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.

[FairOpinion]

See article, post 37 (with the text) and the succince assessment in post 74.

Do you feel like a making a cartoon about how our US Senate sold us out in the War on Terror?

[Goodgirlinred]

That is ridiculous! I can't believe it. I thought that they would say that they can't be tortured, starved, executed without a trial, etc. They are not American citizens and do not deserve the rights we have fought to keep.

[FairOpinion]

Typo: I meant "succinct"

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Goebbels would be proud of the dupes at the NY Slimes -- if they weren't Juden.

[Fitzcarraldo]

The globalists need terrorism to bring into play one world govt. /tin foil hat off

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

McCain and his new man-servant, Graham. What a surprise.

[FairOpinion]

And remember, having a dog bark at them, or putting panties on their heads were considered torture -- all the while the terrorists are plotting to murder innocent people and REALLY torture anyone they capture.

The terrorists in Guantanamo had air conditioning, while our soldiers didn't, they are getting lemon chicken, the Koran, Agatha Christie books translated in Arabic, are allowed to play basketball -- and the liberals are still whining about torture.

Only 5 star hotels, $1 bail, full freedom and 10 lawyers per detinee will be acceptable in the future.

[FairOpinion]

Note that FRIST is NOT on the list of "nay"-s, he voted for it too. What happened to the Republican party?!

[tfecw]

"Allen voted for this?"

I expected Warner to be all over it, but highly disappointing to see Allen vote for it. I think I might have to write up a letter tomorrow telling him so.

[oceanview]

if this passes, Gitmo will close - what's the point, as you point out - its ridiculous to maintain it even now under these circumstances. the administration doesn't have the courage to start military tribunals there anyway - now with this law - the ACLU will be in there asking for discovery on every incident to file charges against US soldiers. what's the point of keeping it open.

[FairOpinion]

"we are better off using foreign prisons and secret prisons."


===

Is we do, those who keep the prisoners can and will be prosecuted based on this law.

Re-read the text, it's very specific, that it applied about regardless of location, to anyone under US control.

---

FULL TEXT:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:1:./temp/~r109H252jM:e911694:

(a) In General.--"No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the 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. "

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

As far as McVain and the rest of the senate is concerned, had the Islamists who did this bailed out and been captured, they should each be givin their "rights" and assigned a taxpayer-funded attorney. Following a plea bargain, they would spend the rest of their lives rent free, with three-meals-per-day, exersize equipment, color TV, lifetime access to free attornies and law library, lifetime free medical care, full dental coverage, conjugal visits, freedom to publish and profit from anti-American publications, etc., etc.

Makes one want to buy more guns and ammo, huh?

[Prime Choice]

I hope Bush vetoes the entire bill...

Has Bush vetoed any bill the Senate and House have passed? I cannot recall any...

[Soul Seeker]

It's the only coarse I can see.

Go to war with Congress, ally with the conservative base. Granted, many conservatives are NOT happy about his selection of Miers but still, in majority, like and respect the man while the same cannot be said of their feelings of this Congress.

It may not stop it, but at this point, Congress has just sold this Country out.

[Prime Choice]

I'm having a hard time coming up with a humor vector on that one. Indeed...the more I think about it, the more it pisses me off.

[FairOpinion]

"in politics, either you are on offense - or you are losing."

===

You are absolutely right. In politics and in war. The Republicans surrendered their majority status, when some of them became part of the infamous 14, and allowed the Dems to retain the filibuster against judicial nominees. The Dems sensed the weakness and the Republicans are continuing to fold. It's a disgrace, which actually puts the American people in grave danger.

[FairOpinion]

Well, it can be "black humor" that's about what it is.

We win on the battle field, then our Congress waves the white flag and surrenders to the terrorists.

[SandRat]

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,..

That's about like the Local carpenter's union voting to tell the town Heart Surgeon what medical procedures he is to use.

[oceanview]

the last set of polls I saw on this "torture" issue were generally favorable towards the US military - the case can be made that the "torture" claims are overblown, punishment has been given where merited, and that the US must have methods to deal with these kinds of combatants in this type of war. we can't give them constitutional rights all over the world, we already have a SCOTUS that gave the Gitmo terrorists lawyers - and the administration didn't say one word in protest.

but again, unless the administration goes on offense and attacks on these points - nothing will happen.

[oceanview]

"under US control" is subject to interpretation when the person is held in a foreign prison.