Senate votes to restrict treatment of detainees!
Here’s some interesting news from the Senate, please read the whole article here..
Bush rebuffed in 90-9 vote to bar ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading’ treatment (AP
Updated: 11:23 p.m. ET Oct. 5, 2005WASHINGTON – The Republican-controlled Senate voted Wednesday to impose restrictions on the treatment of terrorism suspects, delivering a rare wartime rebuke to President Bush.
Defying the White House, senators voted 90-9 to approve an amendment that would prohibit the use of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” against anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held.
(snip and then this)
Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said he was concerned that McCain’s legislation could inadvertently endanger the lives of people who work in classified roles. He said he hoped to fix the potential problems during negotiations with the House.
(my note here: what does this mean, how would this endanger lives of classified operative?)“There are some changes that have to be made if we are going to be faithful to those people who live in the classified world,” Stevens said.
With limits on U.S. interrogation techniques, Stevens said there is a legitimate fear that “custody will go to the other nationalities involved in the team. And we’ll have no control.”
The article then goes on to say:
The White House has said Bush advisers would recommend the president veto the entire bill over the legislation. But a veto is considered highly unlikely given that Bush has never used that power.
Also, scrapping a measure that provides money for pay raises, benefits, equipment and weapons for troops while the country is fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would open the president to a flood of criticism.
As to passing the House the article states the following:
Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, is supporting McCain’s legislation. Murtha could prove a powerful ally when House and Senate negotiators meet to reconcile differences in their bills.
I was watching the Senate session on cspan earlier tonight and the discussion (especially Reid)got quite heated before “this” vote, about the fact that the Reps. were trying to attach an appropriation bill onto the authorization bill for defense spending. Reid argued that this was never done in this manner, although I confess I had a hard time following the procedural rules which ended with a vote on the germaness of the method.
Seems like the Republicans are trying to pull something with the whole Defense Bill, but I am glad they were able to get together to pass the ‘detainees treatment restrictions’ amendment.
These are the nine Republican Senators who still want to torture human beings:
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)
You can find their contact info here.
My fingers are just itching to send them some nastygrams… Sick, sick people!
I think these ones deserve a phonecall too!
First thing in the morning…
It’s nice to have a good reason to get up early!
Oh thanks for that Manee, I didn’t get the voting on the amendment.
As I noted in the diary above, Stevens was quite concerned about the protection of people who lived in the classified world.(but he said he was in ‘favor’ of the amendment) and said there was a whole section of the bill that is “classified” I think is the term and he alluded to something that was in the classified section that deals with this in some way or other. Very difficult to follow some of it.
I am sure some of this will be changed when they get together with the House on the bill and maybe we will be informed a bit more on the “classified part”of this.
Oh good, one of my Senators voted for “torture at will.” 🙁 Allard, the inhuman moron. Good reminder that however frustrating I might find Salazar at times, he is ten times better than Allard.
Emma, we had an interesting “debate” at the normally useless Colorado Pols site today. Check it out if you’re game–we really fired up the wingnuts by suggesting that Allard condones torture.
Turns out several of them do, too–even if it doesn’t work.
(But don’t visit there often–you’ll go insane from asking the same question over and over and just having the wingnuts respond by calling you “commie.”)
Oh, and of course I called Allard’s office this morning to express my displeasure. His staff was polite as always and will pass my sentiments on to the Senator.
I will check it out! I enjoyed a little spat over there recently between Beauprez and supporters and Holtzman supporters over and allegedly stolen email list. 🙂
While I’d obviously prefer Salazar to Allard (I’d better–I knocked on enough doors for him), never forget that Ken Salazar’s public support was instrumental in appointing Alberto Gonzales to Attorney General.
Someone else would have written the quasi-legal basis for us scrapping military law and the 4th Geneva Convention if Gonzales hadn’t. But Salazar could easily have done the right thing, as 8 of 10 of his constituents were telling him at the time.
