# Senate defies veto threat, passes torture ban **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2008, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515 "2008-02-13T22:49:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/41 "2008-02-14T18:32:35Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] I’ve spent the last 6 months reading FBI, NCIS, and CID accounts of OGA (which we can safely assume is usually CIA) abuse of detainees, so please spare me the incredible oversimplification of “someone is afraid that he’ll authorize waterboarding a detainee.” That’s beneath you. [/quote] But that’s what you said in the previous post. You said you were concerned about this administrations potential actions. Here: > [@](#): > > How much space is there is subject to debate. Which was precisely the problem. The administration felt that waterboarding, sleep deprivation, mild beating, etc., wasn’t torture… And just to be clear, I don’t think sleep deprivation is always torture. I think the CIA should be able to use that technique for interrogation. If this bill disallows that, then I’m even more against it. > [@](#): > > We have zero evidence that the CIA needs to use non-DOD techniques to get information, but a lot of evidence that the use of such techniques results in moral catastrophes and increased terrorist recruitment. Even the military concedes that Abu Ghraib was one of the turning points in the Iraq war. Granted, the evidence that the CIA needs this power will be classified. But the CIA is entirely free to present evidence of the necessity of these techniques to the Senate. They have not persuaded the Senate so far, and that’s good enough for me. I don’t know specifically which techniques fall under the category of “non-DOD techniques”, so I really can’t respond to your first sentence other than to say what I said earlier: if sleep deprivation is outlawed by this bill, then I’m against it. However, I’m not sure how the events at Abu Ghraib are relevant here. They were illegal at the time they were committed, and people have been prosecuted for those actions under laws that have nothing to do with the DTA of 2005 or this current legislation. If those laws didn’t stop that from happening, I don’t see how this law would. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/42 "2008-02-14T18:47:05Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] _sigh_ yourself. :rolleyes: You have yet to demonstrate how this bill is necessary given that we already have the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. I actually took some time to read through the bill and find out what it contains. Did you? When you have, and when you can show us what part of the bill is necessary, get back to us. I won’t be holding my breath. [/QUOTE] Irrelevant. I was responding to: > [@John Mace](#): > > It’s unclear to me that we want to restrict the CIA to actions sanctioned by the Army Field Manual. This legislation may prevent the CIA from waterboarding, which would be a good thing, but it may prevent them from doing other useful things. Defend **that.** ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/43 "2008-02-14T18:50:39Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Defend **that.** [/QUOTE] Defend that “it is unclear to me…”? No, you make it clear to me why it should be so. Neither you nor I have read the Army Field Manual. For either of us to state that that should be the guide would be arguing from ignorance. If, as has been proposed by Richard, the AFM disallows the use of sleep deprivation, then I don’t support this bill, and I’m starting to see why Obama and Clinton didn’t want to go on record with a vote for or against it. They would have to debate John McCain, who seems to have a reasonable position on this subject, and one that (I believe) a clear majority of Americans would agree with. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/44 "2008-02-14T19:13:40Z")
I don’t understand what you’re arguing here, **John**. First you argued that this bill didn’t do anything (or you were skeptical that it did). Now that you’ve been disabused of that, you seem to be arguing that the bill isn’t a good thing. Is that right? You now concede it does have a significant effect, you just don’t like it? ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/45 "2008-02-14T19:20:18Z")
An [Interesting Piece](http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/02/senator-mccain-is-against-torture-but.html) that may clarify a few things: > [@](#): > > Senator McCain rightly insists that the U.S. may not (i) torture; (ii) engage in cruel treatment prohibited by Common Article 3; or (iii) engage in conduct that shocks the conscience, under the McCain Amendment. He also insists that waterboarding violates each of these legal restrictions, that the Bush Administration’s legal analysis has been dishonest and flatly wrong, and that we need “a good faith interpretation of the statutes that guide what is permissible in the CIA program.” > > The Feinstein Amendment would have accomplished all of these objectives, but Senator McCain voted against it, presumably because he wishes that the CIA be permitted to continue the use of other of its