Statements, including Levin's, indicate McCain's support for torture

[ProSense]

But Rep. Edward Markey (news, bio, voting record), a Massachusetts Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, derided it for using "legal mumbo jumbo to obscure the fact that the CIA will continue to be allowed to use torture and will actually be insulated from legal liability for previous acts of torture."

Snip...

Levin complained that while the deal limits use of testimony obtained by coercion, "it inexplicably" allows such statements obtained before December 30, 2005.

A number of Democrats also object that the deal strips detainees' habeas corpus rights to challenge their detentions.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said excluding habeas corpus rights was unconstitutional and set a hearing on the issue for Monday

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060922/pl_nm/security_guantanamo_dc_11

[bigdarryl]

1. Another dumb ass DEM

[Eric J in MN]

5. Who is? NT

NT

[Phredicles]

2. Does this mean we can still hope for a Democratic charge against

this abomination? A filibuster will do nicely. If it costs in the elections we will at least know once and for all just what sort of country this is.:scared:

[babylonsister]

3. Nice to see some Dems speaking out! nt

[beachmom]

4. Thanks for the update!

[sandnsea]

6. Okay good

Hopefully we're getting some movement on this. We all need to call our reps and encourage them to step up over the week-end.

[ProSense]

7. Bush tortured!

Evidence Obtained Through Torture

The tribunals won't admit evidence obtained through torture. Evidence obtained through coercive interrogation tactics that the Bush administration doesn't consider torture (such as "waterboarding," where a detainee is made to believe he's drowning, or "stress positions," where a detainee is made to sit or stand in a painful position for extended periods of time) may be used under some circumstances.

The bill also addresses statements that were obtained before Congress passed a ban on coercive interrogation tactics in 2005. In those instances, a judge must rule on the admissiability of the statement, determining if it is "reliable and possessing sufficient probative value," and if it serves "the interests of justice."

If the statement was obtained after Congress passed the 2005 ban, the military judge must decide whether it meets the above two criteria and must also find that "the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not violate the cruel, unusual or inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6125424