Posted on 12/15/2005 8:43:20 AM PST by areafiftyone
WASHINGTON (AP) The White House has agreed to accept Sen. John McCain's proposal to ban cruel treatment of terrorism detainees, congressional officials said.
Yahoo E-Mail Alert. Looking for whole story.
Thanks for those links, Cboldt. I've sent them to my freepmail to try and read without commenting on the threads until I'm through (which might be a while) :-)
Sorry, Peach, but that's just not true. That is the way it was described in the Alberto memos, but that is not the 'legal' definition of torture. I can think of about 50 things that are clearly torture that don't meet your definition above.
Yanking fingernails out with a pair of pliers, for example.
I just went and looked and I guess you're right; Alberto Gonzales described torture as causing bodily organ failure but that's not the international definition.
Then let's try this. Why are we permitting the terrorists to fall within the Geneva Convention protocols since they don't wear a uniform?
That's cute. It could also be described as "the definition ratified by the United States Senate and, as such, the binding definition under United States law, in particular the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution."
The new law is US law. We already breach our treaty obligations by engaging in activities which violate the Convention.
I know that doesn't bother a lot of folks here. It is, oddly, one area where things like keeping your word and honoring your agreements just doesn't carry much weight.
Situational ethics, anyone?
(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.--In this section, the term ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.
White House, McCain reach deal on torture ban
Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:37 PM ETWASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House and Sen. John McCain have reached agreement on McCain's amendment that would ban torture of detainees in U.S. custody, a spokeswoman for the Arizona Republican said on Thursday.
A White House announcement was expected shortly.
"The deal is done and he's heading to the White House," McCain's spokeswoman said.
Under bipartisan pressure, the White House accepted McCain's amendment, which would ban cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners.
The White House had sought protections from prosecution for interrogators accused of violating the rule, but McCain rejected that, saying it would undermine his amendment.
The White House finally accepted McCain's language, which was similar to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to allow civilian interrogators accused of violating the provision to defend themselves based on whether a reasonable person could have found they were following a lawful order about the treatment of prisoners, congressional aides said.
Of course, you're right; I misspoke. Reservist.
I wasn't trying to be cute. When I said "international definition" I was, of course, including the United States. Which part of my post that said "you're right" didn't you read?
That definition is US law, under the US Constitution. It was readily agreed to by this country, not imposed upon us.
Those who think it was somehow invented by John McCain or George Soros aren't paying attention.
Because we are the good guys. And, while it doesn't do much to excite those suffering from testosterone poisoning, that simple fact (if we can maintain it) has more power than the rack, the water board, and the electrical cables on the testicles combined in terms of furthering our aims in the world.
I will say only this regarding your post, lugsoul, and that is that we waterboard special op troops to prepare them for interrogation in the event they are captured, so I don't put that in the category of "torture".
Oh, and you may already know this, but US soldiers have been prosecuted and discharged (Vietnam era) for waterboarding - and the charges included torture.
Look, if a Jack Bauer situation ever arises, I don't think anyone is going to be thinking about what the legal constraints may be - but if we let the slight possibility of that situation dictate our policy, we are ceding moral authority that we shouldn't easily cede, and we are putting our own forces at increased risk.
Then the system worked, didn't it? And if it ain't broke, why fix it?
Why are you so upset about an amendment that mirrors existing US policy as expressed through the Senate ratification of the Convention? Because you want people to continue thumbing their nose at it?
If not torturing people has now become 'protecting' them, that BS quote from the President about the Constitution being merely a "GD piece of paper" is, in fact, the truth.
Prove it.
What a waste of a majority. They are already cranking up their squalling, vote for McCain in the primary to block Hillary campaign on here now.
Why are you supporting McCain and his terrorist protection amendment?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.