U.S.
Senator Member: Finance, Agriculture, Energy, Ethics and Aging Committees |
||
|
||
For Immediate
Release Monday , March 10, 2008 |
CONTACT:Stephanie Valencia – 202-494-8790 |
|
Sen. Salazar Statement on Torture and President Bush Veto of Intelligence Authorization WASHINGTON, DC - Over the weekend, President Bush vetoed the Intelligence Authorization bill. The bill would authorize appropriations for the Director of National Intelligence and the U.S. government’s 16 intelligence agencies and entities and also has important provisions related to interrogation techniques used by the United States. Specifically, the bill includes a provision that would ensure that no U.S. government agency can use a form of torture or other inhumane interrogation technique that is illegal under the Geneva Convention or not authorized by the U.S. Army Field Manual. “By vetoing the Intelligence Authorization bill the President has undermined one of our most fundamental moral standards - that our Nation does not condone torture. This bill would have bolstered our intelligence capabilities to strengthen our ability to fight terrorism and keep our Nation safe while upholding the moral principle that we do not accept or condone torture. “Last November, I opposed Attorney General Mukasey’s nomination because I was deeply troubled that he has been unwilling to state clearly and unambiguously that he will uphold U.S. law barring the use of water-boarding. Disappointingly, Mr. Mukasey and the administration still have not acknowledged that water-boarding is illegal. “I truly believe that there are some core principles for which our Nation must stand. These principles are tested, no doubt, in the face of violence and war, but it is in these moments when they are all the more important. “The fact that we
do not torture is fundamental to who we are and, in conflict after conflict,
has helped ensure that American prisoners are treated with the same
dignity that we afford our enemies. For me, this is not a complex issue.
It is not open to interpretation or equivocation.” ###
|
||