Anti-torture measure wins big in the Senate

October 6, 2005

To follow up on yesterday’s item about a Senate amendment to a massive defense appropriations bill that would prohibit prisoner abuse, the measure passed the Senate last night by a wide margin, despite a veto threat from Bush.

The Senate defied the White House yesterday and voted to set new limits on interrogating detainees in Iraq and elsewhere, underscoring Congress’s growing concerns about reports of abuse of suspected terrorists and others in military custody.

Forty-six Republicans joined 43 Democrats and one independent in voting to define and limit interrogation techniques that U.S. troops may use against terrorism suspects, the latest sign that alarm over treatment of prisoners in the Middle East and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is widespread in both parties. The White House had fought to prevent the restrictions, with Vice President Cheney visiting key Republicans in July and a spokesman yesterday repeating President Bush’s threat to veto the larger bill that the language is now attached to — a $440 billion military spending measure.

Good for them. Bush’s veto threat not only lacked a punch, it looks irrelevant against 90 votes the other way.

For the record, the nine pro-torture votes came from Sens. Allard (R-CO), Bond (R-MO), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Cornyn (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), and Stevens (R-AK).

Helping to give the measure a last-minute boost, 28 retired high military officers — including a retired Army general and onetime chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — co-signed a letter endorsing the provision, which coincided with a separate letter to lawmakers from Colin Powell saying the same thing. (Wow, Powell and Bush disagreeing on national security policy; who would have guessed…)

Next comes the tricky part — negotiations between the House and Senate, where the already-watered down provision will likely be diluted further.

That said, last night’s vote was encouraging. Bush’s veto threat was ignored, the vote (90-9) was overwhelming, and the chamber took a stand against systematic detainee abuse.

bah. i can already see them changing the signs on each of their torture chambers from “property of dept of defense” to “property of cia” to skirt the law, which only calls institutions run by defense.

  • Freepers say a lot of things. If they’re unhappy, I’m happy. It’s a good rule of thumb.

  • Yeah I know. Just thought it was funny coming from the “bestest-and-strongest-country-in-the-world” crowd that a simple vote in the senate means we’ve lost.

  • I fear it won’t go anywhere, but at least we can now identify the true Torture Caucus as the nine who voted against the amendment. It’s not surprising that James “Outraged by the Outrage” Inhofe is among them.

  • If only the military would come forward and state that they do not want any bases or operations located in states where any legislator voted pro-torture. Base closures? Save them for pro-torture states.

  • As it doesn’t cover the CIA, it won’t stop home-made torture and renditions but at least, it shields soldiers from having to do that dirty work.

    If it passes the House (and I’d be suprised if GWB has the balls to veto it), the grunts will be able to tell the intelligence officers to go get stuffed. No ambiguity. Good thing.

  • How come we need this bill if it was just
    a coupla bad apples?

    If we do need it, how come Bush is
    resisting?

    If we do need it, how come the Senate
    isn’t conducting a major investigation
    into the torture scandal?

    How come the American people
    don’t seem to give a damn about
    it?

    • Comments are closed.