The Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday voted 15-9 to recommend a bill — over the objections of the Bush administration — that would authorize tribunals for terror suspects in a way that it says would protect suspects’ rights.
It differs from the administration’s proposal in two major ways: It would permit terror suspects to view classified evidence against them and does not include a proposal that critics say reinterprets a Geneva Conventions rule that prohibits cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees.
Article III prohibits nations engaged in combat not of “an international character” from, among other things, “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.”
The vote came after White House spokesman Tony Snow said opponents of its proposal on detainee treatment misunderstood the administration’s intentions when it proposed to define how Article III applies to the interrogation of terrorist suspects.
Powell expressed his opposition in a letter to McCain that was released Thursday.
“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” Powell, a retired Army four-star general, wrote in his letter to McCain, whose amendment last year opposed the use of torture.
“To redefine Common Article III would add to those doubts,” Powell said. “Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”
Military lawyers also have raised concerns about the administration bill’s restrictions on due-process rights for defendants. Prosecutors would be able to present evidence to the tribunal that would be kept secret from the defense and could use hearsay and coerced confessions against defendants. Human rights groups have objected to those provisions as well.
Partisan politics begin to decay and shred as mid-term elections approach. Essentially, the managers of the Congressional segment of Party leadership — both Tweedledee and Tweedledum — have started to differentiate themselves from an administration wholly out of touch with the American electorate.
Colin Powell didn’t have to speak out, again. He realized that we have a president who already decided to ignore the previous McCain Bill on Torture — and will probably do so, again.
Bush forgets that not all Republicans are nodding chicken hawks that do whatever he wants.
That’s not it Smarty. The Republicans have their fingers in the air and it’s blowing away from Bush. Politicians are all about saving their own asses first.
A small handful of Republicans that are seeking office would like to make the current president look bad to improve their election chances. Is that possible? Maybe they don’t all march to the anti US lockstep the left loves.
The Rapeublicans are looking ahead, and seeing that they cannot hold the House or Senate, are doing whatever they deem necessary, while President Chucklenuts continues to invoke fear upon the people, thinking that it will win them over. I just can’t wait for the October suprise.
#3. I am unaware that Colin Powell is running for any office. He has repeatedly said that he would not run for Prez. Note that the critics of the Bush policy (Powell, McCain, Graham) all have military experience, whereas the chief proponents (Bush, Cheney) do not.
The opponents do not like the fact that we will be setting a precedent for our enemies to follow. Not the Islamist terrs – they torture prisoners no matter what we do – but if we get into a fight with others, we will have no grounds for complaint.
And there is the small matter of making sure that we get the right people. Coerced confessions are unreliable. Not infrequently, it turns out that some guy who confessed after being abused by the cops is later cleared by DNA evidence. Check out what happened on Illinois’ death row. Further, convicting someone based upon secret evidence is also not only unfair, but produces unreliable outcomes. Note the old prosecutorial saying that he could indict a potted plant. That’s because the defendant is not at the grand jury contesting the evidence. We would get the same outcome with secret evidence trials.
#4. Tsk-tsk. Don’t you know that the terrorists want to KILL YOUR FAMILY?!?
Oh, wait – per Dubya, that was Matt Lauer’s family.
My bad.
You guys are going to be really confused when Guilliani or McCain pick this guy as their running mate, aren’t you?
This is politics… Something Powell got a crash course in during his four years at State.
This is also all about ’08… because the Republicans know that ’06 is about local issues, and the left’s base won’t turn out in the way the rest of you are hoping.
You guys are going to be really confused when Guilliani or McCain pick this guy as their running mate, aren’t you?
There is no “you guys”. That is a strength and a weakness.
The right is one giant amorphous blob of identical dittoheads, stamped out like chicken(hawk) nuggets. Not much thought is involved, but what thought there is, is very coherent (in the quantum-physics sense), and not easily subjected to deflection. Their strength lies in simplicity. (Not that they have any choice, because simple is what they have to work with.)
The left isn’t really a group, per -se, they’re just the people that the right have excluded for one reason or another. There are few common goals, or at least few common concrete goals. They’re hard to organize because their left legs don’t automatically start twitching when they hear “harch-one-two!”.
7,
Well said.
