Bush Administration wants an exception for CIA to commit torture

[Imran Siddiqui]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/po.../25detain.html

White House Seeks Exception in Abuse Ban
By ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 - Stepping up a confrontation with the Senate over the handling of detainees, the White House is insisting that the Central Intelligence Agency be exempted from a proposed ban on abusive treatment of suspected Qaeda militants and other terrorists.

The Senate defied a presidential veto threat nearly three weeks ago and approved, 90 to 9, an amendment to a $440 billion military spending bill that would ban the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of any detainee held by the United States government. This could bar some techniques that the C.I.A. has used in some interrogations overseas.

But in a 45-minute meeting last Thursday, Vice President Dick Cheney and the C.I.A. director, Porter J. Goss, urged Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who wrote the amendment, to support an exemption for the agency, arguing that the president needed maximum flexibility in dealing with the global war on terrorism, said two government officials who were briefed on the meeting. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the discussions.

Mr. McCain rejected the proposed exemption, which stated that the measure "shall not apply with respect to clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States, that are carried out by an element of the United States government other than the Department of Defense and are consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and treaties to which the United States is a party, if the president determines that such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack."

Spokesmen for Mr. McCain, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Goss all declined to comment on the matter Monday, citing the confidentiality of the talks.

Human rights organizations said Monday that it was unclear whether the language in the changes proposed by the White House meant that the president would decide exemptions case by case or whether there would be more of a blanket authority. But they said the administration's proposal would seriously undermine Mr. McCain's measure.

Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First, formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, said the administration had interpreted an international treaty banning torture to mean that a prohibition against cruel and inhumane treatment did not apply to C.I.A. actions overseas.

"That's why the McCain amendment is important, and that's why this language they're floating now would gut it," said Ms. Massimino, who provided a copy of the administration's proposed changes to The New York Times.

Human rights advocates said that creating parallel sets of interrogation rules for military personnel and clandestine intelligence operatives was impractical in the war on terrorism, where soldiers and spies routinely cross paths on a global battlefield and often share techniques

"They are explicitly saying, for the first time, that the intelligence community should have the ability to treat prisoners inhumanely," Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, said. "You can't tell soldiers that inhumane treatment is always morally wrong if they see with their own eyes that C.I.A. personnel are allowed to engage in it."

Mr. McCain's provision faces stiff opposition in the House, which did not include similar language in its version of the spending bill.

The White House has threatened to veto any bill that includes the McCain provision, contending that it would bind the president's hands in wartime.

But Mr. McCain has kept the pressure on as the issue moves to a House-Senate conference committee, perhaps later this week or next. Shortly after the Senate vote on Oct. 5, Mr. McCain's staff sent members of the conference committee letters endorsing the provision signed by more than two dozen retired senior military officers, including former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and John M. Shalikashvili, both former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The matter will probably be settled in a private meeting in the next week or two among four senior lawmakers: Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and Representative C. W. Bill Young of Florida, both Republicans; and Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii and Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, both Democrats. All are on the conference committee.

Mr. McCain originally offered his measure earlier this year, when the Senate was working on a bill setting Pentagon policy. But Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, scuttled that bill, partly because of White House opposition to the amendment.

Now it appears that senators have struck a deal to revive the budget bill for Senate floor debate and action. One of the principal amendments that Democrats are expected to offer, sponsored by Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, would create an independent commission to review accusations of prisoner abuse by American forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere. The White House has also threatened a presidential veto if any bill comes to Mr. Bush's desk that contains the provision.

[DinoDoc]

This keeps getting more and more strange from my POV.

[Ninot]

Why would the Bush administration be so happy to cede the moral high ground and revert to torture?

[Proteus_MST]

Well,
if anyone has wondered why the Bush government put up so much resistance into the law which would malke it illegal to give torture orders,
here we have the reason.

And to be honest, this article sounds like an confession of the Bush government, that there are indeed prisoners which are tortured in the name of the war on terror by people working for the US Administration.

[DanS]

I really don't understand this. Is there a particularly effective form of interrogation that skates near the edge of abuse or torture?

I always was taught that abuse and torture weren't very effective in getting good information anyway, so I'm curious as to why there should be an exception.

[Dinner]

Supposedly Cheney was the one who pushed for the original ambigous treatment of prisoner policies which lead to Gitmo and Abu Gareb. Is he also the big backer of this proposed change?

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
I really don't understand this. Is there a particularly effective form of interrogation that skates near the edge of abuse or torture?

I always was taught that abuse and torture weren't very effective in getting good information anyway, so I'm curious as to why there should be an exception.

Torture is a great way to get people to answer questions the way you want them answered. Might produce a lot of good convictions.

[Q Classic]

Let me just say, it's proposed changes like the one in the OP that make me utterly confident in the direction this country is going.

damn, this GOP kool-aid is awfully tasty...

[Dinner]

The administration has been against McCain's anti-torture bill since day one. That's just wrong. If we want to make sure our guys aren't tortured then we need to lead by example or we'll have no moral standing to complain when it happens to captured GIs.

[child of Thor]

I think most of us know already that both our countries secret services have and do use torture methods to extract information. Hand on heart we know it goes on, but publically is denounced. IRA years? South America etc?

I think the thinking might be that as we do it already, and have it done back to us, then why not remove the red tape that makes it harder for our countries to get the answers they want out of a suspect?

Its a bad thing though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The ludicrous thing is that McCain's bill is pointed at agencies like the CIA who may be engaging in this behavior already. To make an exception for the CIA basically means that the bill is worthless, which is the Bush Administration's intent.

