« “I have an uneasy suspicion that it relates to the nationality of the victim.” | Main | Really, why on earth could they hate us? »
October 05, 2005
90 to 9
I haven't read the text of the amendment, but in some sense that's not important. At this point in history, what's important is that the Senate voted 90-9, prohibiting "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of detainees:
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."
Posted by zeynep at October 5, 2005 10:51 PM
Comments
On the face of it, there is no constraint in this prohibition on the President's power to bring terrorists to justice, for evidence obtained via torture is not admissible in a court of law. I suspect, however, that what Bush & Co. means by ``bringing terrorists to justice'' is not obtaining, under due process of law, a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. By ``bringing terrorists to justice'', I fear they mean extra-judicial incarceration or killing.
Posted by: Paul Lyon at October 6, 2005 06:39 PM
Aren't there already laws against torture? Maybe I'm missing something...
Posted by: Disillusioned kid at October 8, 2005 04:40 PM
Yes, there are laws against torture -- but they are 'interpreted' to fit our policy. Our Constitution calls international treaties the supreme law of the land, but with the renaming of prisoners as 'enemy combatants' [neither a prisoner of war nor a detained citizen], the thinking is that the Geneva Conventions do not apply. Many of the other countries that signed onto the Geneva Conventions would disagree with our interpretation. Of course, it looks like we do fail article 75 of Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions, but who is going to enforce compliance to this treaty? A law that is not enforced bears no, or little, consequence when broken.
Posted by: EWR at October 17, 2005 02:56 PM