Sunday, October 09, 2005
(10:47 AM) | Adam Kotsko:
Torture
The "President" has vowed to veto a bill outlawing torture (via AvW). Remarkably, it passed with 90 votes in the Senate, easily overriding a veto in that chamber at least (the House and Senate still need to negotiate on the exact language of the bill).If the language survives intact -- and it seems like the Senate would be pretty damn firm in making sure of that -- Bush would simultaneously be vetoing the defense appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan. In retrospect, we're very fortunate that the Republicans didn't trust Clinton with line-item veto power.
Those who thought that Bush could "afford" to become more moderate during his second term have seriously underestimated how principled the man really is. Unfortnuately for the innocent goat-herders of Afghanistan, his guiding principle appears to be torture. If he vetos this bill, it would be his first ever -- his one veto, a symbolic veto at that, would be in the service of torture. In the same way, the most plausible argument I've heard for why he would make as farcical a nomination to the Supreme Court as Meiers is that she would be sure to support torture if it came down to it -- just as one of Roberts' only significant decisions as a judge was upholding Bush's military tribunals.
One can hope that when he violates this new law, it will finally lead to the most richly deserved impeachment in the history of America. If we can at least say no to the idea of a president who is making torture his "legacy," there is perhaps some hope.
