September 25, 2006
In black and white
So it seems that Sen. McCain believes that his compromise torture legislation does in fact forbid waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and the cold cell. I'm glad to hear it. If so, however, he and his Republican colleagues should have no objection to saying so explicitly in the bill.
Right?
I'd like to see someone force votes on five or six separate provisions, each one banning a particular technique.
If the bill continues to preclude habeas corpus actions, then it won't matter what forms of torture the bill explicitly prohibits. An unenforceable law is no law. And McCain knows that.
Posted by: Henry at September 25, 2006 05:58 PMNot quite. Denying habeas is indeed a bad thing, and makes it impossible for the detainees to enforce their right not to be tortured. But the War Crimes Act is a criminal statute, and the threat of prosecution might well prove (reportedly has proven since the Hamdan decision came down) a potent deterrent.
Posted by: Mark Kleiman at September 25, 2006 08:43 PMWrite to your senators and demand exactly that. Demand that the bill be amended to make it unambiguous that extreme sleep deprivation, forced hypothermia, waterboarding, and stress positions, among other egregious interrogation techniques, are prohibited. If supporters of the bill are unwilling to declare in the text that these torture techniques cannot be used, then any claim that the bill bans torture is a lie, because we already know the Bush administration will do anything it wants that is not expressly prohibited, and it won't necessarily even stop there. (To a Republican, one might say instead that Congress should have the courage of its convictions.)
Contact your senators via http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm or via the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
Posted by: Joel Rubinstein at September 26, 2006 09:45 AMIs banning specific techniques really desirable? After all, there's an essentially infinite number of methods available; and the banning of one method but not another could be read as an endorsement of the method not mentioned.
Posted by: Alex at September 26, 2006 12:51 PMI think Alex has a point. Once you start to proscribe specific acts, it can be argued that acts not mentioned by name are not affected by the statute. Lawyers and attorneys general and judges and presidents and their ilk (I love words that sound like one is regurgitating) are adept at weasel-wording, Jesuitical argumentation.
That is why the Geneva Conventions were intentionally left "vague" or rather non-specific.
Posted by: Sarah at September 26, 2006 03:42 PM"But the War Crimes Act is a criminal statute, and the threat of prosecution might well prove (reportedly has proven since the Hamdan decision came down) a potent deterrent."
Really? Who is going to prosecute?
Posted by: JR at September 26, 2006 03:58 PMThanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
