Bush To Veto CIA Waterboarding Ban Bill

[Devious]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush will veto legislation on Saturday banning U.S. intelligence agents from using waterboarding and other controversial interrogation methods, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said on Friday.

Last month, Congress sent Bush a broad intelligence authorization bill that contained new limits on CIA interrogation techniques, despite Bush administration warnings that such a measure would be rejected.

"The president will veto the intelligence authorization bill tomorrow," Fratto told reporters.

The legislation was approved by the Senate and House of Representatives on partisan votes that did not indicate there was enough support in Congress to overturn Bush's veto.

Waterboarding, in which suspects are subjected to simulated drowning, has been widely criticized by many members of Congress, human rights organizations and other countries.

The technique was used on three suspects captured after the September 11 attacks, CIA Director Michael Hayden informed Congress last month.

In writing the legislation, supporters said it would put CIA interrogation techniques in line with the U.S. Army Field Manual, which prohibits waterboarding and other controversial methods.

The Bush administration has countered that the CIA should not be held to the U.S. military's interrogation standards because intelligence agents are dealing with terrorists who are not lawful combatants operating under traditional battlefield tactics.

"President Bush's veto will be one of the most shameful acts of his presidency," charged Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat who supported the legislation outlawing waterboarding.

Quoting the Army Field Manual, Kennedy said, "'Use of torture is not only illegal but also it is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the wants to hear.'"

(Reporting by Richard Cowan and Tabassum Zakaria, editing by Philip Barbara)

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0737119220080308?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

now obviously this is old since over the weekend Bush did veto the bill. once again i ask, is it any wonder people around the world have so much hatred for this administration? out of one side of his mouth Bush preaches how the US DOES NOT TORTURE. then he turns around and vetoes a bill that would ban the use of a specific torture method. is he even capable of being honest to the people? this reminds me of how he swore that anyone involved in the Plame leak case would be held accountable by law. and as soon as Scooter gets convicted for it, he turns around and pardons him. what a joke.

 

[PuffnScruff]

libby was not convicted in the plame leak case. his case was a different case that was related to it but not the same case. the person who leaked plames name was known to the special prosecutor in the early stages of the investigation and the SP never brought charges against him. 3 grand juries, 30 million on tax payer money and he could not get anyone to convict the person who did leak the name because no crime was committed. the woman was not a convert agent. libby was pardoned because he was the subject and victim of a witch hunt, that part is so very obvious even anyone with hatered for this administration shuold be able to see this.

as far as waterboarding goes, it has been done 3 times againsts suspects. it is done all the time on americans that are going through training to be an interegator. i have to agree, the cia is not the the army. and kennedy has no buisness talking about shamefull acts.

 

[Devious]

once again, what you said really doesn't matter, because although Libby's conviction wasn't specifically about the Plame case, it was related. Bush said ANYONE found to be involved in the case would be held accountable. a pardon doesn't exactly scream accountability to me. and it's not like i ever believed that anyway. i knew from the second he said it that if anyone in his cabinet was convicted, it would be pardon city. Libby was a patsy for Dick Cheney and the rest of his cronies. it should be clear even to the most biased Bush supporter that Cheney was behind the leak, and we all knew he'd never go to court for it. they let Scooter take all the heat for it and then pardoned him when he got convicted. oh, and since when is outing an undercover CIA agent not a crime? just because she wasn't covert at that time does not mean that outing her wouldn't put her life or career at risk.

as for the torture bill veto, once again you missed the point. i'm not talking about whether or not the US should use torture, or whether or not waterboarding is okay. my point is that Bush is constantly saying the opposite of what he eventually does. he says the US doesn't condone torture, and then thwarts a legitimate effort to ban specific torture techniques. i mean all politicians lie, but i don't think W. is capable of telling the truth about anything.

 

[PuffnScruff]

there is no evidence that cheney was behind the leak. there is however, known public record and factual information that the person who was behind it, was not part of bush's administration and was not a supporter of bush or the war. facts are facts. assumptions and guessing based on biasness and hate prove nothing. the leak wasnt even on purpose. it seemed to be more of an accident because it seemed the person who did "leak" the name was under the impression that she wasn't even what she claimed to be. and the truth is, she wasn't covert. her own boss said she wasn't under oath.

 

[Devious]

yeah, if you believe all the Bush Administration propaganda, i guess you might see it that way. facts are only facts if they are the real facts. we all know how well this administration does with facts. wasn't it a fact that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq too? this is the same administration that is destroying top secret documents when they are supposed to be saved for the archives after all. as well as mass deleting of emails "by accident". i wonder if there is anything they don't want you to know? Valerie Plame was outed because her husband dared to challenge the administration's war plans. i don't need to see "facts" that can be doctored or manipulated and twisted to suit whatever means are necessary. the Bush Administration has told so many lies by now that i don't believe anything that comes out of there, especially when it "exonerates" them of crimes they were involved in.