Secondly, the Administration must be a bunch of idiots because this basically admits they are using inhuman activities. If they really really wanted to do it, they'd probably sign the bill and do it hush-hush.

[Alexander's Horse]

they want to torture Democrats

[Cyclotron]

They accomplish that with every state of the union address

[Kuciwalker]

This is idiotic. Whatever the benefits of torture, they can't outweigh the damage to public image done by stuff like this.

[Drake Tungsten]

I really don't understand this. Is there a particularly effective form of interrogation that skates near the edge of abuse or torture?

This is just a guess, but I think maybe the inclusion of the term "degrading" in the amendment...

The Senate defied a presidential veto threat nearly three weeks ago and approved, 90 to 9, an amendment to a $440 billion military spending bill that would ban the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of any detainee held by the United States government. This could bar some techniques that the C.I.A. has used in some interrogations overseas.

... may have something to do with it. There are some interrogation techniques that are not torture that would potentially fall under the ban on "degrading treatment." I fully support a ban on actual torture and inhumane treatment, but I don't really give a **** if the CIA plays mind games with detainees that use the Islamist's own cultural views against them, behavior that some critics have labeled "degrading". Maybe the Adminstration feels the same way.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by child of Thor
I think most of us know already that both our countries secret services have and do use torture methods to extract information. Hand on heart we know it goes on, but publically is denounced. IRA years? South America etc?

I think the thinking might be that as we do it already, and have it done back to us, then why not remove the red tape that makes it harder for our countries to get the answers they want out of a suspect?

That's pretty much what it is.

Torture is being practiced by our government agencies at a systematic level. It's not just a bunch of isolated incidents or a couple of bad apples. This includes both "real torture" , and also the "torture lite." "Torture lite" is tactics that DanS and Drake are desparatley hoping is practiced 100% of the time, because it can be argued as not being torture. (Even though it clearly is, and clearly violates the Geneva Conventions).

But to try and change the laws to sanction it--to ENCOURAGE it--takes it to alarming levels that borderline on madness.

We tell the world how bad other leaders are because of their mistreatment of people, we go in, clear those places, and then...torture and mistreat people.

What's most disgusting is McCain was tortured as a POW.

This is the most incompetent Administration in our history.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
This keeps getting more and more strange from my POV.

OMG! You still have a small part of your give-a-**** that could possibly be functioning!?

[Patroklos]

The bill is purposely too vague. Using its verbage there is absolutlely nothing that can't be made torture.

Nothing wrong with asking the bill authors to say what they mean.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

We tell the world how bad other leaders are because of their mistreatment of people, we go in, clear those places, and then...torture and mistreat people.
.

that's the main point in my opinion.
Most of America's foreign policy is based on America having the moral high ground somehow (Take out Saddam the evil torturer...).
While this is already arguable, recently it is becoming more and more laughable.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
The bill is purposely too vague. Using its verbage there is absolutlely nothing that can't be made torture.

Nothing wrong with asking the bill authors to say what they mean.

Exempting the CIA from actions that are prohibited under international law (using the same 'verbage', which, btw the US SIGNED in a treaty and in another part of the bill would limit interrogation to what is IN the Army Field Manual) is asking the authors to say what they mean? I don't think so.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrFun



OMG! You still have a small part of your give-a-**** that could possibly be functioning!?

My POV was stated here: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=139458

[Patroklos]

Exempting the CIA from actions that are prohibited under international law (using the same 'verbage', which, btw the US SIGNED in a treaty) is asking the authors to say what they mean? I don't think so.

So you agree that the bill allows anything to be considered torture.

[DinoDoc]

He DanS'd you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
So you agree that the bill allows anything to be considered torture.

Absolutely not. People who argue that (and many have tried) are completely ignorant of international law.

[Patroklos]

So what exactly does degrading mean?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
So what exactly does degrading mean?

You have a dictionary, right?

Anyway, one of the cases which finds degrading treatment has been undertaken is Ireland v. United Kingdom, in the European Court of Human Rights. Basically the UK was treating IRA prisoners in similar ways we were treating Abu Gharib and, it seems, Guantanamo Bay prisoners:

.The techniques were also degrading since they were such as to arouse in their victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance.

And interestingly, the Israeli Supreme Court (no slouch) said about inhuman, cruel, and degrading treatment:

In the end result, the legality of an investigation is deduced from the propriety of its purpose and from its methods. Thus, for instance, sleep deprivation for a prolonged period, or sleep deprivation at night when this is not necessary to the investigation time wise may be deemed a use of an investigation method which surpasses the least restrictive means.

Israel's Supreme Court has banned prolonged cuffing, loud music, deprivation of sleep, and position abuse under the international standards.

Both quotes come from:

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_l...ts_torture.htm

[Drake Tungsten]

God forbid we attempt to break the resistance of those we interrogate.

[Ninot]

Alls I know is the kinds of interogation i heard about, that made news as borderline torture, sound like degrading and torturous to me.

Canada shoulda arrested Bush on war crimes when we had the chance.

[Patroklos]

Yeah, we should just abandon prisoners as sources of information. I just say pictures of Gitmo form a sailor freind of mine that did 6 months as a guard there. They live better than I do now. But according to this Bill, a pent house at the Ritz could be torture.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Yeah, we should just abandon prisoners as sources of information. I just say pictures of Gitmo form a sailor freind of mine that did 6 months as a guard there. They live better than I do now. But according to this Bill, a pent house at the Ritz could be torture.

Yeah, because that's exactly what the cases say .

Please come back to this discussion when you rejoin Earth and stop making up crap. Unless you live in stress positions and forced sleep deprivation that is?