Oh, so now we're going to legalize waterboarding - bill sent to Congress!

[beachmom]

(Sigh - hat tip to liar Andrew Sullivan, BUT this is good info here).

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/heres-administrations-cruel-treatment.html

This is the bill the Administration has sent up to Congress. Make no mistake, the most important action has little to do with military commissions (although that stuff is certainly significant, too). Instead, focus ought to be on sections 5 through 7 (pages 77-84), which are, as I predicted here, collectively an attempt to authorize the CIA to engage in the sorts of "enhanced" interrogation techniques -- e.g., hypothermia, threats of violence to the detainee and his family, prolonged sleep deprivation, "stress positions" and waterboarding -- to which the President alluded in his speech today, and to immunize such conduct from any judicial review. (The President's speech is much more candid than the face of the Administration bill. The President bascially concedes that the Hamdan decision stopped the CIA techniques in their tracks -- and that the object of the Administration bill is to authorize them anew.)

Although section 6 in effect says that the U.S. will "comply" with Common Article 3 of Geneva even if such techniques are used, that's wrong. These techniques are -- at least in many cases -- "cruel treatment and torture" prohibited by Common Article 3. Thus, this bill would in effect authorize the United States to breach its treaty obligations. Perhaps that's something we should do -- perhaps not.* But if so, we shouldn't pretend that we're not engaged in such cruelty and torture, and we shouldn't engage in the fiction that we are in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. The decision to authorize such horrifying techniques, and to thereby be the first nation to adopt breach of Geneva as official state policy, is a solemn one, and it should be treated with the seriousness that it deserves -- without euphemism or obfuscation.

*The thrust of the President's speech is that such techniques -- let's call them "torture light," since the President is so insistent that we never "torture" -- are absolutely necessary to preventing terrorist attacks.

Senator Kerry --- please, please, please do NOT vote for this bill.

And, this is indeed a test to Democrats in the Senate -- we now KNOW what this administration is about. We KNOW that they will torture and have NO sense of right and wrong. I will be watching closely to see who votes yes for torture. And, you know, this is NOT a choice between torture or terrorist attacks. Torture is unreliable, and only will finish off the destruction of America's reputation as a force of good in the world.

Here is a direct link to the bill:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/Bush.Military.Commissions.Bill.pdf

From Andrew, we have a description from the above blogger's book on what precisely is waterboarding, which a yes vote in Congress will legalize:

"The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt."

Are we living in America anymore?

[beachmom]

1. Josh Marshall has a good post at how cynical this bill and PR stunt is

Maybe I'm missing something. But President Bush's announcement today of the transfer fourteen accused terrorists from secret prisons abroad to Guantanamo Bay seems pretty elementary in terms of political strategy, no?

As we speculated last night, President Bush wants to gin up a hail mary pre-election political fight over the constitution (no pun intended) of military tribunals for accused terrorists. This election-timed stunt is intended to put fourteen faces on the president's fight over the rules for his kangaroo courts.

So now, you're either with Bush or you're with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

What am I missing exactly?

Remember: It's all about the politics.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009641.php

[wisteria]

2. I don't know what to think. It sounds just awful , it does seem to go

beyond fair treatment into the realm of cruel and unusual punishment,but...then, I am torn because it may be the only way to get information from these prisoners who in many cases are willing to die to become martyrs. These procedures may be necessary in order to protect Americans. We have to weigh the threat to Americans against the torture administered. As you can tell, I am unsure what to think about some of these torture techniques.

[beachmom]

3. Torture told us that there were WMD in Iraq

Torture told us that there was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Torture is unreliable -- if a person will kill himself for a cause, do you really think they'll spill the beans because of torture? A person who annoys me, but who has authority on this subject is John McCain, who was in fact tortured in Vietnam. He said it doesn't work -- all you do is tell the perpetrator what they want to hear, not the truth.

A better technique is to use psychological methods and manipulation, trying to get them "on your side". It is possible to flip people who have info, but I doubt there is anyway to get a hard core member to talk. See below an article about an Arab American FBI agent, and how he was able to get info that identified every single 9/11 hijacker (good info). He did it by quoting the Quoran and getting him special food, etc. He never tortured or treated the man poorly. And he came away with excellent intelligence. I really think the only time that torture works is on TV or in the movies. Seriously.



http://www.lawrencewright.com/WrightSoufan.pdf

[wisteria]

4. You have given me a lot to think about.

You make valid points.

[karynnj]

5. I agree 100% with your comments

This is a test for the Democrats. It seems it is a desperate political ploy by the Republicans. They will smear Democrats who vote against this and they obviously hope to win the election with it. As such, it may be good politics for them - but at the price of their soul.

