"Anti-Torture Amendment"; Bush disapproves

[Teek]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_101005I.shtml

Remove All Torturers from Power
By Scott Galindez
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 10 October 2005

The Bush administration and those who support the Iraq war frequently justify it by saying that Saddam Hussein tortured his people. They say that Iraq is better off without him. I agree that Saddam needed to go, but with the reports from Abu Graib and other US run prisons it is clear that the Iraqi people are still being tortured.

Last week the Senate voted 90-9 on an amendment requiring humane treatment of detainees in US custody. The nine Senators who voted against this amendment need their power stripped as well. They are Senators Allard (CO), Bond (MO), Coburn (OK), Cochran (MS), Cornyn (TX), Inhofe (OK), Roberts (KS), Sessions (AL), and Stevens (AK).

Now we hear that George W. Bush is threatening to veto the defense bill if this amendment is still attached. So is that the noble cause our soldiers are dying for? The right to torture Iraqis?

We also hear that Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are twisting arms in the House to attempt to kill the anti-torture amendment. Where is the outrage? Why aren't all Americans demanding that the McCain Amendment be signed into law?

This amendment should have passed with a unanimous consent request in both the House and the Senate. Anyone opposing it is unfit to serve the American people. They deserve to have their power stripped just like Saddam.

Text of Amendment

SA 1977. Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. SMITH, and Ms. COLLINS) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2863, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) IN GENERAL.-No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.

(b) APPLICABILITY.-Subsection (a) shall not apply to with respect to any person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense pursuant to a criminal law or immigration law of the United States.


(c) CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the rights under the United States Constitution of any person in the custody or under the physical jurisdiction of the United States.
SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

(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.

[Page S10909]


(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.

Heh. Discuss.

[udsuna]

Lovely- HOWEVER, what you don't see are the "outside amendments". Which is, essentually backroom deals where a certain senator or whatnot agrees to sign, in exchange for certain considerations to his state's (supposedly) advantage. Like, say, the senator of Texas (who owns a gas company) wants the fuel taxes lowered.

Most bills don't get through because of these stupid things- for every bill sent, you usually get at least half a dozen different "stipulations", each one as irrelevent to the bill at hand as the last. Any Republican-centric bill will see all kinds of Democrat stipulants, and vice-versa. Since no one ever sees these stipulations, we can only guess what the TRUE reason for Bush to oppose it.

Then again, that doesn't stop Bush from being the (multiple expletives deleted) that he is. But this anti-torture bill isn't something he'd have any reason to oppose. After all, we can simply give these prisoners to an ally who has no such qualms. Israel, for example. Simple loophole, and all we'd need is an american "advisor" to sit in on the torture sessions to acquire the information. The only risk is that Israel may learn something, too. Which is a minute risk- their intelligence department makes the KGB look like amatures. Anything our prisoners might reveal, Israel probably knew for years.

[edczxcvbnm]

If the bill got 90 votes and it goes back to the senate on a revote then all they need is 67 votes out of the 100 to over ride Bush and make it law without his approval. I would like to think this wouldn't be too hard.

[Cloud No.9]

well bush already ammended his own laws on torture and pulled out of the international courts. this doesn't suprise me. the american president wants to be able to torture foriegn nationals.

and why would we need this law if people weren't being tortured? and really the human rights act comes before anything the american president can ever say. quite frankly he is guilty of crimes against humanity and should be treated as such.

[udsuna]

I love how you keep saying "american" like he actually speaks for us. He didn't even win the popular vote, just the electorals. (meaning that less than half of the votes went in his favor, and he won via loopholes)

[Shlup]

We don't need anymore freaking amendments. We don't need any freaking anti-torture amendment. We have enough conflicting rules in the system as it is. These rules already exist; we don't need them written fifteen different ways 'cause someone'll think of another way to word it so that it's okay again.

Laws are gay. Like the bad kind. We should all just live in boxes.

[Cloud No.9]

this is all because after bush set up guantanamo bay he realised that holidng and torturing inmates is just a wee bit illegal.

so he makes a change in the law. torture is only torture when you either maim or kill somone. by this definition chinese water torture is legal, as is sleep depravation, humiliation, pain caused by stress positions, extreme temperatures.

but the house has seen that that is possibly a bit of a crap law and so wants to change it back to not being able to torture people.

[Gilgamesh of Legends]

This bill is going to get overridden and Bush's approval rating is going to visit the fishes

[Teek]

and really the human rights act comes before anything the american president can ever say.

