On the heels of the vote yesterday in the House of Representatives to adopt the McCain torture amendment, MSNBC is reporting that the White House has backed down and is now agreeing to support the bill, should it pass.
I will have more later as it becomes available. I don’t know what the agreement is, and I do not know how the rush to rewrite the regs will play out.
*** Update ***
Here is the first write-up I have found:
After months of resistance, the White House has agreed to accept Sen. John McCain’s call for a law specifically banning cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of foreign suspects in the war on terror, several congressional officials said Thursday.
The congressional officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they did not want to pre-empt an expected announcement later in the day at the White House, possibly by President Bush and McCain.
These officials also cautioned the agreement was encountering opposition in the House from Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
The White House at one point threatened a veto if the ban was included in legislation sent to his desk, and Vice President Dick Cheney made an unusual personal appeal to all Republican senators to give an exemption to the CIA.
But congressional sentiment was overwhelmingly in favor of the ban, and McCain, who was held and tortured for five years in Vietnam, adopted the issue.
He and the administration have been negotiating for weeks in search of a compromise, but it became increasingly clear that he, not the administration, had the votes in Congress.
More as it becomes available.
ANother write-up here.
Richard Bottoms
Welcome to the world as created by the conservatives here and in the UK. BTW it’s now possible to be held in custody for years and never even be questioned under this new regime:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article333258.ece
Of course only the parnoid lefty moonbats think this will trickle down to your average jane or joe.
At least until the first suitcase nuke goes off. Then bye, bye civil liberties.
Richard Bottoms
Lord you wonder why some people like me (relatively affluent and sure to gain from all their tax goodies)would eat glass before voting for a Republican. Ever.:
Coming after an 18-month public debate over torture policies at the end of which a solid consensus has formed against the Administration’s viewpoint, this would be a shocking result. It is made even more shameful by comparison with the decision of Britain’s highest court, handed down just one week ago, reaffirming the ban on the use of torture-extracted evidence as a legal absolute.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/12/torture-by-back-door.html
It is imperative that these backroom dealings on a matter of such important public concern be fully exposed and discussed. If Congress wishes to combine a vote against torture in the McCain Amendment with a back-door blessing on torture in Graham-Levin-Kyl, at least let this be done in full public view and let the votes of those who support this abomination be publicly recorded.
Never. Not ever will I vote for a party that has become this warped.
nyrev
Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is better than not doing the right thing at all. If the White House is going to support the ammendment, then good for the White House.
Now let’s see if the pro-torture crowd attacks the President the same way that they all the other pinko traitors who supported the bill.
Oliver
An interesting possible twist is highlighted over at obsidianwings with a link to a NY Times story about a rewrite to interrogation guidelines in the field army guide specifically cited in McCain’s amendment:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/12/take_that_mccai.html
Perry Como
I’m sad to see that the President is cutting and running on the torture issue. We need to torture suspects thoroughly, since we never know when we might encounter a ticking time bomb. Of course the President is a very wise man, so I’m sure there is a reason he is supporting the bill now.
Otto Man
Of course Bush will back down on this. Even he’s not dumb enough to use his very first presidential veto to uphold torture.
Steve S
Come on Bush. VETO THE ANTI-TORTURE bill. I dare ya!
Richard Bottoms
>Of course Bush will back down on this. Even he’s not dumb >enough to use his very first presidential veto to uphold >torture.
No they’ll just try to pass laws to circumvent McCain’s amendment and his supporters will smile merrily as we continue to torture and murder.
I know, it’s only been a few. So who will be first to volunteer to be the next person frozen to death by “mistake”?
Lines
They arn’t backing down at all. They are rewriting the army field manual and just needed the time to get it right. It was all just a delay tactict.
God damn these fascist fucks are good at this game. They really should have been impeached some time ago, then we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Torture wouldn’t be debatable, it would be so off the table it would be out the door. Instead we coddle the Stormies of the world by implying that somehow torture is ok, we modify the handbook so that torture is redefined and if you torture, well you just get a slap on the wrist, and barely anyone in the US even understands the complexity of the whole thing.
