RSS Feed MenuFrumForum was informed that late last night Congressman McDermott included a provision into the intelligence appropriation bill which targets CIA officers. There was no discussion, no debate, and no conversation. This provision ambiguously defines the criminal acts as anything that involves “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.” These treatments include depriving a captured terrorist of food, water, sleep, medical care, and does not allow for the threat of force. Theoretically, if a person is deprived of food that they say THEY NEED a criminal act has been committed. In addition, it does not define what is considered sleep deprivation.
This was “a midnight implementation” and is in the underlying bill. What this means if that any Congressperson is against this provision they must vote against the whole bill. A Congressional official stated to FrumForum that “it is a double standard since Congress does not have to take responsibility for its role and assent in national security policy, but the intelligence community are being held to subjective standards. This administration prioritizes criminal prosecution over intelligence collection.”
GOProud // Feb 25, 2010 at 11:33 pm
The headline should read: Democrats Help al Qaeda in the WOT; McDermott rapes CIA.
Dick Cheney was right. These people have no idea who the enemy is and what is at stake. McDermott is an idiot & tool of the farLeft appeasers.
I say we ship him off to Iran and make him their first human shield for the nuke weapons facility. Ironic justice, that.
balconesfault // Feb 26, 2010 at 12:21 am
Given some of Ms. Cooper’s inside scoops in the past … I’ll wait to see what’s actually in the bill before getting upset.
But as a reference point, the Geneva Convention language on torture:
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Theoretically, if a person is deprived of food that they say THEY NEED a criminal act has been committed.
Practically, that’s not true.
SFTor1 // Feb 26, 2010 at 12:24 am
Seventy years ago this country got through a war that took all the country’s strength. We were up against enemies which makes Al-Qaeda look like a band of teenage hooligans. These were the most ruthless, most vicious military and political powers the world had ever seen. When we put their worst offenders on trial we scrupulously observed international law, even created law to ensure the fair and humane treatment of war criminals going forward.
Now we have people slinking about who believe that torture is the prudent way “to protect the homeland.” They ask our men and women in uniform to commit war crimes. For that they are scoundrels of the worst description. They know, or should know, that there are lawful techniques more effective than simulating someone’s drowning. They push these disgusting suggestions to puff themselves up and look tough.
As the Afghans say: “What you do to your enemies today you do to your friends tomorrow.”
To the chicken-hawks out there we can only hope they pick up a history book and learn to have a little more faith in the military forces and intelligence agencies of this country. They can do their jobs without cruelty. As a matter of fact they must. It was how we did business against the Germans and Japanese seventy years ago, and how always we must do business.
No exceptions.
sinz54 // Feb 26, 2010 at 9:17 am
SFTor: When we put their worst offenders on trial we scrupulously observed international law, even created law to ensure the fair and humane treatment of war criminals going forward.
That was long AFTER the war was over.
But DURING the war, we didn’t “scrupulously observe international law.”
Go read about the following:
Operation Greif (that’s “i” after “e”)
The Biscari Massacre
The Dachau Massacre
Mutilation of Japanese war dead
The firebombing of Tokyo
If the U.S. had lost the war, Eisenhower, MacArthur and LeMay would have been executed for these war crimes.
By definition, the convicted war criminals come from the losing side.
GOProud // Feb 26, 2010 at 10:35 am
SFTor1 whines: “Now we have people slinking about who believe that torture is the prudent way “to protect the homeland.” They ask our men and women in uniform to commit war crimes. For that they are scoundrels of the worst description”.
BS on that whole line of thought and a PS for ya, SFTor1>>> John Kerry tried the same argument 35 yrs ago and 6 yrs ago and he lost; both times.
EIT, including waterboarding, isn’t torture. Saying it is or citing what other country’s think doesn’t make it so; wishing it were so doesn’t make it. Playing fast and loose with history, as Sinz54 points out above, doesn’t get you there either.