enhanced techniques, apart from waterboarding. Those techniques are reported to include stress positions, hypothermia, threats to the detainee and his family, severe sleep deprivation, and severe sensory deprivation. Senator McCain has not explained which of these he thinks are not torture and cruel treatment, nor which he would wish to preserve for use by the CIA. But if the President does as he has promised and follows Senator McCain’s lead by vetoing this bill, the CIA will continue to assert the right to use all of these techniques – and possibly waterboarding, as well. > > By contrast, Senator Clinton supports the Feinstein amendment, and [UPDATED] Senator Obama does, too (see Answer No. 7). > > If Senator McCain believes that there are particular “enhanced” techniques that are not in the Field Manual, but that are also not torture or cruel treatment, and wishes to allow the CIA to use them, he should identify what they are, and offer legislation that would authorize those, and those only, techniques, in addition to those listed in the Field Manual. Otherwise, despite all his worthy efforts in this area, Senator McCain is now facilitating the CIA’s use of techniques that are unlawful, including some that are torture even by Senator McCain’s own lights. (For more on why the various CIA techniques are unlawful, see the Human Rights First Report “Leave No Marks.”) ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/46 "2008-02-14T19:26:18Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] However, I’m not sure how the events at Abu Ghraib are relevant here. [/QUOTE] A lot of stuff happened at Abu Ghraib. Much of it wasn’t illegal according to the Bush administration’s interpretation, including the things you apparently favor (severe sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, minor beatings, systematic humiliation, etc.). And the reason it is relevant is because it demonstrates how damaging these techniques are to our battle against terrorist recruitment. It destroys the image of the US as a protector of human rights. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/47 "2008-02-14T19:26:42Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] I don’t understand what you’re arguing here, **John**. First you argued that this bill didn’t do anything (or you were skeptical that it did). Now that you’ve been disabused of that, you seem to be arguing that the bill isn’t a good thing. Is that right? You now concede it does have a significant effect, you just don’t like it? [/QUOTE] I wanted confirmation of what the bill actually said (which only came with your recent post). I stated early on that it was unclear to me the the AFM should be the governing body for the CIA, long before you actually quoted the legislation. So, you took care of the first part, but not the second. Why is the AFM the appropriate guide to use for the CIA? And why is sleep deprivation a tool that we want the CIA not to be able to use? I’m only incidentally interested in the part about Clinton and Obama. We’ll never know for sure, and pretty much anything we argue is going to be speculation. If you want to brush that off, it’s fine with me. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/48 "2008-02-14T19:32:20Z")
> [@](#): > > If Senator McCain believes that there are particular “enhanced” techniques that are not in the Field Manual, but that are also not torture or cruel treatment, and wishes to allow the CIA to use them, he should identify what they are, and offer legislation that would authorize those, and those only, techniques, in addition to those listed in the Field Manual. That seems simple enough. It’s much preferable to the current setup where Justice and the president get to pick and choose what’s allowable on any particular day; ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/49 "2008-02-14T19:37:20Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] So, you took care of the first part, but not the second. Why is the AFM the appropriate guide to use for the CIA? And why is sleep deprivation a tool that we want the CIA not to be able to use? [/QUOTE] Got it. On the second point, I’m not sure I’d be any more persuasive than the half-dozen threads on sleep deprivation, etc., that we’ve already had on this board. So I’m happy to just agree to disagree on that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/50 "2008-02-14T19:37:33Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] That seems simple enough. It’s much preferable to the current setup where Justice and the president get to pick and choose what’s allowable on any particular day; [/QUOTE] I don’t think it’s good policy to try and enumerate the interrogation techniques allowed to be used by the CIA as part of a piece of legislation. In fact, I think that would be a terrible idea. I have no problem allowing the House and/or Senate Intelligence Committee(s) to review and approve whatever manual the CIA uses, but that should be done in a classified manner. