McCain's Anti-torture Bill set to pass w/o Veto

This is one politician I actually admire.

After months of persuasion, and despite going against supporting fellow Republican Bush, war hero Senator John McCain announces that not only will his anti-torture bill pass, but won't be vetoed. Unlike the previous jargon spewed by the White House about how the aggressive, humiliating interrogation techniques are "within law", this bill actually restricts such methods.

You'll note that Gonzales, Bush's croney picked Attorney General - the guy who's essentially the top cop / lawyer of the USA, was very reluctant to make this happen. You may remember Gonzales as "The guy who was in charge of GITMO". What an asswipe.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/15/torture.bill/index.html

McCain, Bush agree on torture ban
House Armed Services chairman threatens to block deal

Thursday, December 15, 2005; Posted: 8:36 p.m. EST (01:36 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After months of opposition, the White House agreed Thursday to Republican Sen. John McCain's call to ban torture by U.S. personnel.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Virginia, and McCain, R-Arizona, met with President Bush to discuss the deal, which Warner said he expects to be finalized by the end of the day.

After the meeting with President Bush, McCain said "this is a done deal."

But Warner's Republican counterpart in the House, Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter of California, said he will not sign onto the deal and may try to block it.

Hunter said he would not agree to the ban until he gets "assurance from the White House" that the nation's ability to gather intelligence is not diminished by the agreement.

On Wednesday evening, the House voted 308-122 to urge negotiators to include McCain's torture ban in the final version of a defense spending bill.

"The majority of the House spoke last night, the majority of the Senate has already spoken. I hope that we can get this resolved within the next 24 hours so the House and Senate can vote and move forward," McCain said.

"We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists. We have no grief for them, but what we are is a nation that upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people, no matter how evil or bad they are," McCain said. "I think that this will help us enormously in winning the war for the hearts and minds of people throughout the world in the war on terror."

Bush said the ban "is to make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad." (Watch President Bush's and Sen. McCain's statements -- 4:05)

Warner called it "landmark legislation" and lauded McCain for "staying the course." McCain, a former POW who was tortured by his Vietnamese captors, has been steadfast in the face of administration pressure to modify his proposal.

The White House had threatened a veto unless the legislation contained an exemption for the CIA. The administration argued the bill would otherwise limit presidential ability to protect Americans from a terrorist attack.

McCain's initial bill called for banning all U.S. personnel from engaging in "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of detainees. The only changes to his proposal, McCain said, dealt with people accused of mistreating detainees.

"It) basically says that if a person, a reasonable person, would feel that someone was acting under orders ... then it could be a defense in case of accusation," McCain said. "And there is a provision for legal counsel for those who are accused (of torture), both civilian and military."

Lawmakers are hoping to reach a final agreement before leaving Capitol Hill for the holidays. (Watch Alberto Gonzales talk about the bill -- 9:22)

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview Thursday that the administration was reluctant to sign onto the McCain proposal because it feared it might overly restrict the intelligence community's ability to fight the war on terror.

"We want to ensure that we have the ability to question and gain valuable information from dangerous terrorists that will help us protect America from another attack," Gonzales said. "We want to conduct ourselves in a way that's consistent with our legal obligations and consistent with the basic American values. We believe that we can do so and still conduct the war in an effective manner."

International pressure has been building on the Bush administration to drop its opposition to the bill, amid the prisoner abuse scandal and accusations the CIA flew terror suspects to secret prisons in eastern Europe.

Last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the U.N. Convention against Torture applied to U.S. personnel, regardless if they were at home or abroad. (Full story)

CNN's Ed Henry contributed to this report.

Huzzah! Now if the filibuster stops the "Patriot" Act renewal we'll be golden.

Down with authoritarians!

~Ulrika~

That's a tricky one. Dubya supporters are threatening to take back the "compromise" Patriot Act bill and go to the original if the "compromise" isn't accepted.

Unfortunately, until there's a major media event showing a person or persons being exploited by the Patiot Act, I doubt many right-wingers are going to change their minds.

I'm against torture, too.

Sexually baiting terrorists is just about as effective I'm sure, though I'm not convinced the intelligence gained would be much better.

And I learned the name for it on these forums! "Honey trap." These forums are educational - better for you than eating vitamins.

So now, people listening to the tapes will hear "oh! oh!" between confessions instead of "ow! ow!"

Oh good. That will probably work as well as the "Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985" or the "Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993" as we now have a balanced budget and an absence of handgun violence, of course.

Well, that Ms Rice who was over here recently said that the US never tortures anyone. So surely there's no need for such legislation? I'm confused!

You know...I can't help feeling that this is another one of those stupid laws that does nothing but makes a bunch of people feel like they are acomplishing something.

By calling this an 'anti-torture' bill you're practically guaranteeing it'll pass (because anyone who comes out against it will be labelled 'for-torture', and no polititian want's that come elections in 2006!)

