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.

[Cboldt]

Links to the congressional record. The McCain amendment is numbered "1977".

Click here: 109th Congress - Senate - October 5, 2005
Mash here -> 12 . DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
And here -> 14 . DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006--Continued

Discussion immediately preceeding the vote starts at page S11114. Here is part that the media accounts leave out ...

Mr. STEVENS. I am compelled to speak in opposition to this amendment, although I wholeheartedly agree with what the Senator from Arizona has said. It was a marvelous statement made by a man who has every reason to say exactly what he said. I support what the majority leader has said, but there is a classified annex to the Army Field Manual that is not spelled out in this amendment, and there are people who are not in uniform who may not even be citizens of the United States who represent us in very strange and dangerous places, whose lives may be put in jeopardy by the process that is spelled out in part of this amendment. I speak for them.

I honor all service men and women, and I really believe they should absolutely follow the lifestyle of the Senator from Arizona, as well as his statement tonight. But as the leader has said, there are some changes that have to be made if we are to be faithful to those people who live in the classified world and will be covered by the classified annex that, if one reads the amendment, is not covered here.

I have to do my best to make sure that when we get to conference people understand that there is that problem. Therefore, I shall oppose the amendment and try to straighten it out in conference. I know it would pass.

I yield back the remainder of our time.

109th Congress - October 5, 2005 - Page S11114 <- Caution, PDF
[ Link also contains the roll call vote on the amendment ]

NAYS--9

Allard
Bond
Coburn
Cochran
Cornyn
Inhofe
Roberts
Sessions
Stevens

NOT VOTING--1

Corzine

[spunkets]

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

BS! Beatings, stompings, storing people in their own filth aren't torture? Congress and the DOD have photos and info that wasn't released, that a fed judge just ordered released. They are images that document torture genius!

detriment of the country, save lives, for the children, blah, blah, blah...

JUST DON'T MISTREAT THE PRISONERS, OR YOU"LL GO TO JAIL.

[hocndoc]

No self incrimination for Osama Bin Laden? Will he have Miranda rights?

And I guess no women guards for the Islamofascists.

[hocndoc]

I'm sure it's "degrading" for these men to have women guards.

[TChris]

Beatings, stompings, storing people in their own filth aren't torture?

Reference?

[FairOpinion]

" 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."

====

You captured it perfectly. And this is NOT an unlikely scenario at all.

[FairOpinion]

Terrorists are NOT "prisoers of war", as in the accepted definiteion of the term, which has some very specific description, one of which is that they are wearing a uniform.

[FairOpinion]

Pinging you to 338 -- a not unlikely scenario posted by Inwoodian. THAT would exactly be the result of this law - and worse, INNOCENT people could die.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1497443/posts?page=338#338

(also copied below)
====

To: FairOpinion

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.

338 posted on 10/07/2005 7:03:53 AM PDT by Inwoodian

[gondramB]

"Terrorists are NOT "prisoers of war", as in the accepted definiteion of the term, which has some very specific description, one of which is that they are wearing a uniform."

I don't address whether or not terrorists were prisoners of war.


I asked the poster if he thought attitudes could have changed after 9/11.

[goresalooza]

Gotta love Imhofe...he's always been on the side of America. Thanks Fair..I knew the names would be out. So now we know that the entire group of dims hates America and sides with terrorists against us. Some of us have been saying this all along. Sigh.

Thanks, Fair! :)

[FairOpinion]

The terrorists already know our weakness and are using it against us. This just gives them not only more ammunition, but a free pass.

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

[conserv13]

They are going to complain about 'torture' and mistreatment either way. So why actually intentionally torture or mistreat them then?

[gondramB]

"They are going to complain about 'torture' and mistreatment either way. So why actually intentionally torture or mistreat them then?"


Do you suppose any of the people detained mught ever be innocent? Wouldnt that mean torturing innocent people?

[conserv13]

That is why I am *against* torture and mistreatment of anyone in our custody.

[gondramB]

"That is why I am *against* torture and mistreatment of anyone in our custody."

Sorry about that - I missed the question mark at the end of your post.

[Czar]

"...please go join your fellow terrorists,the civilized people here would like to wish you "Godspeed"."

Warriors win wars for panty wearing "civilized" wimps like you who are too busy sending donations to Amnestry International to be bothered about fighting real threats.

"Becoming as evil as the enemy in order to defeat him proves what?"

You non-conservatives always out yourselves with this kind of nonsense. I would guess you're one of the GOP Big Tent RINOs, liberals or moderates.

In a war against people who are willing to blow themselves up and cut off infidel heads, winning is everything and critical to the security of the United States. You don't bring a feather duster to a gunfight. Thrashing around trying to prove we are not as evil as the enemy is worth nothing.

Go take your sanctimonious BS someplace else. This is a conservative site for conservatives. You're no conservative.

[Czar]

See #356

[FairOpinion]

You need to read Posts 348 and 351

Why do you worry so much about the comfort of the terrorists? I guess you still don't get it, that intelligence gained from terrorists prevents deaths of thousands of innocent Americans. I guess the comfort of a terrorist is more important to you, than the lives of innocent Americans. While you worry about the rights of the terrorists, what about having some concern about the rights of innocent Americans to live their lives and not be massacred by terrorists?

[FairOpinion]

"why actually intentionally torture or mistreat them then?"

===

To GET INTELLIGENCE TO PREVENT THE MURDER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, that's why. You don't think people interrogate the terrorists, just to pass the time, do you?!

[gondramB]

There are some practical reasons to be cautious about using torture

1. We might wind up torturing innocent people
2. If we get caught, there is a large price to be paid - retaliation, loss of support for the war, reduced ability to get international cooperation.


Additionally, I am a Christian and I know torture of a helpless person is wrong but there are sufficient reasons to be careful about it without getting into morality.

Now personally, if someone was holding my wife hostage, I'd be willing to do whatever was needed. But that's why we have rules rather than allowing our feelings to make the rules.