Pure evil genius. Turdblossum is amazing.
Richard Bottoms
>God damn these fascist fucks are good at this game.
The most frustrating part is that guys like John keep thinking the administration changes its position or tactics in the war, on torture, on the economy whenever they implement their most current bait & switch tactic.
Look for him to be writing some months down the line about how is disappointed once again that the administration said they were going to do X when in fact they did Y. And did Y badly too boot.
He’ll vote Republican in the fall and then spend two more years lamenting how he was hoodwinked, but the Dems are worse.
srv
That would be a great idea for a blog… Oh, wait.
jaime
I’ll bet John McCain’s black baby we don’t stop torture.
Richard Bottoms
Have you heard the one about the guy imprisioned by the Taliban for plotting to kill OBL who is rewarded by us jailing him for 4 years in Gitmo?
When U.S. forces freed Saddiq Ahmad Turkistani from a Taliban prison in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in late 2001, the detainee met with reporters at a news conference and told U.S. officials that he had been wrongly imprisoned for allegedly plotting to kill Osama bin Laden.
An ethnic Uighur who was born and raised in Saudi Arabia, Turkistani said he believed in the U.S. campaign against terrorism. He professed hatred for al Qaeda and the Taliban — groups he said tortured him in prison — and offered to help the United States. Intelligence officials and U.N. representatives told Turkistani they would seek to find him refuge, possibly in Pakistan, according to accounts he later gave his lawyers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121402125.html
You know, just like the many folks still imprisioned because we know they’ll complain about being kidnapped and tortured for four years???
Don’t fucking blame me, I didn’t vote for these fools to run the show. Know anyone who did?
John Redworth
This is a question for John and others who want to join in… I was watching the news this morning when the news flash came on concerning the administration turn around on the McCain amendment…
Then something else came over me… yesterday we saw Bush admit mistakes in Iraq… we now know that NOLA will have a stronger levy wall when the WH announced it (either yesterday or this morning)… Bush has announced a “war on illegal immigration” in the past couple of days with extreme strong rhetoric that has been missing… and now the DeLay is innocent comment…
My question is concerning all of these events… has Bush’s handlers finally realized that to make things better (polls, support, etc), they may actually have to follow through on promises or address the concerns of the People?
Darrell
Well given that a significant majority of Americans is ok with torture in rare circumstances, and large majorities are for more forceful enforcement of our immigration laws, it would seem that Bush is going in the direction opposite voter wishes, not following their wishes as you suggest
John Redworth
I read that story you linked, but I have to add that McCain had enough votes to override a veto… I know this doesn’t fall in line with what I was saying since I have read polls that say the People do not want torture… the immigration issue I was talking about was not allowing more visas for foreign workers but putting more money and force behind border security…
What caught me by surprise on these issues is how the WH has been virtually quiet for some time and all of a sudden actual directives or at least a direction on how the WH feels on these hot topics…
The Disenfranchised Voter
The same thought crossed my mind. Doesn’t McCain’s amendment merely say that we should follow the army field manual when interrogating suspected terrorists?
If it does, then amending the Army field manual is a backdoor way to allow torture, while appearing to have banned it.
Hopefully someone can figure this all out.
Steve S
Let’s see…
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1567&issue_id=70
You are correct, Sir.
The Disenfranchised Voter
While that is true, it is important to note the second part of the bill:
That second part seems to get rid of torture if you ask me.
Darrell
I provided a citation to a poll which directly contradicts that assertion. Do you have a link/evidence to polls which found something different, or did you simply make it up?
TallDave
I still think only the Ramada Inn standard will do.
John Redworth
I did not dismiss your citation but stated that I had seen polls that showed the opposite… albeit these polls are a bit older (from May 2004 to July 2005)… ABC polls showed that a majority of Americans did not support torture but it does seem as if that has shifted… tis a shame really…