7. So you’re saying if you want to get something done, go with the right?
RBG
#6. So, Colin Powell’s big ambition is to be VP? Sorry, but people have been speculating about that since Gulf War 1 and I don’t see any signs of it now. His wife has been very adamant about him not running for office. He is far too moderate for the Republican base and on a ticket with another moderate (like McCain or Guliani), Republican conservatives would stay home in droves. If McCain or Guliani gets the nod, expect them to pick a righty.
Jim – cant you believe that an honorable man, wanting to preserve the honor of the military in which he served for many, many years, would simply say “no” to coerced confessions and secret evidence?
#7. Interestingly, the cultural right feels very much the victim, since the exclusion of prayer from public schools and the rejection of religion as a prime mover by the vast majority of the populace. And even having run D.C. for several years, the economic right still plays the outsider game, even while dishing out the pork to stay in office.
#9,
That’s exactly what he’s saying… and he’s right.
#7,
In saying “You guys” I’m referring to all of the previous posters to me, not parties. Nevertheless, your assessment shows why the left can’t handle the right: By thinking of it as one group you’re unable to deal with the differences within the group.
#6,
The difference between now and then is now he doesn’t have to kiss the Bush family’s collective ass to get somewhere: Jeb isn’t going to run, and the rest of the party is ready to go in a direction other than the Bush family.
The line regarding him not running for further office was used before he went to State as well. It’s a lame act in an attempt to make him look noble when he does run.
Your read on the moderate/conservative balance of the ticket is valid to the conversation, but I don’t see it as an issue in this case. A moderate/moderate ticket will bend over backwards to get the conservative vote out, and I believe will be able to do so (especially against Hillary).
What Powell is saying in and of itself is valid, and I do believe it. But I also see this as political posturing for ’08. It can be one in the same, you know.
I just don’t think that Powell wants “to get somewhere.”
And distancing yourself from Dumbya and opening yourself up to charges that you are “soft on terrorism” is no way to win popularity with Republicans in 2008.
Fact is, the Administration wants the American people to think that the only people who oppose their measures are wing-nut, hemp-shirt ACLU types, and Colin Powell’s stance makes that tough.
Which, of course, is why Dumbya was so testy about it today, implying that Powell was saying we were morally equivalent to the terrorists.
Powell should try and understand the Geneva Conventions. It’s the Supreme Court who redefined Common Article III. Does Powell really believe the war on terror is ‘not of an international character?’
#13. Which is the other nation in the “international” conflict?
#13, AB CD, your trolling never ceases to amaze me.
When a country allows torture, it hands a “reasonable doubt” defense to anyone who confesses to a crime.
I’ve lived in countries that do torture and you can never fully believe any conviction. It pollutes the whole judicial system.
Bush’s proposal is about as un-American as it gets.
AB CD – If Powell’s understanding of the Geneva Convention is flawed, yours is as extensive as the volume of a nats left nut.
Next tell us how he doesn’t understand the military.
I just hope and pray one of you neocon know-it-alls gets to experience the Bush interrogation doctrine, so when your head is under water you can console yourselves with the thought “I support the president”.
If we let Bush get congress to officially approve torture under any circumstances we have lost any pretension to being the good guys.
#18. Indeed. Thus Powell’s statement the world is beginging to doubt the moral basis for the war on terror.
The next question is – do we really need to be the good guys? Isn’t enough that we are fighting back against people who attacked us?
Yes, we need to be the good guys. Even the unilateralists privately concede that we need the cooperation of others to do this effectively. Many civilized states will not cooperate if they think that any suspects they turn over will be tortured. The US needs to reassure the world that we will no longer do this.
Letting hundreds or thousands die horribly because torture isn’t nice is not in my definition of being a “good guy”.
I believe in Supreme Court torture warrants, so does that great defender of human rights, Alan Dershowitz.
Smartalix in a parallel universe: “Yes, the guy clearly knows where he hid his atomic bomb, but we mustn’t hurt him if the US wants to continue to be known as the good guys.”
But I guess it would be beyond credibility to believe that anyone would ever stoop so low as to want to kill a lot of anonymous innocent people en mass.
RBG
#20. Straw man argument. There has never been a documented case where information obtained by torture has prevented a terrorist attack.
