US Congress near deal on bill that bans torture

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional negotiators were near a deal on Thursday on a defence bill that would put into law a ban on the torture and inhumane treatment of detainees, a step the White House has opposed.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter would not say whether the full McCain amendment would be in the final defence authorization bill. But the California Republican said it would accommodate "our ability to continue to harvest important intelligence in the war against terror and at the same time provide for a humane environment" for detainees.

Hunter, a White House ally, has said McCain's amendment was unnecessary because there already were laws banning torture.

White House and Senate negotiators were still working out language to give the administration some discretion in protecting covert agents from prosecution if they were found to have abused prisoners, aides said.

http://za.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-12-09T064049Z_01_ALL924136_RTRIDST_0_OZATP-SECURITY-TORTURE-CONGRESS-20051209.XML

right?

but then a thinking person would ask, if the US doesn't torture, why is chinstrap so upset about a bill banning it?

I don't hold much hope for any new laws being enforced either - but then "a deal" on torture speaks loudly. America makes deal to torture. Great, huh?

Bush and his criminal posse have never followed the laws banning torture (international or federal) and no one has held them accountable for it. Bush will NEVER obey the torture laws - so it's up to others to enforce those laws. Anyone expecting Bush to obey the laws banning torture is living in a dream world where Bush has ethics.

Current law bans torture - both US Federal law and International Law. Those laws apply to the CIA. Let this compromise go through and the CIA will be exempt, or it will be harder to prosecute the CIA (effectively allowing them to go free)- So a "deal" or compromise" on this additional torture ban will change current federal law banning torture.

Now ask yourself, why did McCain-Bushbot bring up an amendment banning torture, when laws already exist - instead of getting behind a push in Congress to hold Bush accountable for torture? Maybe McCain wanted this "debate" so the CIA could get their exemption - and make it look as if he forced Bush to compromise- when in reality, the only thing getting compromised is current law banning torture. McCain gets statesman points and Bush gets what he wants.





and this line here:


"...said it would accommodate "our ability to continue to harvest important intelligence in the war against terror and at the same time provide for a humane environment"

Humane environment - says nothing about humane treatment. And the "deal", which reads like a "compromise" on torture - "... would accommodate our ability to continue to harvest important intelligence"

I have been wondering what McCain was up to, sincere there is already a perfectly good law, banning torture by all US citizens. And notice, there are no exceptions to this law.

If we have a "compromise" it will in fact be a weakening of the current anti-torture statute, but will appear to be just the opposite.

Gosh, I wish journalist would do this job, so we won't have to.

United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 113C - TORTURE

Section 2340A. Torture

(a) Offense. - Whoever outside the United States commits or
attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to
any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be
punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction. - There is jurisdiction over the activity
prohibited in subsection (a) if -
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States,
irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged
offender.
(c) Conspiracy. - A person who conspires to commit an offense
under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other
than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the
offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Every abuse and violation of the GC and federal law has been presented as if they were questionable - up for debate - or a matter of interpretation. When the fact is, the laws are quite clear and the US is breaking those laws.

This is just one more reason people need to be informed.

Bush redefines torture like it's debatable , the media won't publish the importance of existing laws,McCain thinks torture hurts America's "image", and the government/military refuses to release the evidence of torture.

Now we are "close to a deal" regarding torture.

How to you make a deal on torture? - it's either illegal or it's not. It's either wrong or it's not. America either engages in it or it doesn't. I don't see any gray area with torture.

Laws are only window dressing if no one is prepared to enforce them on the perps and, in this case, any fig leaf, no matter how spurious, is enough to ensure that no one will ever bring an action against the administration.

and a compromise does nothing for enforcement - now or in the future.

CIA and Contractors are going to be prosecuted. Guess they're rewriting the law to protect from prosecution. They must know that there is proof or this would not be necessary.