 

[PuffnScruff]

yeah, if you believe all the Bush Administration propaganda, i guess you might see it that way. facts are only facts if they are the real facts. we all know how well this administration does with facts. wasn't it a fact that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq too? this is the same administration that is destroying top secret documents when they are supposed to be saved for the archives after all. as well as mass deleting of emails "by accident". i wonder if there is anything they don't want you to know? Valerie Plame was outed because her husband dared to challenge the administration's war plans. i don't need to see "facts" that can be doctored or manipulated and twisted to suit whatever means are necessary. the Bush Administration has told so many lies by now that i don't believe anything that comes out of there, especially when it "exonerates" them of crimes they were involved in.

lol propaganda? no this is as reported by the media that was actually objective in reporting. when i get home i will gladly link you to the articles that show these facts. the bush administration does not run the media, that is certainly clear. stop being hateful for a minute and you might actually see that yes, they are real facts.

her husbands trip was set up by plame and her own boss said so under oat. her husband was an ambasador. not an investigator. what business does he really have investigating the things he claimed to be doing? think about it. his story never made any sense. put the hate aside for a minute to think clearly.


edit: fuck it im bored at work here are a few things to prove my point on the facts

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html
(cnn? i guess this is bush propaganda..?)
WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.

She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in "Vanity Fair" appeared. And I have every right to have the American public know who I am and not to have myself defined by those who would write the sorts of things that are coming out, being spewed out of the mouths of the RNC...

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/2/22/120736.shtml

"Bruce Sanford in the Washington Post recently, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing explained that she helped draft the law in question, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Says Toensing, "The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct."

__________________________________________________
so what does all of this mean? that Plame was not "unmasked" as she had no cover to blow. she was an analyst with a desk job, not risking her life undercover in Russia or the Middle East.

is there any wonder why Richard Armitage (the leaker) nor Robert Novak were prosecuted. special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had to make do with hooking a much smaller fish, Scooter Libby, for perjury, in a seperate case.

the media has done a great job in making plame seem more imporant than she really was. don't feel bad that you fell for it, a lot of people did. i'll post more articles later

 

[Devious]

well i have to ask, why is it ok that she was exposed as a CIA agent when she wasn't undercover? the mere fact that she was exposed puts her life and her career at risk. have you ever wondered why, even years after the fact, undercover FBI agents and cops who worked on cases still cannot reveal their identity publicly? because there is always the risk that the people they helped put away can find them and get to them. if Valerie Plame helped to put people away in her role as an undercover agent, having her cover blown puts her at great risk. not to mention the fact that since she has been outed, her career was effectively ended. so why don't we just release a list of all the names of every undercover CIA agent that is no longer working undercover? there are reasons why these things aren't released publicly. oh and i didn't fall for anything. i don't blindly follow what has been said on the news. i get the information, see what makes sense wand what doesn't, and figure out the truth from there. i don't trust any news sources really, since none of them are completely unbiased. i don't see any reason why Robert Novak would want to out Plame for his own reasons. Dick Cheney put a little birdie in someone's ear, and that birdie put it in another birdie's ear, and eventually the birdie made its way to Richard Armitage, who told Novak. they may not have done it for the Bush Administration, but i believe the administration was behind the information getting to Armitage and Novak with the intention of hurting Joe Wilson. any other explanation i've read or seen doesn't make sense.

anyway Valerie Plame is not the point of this thread. the point is that the Bush Administration is probably the most contradictory, hypocritical administration ever. just once i'd like to see Bush and his cronies tell the truth about something, anything. or at least stick to doing what they say they are going to do.

 

[PuffnScruff]

well i have to ask, why is it ok that she was exposed as a CIA agent when she wasn't undercover? the mere fact that she was exposed puts her life and her career at risk. have you ever wondered why, even years after the fact, undercover FBI agents and cops who worked on cases still cannot reveal their identity publicly? because there is always the risk that the people they helped put away can find them and get to them. if Valerie Plame helped to put people away in her role as an undercover agent, having her cover blown puts her at great risk. not to mention the fact that since she has been outed, her career was effectively ended. so why don't we just release a list of all the names of every undercover CIA agent that is no longer working undercover? there are reasons why these things aren't released publicly.