Uh, no, it doesn't. America is not subject to the mob, thanks.

[DocFrance]

Well, I've made up my mind. I'm not voting for him in the next election.

[edczxcvbnm]

Good one Doc.

Bush is a dead ship in the water right now and don't be surprised if the GOP starts to go against Bush's agenda due to his super low approval ratings. I just say on the news that 33% approve of him while 59% disapprove.

Also when asked who you will vote for in the next election 38% answered republican while 48% answered democrat. There is still a lot of time left to turn this around and caputure the remaining 14% but things are not looking good for the GOP when all their high ranking individuals are under investigation for break all sorts of laws.

[Cloud No.9]

"Uh, no, it doesn't. America is not subject to the mob, thanks."

well since your country is no longer prepared to protect your human rights then you only have one other place to turn.

[Gnostic Yevon]

"Uh, no, it doesn't. America is not subject to the mob, thanks."

well since your country is no longer prepared to protect your human rights then you only have one other place to turn.

Well, when you become an American, you can vote Bush out.

I'm not a proponent of torture, but honestly, I don't think it's fair to ask a soldier to not do something that could very well save another soldier's life. I'm not in Iraq, and no matter what happens there, it's unlikely that my life will be directly effected. I'm not going to look over their shoulders while they're in an environment where not having intelligence in time means that they can't stop the truck bomb. It isn't fair to sit in judgement of the soldiers when you sit at home typing on your PC sipping a tea. War isn't a spectator sport, nor is it meant to look purty to outsiders.

Expecting a soldier to give up something that may save his buddies' lives to me is just as moral as forbidding a starving man to eat meat because you think eating meat is immoral. What that would mean in practicality is "I'd rather see you dead then see you doing something I find distastful." All well and good if you're both in the same boat, and something altogether different if after lecturing the starving man about how eating meat is evil -- even though it will save his life -- you go out and have a 5 course vegan meal self-righteously congratulating yourself for speaking out on the evils of meat eating.

I think it's immoral to ask someone else to die for my morality. I hope that I would have the courage to die rather than torture someone, but the thing about that is that only my life would be in danger because of my morality, and I would be the one to face the consequences for whichever actions I choose to take -- not me deciding for you, or for anyone else. If you'd rather die than torture, great! I hope most people feel that way. But it's a far different thing to ask a stranger to die for my morality, or yours, or Big D's, or War Angel's. That's just how I see things on the issue.

[herbie08]

While I appreciate your sympathies as an American soldier myself, I've gotta disagree with you. I'm too tired right now to go into all this, but let me just tell you that in the military morals come first. I don't know an officer in the Navy or Marine Corps who would say that torturing people excessively is right, even if it could potentially save lives. Because 'potential' doesn't mean in actual reality. I've got a lot more to say about this, but I'm gonna hit the rack right now. I'll sleep on it, and have more to say in the morning. Or the afternoon, seeing as how my morning is actually pretty stacked. Peace!

And DocFrance, that was smurfing hilarious. Thank you for making my day.

And udsuna, hate to say it, but that's wrong. Bush did win the popular vote this time. It was the first election where he didn't get the popular vote. Not saying he deserved it, I woulda actually much rather had McCain run for president, as it were.

[Cloud No.9]

dying for morality is exactly what to do. that was the nuremburg principle.

channel 4 did a season about the american torture. in it they had a ex cia, mossad and mi5 and asked them if the ticking bomb scenario (where torturing someone had given information about an imminent threat) had ever happened. they all replied, no.

torture acheives nothing. unless of course you believe the witch hunting and spanish inquisition were valid. torture is used in a situation when guilt cannot be proved. that is normally due to lack of evidence. if there was enough evidence then it would be used and a confession would not be needed. it is based on blind guesses. look at the prisoners in guantanamo bay. in there we have a blind cripple who was according to all intelligence in pakistan (he was the taliban's ambassador). kids. another blind man (though that was admittedly done in custody).

and we are talking about an intelligence system so flawed it led to the iraq war and the refusal of entry to cat stevens and the false arrest and torture of many released.

and we are talking about a military which has soldiers such as lindy england and the ones using a website in which they trade porn for pictures of dead iraqis.

is this the system we want to use to decide who deserves torture so bad the US had to ammend it's own position on torture and leave the international court.

and i'll judge any man who tortures another. unless you want to absolve all blame for the nuremburg guilty.