# Senate defies veto threat, passes torture ban **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2008, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515 "2008-02-13T22:49:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/1 "2008-02-13T22:49:51Z")
Story [here.](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18958581) But, wait: Apparently this will ban all forms of interrogation but those spelled out in the [Army Field Manual on Interrogation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_34-52_Intelligence_Interrogation) – but that apparently has been updated (or will be updated, it’s hard to know) to include ten classified pages, so how do we know what it allows anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4da419/32.png) [@Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gala_Matrix_Fire)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/2 "2008-02-13T22:55:09Z")
It’s about damn time. What’s this all about? > [@](#): > > The president’s allies maintain that the legislation could shut down a valuable intelligence program. What valuable intelligence program is that? The information-obtained-solely-through-torture program? If so, I can’t imagine that it’s particulary useful. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/3 "2008-02-13T23:08:02Z")
Ahh, [McCain sides with the pro-torture contingent.](http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00022) Who’s the straight talking Maverick _now_? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2008, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/4 "2008-02-13T23:08:48Z")
At any rate, it will be interesting to see whether W vetoes it or attaches a signing statement saying it doesn’t count. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/5 "2008-02-14T00:23:39Z")
You don’t understand BG, the US doesn’t torture. We don’t waterboard anymore. So this won’t change anything. The administration only opposes it because, umm, well because… ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/6 "2008-02-14T00:47:23Z")
To be fair, this isn’t really a “Torture Ban” bill, but an appropriations bill that happens to have interrogation restrictions attached, and the voting was almost split down party lines (Lieberman sided with his fellow Republicans 😉 while Hagel and a few other on that side of the aisle told their fellow Republicans to bugger off). In other words, another bill that one side likes and the other has an issue with, but not necessarily due to the torture clauses. I’d love to see a bill that did nothing but ban torture, as then we’d really find out where people stand. This vote tells us nothing of the sort, other than what party someone belongs to. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/7 "2008-02-14T00:49:12Z")
Torture is already illegal. This is about breaking down the Gonzales Defense. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/8 "2008-02-14T00:56:11Z")
Just so that we don’t, you know, oversimplify things, here’s the table of contents of this bill (from **Squink** ’s link): > [@](#): > > ``` > * > * > > ``` > > The Library of Congress \> THOMAS Home \> Bills, Resolutions \> Search Results > > THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO > Next Hit Forward New Bills Search > Prev Hit Back HomePage > Hit List Best Sections Help > Contents Display > > Bill 5 of 5 > There are 4 other versions of this bill. > GPO’s PDF Display References to this bill in the Congressional Record Link to the Bill Summary & Status file. Printer Friendly Display > H.R.2082 > Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by Senate) > Beginning > > ``` > SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. > > ``` > > TITLE I–INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES > > ``` > SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. > > SEC. 102. CLASSIFIED SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZATIONS. > > SEC. 103. PERSONNEL LEVEL ADJUSTMENTS. > > SEC. 104. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT. > > SEC. 105. INCORPORATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. > > SEC. 106. DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITION PROGRAM. > > ``` > > TITLE II–CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM > > ``` > SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. > > SEC. 202. TECHNICAL MODIFICATION TO MANDATORY RETIREMENT PROVISION OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT ACT. > > ``` > > TITLE III–INTELLIGENCE AND GENERAL INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MATTERS > > ``` > SEC. 301. INCREASE IN EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS AUTHORIZED BY LAW. > > SEC. 302. RESTRICTION ON CONDUCT OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES. > > SEC. 303. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY UNDER THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947. > > SEC. 304. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FOR TRAVEL ON COMMON CARRIERS FOR INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION PERSONNEL. > > SEC. 305. MODIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DIFFERENT INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES. > > SEC. 306. INCREASE IN PENALTIES FOR DISCLOSURE OF UNDERCOVER INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS AND AGENTS. > > SEC. 308. ENHANCED FLEXIBILITY IN NON-REIMBURSABLE DETAILS TO ELEMENTS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. > > SEC. 310. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS OF MAJOR SYSTEMS. > > ``` > > `VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS OF MAJOR SYSTEMS > > ``` > SEC. 311. ANNUAL PERSONNEL LEVEL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. > > ``` > > `ANNUAL PERSONNEL LEVEL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY > > ``` > SEC. 312. BUSINESS ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE AND BUSINESS SYSTEM MODERNIZATION FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. > > ``` > > `INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY BUSINESS SYSTEMS, ARCHITECTURE, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND MODERNIZATION > > ``` > SEC. 313. REPORTS ON THE ACQUISITION OF MAJOR SYSTEMS. > > ``` > > `REPORTS ON THE ACQUISITION OF MAJOR SYSTEMS > > ``` > SEC. 314. EXCESSIVE COST GROWTH OF MAJOR SYSTEMS. > > ``` > > `EXCESSIVE COST GROWTH OF MAJOR SYSTEMS > > ``` > SEC. 315. SUBMITTAL TO CONGRESS OF CERTAIN COURT ORDERS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978. > > SEC. 316. REPEAL OF CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. > > ``` > > TITLE IV–MATTERS RELATING TO ELEMENTS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY > Subtitle A–Office of the Director of National Intelligence > > ``` > SEC. 401. REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEWS BY THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. > > SEC. 402. