The Republican divide over torture

October 5, 2005

About two weeks ago, an Army captain and two sergeants from the 82nd Airborne Division who were responsible for supervising prisoners in Iraq went public with first-hand accounts of routine torture, in many instances ordered by military intelligence officers. What’s worse, the leading whistleblower, Capt. Ian Fishback, a West Point graduate — whose concerns went ignored for 17 months — was back on the Hill yesterday, reporting new evidence of even more detainee abuse.

Fishback’s revelations have touched off a massive, and largely unnoticed, conflict within the Republican caucus. If you think the right is splintered over Harriet Miers, consider the competing factions over a pending defense appropriations bill — with a provision to prevent torture. It’s a fight that deserves more attention.

Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and John Warner of Virginia are fighting for amendments to a $440 billion defense bill that would prohibit prisoner abuse, regulate detainee treatment, and open the door for a commission to examine the systematic problem the military seems to have with torture practices. Not surprisingly, their effort isn’t going over well.

House Republicans are, in the words of one GOP lawmaker, “going nuts.” The White House is so worried about the McCain/Warner effort, Bush has threatened to veto the legislation. Dick Cheney has already knocked on lawmakers’ doors to press the Senate to support the White House line. And yesterday, after Bill Frist sided with the administration, Warner responded by picking a very public fight.

One of the Senate’s old bulls is locking horns with Majority Leader Bill Frist over a stalled defense bill, spotlighting how fractious debate over the wartime measure has become.

The challenge by Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., a 27-year Senate veteran, is unusual because Warner is known for quietly seeking consensus rather than waging public battles. It’s also rare for a defense bill written during a war to run into problems in Congress.

It all comes down to torture. Bush, Cheney, and Frist, none of whom served in the military, don’t want any restrictions on the Pentagon’s handling of detainees. McCain, Warner, and Senate Dems believe limits are absolutely necessary, even more so after Capt. Fishback’s reports to lawmakers. This is a great debate to have, because it offers observers such a stark contrast between competing values.

Bush’s veto threat is almost certainly a bad joke, but I desperately want the Senate to call his bluff. Let’s see the man who hasn’t vetoed anything in five years take out the pen to support torture and abuse. I dare him.

Update: Michael Froomkin reminds me that the McCain provisions aren’t even as strong as they should be. These abuse restrictions wouldn’t even apply to the facilities run by the CIA, nor the CIA’s ongoing role in the Pentagon’s interrogations. It’s an important point.

I hope Frist no longer has aspirations to the White House. He has managed to either look like a spineless toady, an idiot, or an untrustworty/shaky ally not only to members of the GOP but to the public that pays attention.

At one point he may have looked like the future to the GOP party structure but his stewardship in the Senate just shows he is not up to the job of being a candate for president but of being president.

  • The problem with this bill is that it makes it look like the things done by the military are not already clearly illegal under U.S. law. It therefore gives the administration an excuse to argue that, “Hey, if Congress passed a law outlining what is and is not permissible, it must think what we’ve been doing isn’t illegal right now.” (not that such an argument would/should win, but it gives them a talking point).

    A second problem is that, since the abuses are already illegal, it’s clear that the administration is not interested in enforcing the law as it is today. Why would they then enforce a new law which purports to cover the same conduct? Especially when it may have been passed by overiding a presidential veto and when the administration constantly maintains that it is above the law anyway.

  • That last line is gold. The mere thought of it is exciting. I hope Bush DOES veto the bill, and make the GOP look even worse.

    Anyway, it’s good to know there are still some old fashioned rule-of-law, limited government conservatives who are willing to keep the runaway radcon GOP in check.

  • The value’s people. Torture is ok as long as were the ones doing it. Just look at that number. $440 BILLION The war machine/weapons manufactureing companies are certainly getting RICH

  • Torture is ok as long as were the ones doing it.

    There is a substantial pro-torture minority in this country. And that’s what’s keeping me up nights.

    What additional persuasion would be required, what coded messages from the Executive branch, to add me to the set of persons who ‘had it coming’, who ‘deserved it’, whose fates aren’t worth getting exercised about?

    My guess is not much — and I haven’t seen Hotel Rwanda yet.

  • What additional persuasion would be required, what coded messages from the Executive branch, to add me to the set of persons who ‘had it coming’, who ‘deserved it’, whose fates aren’t worth getting exercised about?

    We are all potential enemy combatants, we just need the President’s blessing.

  • So far, Alexander and Sununu have come out in favor of this amendment. Could this be the makings of a 96-4 vote for the amendment (the four being Frist, Stevens and the Okies)?

  • If Mccain thinks he’s ready for prime time, this would be a place to start. Deliver a real bill requiring adherence to the Geneva Conventions, draw a red line where presidential power stops, and force the Crony in Chief to either veto or back down.

    Some things are too important to be left to frivolous politics. Every Democrat who has a hope of running in 2008 should get very loud about now. THIS is an issue that can be used to bang McCain over the head with, that he did not have the courage to do the right thing when it really mattered.

  • I’m not a military man, but I’ve been around enough of them to see what is going on here, and it is kind of funny, actually.

    It’s like that old “Trouble with Tribbles” Star Trek episode, where the Klingons in the bar were trying to pick a fight, and insulting Captain Kirk, and Scotty was keeping his cool, but as soon as they started insulting the Enterprise– his beloved SHIP–, Scotty went ape-shit and started throwing punches at them.

    What McCain and other war veterans are fighting for here, is the HONOR of their beloved military. They’re not necessarily concerned about the rights of prisoners (at least the Repugs aren’t), but what really, REALLY steams them– in ways a non-military person can’t possibly understand– is the stain on the honor of the United States Military. The pictures of servicemen and servicewomen playing S/M games with prisoners were unbearable for them to see, as were the written reports and the testimony. Not becuase of the acts necessarily, but because the people perpetrating them were IN THE UNIFORM OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY!

    Many veterans have a devotion to the service that is– well it’s beyond my abilities to describe. It’s like, you can insult them, insult their families, insult their children, but don’t you *dare* say an unkind word about the Corps (or the Navy, or the Army, or whatever).

    This is why they don’t give a shit if CIA starts sticking prisoners into a wood chipper and serving the chum to the other prisoners. As long atrocities aren’t committed in Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine uniforms, it’s, well, change the subject.

    • Comments are closed.