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

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

[conserv13]

The amendment ... would establish uniform standards for the interrogation of people detained by U.S. military personnel, prohibiting "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment while they are in U.S. custody.

Yeah, and almost everyone here is against that??

[spunkets]

"Does this actually make anything illegal that was previously legal? "Cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" was already illegal, wasn't it?"

It looks like this amendment is a move to clarify the matter. It appears to be somewhat arbitrary now.

[TChris]

Here's my proposed message to my senators. Please comment and correct me before I send it.

---

I have just read with great disappointment the vote on McCain amendment 1977 to HR2863, effectively granting constitutional protection to the enemies of the United States. I am simply aghast at this blatant, naked power grab on the part of the senate. It smacks of pre-campaign grandstanding and is clearly an ambush for President Bush.

Every member of the senate, save for the nine voting "nay" on this amendment, are in dire need of history lessons. While at first glance, the notion of prohibiting "cruel, inhumane, unusual or degrading treatment" of detainees has a clear moral justification, I hope you are not so naive as to think this limitation will not be sorely abused by the enemies of the United States. Have you given no thought at all as to how the word "degrading" will be interpreted?

Is there any treatment AT ALL that won't be labeled "inhuman" and "cruel", including DETENTION ITSELF!? Just consider, for a moment, how far flung the concept of "rights" has become in our own country, with regard to imprisonment. This legislation effectively grants the full protection of the US Constitution to the ENEMIES OF OUR COUNTRY!!

You and your fellow senators have gift wrapped a major victory for terrorists around the world. You have given a further air of legitimacy to hysterical accusations of "torture" in the Abu Ghraib scandal, which consisted of treatment milder than most fraternity initiations. It is clear that you are not fit to lead during this dangerous time of global terrorism.

You have participated in an attempted coup on the executive branch. That you have done so in a time of war is frankly astonishing. This was a despicable move, and I will strenuously oppose both yours and Senator Thomas' reelections because of this vote alone.

---

Whaddya think?

[TChris]

BTT

[hattend]

McCain again

[Fabozz]

"My question is, will they accept responsibility, if we have another attack..."

They'll accept full responsibility for commissioning a panel to determine what Bush did wrong. Does that count?

[InsureAmerica]

well, if the theory that he nominated harriett miers because she will support his "obsession" with the war is true, then I absolutely would expect a veto on this.

I understand Mccain's concerns, but I think he is living in a different era. He once was a hero to me, he has squandered most of that away, unfortunately.

[markedman]

Bed-wetting, limp-weenies!

[RedCell]

I just called my Senator's office (Lieberman) asking for an understanding on why he voted "yea". The bottom line answer I got from a staffer was that "we're better than that... we need to set an example to the world... we can't suffer another Abu Grab."

I replied that the example we need to set is going after these Islamic terrorists with swift and mighty justice by destroying them. NOT protecting them under the U.S. Constitution.

Why don't these guys get it?!!!

[elfman2]

I agree with your first point. Anyone know yet what the restrictions are?

[elfman2]

"The amendment ... would establish uniform standards for the interrogation of people detained by U.S. military personnel, prohibiting "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment while they are in U.S. custody."

Yeah, and almost everyone here is against that??

I’m not sure if you’re serious. Do you want squads of ACLU lawyers investigating and litigating each terrorist claim that they were "cruelly” treated when they were blindfolded and shacked while moved, that 20 hours without sleep was “inhuman”, or that being yelled at by interrogators was “degrading”? (Incase you didn’t know, when the ACLU wins a case against the government, their lawyers are paid top dollar for all billed hours.)

[MAD-AS-HELL]

God told Bush it's ok to spend like a democrat and to ignore the Veto Pen.

I am starting to think that Bush is back on the sauce.

[BonnieJ]

90% of the Senate now influenced by the ACLU!?

[conserv13]

each terrorist claim that they were "cruelly” treated when they were blindfolded and shacked while moved, that 20 hours without sleep was “inhuman”, or that being yelled at by interrogators was “degrading”?

That is the problem that this would fix. Right now there are no standards, or if there are they are confusing. Our tropps don't know what they can and can't do. This would spell out those things - so that the troops know when they are crossing the line.

None of those things you listed - sleep deprivation, blindfolded and shackled, yelled at by interrogators - could be considered torture. Murder, Rape, and physical beatings would.

[RetiredArmy]

Right. Politically correctly protect those who seek to destroy us. We will not survive. We will commit national suicide with this kind of thinking.

[conserv13]

Lieberman and the other 89 Senators are right on this.

[mewzilla]

BTTT.

[b4its2late]

The spineless 91 (I figure the abstention of lib Corizine would've voted for it too if he had showed up.).

[RedCell]

Lieberman and the other 89 Senators are right on this.

Care to elaborate?

[Bush 100 Percent]

Thank You.

I hope everyone on this board does this. With a Senate like this we don't need .......