And this is just as, if not more, likely:
(1) get word of impending attack somewhere;
(2) torture captured suspect who, unfortunately, does not know anything;
(3) captured suspect give interrogators wrong information to get torture to stop;
(4) authorities – most of whom will not know that the information was obtained through torture – throw resources into protecting wrong target, leaving the right target wide open; and
(5) boom.
It is a parallell universe where the authorities *know* that there is a ticking atomic timebomb, and *know* the captive has information that they need to find it. This is known as the Bruckheimerverse.
The hapless Afghan cab driver or German Muslim captured by mistake is much more likely.
That’s because “documented torture” is an oxymoron.
That’s also why you’d never allow torture warrants via anything but the highest levels of the judiciary and the brightest minds making the call. Life and death calls are made by thousands of authorized people every day in all our cities. Yes, even wrong calls. People are legally executed – not just hurt real bad – with the same quality of decision-making. That’s imperfect life for you and not theoretical utopia.
There’s never been a documented case of two fully loaded jets flying into two highrises either but I still would have voted for authorities to be prepared for it and other more unlikely scenarios. You can bet they are now – or trying to be.
RBG
Yeah Doiug, all those people doing torture, or heavy questioning must be stupid to want to do such things when everyone knows it never works. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed never said anything.
#14 US and Iraq
#23. Ah, yes – some guy who has been detained for a couple of years knows something pertinent about a decentralized, ad-hoc, terr organization.
#24. Woops, you have confused the War in Iraq with the War on Terrorism.
What nationality were the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers?
*bzzt* the answer is Saudi. Sorry, and thanks for playing.
OK, then Saudi and the US. Or after watching Fahrenheit 9/11 do you consider those to be the same country?
I’ll credit Powell with one thing, he is focused on getting support from other countries and is worried about how this would look to them. He isn’t quite so fixated on getting lawyers for everybody. He is still confused on the Article III question.
#20, Letting hundreds or thousands die horribly because torture isn’t nice is not in my definition of being a “good guy”.
What about if hundreds or thousands die horribly because the US bombs some city in mistake of what a tortured innocent told them. Does that count?
#22, That’s also why you’d never allow torture warrants via anything but the highest levels of the judiciary and the brightest minds making the call.
And no court will ever sanction torture to obtain information. It doesn’t matter how high the authority sits, they are as prone to err as a lower Magistrate Judge. They base their approval upon what they are being told by the very people who want to do the torturing. The Constitution prohibits torture, so how could a Judge condone it?
They won’t be making an impartial decision that may be reversed if it turns out the information was wrong. Every day in this country Judges sign warrants based upon fraudulent information, yet I know of no policeman who has ever been charged for swearing a false oath. Do you really expect law enforcement to suddenly become good guys and start telling the truth to Judges?
Riiiight, its an imperfect world out there and you want to do whatever you can to make it even more imperfect.
That’s because “documented torture” is an oxymoron.
??????????????????
Documented hear say is an oxymoron. Pleasurable torture is an oxymoron. But documented torture?
28. They’re incongruous, mutually exclusive terms (with regard to torture) that should never appear together, let alone the same sentence because it is as absurd as “pleasurable torture.” Close enough for my purposes while still revealing a truth in a less than pedantic way.
Here’s another paragraph you can parse in lieu of cogent argument:
Ok, you could be on the torture panel. You can introduce the Fusion Rule. No torture if the information could result in innocent or unintended deaths – or even X number of deaths or some similar stipulation that covers your concern here. Any other objections?
I have one. If we are known to torture, every captured soldier or diplomat would be subject to similar or worse treatment. Not that this doesn’t happen already to to some terrible extent.
As I mentioned, judicial bodies do not shrink from possibly error-prone life and death decisions regularly.
The one thing I find interesting about the torture debate is that no matter how directly questioned, objectors always duck & cover from whether they would let hundreds or thousands die if it meant they could be incontrovertibly saved after torture of a perpetrator – even when the question is posed in the most theoretical or unlikely or possible of scenarios. (If it’s easier, think one little girl locked underground with proven kidnapper refusing to tell where.) That’s very telling, confirming nobody in their right mind would exclude torture under those circumstances. Okay, maybe excepting those wishing to remain distant and righteously unsullied.
RBG
The reason those you ask don'[t answer is because it is a straw-man argument. It has never been the case that a person has been aprehended with vital and imediate information, yet there have been literally thousands that have been incarcerated and interrogated based upon the flimsiest of pretenses.