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ON INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION SHARING. > > SEC. 404. ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. > > SEC. 406. CLARIFICATION OF LIMITATION ON CO-LOCATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. > > SEC. 407. ADDITIONAL DUTIES OF THE DIRECTOR OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. > > SEC. 408. TITLE OF CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. > > SEC. 409. RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES OF THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. > > ``` > > `RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES OF THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE > > ``` > SEC. 410. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. > > ``` > > `INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY > > ``` > SEC. 411. LEADERSHIP AND LOCATION OF CERTAIN OFFICES AND OFFICIALS. > > SEC. 412. NATIONAL SPACE INTELLIGENCE OFFICE. > > ``` > > `NATIONAL SPACE INTELLIGENCE OFFICE > > ``` > SEC. 413. OPERATIONAL FILES IN THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. > > ``` > > `PROTECTION OF CERTAIN FILES OF THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE > > ``` > SEC. 414. REPEAL OF CERTAIN AUTHORITIES RELATING TO THE OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE EXECUTIVE. > > SEC. 416. MEMBERSHIP OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ON THE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY OVERSIGHT BOARD. > > ``` > > Subtitle B–Central Intelligence Agency > > ``` > SEC. 421. DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. > > SEC. 423. ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS AND AUTHORITIES FOR PROTECTIVE PERSONNEL OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. > > SEC. 424. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO TITLES OF CERTAIN CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY POSITIONS. > > SEC. 425. DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT ON RETIREMENT BENEFITS FOR FORMER EMPLOYEES OF AIR AMERICA. > > ``` > > Subtitle C–Defense Intelligence Components > > ``` > SEC. 431. ENHANCEMENTS OF NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY TRAINING PROGRAM. > > SEC. 432. CODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES OF NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY PROTECTIVE PERSONNEL. > > SEC. 433. INSPECTOR GENERAL MATTERS. > > SEC. 434. CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT OF HEADS OF CERTAIN COMPONENTS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. > > SEC. 436. SECURITY CLEARANCES IN THE NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. > > ``` > > Subtitle D–Other Elements > > ``` > SEC. 441. CLARIFICATION OF INCLUSION OF COAST GUARD AND DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION AS ELEMENTS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. > > SEC. 442. CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SECTION 105 OF THE INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004. > > ``` > > TITLE V–OTHER MATTERS > > ``` > SEC. 501. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947. > > SEC. 503. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO THE INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2004. > > SEC. 505. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ACT OF 1949. > > SEC. 506. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE MULTIYEAR NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM. > > `SEC. 1403. MULTIYEAR NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM.'. > > SEC. 507. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO THE EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE. > > `Sec. 1336. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency: special publications'. > > ``` It might be just a little bit more complicated than pro- vs anti-torture. Besides, Congress already passed, and Bush signed, anti-torture legislation in 2005: > [@](#): > > [Bush signs anti-torture legislation, Patriot Act extension l](http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/12/bush-signs-anti-torture-legislation.php) > > President George W. Bush on Friday signed a $453.3 billion defense spending bill [text; JURIST report] which contains provisions banning the cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees in US custody, but also eliminates the ability of Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] prisoners to challenge their detention in federal court. Of course: > [@](#): > > In a signing statement [text] the President reserved the right to construe the legislation consistent with his Commander-in-Chief powers and responsibility for national security Which he will probably do again. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/9 "2008-02-14T01:30:39Z")
And yet, **John Mace** , all of the statements from the opposition have focused on the waterboarding ban. If they oppose it for other reasons, they should say so. Until then, why not take them at their word? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/10 "2008-02-14T01:35:16Z")
All the statements, or all the statements reported by the press? Frankly, I haven’t seen any statements, nor have any been quoted in this thread. And if we already have a torture ban, per the 2005 bill, what is the real purpose of this bill? Perhaps it’s an attempt to get headlines like: GOP opposes torture ban. Kinda like when the GOP sends up some anti-SSM bill to make the Dems go on record as being “pro-SSM”. I’m not convinced this is quite so simple. McCain is clearly on record as being anti-waterboarding. What reason did he give for voting “nay”? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/11 "2008-02-14T02:01:08Z")
