Senate ignores veto threat in limiting detainee treatment

[Buford]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/...ees/index.html

Senate ignores veto threat in limiting detainee treatment

Measure added to Pentagon spending bill




WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Setting up a possible veto showdown with the White House, the Senate voted overwhelmingly for an amendment to a Pentagon spending bill that sets standards for the treatment of prisoners in U.S. military custody.

The measure, sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, would require American troops to follow interrogation standards set in the Army Field Manual and bar "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of prisoners in U.S. custody.

On Wednesday night, senators voted 90-9 to include the provision to the $440 billion Defense Department spending bill now wending its way through Congress.

Earlier, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said President Bush would likely veto the defense spending bill if McCain's language were included, calling the amendment "unnecessary and duplicative."

"If it's presented, then there would be a recommendation of a veto, I believe," McClellan said.

McClellan said existing law already prohibits the mistreatment of prisoners in American custody, and the amendment "would limit the president's ability as commander-in-chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism."

If Bush does veto the bill, it would be his first veto during nearly five years in office.

Arguing for his amendment, McCain, a former Navy pilot who spent more than five years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, said "our troops are not served by ambiguity."

"We demanded intelligence without ever clearly telling our troops what was permitted and what was forbidden. And then, when things went wrong, we blamed them and we punished them. We have to do better than that," he said.

McCain said an officer in the 82nd Airborne Division, Capt. Ian Fishback, urged his office to push for clear guidelines for the treatment of prisoners after unsuccessfully attempting to get answers from his superiors for 17 months.

McCain, a former GOP presidential contender, said he was willing to consider "technical changes" in the amendment -- "as long as those changes are technical, truly." He warned that his proposal could be removed when senators and House members try to reconcile their versions of the defense bill, and urged supporters to keep up the pressure on lawmakers.

"The image of the United States was very badly harmed by the pictures of prisoner abuse. We have to send a message to the world that we will not ever allow such kind of treatment to be repeated," he said.

In a letter to McCain, published last week in The Washington Post, Fishback stated that he and troops under his command witnessed "death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment" of prisoners in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Allegations that Americans have tortured prisoners have dogged the Bush administration since April 2004, when graphic photographs of Army reservists mistreating prisoners at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad became public. Nine low-ranking soldiers were convicted or pleaded guilty in the Abu Ghraib scandal and their commander was demoted, but Pentagon investigators cleared higher-ranking officers of any wrongdoing.

McCain said Wednesday that intelligence is needed to fight terrorism, but "the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all our fighting men and women." Torturing prisoners not only yields unreliable answers, but also endangers captured U.S. troops and allows "the cruel actions of a few to darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions," he said.

"The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy," he said. "But this isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies."

He bristled at remarks by his Republican colleague, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, questioning Fishback's account. Sessions also called it "sort of odd" that Fishback refused to disclose the names of sergeants in his unit who reported similar conduct.

"Captain Fishback is a noble, brave young American," McCain said. "He does not deserve to be disparaged on the floor of this Senate by any senator, and the senator from Alabama owes him an abject and deep apology."

Sessions said the McCain amendment was unnecessary, since those responsible for the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib "are being held to account." He said he did not believe he questioned Fishback's integrity, and he said senators who questioned whether abuses were sanctioned by top officers or the Pentagon should consider an apology.

"To suggest to the world that we have as systemic pattern of abuse in the military is not true," he said.

[gbear]

So Bush is finaly going to veto something, and this is what he choses eh? Interesting..
Compassionate conservatism indeed...

I think the best part is the logic being used. Part I: He'll veto it because it's already in the law somewhere else. If that's so, then what's the harm? Part II: As for the hampering the presidents ability to fight a war on terrorism, when combined with the first reason to veto, it seems to say the administration has been dodging existing law thus far. Am I misreading this? It's not unusual, but yet again, I find myself with McCain on this one.

[chomerics]

Capt. Fishback should be held up as a hero. He is the reason for this amendment to the spending bill, yet I think the attack dogs will start to attack him as well

People like this Captain should be applauded, but because of this, his military career will go absolutely nowhere. Ask some of the military in here, I'd be totally shocked if they disagreed with me.

