LoyaltyisaCurse

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
28 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Congressional negotiators are feeling heat from the White House and constituents as they consider whether to back a Senate-approved ban on torturing detainees in U.S. custody or weaken it as the White House prefers.

Led by Vice President Dick Cheney, the Bush administration is floating a proposal that would allow the president to exempt covert agents outside the Defense Department from the prohibition.

Meanwhile, some newspapers are calling for lawmakers to support Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record)'s provision that would ban the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held.

"There's a lot of public pressure to retain the language intact. At the same time, there's pressure from the vice president's office to modify it," said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, which supports McCain's provision.

Cheney and CIA Director Porter Goss met last week with McCain, R-Ariz., and suggested excluding from the torture ban overseas clandestine counterterrorism operations by agencies other than the Pentagon "if the president determines that such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack."

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, "The president's made our position very clear: We do not condone torture, nor would he ever authorize the use of torture."

McCain, himself a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, said he rejected the administration's alternative language because "that would basically allow the CIA to engage in torture."

It's unclear just how much influence McCain has in the House-Senate negotiations to iron out differences between House and Senate versions of the $445 billion defense bill. McCain won't be directly involved in those negotiations.

Sen. Ted Stevens (news, bio, voting record), R-Alaska, and Rep. Bill Young, R-Fla., who chair Congress' defense spending subcommittees, will be among the leaders of those talks in coming weeks.

Young has said the United States has no obligation to terrorists, and he and other top House Republicans have signaled they will try to change the Senate-approved language.

Stevens, who voted against it in the Senate, has said the language is too broad in applying to agents who work undercover. He has said the administration shares that concern.

"I still believe we have to take into account the situation that clandestine people find themselves in," Stevens said Tuesday. But he said he had not seen the vice president's language, so he couldn't say whether he would support it.

Top Democratic bargainers — Sen. Daniel Inouye (news, bio, voting record) of Hawaii and Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania — support McCain's language, but their clout is limited because they are in the minority party.

Earlier this month, the Senate added the torture prohibition and the interrogation standards to its defense bill on a 90-9 vote, even though the Bush administration threatened a veto if the president's ability to conduct the war was restricted.

The House bill did not include McCain's provision, which also requires U.S. service members to follow the Army Field Manual when imprisoning and questioning suspects in the war on terrorism.

In the weeks since the Senate vote, newspapers from Alabama to Texas to California have called on their lawmakers to support McCain's language. Several took particular aim at hometown Republicans leading the negotiations.

"Sen. Stevens is wrong and should follow the lead of Sen. McCain, who speaks firsthand of the wrongs of torture," the Anchorage Daily News said Monday.

Said the St. Petersburg Times on Oct. 16: "Young and his fellow conferees have an obligation to rise above partisanship and uphold principles that should be beyond debate in a civilized society."

__________________
"Going from the Raiders receivers to Larry Fitzgerald is like trading a Spam dinner for a well-aged T-bone steak." --Dan Hanzus

When I play rock, paper, scissors, I keep a glass of water in my hand and when my opponent throws down I throw the water in his face and say "Water". Beats all three, scissors can't cut-it, paper dissolves and the rock sinks. Plus it usually surprises the hell out of them.

LoyaltyisaCurse

Why does the administartion's actions and words not seem to match so often?

__________________
"Going from the Raiders receivers to Larry Fitzgerald is like trading a Spam dinner for a well-aged T-bone steak." --Dan Hanzus

When I play rock, paper, scissors, I keep a glass of water in my hand and when my opponent throws down I throw the water in his face and say "Water". Beats all three, scissors can't cut-it, paper dissolves and the rock sinks. Plus it usually surprises the hell out of them.

Absolute Zero

Key problem, adding the "...unless the President determines......" language would be a mistake. That's how we got into Iraq in the first place. What did Bush say, "fool me once...."

__________________
http://outsidethewalls.com/

40yearfan

Yeah, let's make sure we put our fighting men and women at every disadvantage we can. We don't want to make life easy for them.

__________________
Old age isn't so bad when you consider the alternative.

LoyaltyisaCurse

...

__________________
"Going from the Raiders receivers to Larry Fitzgerald is like trading a Spam dinner for a well-aged T-bone steak." --Dan Hanzus

When I play rock, paper, scissors, I keep a glass of water in my hand and when my opponent throws down I throw the water in his face and say "Water". Beats all three, scissors can't cut-it, paper dissolves and the rock sinks. Plus it usually surprises the hell out of them.

Stout

You know, I used to think the same thing, that torturing is wrong and barbaric in all situations. Then I was given a test. Way back when I was graduating with a degree in criminal justice, I tested for the State Department security branch. I did well in written exams, but I didn't pass the oral interview. One of the scenarios was as follows:

You're leading a detail in the protection of one of our diplomats in a foreign country. The diplomat is kidnapped, and will supposedly be killed within 24 hours unless certain demands are met. You have someone in custody that you have reason to suspect has information on the plot, but will not talk. The local chief of police says he'll torture him and obtain the information. What do you do?

I figured the right answer would be to not condone the torture, but of course torturing him was the RIGHT answer. They flat-out told me so. And, upon reflection, it absolutely was. Why should we let one of ours die through the good treatment of one of theirs? Tough opinion, but the truth nonetheless. I mean, yes, it was a very specific scenario, but I have to agree with the logic. There are simply some situations where playing the nice guy is moronic and will cost lives.

__________________
Lead us to the promised land, Arians.

AzCards21

Sorry you missed the question but your conclusion was correct.

LoyaltyisaCurse

The problem is when you start torturing the wrong people....

__________________
"Going from the Raiders receivers to Larry Fitzgerald is like trading a Spam dinner for a well-aged T-bone steak." --Dan Hanzus

When I play rock, paper, scissors, I keep a glass of water in my hand and when my opponent throws down I throw the water in his face and say "Water". Beats all three, scissors can't cut-it, paper dissolves and the rock sinks. Plus it usually surprises the hell out of them.