Bush Caves on Torture Bill
White House finally concedes to Sen. McCain's demands that they formally include a ban on torture of all detainees in US custody
In a nutshell, Bush finally caved to political pressure and agreed to the provisions, but Congress included the provision that the CIA get the same rights (in terms of defending themselves against accusation) that the military gets. Which kinda makes sense because it is *conceivable* that CIA operatives who *didn't* engage in torture might be accused and have to fight the claim in court somewhere. Since they're working on behalf of the government, the government should provide them counsel.
My question is this: If giving the CIA ops the same legal standing, effectively, as the military folks was what the Administration was holding out for, why did it take so bloody long to sort this out?
The answer, of course, is that this clearly *isn't* what they were trying to get -- they were trying to leave wiggle room that allowed them to torture people. They've been careful up until this week to say very precise things that didn't quite give up the right to treat people very badly indeed if they really felt it was important -- and there is a significant paper trail of misguided legal opinions promoting or supporting that position.
The problem (which most everyone in the CIVILIZED world understands, excluding the current administration's warmongering draft dodgers) is that torture is very good at getting the answers you want, and not as good at getting answers that are accurate. And there are TONS of people, ably represented by former POW and longtime voice of reason John McCain, who know this and constantly remind us. Luckily McCain had the political and moral clout to ram this one down the White House's throat, because otherwise they'd still have Condi Rice out there saying everything but what the rest of the world has been asking us to say (namely that the US will not torture anyone for any reason, no matter what), and weasels like Alberto Gonzalez digging deep for legal cover and fudge room to let them torture people.
Sigh. Now if only the numbers shift enough that the weasels have to finally say "here are the things that will make us leave Iraq"....
Seriously, how hard is it to say "After successful, nonviolent elections we will withdraw 20,000 troops. For every roadside bomb, we will ADD 1,000 troops immediately to that area. If we go a month with no bombings, we will withdraw 10,000 troops. When 50,000 iraqi soldiers and policemen are trained, we will pull another 25,000 US troops out. Whatever numbers are left, we will cut in half after six months of the new government." That sort of thing. Make the consequences of violence that we put MORE troops over there and stay longer. Make the consequences of them stopping that we take troops out and leave sooner. Associate real numbers and real actions with terrorists' actions.
You want us gone? Stop blowing up iraqi police and US troops and innocent civilians, and we'll leave as quickly as we can.
In a nutshell, Bush finally caved to political pressure and agreed to the provisions, but Congress included the provision that the CIA get the same rights (in terms of defending themselves against accusation) that the military gets. Which kinda makes sense because it is *conceivable* that CIA operatives who *didn't* engage in torture might be accused and have to fight the claim in court somewhere. Since they're working on behalf of the government, the government should provide them counsel.
My question is this: If giving the CIA ops the same legal standing, effectively, as the military folks was what the Administration was holding out for, why did it take so bloody long to sort this out?
The answer, of course, is that this clearly *isn't* what they were trying to get -- they were trying to leave wiggle room that allowed them to torture people. They've been careful up until this week to say very precise things that didn't quite give up the right to treat people very badly indeed if they really felt it was important -- and there is a significant paper trail of misguided legal opinions promoting or supporting that position.
The problem (which most everyone in the CIVILIZED world understands, excluding the current administration's warmongering draft dodgers) is that torture is very good at getting the answers you want, and not as good at getting answers that are accurate. And there are TONS of people, ably represented by former POW and longtime voice of reason John McCain, who know this and constantly remind us. Luckily McCain had the political and moral clout to ram this one down the White House's throat, because otherwise they'd still have Condi Rice out there saying everything but what the rest of the world has been asking us to say (namely that the US will not torture anyone for any reason, no matter what), and weasels like Alberto Gonzalez digging deep for legal cover and fudge room to let them torture people.
Sigh. Now if only the numbers shift enough that the weasels have to finally say "here are the things that will make us leave Iraq"....
Seriously, how hard is it to say "After successful, nonviolent elections we will withdraw 20,000 troops. For every roadside bomb, we will ADD 1,000 troops immediately to that area. If we go a month with no bombings, we will withdraw 10,000 troops. When 50,000 iraqi soldiers and policemen are trained, we will pull another 25,000 US troops out. Whatever numbers are left, we will cut in half after six months of the new government." That sort of thing. Make the consequences of violence that we put MORE troops over there and stay longer. Make the consequences of them stopping that we take troops out and leave sooner. Associate real numbers and real actions with terrorists' actions.
You want us gone? Stop blowing up iraqi police and US troops and innocent civilians, and we'll leave as quickly as we can.