BUSH - 1ST VETO ON TORTURE BAN

FreeMarketNews.com
Oct. 09, 2005

He didn't block enormous spending increases in each annual budget, turn aside the unconstitutional campaign finance bill, disallow continued corporate subsidies including soybean and sugar supports, or rid the nation of the embarassing pork tacked onto disaster-relief bills for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. But now it appears President Bush is finally ready to wield the presidential veto.

What's brought out the threat of the presidential ax is recent legislation stating clearly that U.S. soldiers must not torture prisoners. The overwhelming (90-9) passage by the Senate of Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's sponsored amendment says clearly that the "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of prisoners under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense was to be prohibited. The potential clash between the administration and Congress has received attention overseas - and was recently reported in the British paper, The Telegraph. According to the story, White House spokesman Scott McClellan warned that, "We have put out a Statement of Administration Policy saying that his advisers would recommend that he vetoes it if it contains such language [as has already been passed by the Senate]." Even the Senate Majority Leader, Tennessee Republican Bill Frist, broke ranks with the administration on this measure, first speaking in its favor and then casting his affirmative vote.

It is possible the president is reacting strongly to the legislation because it is seen as an attempt to manage policies of the Dept. of Defense - an area that is president's concern as commander in chief during a time of war. Possibly, the administration deems that such language, if stated plainly in U.S. legislation, makes it more likely that U.S. servicemen could end up being tried for war crimes in international court. The president himself, recalling the fate of General Pinochet who was still hounded over Chile's "disappeared ones" decades after he had left power, may believe that the likelihood of being held accountable for "war crimes" is increased if the United States itself sets the standard. However, a complicating factor for the president, in his intention to use his veto is that the amendment is attached to the $440 billion defense spending bill. "If Mr. Bush vetoes the amendment," the article notes, "he would have to veto the entire bill. That would leave America's armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan short of cash as early as the middle of next month." - ST