Posted on 02/25/2010 1:53:15 PM PST by jazusamo
House Republicans are charging Democrats with trying to sneak a provision into the intelligence authorization bill that would establish criminal punishment for CIA agents and other intelligence officials who engage in “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” during interrogations.
Democrats inserted an 11-page addition to the bill late Wednesday night during as the House Rules Committee considered the legislation.
The provision, previously not vetted in committee, applies to “any officer or employee of the intelligence community” who during interrogations engages in beatings, infliction of pain or forced sexual acts. The bill said the acts covered by the provision would include inducing hypothermia, conducting mock executions or “depriving the [detainee] of necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care.”
The language gives Congress the discretion to determine what the terms mean, and it would level punishments of up to 20 years in prison, and in some cases, life sentences if a detainee dies as a result of the interrogation.
Republicans are criticizing the language, and the way it which it was introduced.
“This will fundamentally change the nature of the intelligence community by creating a criminal statute governing interrogations,” said Rep. Pete Hoesktra (R-Mich.).
He added that it had appeared “out of nowhere” in a manager’s amendment.
“Would someone on the other side please explain the rationale behind this and why the majority was unwilling to have hearings on this issue,” he said.
Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) added the language, originally offered by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), to his manager’s amendment, which makes several changes to the bill passed by committee.
Reyes and other Democrats argued that the language simple underscores existing anti-torture laws.
“I’m hearing from Republicans that we are somehow sacrificing our national security” through this bill, said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). She said the language underscores existing law and enhances national security.
Republicans are trying to strike the language from the larger intelligence measure, and if that fails, will work to excise it during the House-Senate conference.
Congress has not passed an intelligence authorization bill since 2004. Usually, the House does not consider the bill so late in the fiscal year, but Democrats in the House and Senate have stressed the importance of passing one this year to address a host of intelligence issues that have arisen.
House members had submitted 77 amendments to the bill as of Wednesday, but the House Rules panel only allowed votes on a handful of them.
Reyes’ manager’s amendment also includes language that would change the rules governing executive branch notification to Congress about covert intelligence operations.
The issue of changing the notification process became a priority last year after a partisan fight over when and how Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was informed about the use of harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding. The media spotlight grew hotter after a briefing in June when CIA Director Leon Panetta informed lawmakers that the agency had failed to notify them about plans for an assassination program begun in 2001 that was designed to capture or kill al Qaeda leaders.
The White House last year threatened to veto initial changes to Congressional notification requirements that would have allowed the Intelligence Committee to write guidelines on when the administration could restrict briefings of Congressional leaders on sensitive covert operations.
Such briefings were limited to the so-called Gang of Eight, the Democratic and Republican leaders in both chambers and the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence panels.
Reyes has been working with the White House for months to write language that could avert a veto. The new language would allow the administration to limit the full committee’s access to information about sensitive operations only if the president submitted certification that an action met “extraordinary circumstances affecting vital interests of the United States.”
The Senate version of the bill also included congressional notification language that drew a White House veto. It would require the full committee to be briefed broadly about any more detailed briefings provided to the Gang of Eight. The two chambers now must hash out their differences in conference.
Republicans tried to add language denying any money from being spent on moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to the U.S., requiring the director of national intelligence to submit a report detailing any steps taken to fix problems identified in the president’s Fort Hood intelligence review before the Christmas Day bombing attempt.
Hoekstra, as well as Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), also tried to add language requiring the president to report to the congressional intelligence committees on the identities of U.S. citizens targeted for association by the CIA and others and establishing a process for authorization and notification of covert actions that could result in the death of a targeted citizen. Democrats did not allow votes on those amendments.
What happened to the cries of the Democrats for bipartisanship.
Can we prosecute Janet Reno over the abuse they enacted on the Branch Davidians yet? Psyops including playing the sound of rabbits being skinned alive, "These Boots Are Made For Walking, ALL OVER YOU", driving tanks over human graves, and being aware (via wellplaced bugs) that they were driving him to suicide?
And IF I was currently active,
It would be IMPOSSIBLE for me to not espouse: ‘...degrading treatment’ towards our current administration.
To clarify: I would in NO WAY harm anyone (nor would I ever abdicate such). But in these times my comments about, say Janet ‘Nitwit'aplotano could easily be considered DEGRADING.
And, by God, they would be.
I don't think that would be criminal... PS. I do appreciate the spell-check here at FR: 'Nitwit'aplotano is a correctly spelled word!
I agree, and that’s a proper spelling.
I used to think that thinkingthe Dems were our enemies was hyperboil but the more they show their true faces the more I think every one of them are traitors to our country.
Just use itinerant information extraction contractors who don't leave a callback number...they aren't officials.
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.