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.



  1. RBG says:

    I think you just made that up. You have to admit you have no idea what goes on out there. Not to mention what you say makes no common sense. What makes common sense is that somebody is getting something out of it or there would be no torture at all. It makes common sense that of all the torturing, at some point somebody is going to have some kind of vital information. What makes common sense is that torturers are not going to provide you with a handy set of stats. As it turns out, they seem all very reluctant to even admit torturing for some reason.

    And I guess if I hadn’t answered your post, by your logic, I would be the correct one here.

    RBG

  2. Mr. H. Fusion says:

    It makes common sense that of all the torturing, at some point somebody is going to have some kind of vital information

    There is absolutely no evidence that that is true. There is considerable evidence that the opposite is true. The FBI’s best interrogators have repeatedly said that winning the trust and confidence of the prisoner will garner more and better information then torturing until they give you something. Forced testimony is notoriously unreliable.

    My father always used to tell me that you will catch more flies with honey then with vinegar.

  3. RBG says:

    I have no evidence that people exist who hold vital information… but we both know they do.

    I have no evidence that people are tortured in great numbers… but we both know they are.

    I have no evidence that people break under torture… but we both know they do.

    I have no evidence that broken people tell everything they know and then some… but we both know they do.

    I have no evidence that torture statements can be checked and cross-checked… we both know they can.

    Your requirement for evidence is unneeded and purely argumentative.

    But I guess it doesn’t matter because that’s pretty much the end of torturing for information with this new discovery by the FBI.

    RBG

  4. RBG says:

    How strange (and awful). Just saw this now:

    “Parents describe how girl escaped from captor’s hole”
    POSTED CNN: 11:45 p.m. EDT, September 17, 2006

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/17/text.rescue/index.html

    29. (If it’s easier, think one little girl locked underground with proven kidnapper refusing to tell where.) -RBG

    RBG

  5. Smartalix says:

    “I have no evidence that torture statements can be checked and cross-checked… we both know they can.”

    No, we can’t. If we could crosscheck and verify we wouldn’t need to torture, investigative analysis would be sufficient. People under torture lie, you know.

  6. RBG says:

    If entirely new names or addresses surfaced complete with details of a crime only a perpetrator would know came to light -especially from multiple sources – it’s reasonable to think these could be investigated. Unless you are saying this is an impossible situation.

    RBG

  7. AB CD says:

    I’m amazed that you think all this torture is just for fun, and that somehow these people doing the questioning don’t know what you ‘know’ about how ineffective torture is.


2

Bad Behavior has blocked 5403 access attempts in the last 7 days.