All of the statements I’ve seen. Some press, some not. A few cites, since you asked: [Bush](http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/02/senate-votes-to.html) : > [@](#): > > President Bush has said he’ll veto any legislation that limits interrogation methods. [Senator Bond](http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002670409) : > [@](#): > > But the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Christopher S. Bond , R-Mo., said limiting the CIA’s interrogation techniques would be dangerous. He had wanted raise a point of order against the provision, inserted during conference negotiations via an amendment sponsored by Feinstein. > > “I regret that this ban would shut down the most valuable source of information we have,” he said. Can you find the a Senator’s statement in opposition that doesn’t mention being opposed to the torture provision? I haven’t looked at the floor debate, but what do you wanna bet it focuses on this provision? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/12 "2008-02-14T02:21:20Z")
If it’s not the torture ban that got the Republicans to vote no, it’s a mystery what did. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/13 "2008-02-14T02:28:29Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] All of the statements I’ve seen. Some press, some not. A few cites, since you asked: [/QUOTE] Actually, I didn’t ask. The 2005 “torture ban” legislation passed with something like 90 votes in the Senate. So, something seems to have changed. I don’t know what it was, but something changed. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/14 "2008-02-14T02:38:31Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Actually, I didn’t ask. [/QUOTE] Oh, then why did you observe “[f]rankly, I haven’t seen any statements, nor have any been quoted in this thread.” That wasn’t a statement of doubt, it was just a random observation? I don’t see where your skepticism is coming from. Bush has said this bill will prevent the CIA from using interrogation techniques that are currently legal. If you think he’s wrong about that, why would he say it? What does he stand to gain from vetoing a bill that both sides agree is full of important appropriations? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/15 "2008-02-14T03:17:00Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] Oh, then why did you observe “[f]rankly, I haven’t seen any statements, nor have any been quoted in this thread.” That wasn’t a statement of doubt, it was just a random observation? [/quote] You asked my why they opposed it when “all” the statements were about torture. I hadn’t seen any statements, nor had any been presented in this thread, so I was confused as to why you thought I would or should have an answer to that question. > [@](#): > > I don’t see where your skepticism is coming from. Bush has said this bill will prevent the CIA from using interrogation techniques that are currently legal. If you think he’s wrong about that, why would he say it? Because he doesn’t want any restrictions on what he can do. > [@](#): > > What does he stand to gain from vetoing a bill that both sides agree is full of important appropriations? I don’t know. He’s a lame duck president. He vetoed the defense spending authorization bill until he got exactly what he wants, so he probably figures he can do it again. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/16 "2008-02-14T03:23:52Z")
Kit Bond is an idiot, and while I’m not a fan of McCain, I don’t think we can construe this as flip-flopping on torture at this time. The section in question was add in conference, but was neither in the House nor the Senate versions of the bill. If a point of order is raised against such provisions, it gets tossed, unless 60 members support its inclusion. Therefore, McCain can easily vote “Nay” while stating that his only problem with the provision is the method in which it was added. I’m not saying I necessarily believe him, but if the Democrats would stop pulling this type of crap (yes, the Republicans use it as well), we’d know exactly where people stand, even if the President carried out a veto. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/17 "2008-02-14T03:28:16Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Actually, I didn’t ask. The 2005 “torture ban” legislation passed with something like 90 votes in the Senate. So, something seems to have changed. I don’t know what it was, but something changed. [/QUOTE] The 2005 ban exempted the CIA, the current law would include them. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/18 "2008-02-14T03:30:04Z")
**Richard** : Here’s a question for you… If this bill is so gosh darned important, then why did Hillary and Obama not show up to vote for it? It passed with only 51 votes-- it could easily have gone the other way. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/19 "2008-02-14T03:33:18Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] **Richard** : Here’s a question for you… If this bill is so gosh darned important, then why did Hillary and Obama not show up to vote for it? It passed with only 51 votes-- it could easily have gone the other way. [/QUOTE] To be fair, Harry Reid may have just have counted votes before hand and told Obama and Clinton that they didn’t need to quit campaigning because the bill would pass without them. Seems I’ve heard of similar arrangements being made in past primary seasons. ETA: Interestingly, Lindsey Graham, the other big supporter of the earlier torture ban was the other absent senator. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/20 "2008-02-14T03:36:03Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] **Richard** : Here’s a question for you… If this bill is so gosh darned important, then why did Hillary and Obama not show up to vote for it? It passed with only 51 votes-- it could easily have gone the other way. [/QUOTE] Who knows? They probably wanted to duck a sticky political question. Or maybe they didn’t expect this provision to be added and couldn’t make it back on time. Or maybe despite the fact that the vote was close, it was still a foregone conclusion. Or maybe they assumed Bush would in fact veto it. There’s probably a dozen possibilities I’m missing. You may have a good attack on Obama or Clinton there, but that strikes me as a pretty weak argument for its insignificance. I still don’t really understand your position here. You seem to think this bill was just a political show. Do you think the bill unequivocally prevents waterboarding, where before there was some legal question, or not? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515.md?page=2)