Yesterday, 30 retired generals and admirals signed a joint letter to Democratic leaders in Congress, urging them to pass legislation requiring U.S intelligence agents to follow strict standards for detainee treatment. The letter, which was endorsed by Maj. Gen. Tony Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal, noted the president’s veto threat, but urged lawmakers to do the right thing anyway.
Today, the House took the generals’ advice.
The Democratic-led House of Representatives voted on Thursday to outlaw harsh interrogation methods, such as simulated drowning, that the CIA has used against suspected terrorists.
On a 222-199 vote, the House approved a measure to require intelligence agents to comply with the Army Field Manual, which meets the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of war prisoners and prohibits torture.
The full roll call is online here. A mere five House Republicans broke party ranks to vote with the majority, while 10 House Dems joined with the GOP. (Most of the Dems who opposed the measure are southern Blue Dogs, but a few are staunch liberals — Kucinich, Woolsey, and Waters — though I don’t know why they joined with the right. None of them have statements on their websites explaining their vote.)
Today’s result was, to be sure, heartening.
The Gavel has some clips of the debate, but I’m partial to this common-sense explanation from Rep. Jerold Nadler (D-N.Y.), one of my favorite lawmakers:
“This will ensure a single uniform baseline standard for interrogations. That means no more torture, no more waterboarding, no more clever wordplay, no more evasive answers, no more dishonesty… I understand the critical role that intelligence plays in protecting ourselves. But torture, and cruel and degrading treatment – besides being contrary to American values and traditions – have proven not to be effective in obtaining actionable intelligence. Current and former members of the military have made this clear.”
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) also did a great job.
“My colleagues in the minority complain that the inclusion of this provision will make it impossible for our intelligence officers to protect the American people from terrorists. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I assure you that those claims are false, but don’t take my word for it. Please, consider the advice of General David Petraeus, who said in a May 10 memo to the members of the armed forces that the Army Field Manual allowed intelligence officials to get the information they need. Among the things he said is, quote, ‘our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that was published last year shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.'”
As for the 30 retired admirals and generals, it’s hard to know for sure whether their letter had an effect, but a powerful statement like this, from those who know how best to keep America safe, carried some intellectual and moral weight.
“We believe it is vital to the safety of our men and women in uniform that the United States not sanction the use of interrogation methods it would find unacceptable if inflicted by the enemy against captured Americans,” the military officials write. “That principle, embedded in the Army Field Manual, has guided generations of American military personnel in combat. The current situation, in which the military operates under one set of interrogation rules that are public and the CIA operates under a separate, secret set of rules, is unwise and impractical.”
The legislation now moves to the Senate, where Republicans will likely refuse to allow an up-or-down vote. It’s just what they do.