http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/05/AR2005100502062.html

Quote :

"Senate votes 90-9 for Interrogation Limits. Dares the White House to veto it. Forty-three Republican Senators joined forty-three Democratic Senators to sign the bill: ...Senate GOP leaders had managed to fend off the detainee language this summer, saying the Congress should not constrain the executive branch's options. 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. McCain said military officers have implored Congress for guidelines, adding that he mourns "what we lose when by official policy or by official negligence we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget . . . that which is our greatest strength: that we are different and better than our enemies." ... The Senate's 90 to 9 vote suggested a new boldness among Republicans to challenge the White House on war policy. The amendment by McCain, one of Bush's most significant backers at the outset of the Iraq war, would establish uniform standards for the interrogation of people detained by U.S. military personnel, prohibiting "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment while they are in U.S. custody... In its statement on the veto threat, the White House said the measure would "restrict the president's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bringing terrorists to justice." But as new allegations of abuse surface, the chorus of McCain supporters is broadening. McCain read a letter on the Senate floor from former secretary of state Colin L. Powell, who endorsed the amendment and said it would help address "the terrible public diplomacy crisis created by Abu Ghraib." Powell joins a growing group of retired generals and admirals who blame prison abuse on "ambiguous instructions," as the officers wrote in a recent letter. They urged restricting interrogation methods to those outlined in the U.S. Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation, the parameters that McCain's measure would establish. 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." Despite his victory last night, McCain has two major obstacles remaining: House GOP leaders object to attaching it to a spending bill, and Bush could veto it. However, senior GOP Senate aides said they believe the differences could be bridged, either by tweaking the measure or by changing the field manual. The Maryland and Virginia senators voted for the McCain amendment..."

Quote :

"Update: A friend says the resolution will get weakened in committee (Alaska's Ted Stevens asserts as much here). Jeff Sessions (R-AL) voted against the bill. Who are the other eight? Here we go, from reader N: 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) As a friend points out, "Look at who these people are! Chairmen of Intelligence, Defense Approps, Environment and Public Works committees. The Chairman of two major Judiciary subcommittees and the transport subcommittee of EPW. These are senior ...people.""

10/6/2005 10:57:58 AM

Ah, come on. Torture is good. It's conservative. Freedom is on the march.

10/6/2005 11:07:26 AM

i <3 john mccain.

10/6/2005 11:20:24 AM

Who abstained?

10/6/2005 11:21:28 AM

In virtue of salisburyboy lending his name to the idea that torture is bad, I feel the case for torture as something bad is weakened.

10/6/2005 11:23:19 AM

Hahahahahha.

I feel the same way about priests raping children.

10/6/2005 11:24:57 AM

They probably have some reasons to vote against this bill. I don't imagine any congressman is ACTUALLY a proponent of torture.

10/6/2005 11:32:23 AM

Alberto Gonzalez, The Bush Administration, the U.S. military, and even Alan Dershowitz think torture is good. Come on people, torture IS good.

Dershowitz: Torture could be justified
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/

10/6/2005 12:01:45 PM

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=18427

10/6/2005 12:04:39 PM

Quote :

"They probably have some reasons to vote against this bill. I don't imagine any congressman is ACTUALLY a proponent of torture."

yeah, you'd probably feel better just continuing to lie to yourself.

10/6/2005 12:16:06 PM

The guy I heard on BBC last night before going to sleep said that he was against the bill only because it failed to define what torture and degradation are. He said that he was very much against these things, but since this bill failed to outline what they actually are, some practices which are helpful and are generally not considered tortuous or degrading may still be eliminated. The example he gave was waking a detainee up in the middle of the night to interrogate them for 4 or 5 hours. This isn't really torture or degradation, but it may have to be eliminated. He said that a lot of good information had come from this practice, and I think that even domestic police use this sometimes (that last part is me, not him talking).

I think he was a lawyer for the white house or something.

Anyway, I would say that's probably the same reason most of those 9 senators didn't like the bill.

I will see if I can find the transcript of the interview. It was on like NewsHour or something around 2AM.

10/6/2005 12:26:07 PM

Ok, found it.

It was Lee Casey, a former US Justice Department lawyer.

Link to the page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/worldtoday/news/story/2005/10/051004_batonrouge.shtml

Link to the audio file:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/ondemand/rams/wt400670___2005.ram

The thing I was mentioning in the previous post is brought up at the three minute mark.

10/6/2005 12:38:01 PM

Didn't you guys know? Torture is already okay...just as long as it isn't performed with the torture itself being the express motive. So, like, torture just to hurt somebody is illegal, but torture to get informtion out of somebody is legal. I remember there being a few threads about this a while back.

10/6/2005 12:39:58 PM

Quote :

"Despite his victory last night, McCain has two major obstacles remaining: House GOP leaders object to attaching it to a spending bill"

so they are trying to attach this to a spending bill? maybe that has something to do with the opposition


it would be like attaching a provision legalizing late term abortions to a defense appropriations bill, and when people object to it, people would rush in and say that they arent supporting our troops.

[Edited on October 6, 2005 at 12:53 PM. Reason : .]

10/6/2005 12:51:13 PM

^ That would work except for the number of republicans and democrats behind it. It's more trying to get the nutcase in the white house in that said position, instead of really anyone else.

10/6/2005 1:05:00 PM

http://lyingdildoman.ytmnd.com/

10/6/2005 4:39:45 PM

i think torture is good






































torture of salisburyboy

10/6/2005 5:44:02 PM

i'm in favor of torturing senators

10/6/2005 6:41:33 PM