.

and anaylist and an agent are two different things. she was not an agent. clearly you did not read what i posted, specifically the interview with her husband who admitted she was not an agent.

she was not purposely outed. the "leaker", Richard Armitage even said in this cnn interview that her name was on a memo. if she was an undercover agent her name would never have appeared on this memo. also take notice of what armitage says that novak said and has said publicly many times.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/br...sks-richard-armitage-about-valerie-plame-leak
BLITZER: Normally, in memos, they don't name covert operatives?

ARMITAGE: I've never seen one named.

BLITZER: And so you assumed she was, what, just an analyst over at the CIA?

ARMITAGE: That's what it, not only assumed it, that's what the message said, and she was publicly chairing, chairing a meeting.

....and he goes on later to say

RICHARD ARMITAGE: They're not words on which I disagree. I think it was extraordinarily foolish of me. There was no ill intent on my part, and never seen, ever, in 43 years of having a security clearance, a covert operative's name in a memo. The only reason I knew a Mrs. Wilson, not Mrs. Plame, worked at the agency was because I saw it in a memo. But I don't disagree with her words, to a large measure.

BLITZER: Normally, in memos, they don't name covert operatives?

ARMITAGE: I've never seen one named.

ARMITAGE: That's what it, not only assumed it, that's what the message said, and she was publicly chairing, chairing a meeting.

BLITZER: So when you told Robert Novak that Joe Wilson, the former U.S. ambassador's wife worked at the CIA and she was involved somehow in getting him this trip to Africa to look for the enriched uranium if there were enriched uranium going to Iraq, you simply assumed that she was not a clandestine officer of the CIA?

ARMITAGE: Even Mr. Novak has said that he used the word "operative," and misused it. No one ever said "operative." And I not only assumed it, as I say, I've never seen a covert agent's name in a memo. However, that doesn't take away from what Mrs. Plame

___________________________________________________

you fell for the media tricks and were duped. don't feel bad you were one of a few million

you turned this into thread into this debate by having a very poor understanding of the facts in plamegate.

 

[Devious]

and anaylist and an agent are two different things. she was not an agent. clearly you did not read what i posted, specifically the interview with her husband who admitted she was not an agent.

she was not purposely outed. the "leaker", Richard Armitage even said in this cnn interview that her name was on a memo. if she was an undercover agent her name would never have appeared on this memo. also take notice of what armitage says that novak said and has said publicly many times.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/br...sks-richard-armitage-about-valerie-plame-leak
BLITZER: Normally, in memos, they don't name covert operatives?

ARMITAGE: I've never seen one named.

BLITZER: And so you assumed she was, what, just an analyst over at the CIA?

ARMITAGE: That's what it, not only assumed it, that's what the message said, and she was publicly chairing, chairing a meeting.

....and he goes on later to say

RICHARD ARMITAGE: They're not words on which I disagree. I think it was extraordinarily foolish of me. There was no ill intent on my part, and never seen, ever, in 43 years of having a security clearance, a covert operative's name in a memo. The only reason I knew a Mrs. Wilson, not Mrs. Plame, worked at the agency was because I saw it in a memo. But I don't disagree with her words, to a large measure.

BLITZER: Normally, in memos, they don't name covert operatives?

ARMITAGE: I've never seen one named.

ARMITAGE: That's what it, not only assumed it, that's what the message said, and she was publicly chairing, chairing a meeting.

BLITZER: So when you told Robert Novak that Joe Wilson, the former U.S. ambassador's wife worked at the CIA and she was involved somehow in getting him this trip to Africa to look for the enriched uranium if there were enriched uranium going to Iraq, you simply assumed that she was not a clandestine officer of the CIA?

ARMITAGE: Even Mr. Novak has said that he used the word "operative," and misused it. No one ever said "operative." And I not only assumed it, as I say, I've never seen a covert agent's name in a memo. However, that doesn't take away from what Mrs. Plame

___________________________________________________

you fell for the media tricks and were duped. don't feel bad you were one of a few million

you turned this into thread into this debate by having a very poor understanding of the facts in plamegate.

actually you just kind of proved my point. yes, at the time her name was dropped she was no longer an agent. but it appears she was an agent at one time within the agency, judging by Wilson's answer to this question:

BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about...

so obviously at some point she had been a clandestine agent. and like i said, outing a former agent can be very dangerous and put that person at great risk.

as for what Richard Armitage says, like i said, that proves my point. how did her name end up on this memo? did the thought ever cross your mind that maybe Cheney put her name out there in the hopes that it would be exposed? it doesn't matter that Armitage and Novak weren't trying to expose her when they "outed" her, what matters is how the information ended up in their hands. and that's where i believe the administration comes in. but i suppose because there is no "evidence" of this (probably destroyed by Cheney in one of his top secret file deleting parties) it can't be true right? it amazes me that some people can be lied to constantly by this administration and yet still seem to believe everything that comes out of their mouths. well if you choose to believe what they say i guess that's your perrogative, but i won't blindly follow the history of lies.

