Can someone show me the VOTE where Democats supported torture?

I have asked in various threads, to no avail.

eom

passive support of torture through silence is the dems only crime....

eom

They have truly become the voice of opposition to the BFEE. We are the opposition party and are doing a great job at holding * accountable.:patriot:

eom

We're the minority party.

It's the Rove plan.

It's just like how the Iraq vote came up right before the last election. The Dems will be put in the position of "Vote NO - look like an "appeaser" or Vote Yes and piss off the left. AND the funny thing is - no matter how the Dems vote it will still pass.

I just wondered what was with the pre-emptive bitching about Democrats appeasing torture here?

The vote for McCain's anti-torture amendment was 90-9, and the 9 were all Repukes

Just sayin

"democrats condone torture" and I wondered WTF I missed?

This afternoon, the White House announced that a tentative deal had been struck with the Senate GOP "rebels" -- McCain, Warner and Graham -- that will basically continue the status quo on prisoner detentions and "coercive" interrogations. McCain, it appears, set up the Dems and the media most deftly, and then turned around and sold out America's values for a few primary votes in 2008. Another measure passed the House that would essentially authorize the administration's formerly illegal domestic surveillance program. Both bills are headed for the Senate -- the detention compromise would then need to go back to the House -- and both are likely to bite Democrats hard on the ass come November no matter which way they vote.

The details of the deal remain somewhat murky. Bush is pleased, saying: "this agreement preserves the single most potent tool we have in protecting America and foiling terrorist attacks." McCain wouldn't say exactly what the White House had conceded, but the AP reports that the administration dropped its attempts to "redefine" Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions, which bars "humiliating treatment and outrages upon personal dignity." McCain said only that "there is no doubt that the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved."

The other sticking points were whether suspects would have access to classified evidence against them in "civilian status review commissions," and whether evidence gained through coercion -- including through the use of techniques long considered to be torture by human right groups --could be admitted. Graham said that there was a provision that would allow suspects access to classified evidence -- and what evidence won't be classified? -- if they are at risk of imprisonment or death, but an administration spokesman said they were interpreting that with a "high bar" and it wouldn't be automatic. Digby says a new JAG office will be formed to review classified evidence. I didn't see any mention about the use of evidence gained through "rough interrogation."

As I pointed out earlier this week, this is a compromise between two bad -- terribly bad and unnecessary -- bills. It was passed at gunpoint, with the administration threatening to discontinue coercive interrogations if they didn't get their way and nobody in the political class willing to call their bluff (remember, more than half of those being held are thought to be innocent and experts are pretty much in agreement that torture doesn't work anyway).

http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/joshua/41988

Will happen next week I believe.

which is the Republican game plan.

We better be cautious about how we frame this,

I think if we remind people of two simple things -

1. 70-90% of detainees have been released as "innocent" of any crime
2. We are supposed to be liberating Iraqis from this sort of treatment

we'll be ok politically speaking when we vote against it?

*sigh*

yet. The dems have been silent letting the GOP hang itself which didn't work out too well. The Senate leaves next Friday so the coming week will tell us what the dems are made of, if they filibuster the bill they are doing all that they can but if they continue in silence and let the democratic members vote for it without consequence then they are complicit.

and your are correct a filibuster or a little political maneuvering will delay this vote until after the election.
Something some Repukes might welcome
If that happens than I'd say this bill will be voted down...

And, I think the silence was beneficial b/c people NOW know that even this "go along" congress/sentate had trepidation.

Two were out of the room or this would not be going forward at all.

I don't get this place sometimes.

And the vanquished will join the vanquishers. Its all been worked out.

eom

supporting torture is BULLSHIT, as I suspected.

Thanks all.

I can't think of any vote where it was put to a direct question. I am pretty disappointed that more dems didn't vote against Gonzalez for Attorney General though. I can't remember the exact number but it was 30 something who voted against him and that after multiple opinions from him or his office as Whitehouse counsel came out suggesting the Geneva conventions were quaint and that if it's short of the pain of death or organ loss it's not torture.

How the ones who did vote for him brought themselves to approve of him as the highest law enforcement officer in the nation I don't know. They never voted for it that I'm aware though, just not as many as I'd have liked to see voted against someone tied to it when they had the chance to. I'd guess some twist that to suit them but it really isn't the same thing.