Sen Roberts on McCain amendments: rubbery logic

[kansasblue]

Pat Roberts logic in opposing the McCain amendment:

"law restates laws that forbids cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment"
"individuals have been punished."
"simply restates existing bans on cruel, inhuman, and degrading
treatment."

vs

"arbitrarily limits the usefulness of a crucial intelligence
tool,"


""unworthy of this great nation"
"not effective in obtaining reliable information"
vs
"jeopardize the effectiveness of this intelligence tool"
(as I should be annoyed there is a capital murder law in Kansas since very few people kill each other)

"presumes that the vast majority of them (troops) are not serving
honorably"

His email below:

November 7, 2005


Thank you for writing regarding U.S. military detention and interrogation
policies. I appreciate your taking the time to contact me.

On October 5, the Senate approved an amendment offered by Senator John
McCain (R-AZ) that limits interrogation techniques to those listed in the
Army's interrogation field manual and restates current law on the use of
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. I have said many times before that
abusive techniques are not only unworthy of this great nation, they are
also not effective in obtaining reliable information. While I understand
the intent of Senator McCain, I could not support an amendment that
fundamentally was based on incorrect assumptions and which threatens to
jeopardize the usefulness of future interrogations.

The amendment assumes that substantiated instances of abuse have not been
adequately addressed. This is simply incorrect. The Department of Defense,
the military services, the Intelligence Community, numerous inspectors
general, and the Department of Justice have investigated those few
instances in which individuals have been alleged to have violated the
Constitution, laws, or treaty obligations of the United States during the
course of an interrogation. Where such allegations have been
substantiated, the individuals have been punished.

Moreover, the amendment prevents our Armed Forces from using humane
interrogation techniques that would otherwise be lawful. The amendment
ties U.S. statute to a field manual - a document that provides broad,
doctrinal guidance for training and conducting interrogations in the
field. The current field manual does not list every interrogation
technique that is lawful under our Constitution, laws, and treaties, nor
is it possible to foresee, and list in a manual, every scenario that could
occur in the context of an interrogation. To arbitrarily limit in statute
the techniques available to the men and women in uniform will certainly
jeopardize the effectiveness of this intelligence tool. We can be sure
that terrorists and other enemies will train themselves in deception of
all of the techniques listed in the manual.

We are at war. Terrorist interrogations are the single best source of
actionable intelligence against the plans and intentions of our enemy. The
information gleaned from interrogating terrorists is saving lives and
preventing attacks on the homeland. We should be supporting the men and
women in uniform. In light of these facts, I could not support an
amendment that presumes that the vast majority of them are not serving
honorably, arbitrarily limits the usefulness of a crucial intelligence
tool, and simply restates existing bans on cruel, inhuman, and degrading
treatment.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,



Pat Roberts
PR:ca

[atommom]

1. GMTA. I posted the same letter in GD:P.

And you're right, his so-called logic is very thin. He has been instrumental in protecting the administration from well-deserved investigations, and it's clear that he still doesn't really think we deserve anything better.

[ComerPerro]

2. Hey, Pat, if we are at war, how come

the pResident doesn't have any worries about still taking monthlong vacations and running off to Camp David every other weekend?

If we are, in fact, at war, shouldn't he be more focused on his job?

Additionally, if we are indeed at war, why continue tax cuts for the wealthy? Shouldn't all Americans be asked to sacrifice, not just the bottom 99%?