CNN: GOP senator criticizes White House torture stance

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A leading Republican senator said Sunday that the Bush administration is making "a terrible mistake" in opposing a congressional ban on torture and other inhuman treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, considered a potential presidential candidate in 2008, said many Republican senators support the ban proposed by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War...

"I think the administration is making a terrible mistake in opposing John McCain's amendment on detainees and torture," Hagel, R-Nebraska, said on "This Week" on ABC. "Why in the world they're doing that, I don't know."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/06/congress.detainees.ap/index.html

So expect that torture ban on the President's desk by the end of the week :eyes:

I understand the bill has 90+ senators backing it, so why the big fuss about the few who don't? I can understand wanting to let all the voters know who is in favor of torture, but they've done that already.

bush want torture and are thinking of vetoing it?

The House version of the bill does not have the anti-torture language in it, and the White House is pushing hard to get the anti-torture language out before the bill gets to Bush's desk.

The admin wants to allow the CIA to continue torturing.
This is what McCain wants to eliminate in his bills.

Sounds like he isn't giving up either
McCain vows to Add Detainee-Torture/Abuse Provision to All Senate Bills

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

McCain said his intent is to prevent abuses such as those at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. He vowed today that his measure would be ``on every vehicle that goes through this body'' until it's enacted into law. ``It's not going away,'' he said on the Senate floor. ``This issue is incredibly harmful to the United States of America and our image throughout the world.''

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087
&sid=ayP0zes0ebog&refer=top_world_news

I agree with him and Jimmy Carter and former Irish president Mary Robinson. If the U.S. supports the use of torture, it reduces our credibility to nothing, throughout the world, while we should be, and have been, a champion for human rights. Damn this administration! They have to be stopped from defiling everything this nation has always stood for!:grr:

is treating it like it's radioactive. We need to put every Senator who voted for this on alert that we will track thgeir every move for the next few years to show how they benefit. That will put the House on alert as well. We need to make sure that every CD knows what their reps are doing.

We also need to make sure that Cheney doesn't get his way on this before he resigns or gets arrested.

for Americans to be tortured but, of course, dickhead has no vision.

Because this pack of neo-cons aint running for re-election.

90-9 was the vote in the senate.

...and these 9 pro-torture traitors who voted against it?

None of THEM are running for re-election either. Coincidence?
Graft? Corruption ? Greed? Kickbacks? what would butter up these 9 to get them to jump on board with the torturers?

A big fat Carlyle group consultancy perhaps?

Cui Bono from torture?

pontificating and use his good vote to do something moral for a change.

Just kinda goes to show how bassackards a place Nebraska is when the republican senator is(sometimes) a better democrat than the democratic senator.

Defeating an amendment to ban "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment of prisoners would essentially endorse the abuse at Abu Ghraib as official US policy.

This wouldn't help our image abroad which, if the recent protests in Argentina are any indication, has already been badly damaged by the Bush administration.

Passing this amendment should be a no-brainer ... uh-oh, I guess the amendment could be in serious trouble!

torture is just plain wrong.

.. efforts to gain a CIA exemption ... Appearing with Hatch on CBS's "Face the Nation," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners "is not what America is all about ..".. Sen. Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said his vote against the ban doesn't mean he favors torture. He rejected Durbin's comments as "not really relevant .."..
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3442313

Hagel ever settle his court case against voting irregularities in his home state? Whatever happened to the love between Boosh and his Fallen Son?

snip>>>>The ban was approved by a 90-9 vote (he is one of the nine)

Appearing with Hatch on CBS's "Face the Nation," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners "is not what America is all about. Those aren't the values that we're fighting for."

Sen. Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said his vote against the ban doesn't mean he favors torture. He rejected Durbin's comments as "not really relevant to what we are trying to do to detain and interrogate the worst of the worst so that we can save American lives."

Roberts said that success with detention and interrogation depends on the detainee's fear of the unknown. He suggested that passing a law and putting U.S. policies into a manual would tell detainees too much about what to expect.

"As long as you're following the Constitution and there's no torture and no inhumane treatment, I see nothing wrong with saying here is the worst of the worst. We know they have specific information to save American lives in terrorist attacks around the world. That's what we're talking about," Roberts said.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_DETAINEES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-11-06-21-10-41&reload=true

I guess it was changed because the AP became for "rational"

Washington is full of spin doctors and lunatics.

It must be something in the water.

"Roberts said that success with detention and interrogation depends on the detainee's fear of the unknown. He suggested that passing a law and putting U.S. policies into a manual would tell detainees too much about what to expect."

"As long as you're following the Constitution and there's no torture and no inhumane treatment...
If the detainee knows you are following the constitution, and there will be no torture and inhumane treatment, then obviously he or she should have no fear of the unknown."

Basically he is saying, "We promise not to use torture, but we want torture to be a real threat". You can't have both statements be true at the same time.