[Larry]

I'm with McCain, too.

I'm not convinced that captured enemies necessarily deserve Miranda warnings. But I do think there need to be rules, and the rules need to be published.

If for no other reason than: How can you punish a soldier for breaking a rule that hasn't been written down?

And I agree: Something ironic about the self-appointed champion of personal accountability threatening to use the first veto of his administration, to prevent the establishment of any rules whatsoever.

(Gee, if this rule survives in this bill, than can the D's claim that anybody who votes against it is against providing bandages for our troops? (I'm certain that medical supplies will be in the DoD budget, somewhere.))

[Destino]

Do you guys remember that letter to McCain from a solider that was posted on this site a while back? You think maybe the old guy read it and is doing something in response? Man that would really be something.

I'm very glad to see the Senate taking a strong stance and I applaud both the GOP and the Democrats that support this. Refusing to issue clear rules to the troops and then tossing them in prison when the media exposes the truth is wrong. Tell them what they can and can't do and let them go about the business of securing our nation without worry of an ambiguous rulebook.

I also think that rules against certain kinds of treatment are more in line with the wishes of the American people. After all this would not have been an issue had Americans not reacted with outrage at the pictures and stories that were coming back form Iraq. However regardless of how you stand on this issue, I think most of us can agree that there needs to be rules so that men and women aren't made into political sacrificial lambs everytime the voters get angry.

[Buford]

I heard this passed 90-9 today.

So, if the President wants to get ballsy and veto it. I'd sure like to see them go back and defeat him by forcing it through.

[Larry]

I can't see the GOP handing the D's political ammunition to be used against them by voting against this bill.

They'll either vote for it, or a back-room committee will remove it from the bill, without a recorded vote.

[chomerics]

Do you guys remember that letter to McCain from a solider that was posted on this site a while back? You think maybe the old guy read it and is doing something in response? Man that would really be something.

I'm very glad to see the Senate taking a strong stance and I applaud both the GOP and the Democrats that support this. Refusing to issue clear rules to the troops and then tossing them in prison when the media exposes the truth is wrong. Tell them what they can and can't do and let them go about the business of securing our nation without worry of an ambiguous rulebook.

I also think that rules against certain kinds of treatment are more in line with the wishes of the American people. After all this would not have been an issue had Americans not reacted with outrage at the pictures and stories that were coming back form Iraq. However regardless of how you stand on this issue, I think most of us can agree that there needs to be rules so that men and women aren't made into political sacrificial lambs everytime the voters get angry.

Destino, this is a direct result of the letter written by Captain Fishback, they mention it in the article

McCain said an officer in the 82nd Airborne Division, Capt. Ian Fishback, urged his office to push for clear guidelines for the treatment of prisoners after unsuccessfully attempting to get answers from his superiors for 17 months.

McCain, a former GOP presidential contender, said he was willing to consider "technical changes" in the amendment -- "as long as those changes are technical, truly." He warned that his proposal could be removed when senators and House members try to reconcile their versions of the defense bill, and urged supporters to keep up the pressure on lawmakers.

"The image of the United States was very badly harmed by the pictures of prisoner abuse. We have to send a message to the world that we will not ever allow such kind of treatment to be repeated," he said.

In a letter to McCain, published last week in The Washington Post, Fishback stated that he and troops under his command witnessed "death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment" of prisoners in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Allegations that Americans have tortured prisoners have dogged the Bush administration since April 2004, when graphic photographs of Army reservists mistreating prisoners at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad became public. Nine low-ranking soldiers were convicted or pleaded guilty in the Abu Ghraib scandal and their commander was demoted, but Pentagon investigators cleared higher-ranking officers of any wrongdoing.

McCain said Wednesday that intelligence is needed to fight terrorism, but "the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all our fighting men and women." Torturing prisoners not only yields unreliable answers, but also endangers captured U.S. troops and allows "the cruel actions of a few to darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions," he said.