I could seem some Democrats opting to vote for it to avoid the Republicans using it. I would quess though that they would use some of far left voices (who hate Democrats more) to point out their hypocaisy.

From all the unearthed quotes, where Kerry refered to torture as unethical and something we don't do, I certainly hope he would vote against it. (I seriously doubt he could come up with a reason why it was ok to vote for it. If he's who we think he is, he will.)

[karynnj]

6. This vote against banning funding on cluster bombs is not reassuring on

this - look at the lists of Democrats (not including Kerry) who wouldn't ban cluster bombs. (Cluster bombs leave tons of unexploded landmind -like bombs over a large area. )

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2815281

(Bayh, Biden, Clinton and Dodd - Is this how they want to show they are tougher on national security?)

[TayTay]

7. This is really very, very sad

A lot of Dems apparently still fear being called names by the GOP and won't stand up for decency and reason. These cluster bombs are faulty and 40% of them don't explode on contact. They lie there waiting for some innocent to go by and then explode. Sen. Feinstein had pictures of children with no arms who had been maimed by these faulty devices.

Looky which Dems voted to keep these use of these dangerous munitions as is:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Inouye (D-HI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)


Feingold and KErry both voted to ban the use of these bombs in certain situations. Soem Dems still think you have to vote 'tough' or the Republicans will call you a 'soft on terror' person. How sad. They will call you that even if you have a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three purple hearts. Too bad only some people learned that lesson.

[beachmom]

8. So do you think that Sen. Kerry will vote against this new bill?

The only thing that holds me back saying definitely is the fact that this Sheikh guy masterminded the 9/11 plot. It's linking the bill directly to 9/11. I am hoping that Kerry will say it's a "false choice", but it's a big bill, and I don't know what else is in it.

But I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want him to vote against this bill, and come out swinging with how immoral it is. (another immoral)

On an aside, this is also a moment of truth for John McCain -- if he votes for the bill, Andrew Sullivan may bail on him. We'll see . . .

(Oh, if McCain votes yes and Kerry no, poor Sully WILL be receiving yet another e-mail from me!)

[TayTay]

9. I would be shocked if Kerry votes for this bill/provision

(Is it a whole bill or an amendment?) Ahm, torture is immoral and is among those actions that can cause a nation to lose it's very soul. There is no justification for voting for this.

[beachmom]

10. It's a bill titled "Military Commissions Act of 2006"

But as usual with the Bush administration, it is an evil and cynical bill, where the Geneva Conventions are obliterated on the sly.

I'm going to comment on the Andrew Sullivan thread on some theories I have about him, but despite his lies about Kerry, this post you must read:

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/09/liarinchief_i.html

Basically, he calls Bush a liar ("We don't torture"). It's a very depressing post, but we need to absorb what precisely is going on. Um -- he compares Bush to South American dictators.

[TayTay]

11. Does this come up as a provision

or is the an 'up or down' vote on the whole bill? In others words, do the Senators actually get a chance to dissent on this or is it shoved down their throats whole?

[beachmom]

12. Here is an interesting article from the WP

Warner, McCain, and Graham are rebelling, but the question is how much.

This is all I could gleem to answer your question:

But Senate sources said that Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) is considering a plan to bring the legislation to the floor next week under a special rule, bypassing the normal requirement for prior approval by a committee. The Senate is rushing to complete essential pre-election work by the end of this month.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/05/AR2006090501200.html

I'm worried about even this compromise. If it allows torture or violating the Constitution then even a watered down version is no good.

[TayTay]

13. This should be interesting

The Rovian trick is to pad the bill with things that all Americans would agree are reasonable and necessary things. Then to put in a poison pill that is unacceptable to a lot people, especially the Dem base, in an effort to divide and conquer. It will be interesting to see if this is again the procedure.

Remember, the Rethugs have no sconscience and will do anything to win, including playing politics with torture. They have made it clear that torture raises no qualms with them and can be simply used as a club to beat Dems with at no moral cost.

[beachmom]

14. Some updates

First, although the McCain/Warner/Graham has been much ballyhooed as rebelling against the WH, there is a concern that it is NOT going to fix the torture language in the bill:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/draft-of-warner-graham-bill-on.html

5. The bill offers definitions of torture and cruel or inhuman treatment that apply to "any person subject to this chapter." (pp. 63-64). These provisions seem to apply only to unlawful enemy combatants who could be tried by military commissions under this title. Thus it does not seem to address several of Marty's concerns about torture and cruel and inhuman treatment by our own forces.

snip

The draft has not adopted some of the most controversial features of the Administration's proposal, and it begins with the existing military commissions system as a baseline. However, as just noted, the draft suggests that new language will soon be added, most importantly on the war crimes issue. That new language might bring back some highly objectionable features of the Administration's proposal. We will have to wait and see whether the bill gets better or gets worse, and whether the mere existence of this bill means that the Administration will have to compromise.

