Story here. But, wait: Apparently this will ban all forms of interrogation but those spelled out in the Army Field Manual on Interrogation – but that apparently has been updated (or will be updated, it’s hard to know) to include ten classified pages, so how do we know what it allows anyway?
It’s about damn time.
What’s this all about?
What valuable intelligence program is that? The information-obtained-solely-through-torture program? If so, I can’t imagine that it’s particulary useful.
Ahh, McCain sides with the pro-torture contingent.
Who’s the straight talking Maverick now?
At any rate, it will be interesting to see whether W vetoes it or attaches a signing statement saying it doesn’t count.
You don’t understand BG, the US doesn’t torture. We don’t waterboard anymore. So this won’t change anything. The administration only opposes it because, umm, well because…
To be fair, this isn’t really a “Torture Ban” bill, but an appropriations bill that happens to have interrogation restrictions attached, and the voting was almost split down party lines (Lieberman sided with his fellow Republicans 
while Hagel and a few other on that side of the aisle told their fellow Republicans to bugger off). In other words, another bill that one side likes and the other has an issue with, but not necessarily due to the torture clauses.
I’d love to see a bill that did nothing but ban torture, as then we’d really find out where people stand. This vote tells us nothing of the sort, other than what party someone belongs to.
Torture is already illegal. This is about breaking down the Gonzales Defense.
Just so that we don’t, you know, oversimplify things, here’s the table of contents of this bill (from Squink’s link):
It might be just a little bit more complicated than pro- vs anti-torture. Besides, Congress already passed, and Bush signed, anti-torture legislation in 2005:
Of course:
Which he will probably do again.
And yet, John Mace, all of the statements from the opposition have focused on the waterboarding ban. If they oppose it for other reasons, they should say so. Until then, why not take them at their word?
All the statements, or all the statements reported by the press? Frankly, I haven’t seen any statements, nor have any been quoted in this thread. And if we already have a torture ban, per the 2005 bill, what is the real purpose of this bill? Perhaps it’s an attempt to get headlines like: GOP opposes torture ban. Kinda like when the GOP sends up some anti-SSM bill to make the Dems go on record as being “pro-SSM”.
I’m not convinced this is quite so simple. McCain is clearly on record as being anti-waterboarding. What reason did he give for voting “nay”?
All of the statements I’ve seen. Some press, some not. A few cites, since you asked:
Bush :
Can you find the a Senator’s statement in opposition that doesn’t mention being opposed to the torture provision? I haven’t looked at the floor debate, but what do you wanna bet it focuses on this provision?
If it’s not the torture ban that got the Republicans to vote no, it’s a mystery what did.
Actually, I didn’t ask. The 2005 “torture ban” legislation passed with something like 90 votes in the Senate. So, something seems to have changed. I don’t know what it was, but something changed.
Oh, then why did you observe “[f]rankly, I haven’t seen any statements, nor have any been quoted in this thread.” That wasn’t a statement of doubt, it was just a random observation?
I don’t see where your skepticism is coming from. Bush has said this bill will prevent the CIA from using interrogation techniques that are currently legal. If you think he’s wrong about that, why would he say it? What does he stand to gain from vetoing a bill that both sides agree is full of important appropriations?
You asked my why they opposed it when “all” the statements were about torture. I hadn’t seen any statements, nor had any been presented in this thread, so I was confused as to why you thought I would or should have an answer to that question.
Because he doesn’t want any restrictions on what he can do.
I don’t know. He’s a lame duck president. He vetoed the defense spending authorization bill until he got exactly what he wants, so he probably figures he can do it again.
Kit Bond is an idiot, and while I’m not a fan of McCain, I don’t think we can construe this as flip-flopping on torture at this time.
The section in question was add in conference, but was neither in the House nor the Senate versions of the bill. If a point of order is raised against such provisions, it gets tossed, unless 60 members support its inclusion. Therefore, McCain can easily vote “Nay” while stating that his only problem with the provision is the method in which it was added. I’m not saying I necessarily believe him, but if the Democrats would stop pulling this type of crap (yes, the Republicans use it as well), we’d know exactly where people stand, even if the President carried out a veto.
The 2005 ban exempted the CIA, the current law would include them.
Richard: Here’s a question for you… If this bill is so gosh darned important, then why did Hillary and Obama not show up to vote for it? It passed with only 51 votes-- it could easily have gone the other way.
To be fair, Harry Reid may have just have counted votes before hand and told Obama and Clinton that they didn’t need to quit campaigning because the bill would pass without them. Seems I’ve heard of similar arrangements being made in past primary seasons.
ETA: Interestingly, Lindsey Graham, the other big supporter of the earlier torture ban was the other absent senator.
Who knows? They probably wanted to duck a sticky political question. Or maybe they didn’t expect this provision to be added and couldn’t make it back on time. Or maybe despite the fact that the vote was close, it was still a foregone conclusion. Or maybe they assumed Bush would in fact veto it. There’s probably a dozen possibilities I’m missing.
You may have a good attack on Obama or Clinton there, but that strikes me as a pretty weak argument for its insignificance.
I still don’t really understand your position here. You seem to think this bill was just a political show. Do you think the bill unequivocally prevents waterboarding, where before there was some legal question, or not?