"The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy," he said. "But this isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies."

He bristled at remarks by his Republican colleague, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, questioning Fishback's account. Sessions also called it "sort of odd" that Fishback refused to disclose the names of sergeants in his unit who reported similar conduct.

"Captain Fishback is a noble, brave young American," McCain said. "He does not deserve to be disparaged on the floor of this Senate by any senator, and the senator from Alabama owes him an abject and deep apology."

[wskin44]

So Bush is finaly going to veto something, and this is what he choses eh? Interesting..
Compassionate conservatism indeed...

I think the best part is the logic being used. Part I: He'll veto it because it's already in the law somewhere else. If that's so, then what's the harm? Part II: As for the hampering the presidents ability to fight a war on terrorism, when combined with the first reason to veto, it seems to say the administration has been dodging existing law thus far. Am I misreading this? It's not unusual, but yet again, I find myself with McCain on this one.

My thought exactly. If it's in the existing law how can the duplicate hinder our ability to fight terrorism?

The House boys won't pass the same bill which forces a conference between House & Senate to come up with one version. The new version still has to pass both the House & Senate so the Conference has to agree to something that will make it through both chambers. Does John have the votes in the Senate to force the House to comply? I'm betting on McCain.

And then will Bush be dumb enough to veto it? He's proven himself worthy in the past.

[chomerics]

I just wanted to add that Fishback provided a much needed ally in this fiasco. The ACLU sued for release of the entire group of photos depicting detainee torture, and the pictures not seen are much, much worse. Remember Rumsfeilds speech and what he said?

This gives the Senate the oppertunit to be PRO-active, instead of reactive in nature. I am sick and tired of watching my government react, rather then be proactive. The first signs of life in a long, long time.

[Larry]

So, does McCain's ammendment actually have rules? (And if so, what are they?)

Or does it simply, say, direct DoD to create rules (To Be Determined at a later date.)?

[Destino]

This is a good example of why people who otherwise do not consider themselves to be conservative can support John McCain. Like his politics or not, this man gives the impression that he isn't just a politician trying do whatever he can to gain power. He seems to support an ideal that being an American means something and is willing to go against anyone if he thinks it's the right thing to do.

[Kilmer17]

I was talking to my father in law over the weekend about Bush and current political landscape. He's a far left former union mediator (I think that's the title). Anyway, he hates Bush and loves McCain for this very reason. And he said something that struck me as dead on correct.

The biggest loser after 8 years of Bush will be the Democrats. Because McCain will win in such a landslide, he'll have coattails that Bush never had. And McCain is probably more Conservative than Bush.

Just thought Id share.

BTW, I like this act by the Senate.

[gbear]

I'd have a hard time if McCain came out of a Rep primary next time. I don't support most of his social views, but atleast I respect the heck out of the way he makes his decisions. I'd probably vote for him unless the Dems had a great canidate, and that's rare.

[chomerics]

I was talking to my father in law over the weekend about Bush and current political landscape. He's a far left former union mediator (I think that's the title). Anyway, he hates Bush and loves McCain for this very reason. And he said something that struck me as dead on correct.

The biggest loser after 8 years of Bush will be the Democrats. Because McCain will win in such a landslide, he'll have coattails that Bush never had. And McCain is probably more Conservative than Bush.

Just thought Id share.

BTW, I like this act by the Senate.

Kilmer, the problem with McCain is his timing sucks. The absolute worst time to run as a republican would be after Bush. Hell, they could bring Reagan back to life, and he'd lose the race. The RNC want's nothing to do with McCain, I think you realize this. The money and the people in power will piss of the christian right if they back McCain, and there goes the votes. On the otherside, the democrats will in no way vote for a republican. A lot would before, but not now.

The worst possible thing that could have happened to the RNC did, their support erroded from the inside out, all the while the Bush polariazation has put passion in the otherside. All the hatred the Republicans felt towards Clinton, and helped their rise to power, is one tenth the intenst hatred towards Bush. The best thing for the democrats was losing 04' and letting the republican party self distruct. This is exactly what is going on right now.