But really, what does it accomplish, besides having our military and intelligence community second-guess itself when legitimately interrogating terror suspects? Do we really want them hindered into thinking that they could be brought up on charges of torture for trying to get information out of some scum who want's to blow up a bunch of innocent people? And who decides what is torture and what isn't?

We should never stoop to the same level as the terrorists when it comes to dealing with prisoners (then again, I've never heard of any of our people beheading innocent civillians on video tape). But still, I don't see what this really does beside a nicey-nice feel-good throw-out to the rest of the World (See, we Americans aren't evil, we treat scummy terrorists nicely. please like us again...please?)

I wonder if McCain used 2008 as a stick to get people in line.

Ah well, at least we know who's going to be and who's not going to be FIC come 2008 now.

It's not rocket science, Bill. Yes, we want our military and intelligence people to second-guess themselves. Wasn't part of our rationale for invading Iraq that Saddam had torture chambers and rape rooms? Why bother if we're no better. "Gee, I wonder if hooking up this car battery to this man's testicles is wrong. hmmmmmm. Maybe I shouldn't shove this broom handle up his ass."

Ummm....the military already has rules against torture. That's why those sleaze-bags at Abu Grab where tried in a Military Court. I don't want the Civil Court system telling the Military how to do their job.

Yep, and they weren't the real sleaze-bags. Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Gonzalez, et al are the real bastards. By condoning torture and ignoring international treaties that we signed they proved that they're every bit as bad as the enemy we're supposed to be fighting against. Calling it the actions of just a few rogue soldiers is laughable in the extreme. I'd like to see laws strict enough that they'd all be on their way to prison over this. It came from the top down, and the consequences should go from the bottom all the way back to the top.

1. NOBODY condones torture (no matter what you want to think about the current Administration)

2. We DON'T HAVE an international treaty that covers terrorists. They are not protected under the Geneva Conventions (And where purposefully left out, I might add)

Anyway, Chip, It's no suprise that you and I will disagree on this. I respect your opinion, but I don't think you truly understand how the Military works. They have their own separate court system for a reason, and this bill hinders that.

What other methods besides torture are there for gleaning info? (Not a loaded quation, I genuinely don't know)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/16/110520.shtml

From: someone

U.S. 'Torturing' Thousands of American Citizens



The U.S. military is engaged in the systematic "torture" of hundreds of thousands of American citizens - according to new standards established by the McCain amendment, which forbids cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terrorist detainees.

Los Angeles Times columnist Max Boot blew the lid off the outrageous torture scandal earlier this week, reporting:

"There are major facilities all over the country where thousands of men and women who have not committed any crime are held for prolonged periods while subjected to physical and psychological coercion that violates every tenet of the Geneva Convention."

Boot details the horrific "torture" techniques carried out on these unsuspecting Americans.



• They are routinely made to stand for long periods in uncomfortable positions.

• They are made to walk for hours while wearing heavy loads on their backs.

• They are bullied by martinets who get in their faces and yell insults at them.

• They are hit and often knocked down with clubs known as pugil sticks.



• They are denied sleep for more than a day at a time.



• They are forced to inhale tear gas.

• They are prevented from seeing friends or family.

"Some are traumatized by this treatment," notes Boot. "A few even die."

Worse still, the systematic torture of Americans appears to have been sanctioned at the highest levels of the White House.

Yet the abuse continues without a peep of protest from Sen. McCain and his Democratic allies - like Sen. Dick Durbin, who decried the "Nazi-like" interrogation techniques employed on terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay.

The locations of these U.S.-based Abu Ghraibs? Parris Island, S.C., Camp Pendleton, Calif., Ft. Benning, Ga., Ft. Jackson, S.C., and other bases where the Army and Marines train recruits. We trust that Sen. McCain will launch an investigation into the brutal techniques employed by U.S. military trainers as soon as he's finished tying the hands of America's military interrogators.

That's cute. Are we trying to get information out of our own military personnel?

No, its because it was done against their will. If, on the other hand they had volunteered for this training it would be a different story.

I was referring to the Newsmax story - That stuff happens at boot camp, they volunteered for that all right. Once you are military, the government pretty much owns you. (disclaimer: this is an opinion, i dunno if they really do own you or not )

Hehe, yes I know, I was being sarcastic.
However, in the past some techniques used in training have been deemed excessive and ruled unlawful, so perhaps joking about it wasn't a good idea. In addition, at times in the past soldiers (and sometimes civilians) were used in medical testing against their knowledge. I think it's important to keep an eye on what the government does. Even with the best of intentions they sometimes go too far in their zeal. The government is there to represent me and I want to do my best to make sure they do so in a way that is acceptable to me.

I agree with you completely there. I got my bitch pills mixed up with the cold medicine

Hehe, that happened to me yesterday

I think we aren't the only ones

First of all, don't these contradict one another?

If you don't condone torture, then why would you (and the Bush administration) lean on the treaty fact?

And personally, I think the treaty is the lamest fucking cop-out ever. How about "We treated nazis in uniform better than we do ununiformed insurgents."?