Republican senators challenge Bush by overwhelmingly voting to outlaw detainee abuse

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
US senators have voted overwhelmingly to outlaw cruel or degrading treatment of detainees held in US custody abroad.



The Senate voted 90-9 in favour of the motion, which senators said would lay down rules for troops and officials carrying out interrogations.

Prisoner abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq and concern over the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay have dogged the US since 2001.

The motion was opposed by the White House, which views it as unnecessary.

Bush administration officials say the move would be restrictive, and limit its fight against terrorism.

Republican Senator John McCain tabled the motion as an amendment to a Pentagon funding bill.

Correspondents say the White House could veto the entire $440bn (£248bn) bill to defeat the motion.

'Crisis'

The Pentagon has consistently blamed the Abu Ghraib abuse on a handful of rogue soldiers, most of whom have been tried and convicted by military courts.

Mr McCain said the amendment sent a clear message to the world that America would not condone any inhumane practice.

"Prisoner abuses exact on us a terrible toll in the war of ideas because inevitably these abuses become public," he said.

"When they do, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions."

Mr McCain said that while the administration might want ambiguity over the terms of reference for detainees, US soldiers were "crying out for clarity".

"We demanded intelligence without ever clearly telling our troops what was permitted and what was forbidden," Mr McCain said.


The world will note that America is making a clear statement with respect to the expected future behaviour of our soldiers
Colin Powell
Former US Secretary of State
"And when things went wrong, we blamed them and we punished them."

Former Secretary of State and retired general Colin Powell also backed the amendment.

He said it would "help deal with the terrible public diplomacy crisis created by Abu Ghraib".

Supporters of the amendment also hope a commitment to treat detainees fairly when in US custody will help to secure humane treatment of US nationals or servicemen captured abroad.

Correspondents say the Senate vote showed a boldness from Republicans willing to challenge the White House.

But they say that Mr Bush is unlikely to veto the bill as he has not blocked one during his time in office.

Widespread anger

Popular resentment to the US has grown in the Muslim world since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.


The Abu Ghraib images, which showed hooded Iraqi detainees corralled into naked human pyramids, or cowering in front of guard dogs, were seen across the Middle East.

Stories of abuse and maltreatment of prisoners have fuelled reactions to stories such as the alleged desecration of the Koran by US troops at Guantanamo, which prompted widespread anti-American demonstrations in many countries.

But the White House views any codifying of rules for interrogation as potentially restrictive and a possible source of legal insecurity for US troops.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4314304.stm
 
Republican Senator John McCain tabled the motion as an amendment to a Pentagon funding bill.

Correspondents say the White House could veto the entire $440bn (£248bn) bill to defeat the motion.

That's fuckin awesome. McCain stuck it to the man, hardcore.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00249

The Magnificent Nine:

Allard (R-CO), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Nay

Classless assholes.[/QUOTE]

Wow, Santorum must have been out sick. Then again, there had to be somebody missing cause there was only 99 total votes. My money's on Santorum.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Nope; John Corzine is off all of yesterday's votes. Where the hell was he?[/QUOTE]

He'd rather be in Chyna.
 
I have to admit, I'd love to see Bush try to veto this. It would reveal more clearly than ever Bush to be the power-crazed, uncaring, inhumane jackass that his is, but more importantly than that, I think it would cause even more fractures in the already-crumbling Republican party.

At the same time, though, this is a measure that NEEDS to pass, and as soon as humanly possible. Sadly, its quite possible that people's lives, health and mental well-being depend on this thing passed ASAP.

Overall, I'm betting against Bush vetoing it - with a 90-9 vote, its highly likely that enough votes could be scraped together to override the veto (though it would be a closer vote, of that I have no doubt.) Getting overriden like that would pretty much officially cause Bush to enter lame duck status (assuming, of course, that he's not there already...)
 
[quote name='Drocket']Overall, I'm betting against Bush vetoing it - with a 90-9 vote, its highly likely that enough votes could be scraped together to override the veto (though it would be a closer vote, of that I have no doubt.) Getting overriden like that would pretty much officially cause Bush to enter lame duck status (assuming, of course, that he's not there already...)[/QUOTE]

So, if I have my PoliSci101 understanding clear, there is no such thing as a "vetoproof" vote; rather, in the event of a veto, the senate can vote to overturn the veto (though, IIRC, 60/100 votes are needed to overturn).

So, in the unlikely hypothetical that the defense budget gets passed 100-0, it could still be vetoed? Hmmm.
 
Yes, Bush can veto whatever he wants, regardless of how well it did in Congress. If that happens, Congress can choose to take the issue up again, requiring a supermajority vote to override the veto.

Still, though, in realistic terms, its pretty unusual for a president to veto anything that has supermajority support in Congress, simply because being overriden like that tends to have bad connotations and sort of set a precedent for ignoring the president.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Yes, Bush can veto whatever he wants, regardless of how well it did in Congress. If that happens, Congress can choose to take the issue up again, requiring a supermajority vote to override the veto.

Still, though, in realistic terms, its pretty unusual for a president to veto anything that has supermajority support in Congress, simply because being overriden like that tends to have bad connotations and sort of set a precedent for ignoring the president.[/QUOTE]

Well, given the ONE issue that Bush is threatening to veto over, I don't imagine that he is too concerned with public opinion anyway (not regarding the conversation of if he has any idea what the public thinks).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So, if I have my PoliSci101 understanding clear, there is no such thing as a "vetoproof" vote; rather, in the event of a veto, the senate can vote to overturn the veto (though, IIRC, 60/100 votes are needed to overturn).

So, in the unlikely hypothetical that the defense budget gets passed 100-0, it could still be vetoed? Hmmm.[/QUOTE]

It can still be vetoed. However, if it were to be vetoed, both the House and the Senate would be able to pass it with a 2/3 majority to make it become law despite the veto. In other words, you'd need 67 senators and 290 representatives. "Veto-proof" simply means that something has passed with enough votes to override a veto if the votes stay the same.
 
bread's done
Back
Top