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.

[goresalooza]

Excellent question Rockin! Who are these ten THINKERS in the Senate? I'm in shock to think a few are dims.

Let's see, the enemy can behead us or torture us in many ways but we can't interrogate them to find out HOW they will strike us?

President Bush...VENI VIDI VETO. Remember this please!

[Brimack34]

Brit Hume was pissed off by this vote today. Go Brit Go. Why not just tie or troops arms behind their back. I would cut their arms off if it saved one life of our hero's.

[Bush 100 Percent]

But Canard,

If they felt rules were necessary, they needed to do WORK to find out what was needed and consult more than one letter or address a vague "we need rules". Sen. McCain just pulling some jargon out of thin air, including a reference to a 1984 UN resolution, DOES NOTHING but make the Senators feel good.

They did nothing for that soldier. Their role is to herd the military, who have all the info, into establishing a policy, not just making up a law for the sake of making up a law.

[Bush 100 Percent]

If the manual is so recent, why does the Senate have to pass a law about it? There would be no question if such a recent and relevant manual was handy. The amendment references a 1984 UN resolution - that was 21 years ago .... way before the WOT.

I will have to research your Constitutional reference. However, I doubt it says that Congress will run the Military directly, in response to correspondence they get from a few of the 100's of thousands of people serving. If so, they better get the opinions of each and every one of them because they are taking on the responsibility of their actions affecting all of them. Oversight is one thing. What they are doing is not oversight but interfering.

[Bush 100 Percent]

Also, see my reply #323, which will give you a better idea of how I believe Congress is supposed to go about it's Constitutional duty. We may have to agree to disagree.

[BnBlFlag]

I only wish the Feds were more restricted by States Rights.
An all powerful Federal Government is what conservatives have been fighting against since the country was founded.
Sad to say its been a losing battle.

[FairOpinion]

I just watched part of Great's show, the interview with McCain, who went on and on, holier than thou, about how we should be guided by principles of international law and not torture those poor terrorists. It was disgusting.

Why isn't any of these talk show hosts asking them, are they going to take responsibiilty for the next attack and the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans, which may have been prevented by getting tough with some terrorist prisoners?

[FairOpinion]

Only Republicans voted against it:

Here's a link to those who voted for / against

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00249

The only NAYS were as follows:

NAYs ---9
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)

[FairOpinion]

COrrection: Part of "Greta's" show -- misspelled it as "Great" -- definitely no Fraudian slip, merely a typo.

[FairOpinion]

Excerpt from Al Qaeda training manual:

"UK/BM-176 TO UK/BM-180 TRANSLATION Lesson Eighteen
PRISONS AND DETENTION CENTERS
IF AN INDICTMENT IS ISSUED AND THE TRIAL, BEGINS, THE BROTHER HAS TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING:
1. At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators] before the judge.
2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison."

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/manualpart1_4.pdf

[FairOpinion]

The picture you posted, sums it up very accurately.

Great job, PC.

[porkchops 4 mahound]

I do see shades of Vietnam here, in the way our execrable cowardly Congress of the US of A, screwed the pooch, by insisting on fighting that WAR by committee.

ANYBODY besides us Vets notice how well that worked out?

Where the HE!! is the public outrage at these A holes?

Our Sons, and Daughters, are bleeding and dying in the field, while Congress is busy playing politics and kissing islamist murdering animal's a$$.

What a bunch of arrogant, worse than useless, self serving, A holes.

God help us.

[FairOpinion]

"Where the HE!! is the public outrage at these A holes?"


==

That's what I am wondering about also.

[Americanexpat]

So, reading this and since they qouted the UN document these are no longer US Senators, they are UN Senators.

[Americanexpat]

its going to take anothr terror attack - abig one - on US soil, to awaken the sheeple. 9/11 wasn't enough.

---

All the sheeple are not asleep. Problem is we don't pass these bills, most of us don't even know there is a bill until after it is passed. It's the policy makers like the Senate that needs to wake up.

Now is the time to write to our congresscritters and twell them what we think about this bill.

[Americanexpat]

I was taught in basic training back in 1965 that once a person surrendered he had to be treated in accordance with the geneva Gonvetiontions (even though the enemy we were fighting did not sign those conventions).

I knew I could not abuse prisoners under my control.

I could not take their personal property including awards and decorations. I could take any weapons, ammo (common sense) and documents that could contain intelligence information.

I also knew that no one could give me an order to commit a war crime, like shooting or torturing a prisoner of war.

Only had one incident in three combat tours where a superior tried to tell me to shoot someone (heat of battle)and I told him he could shove it.

If I had that training in 1965, and periodically afterwards, you can bet the troops are getting it today.

[Americanexpat]

Oh yeah, just remembered we were not allowed to ridicule them, take photos etc..

And it was our responsibility to protect them from vengeful civilians.

There is probably more that is what I remember from almost 40 years ago.

[Inwoodian]

I can see it now. Conspirator caught after planting bomb. He refuses to tell authorities where. Marquis of Queensbury interrogation protocol fails to produce info as captive remains silent. Senate explodes killing hundreds. Remaining Senators demand instant explanation as to intelligence failure.

[TChris]

That's all this is really about. The ability to mistreat prisoners in the dark, out of the publics eye.

And by mistreat, of course you mean things like turning the air conditioner up too high, touching the Quran without being Muslim, playing loud music, having pretty ladies strut around in their underwear, etc., right? Because those are the sort of things that will be curtailed by regulations like this. Not real abuse, which is already against the rules, and which is already punishable by court martial.

These rules will be abused to the detriment of this country! WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

War is about hurting your enemy! WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

Nobody has ever produced evidence of actual torture! Not at Abu Ghraib; not anywhere else. WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

The interrogation techniques that have been used have proven effective, saving many innocent lives. Humiliation, intimidation and fear are not torture!

Since this concept seems to be lost on you, here are some examples of real, documented cruelty and torture:

• Intentional freezing / hypothermia
• Intentional infection with fatal disease
• Surgical experiments
• Starvation
• Sterilization
• Mutilation
• Dismemberment
• Splinters under fingernails
• Broken glass in urethra
• Water torture
• GET THE IDEA?

There is no evidence of torture at Abu Ghraib, nor at any other American-run facility.

[gondramB]

I also knew that no one could give me an order to commit a war crime, like shooting or torturing a prisoner of war. Only had one incident in three combat tours where a superior tried to tell me to shoot someone (heat of battle)and I told him he could shove it. If I had that training in 1965, and periodically afterwards, you can bet the troops are getting it today.

I really appreciate you sharing that perspective.

Do you think the environment could have changed after 9/11? It seems like a number of the soldiers accused of abuse have said they were following orders but not from somebody in their chain of command.