Wallace silent as Gingrich falsely claims Dems did not try to ban waterboarding
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Chris Wallace did not challenge Newt Gingrich's false assertion that Democrats did not try to ban waterboarding. In fact, the Democratic-controlled Congress passed a bill in 2008 to ban the use of waterboarding -- a bill vetoed by President Bush.
During the May 10 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Fox News contributor and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) claimed that Democrats have "had control since January of 2007. They haven't passed a law making waterboarding illegal. They haven't gone into any of these things and changed law." Host Chris Wallace did not point out that, in fact, Congress did pass a bill in 2008 that, had it become law, would have banned the use of waterboarding. President Bush subsequently vetoed the measure.
In December 2007, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which limited interrogation tactics to those approved by the Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations. That manual explicitly prohibits "[w]aterboarding." The Democratic-controlled Senate subsequently approved the legislation in February 2008. A February 14, 2008, Washington Post article reported, "The Senate voted yesterday to ban waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics used by the CIA, matching a previous House vote and putting Congress on a collision course with the White House over a pivotal national security issue." On March 8, 2008, Bush vetoed the bill, and a House vote to override the veto on March 11, 2008, did not receive the necessary two-thirds majority.
During the Fox News Sunday discussion, Wallace also stated, "[House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi [D-CA] says even if she was briefed on [enhanced interrogation techniques], that there was nothing she could do, because these were classified briefings." Wallace subsequently asked Gingrich, "You, as House speaker, received these kinds of briefings back in the '90s. If you objected to a secret operation, was there something you could do?" Gingrich responded, "Sure. The first thing you do is call the president and tell him you will feel compelled to pass a law cutting off the money. I mean, there are lots of things you can do if you want to do it. The Congress is pretty powerful if it wants to be." However, Wallace did not ask Gingrich how Pelosi -- as the ranking member of the House intelligence committee and a senior minority member of the House appropriations committee in 2002, or as House minority leader from 2003 to 2006 -- could credibly have threatened "to pass a law cutting off the money" for the interrogations, or why Bush would have felt compelled to sign such a measure.
From the May 10 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: I want to ask you about one other aspect of this. Pelosi says even if she was briefed on this, that there was nothing she could do, because these were classified briefings. She and the Republican chairman of the committee got this information. There's nothing they could do.
You, as House speaker, received these kinds of briefings back in the '90s. If you objected to a secret operation, was there something you could do?
GINGRICH: Sure. The first thing you do is call the president and tell him you will feel compelled to pass a law cutting off the money. I mean, there are lots of things you can do if you want to do it. The Congress is pretty powerful if it wants to be.
And second, you know, they've had control since January of 2007. They haven't passed a law making waterboarding illegal. They haven't gone into any of these things and changed law. And, in fact, they've had several votes -- they, recently, you find that Attorney General Holder's own Justice Department is saying, well, you know, some of these memos are actually right; they're not wrong. So, I -- this is -- what we're seeing now in a very sad way is as bitter a partisan attack on the Bush people as we've seen since the McCarthy era. The degree that they're putting specific people at risk for criminal prosecution is unprecedented in modern America.
WALLACE: Meanwhile, the Obama administration says that it will close Guantánamo by next January and that some detainees who are judged not to be security risks will be released in this country.
The erfect trifecta of flat out LIES.
It is not politically-partisan to object to the USA torturing suspected terrorists. Any loyal American should object to that. Even people who liked Bush. Even Republicans and conservatives who say now that they don't and didn't support many of Bush's policies. The USA doesn't torture. The Bush Administration twisted the definition of torture to pretend that they weren't torturing people. They were. They shouldn't have been. They're now trying to say that Nancy Pelosi knew about it, and didn't object to it, so it must not have been torture. It was torture. Waterboarding is torture. Some of the other things they did were torture.
I'm curious. How many people do you believe have been tortured by the U.S. Government under the Bush Administration?
Second question, why do you say they were suspected terrorists? Which people are you referring that fall under the category of "suspected"? Why are they only "suspected". Do you believe any of them were confirmed terrorists? Why or why not?
You say waterboarding is torture. What is your definition of torture? How does waterboarding fit in with that definition.
Is your definition different than that of the U.S. Government? If so, how?
I'm just curious, what's the point in your questions?
They are suspected because it has not been proven the real question is how many of them have been convicted in a court of law since if they are being punished nothing less is acceptable to a civilized country.
Waterboarding IS TORTURE. It was torture when it was used during the Spanish inquisitions it was torture when WE sentenced Japanese officers to prison for doing it to our troops. It was torture when we courtmartialed OUR troops for overseeing it during Vietnam it was torture when we sentenced an American Sherriff to ten years in prison for doing it to one of his prisoners. IT. IS. TORTURE. Torture is already defined by the convention against torture statute
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Since WE ratified the CAT it is the highest law of the land equal to Federal law.
It is the same by LAW only different by the depraved standards of the memos the Bush administration wrote which do NOT have the force of law.
Let me answer your third question with a question, AA. If waterboarding is not torture, do we owe Japanese soldiers from WWII who were convicted of waterboarding, and NOTHING else, a pardon and apology for sentencing them for a minimum of 15 years hard labor?
I don't have "my" definition of torture. There is a definition of torture, one that Solon gave you. We did those things to people. We treated them inhumanely. The Bush Administration tortured them. Only because they twisted the definition of torture did they get to claim they weren't torturing people.
Gingrich, cannot say anything outside of FoxNews and not be ridiculed. He is an old guy that wants to ride on the coat tails of other paranoid people like him that share his philosophy.
Let him come outside of Fox News and, not just say, but defend his points.
Twice, I think.