Unfortunately, according to this NYT article, Democrats seemed to have decided to take a backseat to this debate, and will just watch the Republicans fight it out. Perhaps this is smart, politically, but morally, I hope we don't end up with a flawed bill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/washington/08detain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The Bush administration’s proposal to bring leading terrorism suspects before military tribunals met stiff resistance Thursday from key Republicans and top military lawyers who said some provisions would not withstand legal scrutiny or do enough to repair the nation’s tarnished reputation internationally.

Democrats, meanwhile, said they were inclined to go along with Senate Republicans drafting an alternative to the White House plan, one that would allow defendants more rights. That left Republicans to argue among themselves about what the tribunals would look like and threatened to rob the issue of the political momentum the White House hoped it would provide going into the closely fought midterm elections.

As I state above, however, McCain, being his usual swarmy self, will get all the credit for being "independent" of the WH, while possibly still letting the CIA receive a blank check from Congress to do whatever they want to detainees without fear of prosecution.

This NYT article concurrs with my original post about the torture provisions in the bill:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/washington/08legal.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=c5d9dc0b49f27295&hp&ex=1157774400&partner=homepage

Many of the harsh interrogation techniques repudiated by the Pentagon on Wednesday would be made lawful by legislation put forward the same day by the Bush administration. And the courts would be forbidden from intervening.

The proposal is in the last 10 pages of an 86-page bill devoted mostly to military commissions, and it is a tangled mix of cross-references and pregnant omissions.

But legal experts say it adds up to an apparently unique interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, one that could allow C.I.A. operatives and others to use many of the very techniques disavowed by the Pentagon, including stress positions, sleep deprivation and extreme temperatures.

“It’s a Jekyll and Hyde routine,” Martin S. Lederman, who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown University, said of the administration’s dual approaches.

In effect, the administration is proposing to write into law a two-track system that has existed as a practical matter for some time.

Note that the quote from the professor from Georgetown Univ. is the same person who wrote the blog post I referenced in my first post. So I would say his website is quite credible.

Finally, I just liked this article because it calls Bush a liar AND how ineffective torture is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/washington/08intel.html?_r=1&oref=login

Public documents show that some of the information that led to the arrests of senior terrorism plotters like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh was known before the C.I.A. detained its first prisoner, Mr. Zubaydah, in the spring of 2002.

Mr. Bush said it was Mr. Zubaydah who disclosed to C.I.A. interrogators that Mr. Mohammed was the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and often used the alias Mukhtar, sometimes spelled Muktar.

“This was a vital piece of intelligence that helped our intelligence community pursue K.S.M.,” Mr. Bush said, referring to the terror suspect by his initials.

The report of the Sept. 11 commission said that the C.I.A. knew of the moniker for Mr. Mohammed months before the capture of Mr. Zubaydah.

According to the report, the C.I.A. unit given the task of tracking Osama bin Laden had intercepted a cable on Aug. 28, 2001, that revealed the alias of Mr. Mohammed.

And on the effectiveness of torture:

One of the men, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, is believed to have given false information about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda after C.I.A. officials transferred him to Egyptian custody in 2002. Mr. al-Libi’s statements were used by the Bush administration as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons.

It emerged later that Mr. al-Libi had fabricated these stories while in captivity to avoid harsh treatment by his Egyptian captors.

[beachmom]

15. Update #2 - this War Crimes bill is HIGHLY confusing, and that's the point

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/cia-business-as-usual-would.html

I can't even make heads or tails of this Georgetown professor's post. Apparently, members of Congress are having trouble, too:

Not even Congress itself knows what this bill would, and would not, authorize. Barnes reports that "n Capitol Hill, lawmakers and aides have expressed frustration that they have not been told what the CIA techniques were and whether the agency would adhere to the ban on torture. 'We don't know what the methods are; that is where the difficulty lies,' said a congressional aide."

The Administration claims a need to provide clarity in the War Crimes Act; but their proposal would if anything, make it much more ambiguous . . . which might, after all, be the whole point of the exercise, because in ambiguity lies the seeds of loopholes to be exploited by creative lawyers.