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/51 "2008-02-14T19:42:25Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Neither you nor I have read the Army Field Manual. [/QUOTE] Neither you nor I **can** read the Army Field Manual in its entirety; see the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/52 "2008-02-14T19:42:52Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I don’t think it’s good policy to try and enumerate the interrogation techniques allowed to be used by the CIA as part of a piece of legislation. [/QUOTE] Is it good policy to let the president and the attorney general decide what goes on their own? Until there are limits to that, there’s no point in doing anything in a classified manner. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/53 "2008-02-14T19:47:51Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] Is it good policy to let the president and the attorney general decide what goes on their own? [/quote] No. > [@](#): > > Until there are limits to that, there’s no point in doing anything in a classified manner. Bush doesn’t think there are any limits. So, where does that get us? Besides, the AFM itself is, in part, classified. There is no point having a CIA (ie, a spy agency) if everything it does is spelled out in legislation. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/54 "2008-02-14T19:57:27Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] There is no point having a CIA (ie, a spy agency) if everything it does is spelled out in legislation. [/QUOTE] No, of course not. But there is obvious and indispensable value in having everything it **can’t do** spelled out in legislation, just as with every other agency; and that is the world most of us (truly or falsely) thought we were living in before this Administration began. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/55 "2008-02-14T19:58:32Z")
Another data point for your consideration: > [@](#): > > According to the Director of the FBI and Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency [see this video at 1:30-1:32], the Army Field Manual techniques are sufficient for both the military and the FBI to successfully interrogate detainees, including those who might have critical information that might prevent imminent harm to U.S. persons. But apparently Senator McCain has concluded that such techniques are not enough for the CIA. [I’m not tech savvy enough to link the video since it is a javascript, but you can go to the blog and click it] From [here](http://balkin.blogspot.com/). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/56 "2008-02-14T19:58:33Z")
Since so much of this is classified, and thus hidden from view, I hardly think we are in any such danger. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/57 "2008-02-14T20:03:01Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] No, of course not. But there is obvious and indispensable value in having everything it **can’t do** spelled out in legislation, [/quote] Has that ever been done before? I don’t consider it “obvious and indispensable” at all. > [@](#): > > just as with every other agency; The CIA, being a spy agency, is unique. As such, it stands to reason that it should have some unique features, and that those would be related to it’s covert actions. > [@](#): > > and that is the world most of us (truly or falsely) thought we were living in before this Administration began. I never thought that. I would call that point of view naive, at the very least. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/58 "2008-02-14T20:07:22Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] The CIA, being a spy agency, is unique. [/QUOTE] No it isn’t. Our country has a dozen spy agencies, one of which (DIA), is on the record saying they don’t need non-AFM techniques. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/59 "2008-02-14T20:08:03Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] Another data point for your consideration: From [here](http://balkin.blogspot.com/). [/QUOTE] I would expect the FBI to operate under stricter regulations than the military, in the same way that I would expect the military to operate under stricter regulations than the CIA. I would, however, expect the CIA to operate within the bounds of the Geneva Conventions, to the extent that they apply in any given case. I would hope that our military would have stricter standards than those, which I would consider to be the bare minimum. But just to be clear, the GCs are pretty high level documents, not getting into anywhere near the detail one would expect from something like the AFM. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2008, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515/60 "2008-02-14T20:12:16Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] No it isn’t. Our country has a dozen spy agencies, one of which (DIA), is on the record saying they don’t need non-AFM techniques. [/QUOTE] Fine. I don’t think that any “spy” agency should automatically have everything it can’t do spelled out in legislation “just as with every other agency”. That was the argument I was responding to. Do you agree with \*\*BG \*\*on that point? The DIA, being part of the military, may have good reason for wanting to stay within the AFM. That doesn’t surprise me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senate-defies-veto-threat-passes-torture-ban/437515.md?page=4)