That was the September 2006, Millitary Commission Act. Their initial intent was to restrict torture, but they gave and wrote the bill giving the Bush administration the right to define "torture". The fact that McCain was tortured does not mean that he has done more than others to prevent torture, though it does mean he understands it on a level the rest of us don't.
Here is part of Senator Kerry's speech on that bill explaining what it would do:
Today, the leadership of the Senate has decided that legislation that will directly impact America's moral authority in the world merits only a few hours of debate. What is at stake is the authority that is essential to winning and to waging a legitimate and effective war on terror, and also one that is critical to the safety of American troops who may be captured.
If, in a few hours, we squander that moral authority, blur lines that for decades have been absolute, then no speech, no rhetoric, and no promise can restore it.
Four years ago, we were in a similar situation. An Iraq war resolution was rushed through the Senate because of election-year politics--a political calendar, not a statesman's calendar. And 4 years later, the price we are paying is clear for saying to a President and an administration that we would trust them.
Today, we face a different choice--to prevent an irreversible mistake, not to correct one. It is to stand and be counted so that election-year politics do not further compromise our moral authority and the safety of our troops.
Every Senator must ask him or herself: Does the bill before us treat America's authority as a precious national asset that does not limit our power but magnifies our influence in the world? Does it make clear that the U.S. Government recognizes beyond any doubt that the protections of the Geneva Conventions have to be applied to prisoners in order to comply with the law, restore our moral authority, and best protect American troops? Does it make clear that the United States of America does not engage in torture , period?
Despite protests to the contrary, I believe the answer is clearly no. I wish it were not so. I wish this compromise actually protected the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions. But it does not. In fact, I regret to say, despite the words and the protests to the contrary, this bill permits torture. This bill gives the President the discretion to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions. It gives confusing definitions of ``torture'' and ``cruel and inhuman treatment'' that are inconsistent with the Detainee Treatment Act, which we passed 1 year ago, and inconsistent with the Army Field Manual. It provides exceptions for pain and suffering ``incidental to lawful sanctions,'' but it does not tell us what the lawful sanctions are.
So what are we voting for with this bill? We are voting to give the President the power to interpret the Geneva Conventions. We are voting to allow pain and suffering incident to some undefined lawful sanctions.
This bill gives an administration that lobbied for torture exactly what it wanted. And the administration has been telling people it gives them what they wanted. The only guarantee we have that these provisions will prohibit torture is the word of the President. Well, I wish I could say the word of the President were enough on an issue as fundamental as torture . But we have been down this road.
The sad thing is that the year before, McCain led a bipartisan effort to strengthen the provision of torture for the military. Rather than insist the CIA follow the same rules, they wrote the legislation allowing the Bush administration define what torture was for the CIA --- and we now see in the released memos that Kerry was 100% right.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
