punish with still more relentless severity. We are then lost and undone. And can any man think it troublesome when he can, by a small interference, prevent our rights from being lost? If you will, like the Virginian government, give them knowledge of the extent of the rights retained by the people, and the powers of themselves, they will, if they be honest men, thank you for it. Will they not wish to go on sure grounds? But, if you leave them otherwise, they will not know how to proceed; and, being in a state of uncertainty, they will assume rather than give up powers by implication.' [217 U.S. 349, 397] emphasis addedagain in 1940 in CHAMBERS v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 309 U.S. 227 (1940) the united states supreme court addressed cruel and unusual punishment and torture:
The scope and operation of the Fourteenth Amendment have been fruitful sources of controversy in our constitutional history. 8 However, in view of its historical [309 U.S. 227, 236] setting and the wrongs which called it into being, the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment-just as that in the Fifth-has led few to doubt that it was intended to guarantee procedural standards adequate and appropriate, then and thereafter,9 to protect, at all times, people charged with or suspected of crime by those holding positions of power and authority. Tyrannical governments had immemorially utilized dictatorial criminal procedure and punishment to make scape goats of the weak, or of helpless political, religious, or racial minorities and those who differed, who would not conform and who resisted tyranny. The instruments of such governments were in the main, two. Conduct, innocent when engaged in, was subsequently made by fiat criminally punishable without legislation. And a liberty loving people won the principle that criminal punishments could not be inflicted save for that which proper legislative action had already by 'the law of the land' forbidden when done. But even more was needed. From the popular hatred and abhorrence of illegal confinement, torture and extortion of confessions of violations of the 'law of the land' evolved the fundamental idea that no man's life, liberty or property be forfeited as criminal punishment for violation of that law until there had been a charge fairly made and fairly tried in a public [309 U.S. 227, 237] tribunal free of prejudice, passion, excitement and tyrannical power. Thus, as assurance against ancient evils, our country, in order to preserve 'the blessings of liberty', wrote into its basic law the requirement, among others, that the forfeiture of the lives, liberties or property of people accused of crime can only follow if procedural safeguards of due process have been obeyed. 10
The determination to preserve an accused's right to procedural due process sprang in large part from knowledge of the historical truth that the rights and liberties of people accused of crime could not be safely entrusted to secret inquisitorial processes. The testimony of centuries, in governments of varying kinds over populations of different races and beliefs, stood as proof that physical and mental torture and coercion had brought about the tragically unjust sacrifices of some who were the noblest and most useful of their generations. The rack, the thumbscrew, the wheel, solitary confinement, protracted questioning and cross questioning, and other ingenious forms of entrapment of the helpless or unpopular had left their wake of mutilated bodies and shattered minds along the way to the cross, the guillotine, the stake and [309 U.S. 227, 238] the hangman's noose. And they who have suffered most from secret and dictatorial proceedings have almost always been the poor, the ignorant, the numerically weak, the friendless, and the powerless. 11
(1) the great commisson at st. matthew chapter twenty-eight verses sixteen through twenty
(2) the two great commandments pronounced by jesus christ, upon which hang all law.
anyone who says they are a christian and supports torture is a liar.
katrina mary landrieu snellings, with her name surfacing in at least two influence peddling scams, [ S.3433 a bill for the relief of anthony hurley and randy best/voyager universal literacy system scam] is your typical corrupt louisiana politician only wearing a dress. senator david vitter is for torture. we wouldnt be surprised if the whoremongering senator vitter who also rumoredly has a diaper fetish or not, receives some sort of sexual arousal if not outright sexual gratification at the mere thought of someone being tortured. (more vitter info at yrht here).
jim mccrery - like senator david vitter, a pervert, whose homosexuality was outed by the advocate magazine in 1992. in november 2007, mccrery voted for h.r.3685 the controversial ENDA 'job bias ban against gays' bill (which received zero press coverage in louisiana) then a month later announced that he would not be seeking reelection. jim mccrery is for torture.
richard hugh baker - this clown sat on the house financial services committee, while all along baker was a puppet to j.p. morgan chase & co. and goldman sachs. baker retired from the house in february 2008 to take a job with a hedge fund. richard hugh baker is for torture.
charles boustany, jr. - this sack of dung is of all things a medical doctor (cardiac surgeon) who supports torture. there is a video here of wolf blitzer making a fool out of this intellectual lightweight. charles boustany, jr. is for torture.
louisiana congressmen against torture
william jefferson - congressman jefferson voted against torture.
a weasel who didnt vote
Posted by wst... at 22:23