The president –whether Obama or Bush– determines, after appropriate DOJ review, whether or not EIT is legal if conducted under specific, strict guidelines or that it is not the policy of the US govt. Obama chose one way; Bush another. The next president may choose to reverse the wrong-headed and unilateral disarmament policies of this current govt… or, as Obama does, may just outsource the use of torture to countries like Pakistan and employ some comfort in the seeming “moral high road” of his policies for US actors. Of course, having other countries pull fingernails doesn’t seem to bother our WOT COs… just like they didn’t care if Saddam killed thousands of innocent people or amassed WMDs for terrorist use.
This isn’t a debate about EIT or its demonstrated efficacy.
This is about a farLeft wingnut fringe Democrat using the lowest form of legislative gamesmanship to stick it to the CIA… after the fact. It’s the same bite on the same apple that has the farLeft wanting to frogmarch Bush & Cheney and Rove into a war crimes court… while the farLeft’s president has told them “No, not on my watch”.
Mr McDermott has already had to withdraw his language on order of the White House. I’m guessing that CIA Dir Panetta had close to mutiny conditions at Langley all day. And the democrats deserved the heat… they are soft on terrorism and the WOT.
Thank God for patriotic Congressmen like Michigan’s own Pete Hoekstra (R) who led the effort to highlight this scummy, gutter styled political highjinks from a Party member that once claimed transparency and openness to be their watchwords. But then, he’s a regular at HuffPo, so what can one expect except a lack of decency, zero patriotism and a failure to serve the public interest?
In fact, Cooper didn’t rely an interesting factoid about our WOT CO McDermott: The amendment’s sponsor, Rep. Jim McDermott, made a protest visit to Iraq in 2002 prior to the U.S. invasion. In 2008, a federal indictment against Muthanna Al-Hanooti, the man who arranged Mr. McDermott’s trip, said then-Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi intelligence service paid for the trip.
BTW, seems like Cooper, in this case BlankHead, was a little more than correct –she was spot on. Care to apologize? Again?
balconesfault // Feb 26, 2010 at 11:40 am
GOP’s intellectual and moral superior will actually acknowledge that Ms. Cooper was correct in her reporting about attempted insertion of the Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Interrogation Prohibition Act of 2010 into the appropriations bill.
And frankly, I do think such a provision should be subject to independent debate, and not to being just slipped into another bill as an amendment.
I’m personally not fond of a President of either party having the discretion to decide what is torture without judicial oversight, so I think the measure (which as I said simply codifies in our law provisions that we already signators to in the Geneva Convention) is worthy. But as such, it’s worthy of an open discussion.
LFC // Feb 26, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Torture is illegal in all civilized nations. It is illegal per the Geneva Conventions, which we signed. Even during WWII, we did not officially create a torture program. Neither did Great Britain, who was in far graver danger.
Multiple U.S. interrogators, real ones with real world experience in extracting intelligence, have said that torture is ineffective at producing reliable intelligence. The same was known by interrogators in the U.S. and Great Britain during WWII.
The U.S. Military bans torture in writing. George Washington banned its use when our fledgling nation was in real danger of being destroyed.
Despite the long running right-wing documentary called “24″, torture is, in fact, ineffective at extracting good intelligence but great for extracting false confessions. It’s why North Korea used it. They wanted confessions for propaganda purposes. KSM gave us piles of great info prior to being waterboarded. He was tortured to get him to confess to a non-existent connection to Saddam. Cheney wanted that so badly, he didn’t give a damn if the confession was real or fake, just like they didn’t care in North Korea.
Yes despite all the evidence to the contrary, the right-wingers STILL want to torture people.
GOProud // Feb 26, 2010 at 10:02 pm
BlankHead resigned to “GOP’s (sic) intellectual and moral superior will actually acknowledge that Ms. Cooper was correct in her reporting about attempted insertion of the Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Interrogation Prohibition Act of 2010 into the appropriations bill.”
For an Obami, that constitutes a yes.
Wow, you guys do take the Messiah’s practice of bloviating for no purpose to heart.
jreb // Feb 28, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Clearly another attempt by a Liberal Democrat Congress to carry out a vendetta against our intelligence community. Playing politics with our national security does not bode well for our nation.