Senate Supports Interrogation Limits (90-9 vote to protect terrorist detainees)

Washington Post ^ | Oct. 6, 2005 | Charles Babington and Shailagh Murray

[FairOpinion]

The Senate defied the White House yesterday and voted to set new limits on interrogating detainees in Iraq and elsewhere, underscoring Congress's growing concerns about reports of abuse of suspected terrorists and others in military custody.

Forty-six Republicans joined 43 Democrats and one independent in voting to define and limit interrogation techniques that U.S. troops may use against terrorism suspects, the latest sign that alarm over treatment of prisoners in the Middle East and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is widespread in both parties. The White House had fought to prevent the restrictions, with Vice President Cheney visiting key Republicans in July and a spokesman yesterday repeating President Bush's threat to veto the larger bill that the language is now attached to -- a $440 billion military spending measure.

But last night, 89 senators sided with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former prisoner of war in Vietnam who led the fight for the interrogation restrictions.

[Flint]

I cannot help but think this violates the separation of powers. The President is Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces.

[Chgogal]

Hmmmmm. I guess we wait until another US city is attacked by these "non-combatants" while one of their brethren was in custody refusing to divulge what he keow. After all that the public gets to witness another repeat performance of The Singing Barbers on The Capitol's stairs.

[Flint]

"McCain, Warner, and Graham are having a takeover of the executive branch. I don't know how Bush doesn't just quit. The president in this country is so restricted by state rights and congress the position is worthless."

This is exactly why the President doesn't have a bullet proof Senate to put a clearly conservative candidate up for the SC. This is why! You who are beating him to death over Helen Meir need to think about this.

[evad]

Just another example where PC trumps logic and responsibility.

Totally predictable result from our US Senate, the land of PC and the tooth fairy.

[maica]

(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. "

Unfortunately, if President Bush acts against this amendment, the worldwide headlines will be

BUSH SUPPORTS TORTURE

This meddling by the Senate has really put him in a box. I hate them all. [First time I have ever expressed hate on FR!]

[OXENinFLA]

SA 1977. Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. SMITH, and Ms. COLLINS) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2863, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. 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. __. 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

[Page: S10909] GPO's PDF

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.

[ozzysmom]

Yes he did and I noticed that Thune did too. I am starting to like the governor of Colorado for president more each day. Any opponent running against the wusses who signed this bill should use this vote to pound them with everytime the wusses campaign on how strong they are on the WOT! I guess this is why senators rarely win the presidency...they are "stuck on being sissified".

[Coldwater Creek]

Coburn, OK. Inhofe, OK. There is nothing like having lots of bombs going off in your state to become sensible.

[Goodgirlinred]

What a great guy! He should write the manual for how to treat terrorists! After all, HIS prisoners are American citizens!

[ozzysmom]

I have a question about the detainees. Cannot they just stay in Afgan and Iraq now that those countries are pretty much up and running and let them handle the interrogations? Would it not be their soverign right to interrogate terrorists caught fighing in their country? Might not this be one way to handle the situation...just close Gitmo. Take the hot topic away from the MSM and sissy politicians. Maybe we could all send a pair "big ass" panties (that size because their heads are swollen with power you know) to each politican who voted for this crap...write on those suckers "SSOS" (Senator Stuck on Stupid)!

[Goodgirlinred]

Don't you think that most liberals are "stuck on stupid"?

[Blood of Tyrants]

I don't know. I would have to see the language of the bill before I made my decision.

[Goodgirlinred]

I think Congress needs to get a grip. It citizens of the United States can be treated that way, surely terrorists can. Why is it ok to treat our own people that way when they are prisoners, but not some terrorist who is just itching to slit our throats and who laughs at our weakness? Arghhh!

[The Toll]

If you offer Geneva Convention protections to prisoners who do not abide by the rest of the treaty it voids the entire purpose of the agreement. What reason is there for anyone to abstain from engaging in terrorist tactics during a time of war if you will be treated as a gentleman regardless?

[confederacy of dunces]

Thanks for posting the Senators who voted against. At least one of mine got it right.

[RockinRight]

Coburn and Inhofe!

Well at least Oklahoma has it's head on straight!

I had no doubt my two RINO's voted YAY.

[plain talk]

Unless this is vetoed, we have just lost the war.

nonsense. But it does make it harder. We will prevail in spite of this.

[spunkets]

" Senators can't be recalled. They serve out their entire terms.'

That depends on the State.

[Let's Roll]

Always so reassuring to see our "leaders" showing weakness to our mortal enemies.

[Proud_texan]

Mebbe he thinks that veto powers is an Italian spy plane pilot? (Sorry, a very, very old joke).