Browsed by
Tag: torture

saying “no” to torture means “no”

saying “no” to torture means “no”

Comments 1 comment

I am hopeful that we may be of one mind as a nation in saying an unequivocal “No” to using torture in any and all circumstances. I am concerned, as are the retired miltary officers cited in the following article, that the “signing statement” appended to the bill undermines the intent and effect of the McCain amendment banning cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of detainees in any form.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A group of retired military officers urged President George W. Bush on Thursday to spell out how he will enforce a ban on the torture of U.S.-held prisoners, complaining he muddied the issue in a statement last month.

Bush reluctantly accepted the ban, pushed by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, after scandals over abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, harsh interrogations at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and reports the CIA ran secret prisons abroad to hold terrorism suspects.

Retired military leaders including Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar, who was U.S. Central Command commander-in-chief, said Bush should clarify his stance after making a statement last month that some experts said signaled he would bypass rules for treatment of detainees when he saw fit, even after he signed them into law.

The 22 former military officers in their letter said Bush should ensure that “your administration speak with a consistent voice to make clear that the United States now has a single standard of conduct specified in law that governs all interrogations.”

In a telephone news conference, Hoar said Bush’s statement last month “diluted the impact of the McCain amendment” by indicating “that there were going to be exceptions and the president has the ability to do that.”

McCain, who endured torture as a war prisoner in Vietnam, spearheaded the bill to set standards for detainees’ treatment that won big majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives.

Bush’s statement, issued on a Friday evening after he signed the bill putting the amendment into law, said the “executive branch shall construe (the law) in a manner consistent with the authority of the president … as commander in chief.”

The statement also said the White House’s approach would be “consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the president … of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.”

Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First, said Bush should “clarify the signing statement so there is no question that the commander-in-chief considers this law binding on all U.S. personnel.”

Human Rights First held a news conference on the letter from retired generals and admirals.

Retired Rear Admiral John Hutson, a former Navy judge advocate general, said the McCain amendment reinstated long-standing U.S. policy on the treatment of prisoners. “Then to have a signing statement in which that becomes blurred again causes us great concern,” he said.

By Vicki Allen

a time and a place for torture?

a time and a place for torture?

Comments 0 Comment

The debate over the McCain amendment continues. The amendment, attached to a defense appropriations bill, bans the use of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by any agent of the United States government against any person anywhere in the world. The White House, led by vice-president Dick Cheney, continues to lobby against the amendment, asking that its language be changed to exempt the CIA from its provisions.

I cannot in any way fathom how making allowances for torture — used by covert agents against suspected terrorists “if the president determines that such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack” — helps us win the war on terror or insure our safety or make the world a better place. It is a classic instance of “winning the battle” and “losing the war!”

The White House insists that they “do not condone torture, nor would [the president] ever authorize the use of torture,” and yet they clearly want to make allowance for the use of “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treament” when they deem it necessary. I fail to to see how this is not condoning torture!

Our nation is founded on the principles of the innate equality of all human beings and the universal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Any use of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment for any purpose absolutely violates those principles. Such behavior can only be justified by judging a person “less than human” and therefore not entitled to basic “human” rights. We protect ourselves at the cost of sacrificing our national soul and make ludicrous any claim to be an exemplary champion of human rights.

When the end justifies the means, eventually anything goes. And when the test is a subjective judgment of a few folks in positions of power, the risks of the abuse of power are enormous. Our system of government was expressly designed to mitigate such abuses of power.

I am hopeful that saner, wiser, and more humane hearts and minds will prevail. I am hopeful that we will uphold the principles that have made our nation a beacon of light and truth among nations. I am hopeful that evil will not win … the evil that lies too in our own hearts.