The CIA must be able to use “specialized interrogation procedures” the military does not need, he added.

Waterboarding involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his or her cloth-covered face to simulate drowning. The technique has been called torture by numerous politicians, human rights organizations, war veterans and intelligence officials.

Through the ongoing waterboarding debacle, the U.S. has presented itself to the international community as a nation that regularly molds policies however the current administration sees fit. Even the definition of “torture” has been worked and reworked countless times to help save face.

In February, CIA Director Michael Hayden admitted to Congress the agency used waterboarding on three al-Qaida suspects following the 2001 terrorist attacks. If this bill had passed, the U.S. interrogators could be retroactively accused of torture by the international community.

Both the military and CIA prohibited waterboarding in 2006, but this veto makes future reinstatement a possibility for the CIA. Obviously opinions changed after the al-Qaida interrogations and the ban. But by not firmly approving a stance against torture with this bill, Bush allows the current policies against waterboarding to appear temporary and uncertain.

The field manual, which banned waterboarding in 2006, is a public document outlining “acceptable” interrogation procedures. The manual prohibits stripping prisoners naked, forcing them to perform or mimic sexual acts, subjecting them to hypothermia or withholding necessary food, water or medical treatment.

These guidelines are completely reasonable and go hand-in-hand with basic moral standards.

Bush’s move leaves room for discrepancies among domestic policies.

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for all detainees in U.S. custody. The CIA, as a U.S. institution, should not be exempt from this policy.

The veto also will alter U.S. authority in the global community. It will make our allies less likely to hand over detainees that might have information about threats to the U.S., since other countries will be hesitant to participate in human rights violations. It also might put our troops at greater risk of torture if they are captured.

Perhaps most significantly, this development broadcasts U.S. hypocrisy to the world. How can a country argue for human rights overseas if we continue to allow such harsh practices on our own soil? Our ever-changing policy on “torture” turns resentment against the U.S., possibly even as a recruiting tool for terrorist groups.

This peculiar move by Bush will further paint his administration as shifty and indecisive when it comes to moral standards. Since a veto override seems unlikely, we might have to wait until January when a new president takes office for the executive branch to make a decision about torture — and stand by it.