I agree 100%. Salazar has been a disappointment more than once. I have Udall for my congressman though – he’s almost always on the right side.
but really could be better. (Do we both live in Boulder?)
I do give him major props for signing on to Barbara Lee’s resolution of inquiry into the Iraq War origins, HR 375. We met with two of his staffers about 5 weeks ago. They were polite, receptive, made a tentative commitment, then called a few days later to say that Mark had proudly signed on.
Mark Udall is a solid Democrat, although his votes have been led astray more than once. I’m looking forward to working hard on his campaign for Senate. He will be an outstanding replacement for Allard, and will show freshman Ken Salazar how things are done.
At risk of sounding like an Northeastern elitist, I can’t help but noticing the states that these despicable chaps come from. Guess they are promoting the views of their knuckle dragging constituents, huh?
I say we take these esteemed gentlemen to an undisclosed location…and build a butt pyramid !!!
What’s that? Yes, you’re right…bad idea…they would love it.
I am afraid it needs repeating:
Anyone who has ever been remotely near Intelligence people or Intelligence operations knows if you want real information, you do not torture your informants.
Torture is good for:
Getting signatures on fake confessions
Hearing your own preconceptions repeated back to you
Personality destruction
Satisfying your own sadistic urges
Torture is not good for
Reliable information
Ending hostilities
Public relations
Torture is only somewhat useful for intimidation: Although the torture itself is very intimidating, this cannot lead to a enduring state of victory/surrender, since the torture itself precludes the possibility of rational accommodation.
How are intelligence ops at risk if they stop torturing? Actually it would make them safer.
.
From my earlier comment ::
Despite a veto threat from the President and VP Cheney’s effort to persuade Republican senators to oppose the amendment …
Lindsey Graham, an Air Force judge for 20 years, added: “We have let the troops down when it comes to trying to give them guidance in very stressful situations.”
Opposing the effort, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said that requiring all U.S. troops to follow procedures in the Army manual is not practical in the current war environment. “The techniques vary upon the circumstances and the physical location of people involved.”
The White House opposes legislation that would impose restrictions on the Pentagon’s detention, interrogation and prosecution of prisoners, arguing that it would tie the president’s hands in wartime.
▼ ▼ ▼
.
In the moments of darkness, some of us didn’t despair but kept HOPE!
Tables are turned, watch the roaches run to the exits …
Need to grab the opportunity to come forward with a strong positive message ::
● OUR BILL OF RIGHTS and U.S. CONSTITUTION
TURNING AMERICA AROUND
Howard Dean & His Nation :: the Democrats & DFA
▼ ▼ ▼
The sad thing is that there is greater concern for the image of our country than there is for those suffering in our captivity.
a very interesting observation.
It is sad, but it isn’t uncommon to have to appeal to some kind of self interest to get people to behave well. At least it worked!
For one thing, as the article says, it would open up the floodgates of criticism. But for another, if he did veto it, what would be the point? You only need a 2/3 vote to override a veto and with this passing 90-9 I don’t see 2/3 vote as much of a problem.
I just hope they get this passed before Repubcorp™ piles a bunch of pork onto it.
I agree with you, and since the vote was only for the amendment, I am hoping Senators would retain their stand if override is called for. Still has to get through the house tho. Might be a tougher go there with all the hardline Bush supports, we’ll see how many they have left, I guess, with this amendment.
With The Bugman under indictment and Blunt not far from it, I’m wondering whether the House Republicans will have any kind of way to enforce cohesion. If they don’t, some of our representatives might actually — gasp! — vote their consciences.
I know, it’s hard to imagine, but it could happen.
“finest hour” for the United States Senate.
Diane, great diary!
I happened to watch PBS Newshour tonight — they did a VERY powerful segment.
Ted Stevens was POUNDING on the podium, he was so pissed … it was shocking!
You can read the transcript here at the Newshour site, but they also have the AUDIO, and I think that that’s better because you can hear how the Senators talked. Quite something.