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.

[PISANO]

Remember the CHURCH committee? They decimated our CIA and 911 was the result.

The GOP, today, just made a future attack MUCH MORE LIKELY with this terrible legislation.

[Flint]

""McCain said military officers have implored Congress for guidelines................McCain cited a letter he received from Army Capt. Ian Fishback, who has fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. "Over 17 months, he struggled to get answers from his chain of command to a basic question: What standards apply to the treatment of enemy detainees?" McCain said. "But he found no answers. . . . The Congress has a responsibility to answer this call."

That is complete HS. Every member of the military is schooled in the Geneva Convention. The conduct of a Soldier, Sailor, Marine or Airman is guided by that. Individual military people in the field do not make decisions to change it, you abide by it or pay if you don't.

Don't tell me that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to terrorists, I know that. That fact does not relieve the person of the responsibility of observing it.

[Bush 100 Percent]

I just contacted my Representative. AND forwarded your suggested language to a number of friends who I am sure will do the same.

I hope everyone else here will do the same NOW. Our soldiers deserve so much better.

[Soul Seeker]

True.

That and keep their phones ringing off the hook. LOL

[AmishDude]

"degrading" is ridiculous. First, it's a big enough loophole to drive a Mac truck through. Second, it means each and every one of these things will be dragged through Federal court where our wonderful Clinton appointees will surely show deference to the administration. Third, I think degrading is exactly what the prisoners should suffer. Shame and humiliation are perfectly good methods of interrogation.

I guess McCain doesn't see the difference between "POW" (now "EPW") and terrorist. No insignia, no uniform, no rights.

[conserv13]

You're Amish?

We're bound by the Geneva Convention. It does not matter if the people in our custody have uniforms or not. If you are a prisoner in US custody, there need to be clear rules as to how you can an cannot be treated.

Our troops don't know what these rules are, and this should spell it out for them so that there is no confusion.

[foofoopowder]

What we now have is taxation without representation. The DemoRats are socialists and the Republicans are fake capitalists. Apparently they both think that their main constituents are the terrorists.

[AmishDude]

We're bound by the Geneva Convention. It does not matter if the people in our custody have uniforms or not.

I see you know nothing of the Geneva Conventions. The whole point of them is to set rules of combat that both sides will follow. Because they have no uniforms, they are most closely classified as spies, and, according to the GCs they can be shot on sight.

[conserv13]

Fine they can be shot on site. I have no problem with that. What if they are in US custody?

[Soul Seeker]

That is because George Allen voted for it.

Nays-

Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)

The only people, apparently, not trying to usurp the role of the Executive branch and win this war in the Senate. I suppose, I can content myself with knowledge Sessions and Inhofe were already among the only people I respected in the Senate. They re-inforced that with this vote so my judgment in them continues to be correct.

But knowledge so few would vote Nay pretty well solidifies the thought I have the Congress has become as much a danger as the Judiciary to this country.

[AmishDude]

What if they are in US custody?

They can be shot at any time.

[Blowtorch]

Congress should be looking at that picture instead of worrying about the perpetrators. Black is white and white is black when you're a democrat...and sometimes a congressional republican.

[conserv13]

You have got to be kidding me. Then why are US troops being prosecuted for murder, rape, and other atrocities?

[spunkets]

"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”?"

Congress makes these rules and guiddelines for the military. Congress is not proposing, nor have they ever provided for attys for the prisoners. Your claim is bogus. This is about creating stds and guidelines for treatment.

[jackieaxe]

The rest of the world doesn't play by the rules as it is and the Senate wants to put further restrictions on what we can do when interrogating terrorists? I think we should take a different approach, like when the national newspaper of Egypt compares Gitmo to a Nazi Camp we should drop a MOAB on them.

[conserv13]

Thanks.

[AmishDude]

If you can't figure it out, I'm not going to tell you.

[spunkets]

" They, effectively, are telling the soldiers to comply with the "Army Field Manual" which was based on a WWII type of War. "

Ridiculous. The manual is a recent creation, with recent updates.

" They are NOT qualified to decide the "rules". "

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution says that Congresss is the only one qualified to do this and the sole entity with the power to do so.

[conserv13]

From the perspective of the military - isn't there a good side to this? If I were a soldeir, I think I would want to a clear uniform policy on what we can do - one that can't be over-ridden by someone who shows up and gives me orders.

You are right. I have been saying that all day.