 

[PuffnScruff]

actually you just kind of proved my point. yes, at the time her name was dropped she was no longer an agent. but it appears she was an agent at one time within the agency, judging by Wilson's answer to this question:

BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about...

so obviously at some point she had been a clandestine agent. and like i said, outing a former agent can be very dangerous and put that person at great risk..

no it is not obvious because there is not proof to back that up. just a husband with an agenda.
.

as for what Richard Armitage says, like i said, that proves my point. how did her name end up on this memo? did the thought ever cross your mind that maybe Cheney put her name out there in the hopes that it would be exposed? it doesn't matter that Armitage and Novak weren't trying to expose her when they "outed" her, what matters is how the information ended up in their hands. and that's where i believe the administration comes in. but i suppose because there is no "evidence" of this (probably destroyed by Cheney in one of his top secret file deleting parties) it can't be true right? it amazes me that some people can be lied to constantly by this administration and yet still seem to believe everything that comes out of their mouths. well if you choose to believe what they say i guess that's your perrogative, but i won't blindly follow the history of lies.

ARMITAGE: That's what it, not only assumed it, that's what the message said, and she was publicly chairing, chairing a meeting.

she put her own name out there

i am basing my views on facts. you are basing yours on pure hate you have for bush and his administration and border line conspiracies with no facts to back anything up. if you choose to live you life this way then that is your perrogative. but facts are facts. you have no facts to back up your "top secret file deleting parties" or anything you claim.

 

[Devious]

ummm, well it was a fairly big news story a few months ago when it was revealed that Cheney had been destroying top secret files instead of keeping them for the archives, which is what is supposed to be done. you can look that up for yourself, i don't think you need me to find a link. you know how to use google right? but let's look at it from your perspective. the facts you have are words out of people's mouths. you quoted a lot of interviews there. i guess people would never lie in interviews right? nope it's not possible. so therefore anything those guys said is automatically pure fact right? guys like Novak and Armitage would have no reason to lie about how the leak occurred and the reasons why they did what they did, right? you posted quotes you chose to believe, none of which are facts. Mass amounts of confidential emails on Cheney's servers being deleted? the top secret files being destroyed? these are things that have been confirmed, some by Cheney himself. those are facts. quotes from people who may or may not have something to hide are not facts.

no it is not obvious because there is not proof to back that up. just a husband with an agenda.

wow, you really only see what you want to see don't you? Wolf Blitzer's question was: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for sometime before that? doesn't that question indicate to you that she had been a clandestine officer at one point? why the hell else would Blitzer ask that question if it wasn't the case? he obviously knew she had been, just by the way he worded the question. Wilson's answer makes sense since if she was a clandestine officer, he wouldn't be allowed to confirm or deny that now would he? you think this is about hate, and i don't have too much love for the administration, but it's all about looking at the facts and making my own conclusion based on what makes sense, not what some news reporter says, or what people involved in the scandal who may or may not have something to hide say. but there's no point in going around in circles with someone obviously so devoted to the administration that they blind themselves to anything negative about Bush (or should i say Cheney, we all know he's the one running the show). there have been too many instances where they have been caught in lies for me to believe them.

 

[PuffnScruff]

i was refering to this particular subject. the thing you are speaking of is it something seperate from plamegate.

i fail to see what novak has to gain by lying. or Armitage for that matter. the guy already lost his job. what does he have to gain? he wasn't even a supporter of bush or the war in iraq. there are plenty more facts to back up these interviews. they are just a small amount of the facts out there. why dont you try and use google.

 

[Devious]

what would Novak and Armitage have to gain by lying? well to protect the people who gave them the information for one. i can't say for certain how the info came about, how it got into the hands of those who exposed it and who was behind it and involved in it all. but then again neither can you. you have the words of people involved in the situation but there's no way to know who's telling the truth and who isn't. i choose to believe what makes sense to me, and the explanation that it was all an accident, that it wasn't meant to expose her or attack Joe Wilson, doesn't make sense to me. it's just too fishy to be explained away so easily. i mean what purpose would Novak have in putting her name out there in the first place? you said he didn't believe she was what she claimed to be. but why would Novak or Armitage care about that? the fact that her name got out there at all tells me there was some motive behind it. i believe there was administration involvement because the administration's actions throughout the whole thing never made much sense, and the fact that Libby was pardoned even though Bush swore to hold anyone caught doing anything illegal (last time i checked, purgery was illegal) accountable kinda solidifies my belief that there is much more to this story than what the media has reported.