Tuesday, November 08, 2005

We do not torture

That's what the President said yesterday. Phew! That's a relief! A while back, I wrote about torture, and happily, it seems I was mistaken.

Oh wait... There are some people who aren't buying it. Might Dear Leader have, er, misspoke? See, if you define a term narrowly enough, you can always claim it doesn't apply to you. But that's bullshit, as Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, says:
First the administration defined torture so narrowly that torture according to them was not torture... And now that the administration has broadened the definition again it still insists on employing coercive interrogation techniques that constitute torture -- water boarding is a method they employ -- they claim it merely amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment -- but the world knows it is torture.

Back in June there was a brouhaha in which Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), on the Senate floor, denounced such treatment as characteristic of oppressive regimes. The message was lost, however, when he made an unfortunate comparison to the Nazis.

One other comparison he made was to the gulags of the former Soviet Union. As we've learned in the past few days, this was comparison was also unfortunate -- unfortunate because it turns out our CIA has been operating actual gulags in former Communist Bloc countries. I should mention that I haven't come across any reports of how prisoners have been treated at these "black sites," but the fact that they operate outside the law or any sort of external scrutiny is worrisome. A little light needs to shine on these places.

1 Comments:

Blogger Mark M said...

Tony, I'm not sure as to the reason for Obama's vote, but I think I have an idea as to why Durbin voted as he did. One section of the amendment reads:

(begin quote)
(1) IN GENERAL.--Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

"(e) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien outside the United States ... who is detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.''
(end quote)

The amendment sets forth procedures for processing the detainees, but it transfers all power in such matters from the judicial branch to the executive branch. And a detainee cannot petition the executive branch for a writ of habeas corpus. So, it turns out that there is at least one provision in the amendment that takes away the rights of the detainees.

The amendment that Durbin did support -- along with Barack Obama -- is the competing Bingaman Amendment (No. 2523), which said:

(begin quote)
Strike subsection (d) and insert the following:

(d) Judicial Review of Detention of Enemy Combatants.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to consider an application for writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien outside the United States ... --

(A) who is, at the time a request for review by such court is filed, detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and

(B) for whom a Combatant Status Review Tribunal has been conducted, pursuant to applicable procedures specific by the Department of Defense.
(end quote)

The Bingaman amendment was rejected 54-44, mostly along party lines.

Durbin's votes in both cases were entirely consistent with his previous statements.

11/15/2005 08:47:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home