'Just World News' with Helena Cobban: Sen. Durbin's amendment to prohibit torture

'Just World News' with Helena Cobban Info, analysis, discussion-- to build a more just world
« Guess who? \| JWN front page \| Saudi implosion? » Sen. Durbin's amendment to prohibit torture Posted by Helena Cobban June 16, 2004 10:17 AM EST \| Link Filed in War crimes etc I've been really happy to see that Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat from Illinois) has taken the lead in seeking to attach to this year's Defense Appropriations Bill an Amendment to enact a PROHIBITION ON TORTURE OR CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT. Moveon.org has a good little email campaign urging people to call their Senators to urge them to support the Durbin Amendment. I think the Amerndment will be voted on today. I just called both my Senators-- one of them is the powerful Sen. John Warner. The people I spoke to in Warner's and George Allen's offices both said their bosses "had not yet decided which way to vote" on the Durbin Amendment. Let's hope that (a) they get a large number of very persuasive calls urging support of Durbin, and (b) they are open to persuasion on this. I looked quickly through the text of the Durbin Amendment as provided by Moveon. It is drafted in a pretty compelling way. In the operative part, it states: No person in the custody or under the physical control of the United States shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. It also requires the Secretary of Defense to report back to the congressional defense committees regarding what he has done to implement this, and to continue sending, on a timely basis and not less than twice each year, a report to Congress on the circumstances surrounding any investigation of a possible violation of the prohibition ... by a member of the Armed Forces or by a person providing services to the Department of Defense on a contract basis. The Amendment prefaces all that operational language with references to a number of the existing laws against torture and other abuse that are already in both in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and other portions of domestic law and in international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate. It also highlights the following very significant quote from George W. Bush, that I confess I hadn't seen before: The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. ~ President George W. Bush, June 26, 2003, the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture Wow... If only there weren't so many long words there I might be tempted to start needlepointing that onto a plaque to hang in my home... The text of the Amednment also notes that: the Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation of the Department of the Army states that "acts of violence or intimidation, including physical or mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to inhumane treatment as a means of or an aid to interrogation" are "illegal". Such Manual defines "infliction of pain through . . . bondage (other than legitimate use of restraints to prevent escape)", "forcing an individual to stand, sit, or kneel in abnormal positions for prolonged periods of time", "food deprivation", and "any form of beating" as "physical torture", defines "abnormal sleep deprivation" as "mental torture", and prohibits the use of such tactics under any circumstances. [Emphasis there by HC] (8) The Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation of the Department of the Army states that "Use of torture and other illegal methods is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. Revelation of use of torture by U.S. personnel will bring discredit upon the U.S. and its armed forces while undermining domestic and international support for the war effort. It may also place U.S. and allied personnel in enemy hands at a greater risk of abuse by their captors." Well, I couldn't have expressed that better myself. Good for the Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation. (Does anyone know how to get hold of a copy of its full text?) But specially, kudos to Senator Durbin for showing great leadership on this issue. Incidentally, when I was in DC Monday, I was at meetings at an organization called Churches for Middle East Peace. I talked a little with folks there about the need for a clear governmental stand of Zero Tolerance for Torture. Someone came up with the excellent idea that it would be good to attach to the Defense Appropriations Bill some funding to establish a series of treatment centers inside Iraq for survivors of torture there-- survivors of all the tortures there, both under the US occupation and under Saddam. That is another really good proposal... Senator Durbin? Senator Warner? Anyone else want to take this one on? « Guess who? \| JWN front page \| Saudi implosion? » Comments Comment from... Mary Ann, at June 16, 2004 11:02 AM: This amendment is a good first step. And yes, providing treatment is a good second step. What about reparations as a third step? My greatest concern here, however, is the bush people's definition of torture. We need a lot of plain language to make sure it is not redefined, even secretly. I'm off to make some calls too. Comment from... Edward, at June 17, 2004 09:15 AM: I hope this ammendment passes and I will call my senators. However, I think the real issue is whether the U.S. will be a nation of laws. The laws that already exist prevent torture; they are just not being observed. The neocons have no qualms about flouting the treaties, the law, ect. and congress has gone along with this. Comment from... Edward, at June 17, 2004 09:35 AM: I just spoke with Sen. Warner's office and the ammendment passed by unanimous consent, after some changes were made. Comment from... Shirin, at June 20, 2004 11:31 AM: Mary Ann, I agree with you, except that given whom we are dealing with - an administration that may win the all time pricze for mendacity, and for finding ways to ignore and circumvent law - I would say the second step must be finding an effective way to make sure they don't get away with it in this matter. Comment from... Shirin, at June 20, 2004 11:33 AM: Mary Ann, Oops - I pressed "Post" a bit prematurely - guess I'm not fully awake yet this morning. I agree whole heartedly with your concern about the likelihood that they will simply redefine torture, as they have already attempted to do.	Recent Posts on JWN • Realism, war, and pacifism (3) • Palin's performance: Insulting and very scary (28) • September 11 and the war in Afghanistan (6) • US's global dominance 'Reduced': It's nearly official! (1) • JWN redesign update #1 (2) • Oliver North??? (5) • J. Diehl criticizing Saakashvili (3) • Peres warns against attacking Iran (0) • Georgia-Hizbullah: Dept. of Delicious Ironies (2) • US probing Russian Red Lines in Georgia (0) • Women discuss Sarah Palin (26) • New vistas-- personal, and blog-related (12) • The longterm status of Georgia: Challenges ahead (20) • Text of the draft Iraq-US SOFA (10) • HRW revising its Russian cluster bomb accusations (11) • International tensions and the US election (9) • Iraq: Another Quaker in the 'Red Zone' (3) • HRW's flawed 'Research' on Georgian cluster bombs (20) • More on China in Iraq (12) • Post on China in US occupied zones-- at Japan Focus (0) • Palin and the 3 a.m. phone call (39) • China and Iraq (4) • Egyptian delegation to break Gaza siege (2) • Waiting for Gustav (5) • Italy gives Libya $$ compensation for colonial rule (17) • China buys in to Iraqi, Afghan end-games (15) • "Resolution": Palin's goal in Iraq (8) • China's way of 'Emerging' (6) • A note on US politics (6) • Conway does a Dannatt (sort of) (7) • China gets Iraq oil deal (6) • Rest-of-world saving US from recession? (5) • Russia and the world (12) • Milanovic: From Global Trade to Global War (5) • The return of geography (3) • Still no US-Iraq security agreement (yawn) (2) • Iraq-US: More disagreement than 'Agreement' (23) • NATO's supply lines in Afghanistan (27) • My CSM piece on the big-picture implications of Georgia (21) • Mahbubani on western hypocrisy, etc. (5) • Condi in Baghdad: YES on a timetable (aspirational) (8) • More on NATO, etc. (14) • NATO's crisis (8) • And another thing about Finland (23) • Where in the world is... Ban Ki-Moon? (22) • Russian military assessment: New arms race? (26) • And now for a little audio (0) • Yglesias nails McCain (4) • Sarkozy's ceasefire, Georgia's future (22) • Georgia crisis and the shifting global balance (0)

