home

House Fails to override Bush's Veto on Anti-Torture Bill

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:45:45 PM EST
Tags: torture (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Just to remind everyone of what is at stake in November....

The House today failed to override President Bush's veto of the anti-torture bill.

The 225-188 roll call Tuesday by which the House failed to override President Bush's veto of a bill that would have prohibited the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques on terrorist suspects.

< House Dems Reject Telecom Immunity, Offer Compromise | Florida Finalizes Mail In Revote Plan >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    House Fails to override Bush's Veto on Anti-Torture Bill | 12 comments (12 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Kucinich (none / 0) (#1)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:53:37 PM EST
    I could only find Waters CA and Kucinich.  I would like to know the reasons they could not support this.  Does anyone know?

    Very Strange Indeed (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:18:58 PM EST


    Parent
    But surely (none / 0) (#2)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:36:28 PM EST
    Straight talkin' John McCain, torture victim, wouldn't veto a bill banning a practice he characterized as Pol Pot-ish.  Oh wait.

    Did McCain even try to justify this flip-flop?

    Yes (none / 0) (#7)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:53:54 PM EST
    McShame said that it was important that the CIA not be constrained in its choice of "tools" that are imposed on the military.

    And no one in the press corps laughed when he said it.

    Parent

    McCain (none / 0) (#3)
    by diogenes on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:08:50 PM EST
    Seems clear that the bill would have been vetoed anyway so that a "procedural change" would have simply have done damage to Bush.
    Use your own judgment about about whether McCain as president would have vetoed this bill.
    Also about whether having Hillary or Obama on top of ticket would be more likely to help set up a "veto-proof congress".

    Disgusting (none / 0) (#4)
    by Lil on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:18:02 PM EST


    I am SO very tired... (none / 0) (#6)
    by ItsGreg on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:18:38 PM EST
    ...of being ashamed of my government.

    Michael Ratner on "charade" of Democrats (none / 0) (#8)
    by Andreas on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:40:25 PM EST
    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 cut funds off from any U.S. agency, e.g. the CIA that engages in practices not authorised by the Army Field Manual. It simply does not need to fund torture -- 51 votes are enough to end funding in the Senate or a similar bare majority in the House."

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

    IPS News: Just Waterboarding Under the Bridge
    By William Fisher

    while that's certainly a way (none / 0) (#9)
    by cpinva on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:48:42 PM EST
    to accomplish it, it doesn't have the simplicity and kinda certainy that a statute does. who's going to audit the CIA's budget, to be sure no funds are used for torturing people? what internal controls might be put in place, to insure no cash is paid to "olaf the torturer" by the CIA?

    as with most "simple" alternatives, it isn't.

    Parent

    Cut funds off CIA (none / 0) (#10)
    by Andreas on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:10:03 AM EST
    His proposal was to reduce the CIA's budget to zero.

    Just to remind (none / 0) (#11)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:44:05 AM EST
    everyone.  The bill contained money to start a National Drug Intelligence center, and money to study the national security implications of global warming.  If the Dems were serious about stopping torture, they would have proposed a bill without pork.  

    Can't argue with that.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:18:59 PM EST
    both the D's and R's get serious about nothing like they get serious about pork.

    And sun god knows we don't need a Ministry of Drug Law Tyranny....talk about Orwellian.

    Parent

    House Fails to override Bush's Veto on Anti-Torture Bill | 12 comments (12 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment