Torture: How looooooow can you go...

McCain, White House at impasse over detainee treatment

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. John McCain and
President Bush's national security adviser remained at an impasse Wednesday over the senator's proposed ban on cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment of foreign terrorism suspects. "At this point, discussions are ongoing," national security adviser Stephen Hadley told The Associated Press as he left McCain's Capitol Hill office after a meeting that lasted just over an hour.

"We continue to chat," McCain, R-Arizona, said just before meeting with Hadley. The senator spent five years as a prisoner while serving in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam War. The ban on mistreatment of prisoners, and another provision standardizing the interrogation techniques used by U.S. troops, have stalled two defense bills in Congress, including a must-pass wartime spending measure.House and Senate negotiators want to complete the bills before adjourning for the year. But GOP leaders are waiting for the results of talks between McCain and the White House before moving forward.

A compromise could come this week, but a deal remained elusive Wednesday.The administration fears the provisions could limit the president's ability to stop a terrorist attack and it is seeking to add language that would offer some protection from prosecution for
some interrogators accused of violating McCain's provision.


But the senator has rejected that. Instead, he has offered to include language similar to that in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It would allow accused civilian interrogators -- like military interrogators -- to defend themselves if a reasonable person could have found they were following a lawful order about treatment of detainees.


McCain has had recent telephone conversations with Hadley while the
senator has been on a tour promoting his new book. Their face-to-face meeting Wednesday took on added significance because of the time pressure Congress is under.Karen Hughes, undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, expressed confidence that McCain and Hadley would "reach consensus."

"The goal is the same here," Hughes said on CBS' "The Early Show." "The
goal is to make it very clear that the United States is a nation of laws and
that we operate our detainee policy within our laws, within our
international obligations and without torture."

The Senate overwhelmingly approved McCain's provisions, but they were
not in the defense bills approved by the House, and House members have not yet voted on them. Congressional aides say it's widely accepted the provisions have enough support to pass in the House.

House leaders have held off moving toward a vote until they get their
cue from the White House. After initially threatening a veto and trying to kill the provisions, the White House then switched gears to lobby for an
exemption to the ban for CIA interrogators.
But McCain balked at that
and it was taken off the negotiating table.The senator has said he won't
agree to changes that would undermine the provisions, which he argues are needed to clarify current anti-torture laws in light of abuses at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and allegations of misconduct by U.S. troops at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.



First of all, it appalls me as an American that this is even a political discussion. To what degree have we devolved that we should even consider torturing a prisoner as a viable means of obtaining information? This is the 21st century, is it not? Did Dick Cheney decide to pull the lever in the 'way back' machine and party like it's 1299? Did he get the memo that torture doesn't work, and in fact, would more than likely contribute to misleading intelligence, not to mention the act tarnishes the American image abroad. How do you convince a population that you say you are trying to liberate to follow you down the path of democracy if you, as a nation, do not conform to a higher standard? I hear some right wingers counter the arguement with examples of civilians being beheaded by insurgent militias. Yes, what these few extremists are doing is disgusting and barbaric, but is that a free pass to stoop to that level? Remember, who does vengence belong to?

The United States was one of many countries that signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the U.N.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Leaders lead by example. If we, as Americans, wish to be that beacon of light that the rest of the world follows, we really need to take a long hard look at certain policies that have really begun to dim that beacon.

Comments

  1. Dude, it's so much worse than that. Facing unified support for the McCain amendment, Bu$hCo has had the Pentagon rewrite the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation, the document upon which the McCain amendment is based!

    When you can't win, change the rules.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Where is your documented evidence of systematic torture?

    It seems to me I have heard the President, the VP, the Defense Dept. and many other insist that “We do not torture!”

    Can you point me to the evidence? Please exclude left wing smear sites.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Where is your documented evidence of systematic torture?

    It seems to me I have heard the President, the VP, the Defense Dept. and many other insist that “We do not torture!”


    One can only infer from your first statement that, if the torture were not systematic, then it would be OK. Right? Not that it's in any way relevant. No evidence of torture needs to be forthcoming for the US to take a principled stand against it.

    Since President Neuman, et al. are willing to publically state that we don't employ torture, then they should have no problem with the McCain amendment. And yet...they still do. Hmmm

    ReplyDelete
  4. I state 'not systemic' because we all know some incidences have occurred. It would be foolish to put 140,000 or more solders into a war zone and not expect any of them to go bad. If there were orders given from the top as you imply, it would be systemic.

    It looks like to me the Army amended it's rules to comply with what it felt would be McCain's amendment - is that shooting it down?

    There is no evidence - so the Pres must be secretly guilty. I've heard that kind of nutty logic from the left before.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If he doesn't comply - he's guilty!
    If he complys - he's guilty!
    You guys are nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I just feel that as an American, supporting the use of torture, even in extreme circumstances, is indefensable. What message does it send those in the middle east that we are trying to liberate when they turn on Al Jazerra and hear about Cheney fighting tooth and nail in favor of the option?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Universal Healthcare or Corporate Welfare?

Right Wing Cheerleader of the Week Award

How to Cheat, Lie, and Steal and Blame it on Your Opponent - For Dummies