Waterboarding fits the definition by being both extreme physical and psychological pain, and by legal definition and precedent. We convicted U.S. servicemen in the Phillipines of waterboarding, we convicted Japanese servicemen of waterboarding, and we convicted a Texas sherrif and 4 deputies of waterboarding (during the Reagan administraton!).
And luv's definintion (at least as far as waterboarding) is a dead match for the US government's legal definition of torture as established by the Geneva Conventions, signed by a U.S. president and ratified by Congress.
And, since the Bush administration has a history of lying, believing that they only tortured 3 people is like buying ocean-front property in Kansas.
This all seems so simple. What am I missing?
Well, for one thing, the part that says you don't "put (human rights) to a national poll." The rights of the minority must be protected, even if those people are unpopular. That's why the ACLU supported detestable Nazis' right to peaceably assemble, among countless other examples.
The other thing that's missing is any evidence that waterboarding ever has worked or ever would work. Despite Dick Cheney's assertions, many reports say that it doesn't.
See "Waterboarding, Rough Interrogation of Abu Zubaida Produced False Leads" (WaPo), Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL): "apparently waterboarding doesn't work", and "CIA Waterboarding Report Appears to Debunk Cheney's Claims that Torture Worked" (ChattahBox).
That's all you're missing. Just...you know...facts.
And if we want people to be able to shoot people in self-defense, then we need to pass laws saying that it's legal to shoot people at any time. What am I missing? If there's some ticking bomb scenario in play, then people will do what they feel they have to do, and they should feel confident that a)nobody is going to charge them, b)even if someone does, no jury will convict, and c)even if they were convicted, there would be a pardon. Do you really imagine it would play out any differently?
What you missing is EVERYTHING that america stands for.
Why would congress have to pass a law making waterboarding illegal?
We've tried and convicted our enemies for using it, so how can we say that it's now legal?
Usually when I hear about bills, they "pass the House" and "pass the Senate". At best it's incredibly disingenuous to say that a bill was vetoed, therefore Congress didn't pass it.
"And the bill was not specifically for the purpose of outlawing waterboarding it was to make the Army Field Manual the guide for the handling of detainees. The Army Field Manual is a guide for GIs to use in the handling of detainees, not for interrogation professionals."
Do you even read your own posts? If the Army Field Manual is made the guide for interrogations, it would then apply to interrogations. You're saying that it applies to one thing now, so an attempt to apply it to something else isn't really an effort to apply it to something else because that's not what it currently is meant to do. Your argument makes no sense at all.
If you want to argue the merits of cutting funding, that's another thing. Personally, I'd like to see that sort of thing, but with the screeching from the right-wing over anything that can possibly be spun as sabotaging the "war on terror" I'm not sure how politically viable that is. That's a different discussion, though. As far as Gingrich's claim goes, the bill would have outlawed waterboarding. Congress passed that bill. Therefore the claim that Democrats didn't try to ban waterboarding is clearly false.
Try to defend that comment when in fact the Dems, once they got control of Congress, passed a law making waterboarding by interrogators illegal since they, the interrogators, had to follow the Army Field Manual.
From www.icrc.org:
This assertion promotes the argument that persons who fail to qualify for prisoner of war status under Geneva Convention III are categorically outside of the protections of the Geneva Conventions. However, Geneva Convention IV, Article 4 provides protected status to persons "who find themselves . . . in the hands of a party to the conflict", unless they fail to meet certain nationality criteria or are covered by the other Geneva Conventions. Detainees not protected by those other Conventions, and who do meet the nationality criteria for coverage under Geneva Convention IV do, indeed, 'have a label in the law of war conventions'. That label is "civilian", or "protected person" under Geneva Convention IV – even if they are definitely suspected of activity hostile to the security of the detaining State or of being "unlawful combatants". Persons who do not meet the nationality criteria are covered by Article 75 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. This article forms part of customary international law.
Did you think by just CALLING them Islamic Fascists this would somehow put them beyond the law? YOUR bias does NOT MAKE someone a fascist nor does YOUR hating them for YOUR biased reasons put them beyond the reach of the LAW.
Article 2 specifies which parties are bound, and under what circumstances.
That any armed conflict between two or more "High Contracting Parties" is covered;
That it applies to occupations of a "High Contracting Party";
That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
It clearly states that a signatory is bound as long as a non-signatory acts under the convention. I hardly think that the people we are talking can be described as acting under the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions.
Just because George Bush and his little band of legal dimwits decided to make the claim that they could consider anyone they wanted an 'enemy combatant', does not mean that they suddenly had a legal right to torture human beings!
I hate those men that hurt us on 9/11 and I would like to see them fry for what they did as part of that fateful day...
But no matter my feelings... my love of this country and the Constitution and the Rule of Laws she was built upon and is supposed to represent overrides my anger toward them...
That they ALL have Constitutional protections no less than you or I! Scumbags have rights! Whether you like that or not makes no difference...
If America turns its back on even one person, even her enemies... then we lose our ability to be a legitimate state!
You can not defend that F-L... and if you try to at this point... I will declare now that I question your love of this country!
Because America was not George Bush... it is not Barack Obama... it is all of us collectively protecting that which makes us America!!
We don't torture! We don't recreate definitions of torture as enhanced interrogations! Treasonous and/or fanatical thugs do!
Why can't you see that?
In any case, as others will point out, passing such a bill is superfluous. Torture is already illegal in the United States. Nobody had to pass a new law saying so.
And it doesn't really matter if Nancy Pelosi knew what was going on or not. It's still an illegal act, and it needs to be investigated. Those of us who voted for Democrats didn't give her our proxy on whether laws can be ignored or not.
With Pelosi this is like a group of bank robbers holding an unarmed cop hostage at gunpoint till the getaway car gets there. Then they tell the court that robbing the bank wasn't illegal because the cop didn't stop them.
Sadly that describes the majority of FOX viewers.