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.
It's the "degrading" term I have a problem with.
I think that the operative phrase here is "in US custody". This does not preclude the "rendition" procedure of sending them to their "home" country, or other "interested" countries for a "high pressure interview". The terrorists would be accorded Gitmo style treatment, until they are turned over to their fellow countrymen. That may be the backdoor "deal" with McCain: he and his ilk lay off the Congressional "investigations", in exchange for a deal that effectively gets US personnel completely out of the "torture" loop.
FoxNews radio reporting that White House is saying No Deal has been reached on this Bill.
Just in case, I have contacted both of my senators telling them to vote against the McCain proposal.
Adding that the American people perceive the WOT as the most serious issue facing us today and that we expect our elected representatives to begin acting like it.
I'll believe it when I read the exact thing the White House agreed to. Until then it's just MSM spin.
The amendment uses the term of art "Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." There is TONS of law on the subject, and it is not a trivial matter to ascertain how the McCain amendment alters existing structure.
The Senate added exactly the same text to a second bill without a voice vote.
Do we have the exact McCain text available that was included in the defense appropriations bill?
I guess they can put away the Susan Estrich videos.
[JURIST] AP is reporting that the White House has agreed to accept the McCain Amendment [JURIST document] that would ban the cruel and inhumane treatment of terror detainees, according to congressional officials. The White House has previously threatened to veto any legislation to which the amendment was attached and called for an exemption for CIA operatives.
But I notice the WH hasn't said HECK NO. Which they bloody well should have done. There should be nothing to discuss.
Action under S.1042
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
S.AMND.1556 relates to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of persons under the custody or control of the United States Government.
S.AMND.1557 relates to uniform standards for the interrogation of persons under the detention of the Department of Defense.
S.AMND.2425 relates to both, "cruel treatment" and "uniform standards for interrogation."
S.AMND.1556 Proposed 07/25, Considered 07/26, Withdrawn 11/04
S.AMND.1557 Proposed 07/25, Considered 07/26, Withdrawn 11/04
S.AMND.2425 Proposed 11/04, Considered 11/04, Passed 11/04 on a voice vote.
Action under H.R.2863
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006.
S.AMND.1977 relates to both, "cruel treatment" and "uniform standards for interrogation."
S.AMND.1977 Proposed 10/05, considered 10/05, Passed 10/05 : 90-9 / Roll Call Vote No. 249
SEC. 1073. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS
UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE.
(a) In General.--No person in the custody or under the
effective control of the Department of Defense or under
detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be
subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not
authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field
Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.
(b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to with
respect to any person in the custody or under the effective
control of the Department of Defense pursuant to a criminal
law or immigration law of the United States.
(c) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect the rights under the United States
Constitution of any person in the custody or under the
physical jurisdiction of the United States.
SEC. 1074. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING
TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER
CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT.
(a) In General.--No individual in the custody or under the
physical control of the United States Government, regardless
of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to impose any geographical limitation on the
applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment under this section.
(c) Limitation on Supersedure.--The provisions of this
section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law
enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which
specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions
of this section.
(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.
It depends on whether this bill really has any meaning with regard to ongoing operations. I suspect that it does not. True to McCain's form, he's likely drafted up a bill that is all fluff and no stuff... that really does nothing at all.
For the in-extremis sorts of situations, like the "ticking bomb" scenario, it doesn't really matter either. The President can authorize anything he wants and pardon whomever he needs.
Its the effect on ordinary daily interrogation that has the most at stake, and in these situations I don't suspect that much in the way of true "torture" takes place. It's just not that useful. Information gained from somebody who will say anything to stop the agony is likely useless anyway.
Again, I suspect that this bill is simply McCain playing for the cameras, banning some stuff that's already banned, and doing nothing of substance. That would be why the White House would just say "OK, John... you got your face time, now go away." But I'd like to know the definitions of the techniques that are prohibited to know if anything has really been lost.
Are all of those NAY votes veterans?
Oh good!
So John McCain will put our lives at risk in return for his political gain. Most of the problems this country has are caused by the U.S. Congress.
Ah... thanks.
Looks suitably vague. Looks like it just re-affirms prior law and definitions from a 1984 law?
Is there anything in the bill about past "offenses" not being prosecuted?
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.