Right now, that is up to the trier of fact whenever Torture is litigated. i.e. if the Jury does not believe what ever was done was "Torture" it is not torture. Like most problems of the law, the problem is NOT whether an action is legal or illegal, but who has the burden of proof.

The best why I can show you the dispute is by an example. If you are a person interrogating a suspect and your boss tells you to kick the suspect in the balls and continue to do so till he talks is that action torture? I would say yes, but if you REFUSE to obey the order you are disobeying an order. While it is legal to disobey an unlawful order, it is NOT legal to disobey a legal order. Thus if you refuse to obey the order YOU HAVE THE BURDEN TO SHOW THE ORDER WAS ILLEGAL. At your Court-Marital, Trial, Promotion Board Review, Civil Service Review etc, the burden is on you to show that order was Unlawful. If YOU FAIL YOU ARE GUILTY OF DISOBEYING A LAWFUL ORDER and will be punished, i.e. jailed, fined, dismissed etc. Thus today, the burden is on the person alleging an act is Torture to prove that act was torture not valid interrogation technique. Furthermore all orders from a superior is presume to be lawful, thus if you disobey it you must prove the order was unlawful (and this the act was Torture). Given the burden of proof it is easier to obey than to disobey.

This brings me to why the Administration is opposing McCain's bill. The Administration is opposing McCain's bill for that bill adopts the U.S. Army Manual on Interrogations very detailed instructions what is and what is not torture. Thus all an Enlistee or Officer needs to do is site the Manual, if the Manual say the act is illegal, it is illegal. No military or Civilian Jury (or any other board) can rule otherwise. If someone wants to overrule that Manual the burden of proof shifts to that person to show what they did was NOT torture and thus illegal (and superior Officers will not for the same reason in my above example junior Officers and enlistees do NOT disobey today, the burden of proof, if McCain's bill is adopted, the person who demanded you kick him in the balls has the burden to show that was NOT torture or that it is permitted by the Manual).

Thus like most such fight, the issue is WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF. The classic modern case where the burden of proof was important was the OJ Simpson Murder case. In that case the Prosecution had the burden to prove OJ Murdered his ex-wife. They failed, the Prosecution did show OJ Simpson probably killed her, but did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ Simpson did kill his Ex-wife. The prosecution had the burden and failed to carry it.

If you are Ordered to Torture and refuse, the burden of proof that the act was Torture and thus an illegal order is on you. If you failed, the prosecution has an open and shut case against you for disobeying a lawful order.

What McCain's bill does is adopts a detail list (the US Army Interrogation Manual) as the blue print of what is and is not torture. If the interrogators stays within the Manual's parameters they are doing legal interrogation. If they go beyond the Manual, they are doing illegal torture. What is torture is taken out of the most cases. The Manual provides what is and what is not torture. Furthermore anyone can use the Manual as a guideline to his or her activities. If a superior Officer tells you to do something that is NOT permitted in the Manual, you can point it out to the Superior and if the Superior still say do it, he is guilty of giving an illegal Order AND ALL THE ENLISTEE NEEDS IS ASKED FOR THAT ORDER IN WRITING and than forward the Writing to the local JAG Officer.

Please remember ANYONE IN ANY SITUATION can request ANY order to be in Writing. If such request is refused you can NOT be convicted of violating a lawful Order. Thus if the Superior refuses to give you the order in Writing, the Order is presumed never to have been given. If the Officer does give a written order in the above situation he has committed a crime (i.e. ordering you to disobey the Manual, which under McCain's bill will become a lawful order in itself). In most circumstances, the Superior will NOT give the order in Writing, and the junior Officer or enlistee will never hear of the Order again (Superior Officers, like enlistees and junior Officers do NOT want to be Court-Marital).

This is why the Administration is opposing McCain's Bill. If the bill was just a statement that Torture is illegal, the Administration would back the bill for that is the law today. The Administration would back the bill if it says torturers would be executed. Torture being illegal is NOT a problem. The problem is McCain's bill say the US Army Manual on Interrogation will be the guideline as to what is and is NOT torture. The Administration wants to be able to define Torture as it sees fit (including defining Torture as things done by non-Americans). McCain's bill defines torture and also gives Officers and Enlistees what is torture and thus what is and is not a lawful order. As long as the Enlistee or Junior Officers follow the manual they are safe. If they are told to violate the manual, that violation is assumed to be torture unless the person who demanded the action proves otherwise. McCain's bill thus shifts who has the Burden on Proof as to what is and is not Torture. This shift of burden of proof (and adoption of a clear set of rules as to what is and is not Torture) is what the Administration is opposing.

Now I believe the Administration is opposing this shift because it wants to be able to Torture, but I will be surprised if any documentation of that reason exists (Such Documentation would Violate the US laws against Torture). This is the fight, who has the burden to proof as to what is and is not torture.