Giving new meaning to ‘pro-torture’ lawmakers

In recent months, Republicans in Congress have offered critics ample opportunities to use the “pro-torture” label. For example, when lawmakers endorsed Alberto Gonzales’ nomination to be attorney general, it was characterized as a practical referendum on Bush’s torture policies — to vote for Gonzales, despite his role in shaping administration policies that led to widespread and systematic abuse, was to be, in effect, pro-torture.

Yesterday, a vote on a House resolution put the matter in a more direct context. The good news is the measure passed. The bad news is the vote wasn’t unanimous.

The House voted Wednesday to ban the use of federal money to transfer terror suspects to countries that are believed to torture prisoners, a practice that has drawn fierce criticism of the Bush administration.

The largely symbolic amendment reaffirms a 1994 treaty barring torture of detainees in American custody, whether in the United States or in countries known for human rights violations. The measure was approved 420-2 as part of an $81.4 billion emergency spending package for combat and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Voting against the amendment were Republican Reps. Robin Hayes of North Carolina and Mark Souder of Indiana.

Try as I might, I can’t make sense of this. Hayes and Souder saw that the measure was going to pass with overwhelming bi-partisan support, so unless they accidentally pushed the wrong vote button on the House floor, they wanted to go out of their way to take a firm stand in support of rendition — the practice of secretly sending detainees in U.S. custody to foreign countries with lax human rights laws for “interrogation.”

Indeed, it’s worth noting that this outsourcing of torture has been illegal for years, conflicting with federal law, international treaties we’ve signed, and the sovereignty of other nations that we rely on as allies.

Yesterday’s vote, therefore, was simply a symbolic gesture to state that Congress still supports existing law in this area. And yet, there were two Republican lawmakers who wanted to take what can only be described as the “pro-torture” position. Amazing.