Sen. Durbin's amendment to prohibit torture

Posted by Helena Cobban
June 16, 2004 10:17 AM EST | Link
Filed in War crimes etc

I've been really happy to see that Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat from Illinois) has taken the lead in seeking to attach to this year's Defense Appropriations Bill an Amendment to enact a PROHIBITION ON TORTURE OR CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT.

Moveon.org has a good little email campaign urging people to call their Senators to urge them to support the Durbin Amendment. I think the Amerndment will be voted on today.

I just called both my Senators-- one of them is the powerful Sen. John Warner. The people I spoke to in Warner's and George Allen's offices both said their bosses "had not yet decided which way to vote" on the Durbin Amendment.

Let's hope that (a) they get a large number of very persuasive calls urging support of Durbin, and (b) they are open to persuasion on this.

I looked quickly through the text of the Durbin Amendment as provided by Moveon. It is drafted in a pretty compelling way.

In the operative part, it states:

It also requires the Secretary of Defense to report back to the congressional defense committees regarding what he has done to implement this, and to continue sending,

The Amendment prefaces all that operational language with references to a number of the existing laws against torture and other abuse that are already in both in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and other portions of domestic law and in international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate.

It also highlights the following very significant quote from George W. Bush, that I confess I hadn't seen before:

The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment.

~ President George W. Bush, June 26, 2003, the International Day in
Support of Victims of Torture

Wow... If only there weren't so many long words there I might be tempted to start needlepointing that onto a plaque to hang in my home...

The text of the Amednment also notes that:

prohibits the use of such tactics under any circumstances.

[Emphasis there by HC]

(8) The Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation of the Department of the Army states that "Use of torture and other illegal methods is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. Revelation of use of torture by U.S. personnel will bring discredit upon the U.S. and its armed forces while undermining domestic and international support for the war effort. It may also place U.S. and allied personnel in enemy hands at a greater risk of abuse by their captors."

Well, I couldn't have expressed that better myself. Good for the Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation. (Does anyone know how to get hold of a copy of its full text?)

But specially, kudos to Senator Durbin for showing great leadership on this issue.

Incidentally, when I was in DC Monday, I was at meetings at an organization called Churches for Middle East Peace. I talked a little with folks there about the need for a clear governmental stand of Zero Tolerance for Torture.

Someone came up with the excellent idea that it would be good to attach to the Defense Appropriations Bill some funding to establish a series of treatment centers inside Iraq for survivors of torture there-- survivors of all the tortures there, both under the US occupation and under Saddam.

That is another really good proposal... Senator Durbin? Senator Warner? Anyone else want to take this one on?

Comments

Comment from... Mary Ann, at June 16, 2004 11:02 AM:

This amendment is a good first step. And yes, providing treatment is a good second step. What about reparations as a third step?

My greatest concern here, however, is the bush people's definition of torture. We need a lot of plain language to make sure it is not redefined, even secretly.

I'm off to make some calls too.

Comment from... Edward, at June 17, 2004 09:15 AM:

I hope this ammendment passes and I will call my senators. However, I think the real issue is whether the U.S. will be a nation of laws. The laws that already exist prevent torture; they are just not being observed. The neocons have no qualms about flouting the treaties, the law, ect. and congress has gone along with this.

Comment from... Edward, at June 17, 2004 09:35 AM:

I just spoke with Sen. Warner's office and the ammendment passed by unanimous consent, after some changes were made.

Comment from... Shirin, at June 20, 2004 11:31 AM:

Mary Ann,

I agree with you, except that given whom we are dealing with - an administration that may win the all time pricze for mendacity, and for finding ways to ignore and circumvent law - I would say the second step must be finding an effective way to make sure they don't get away with it in this matter.

Comment from... Shirin, at June 20, 2004 11:33 AM:

Mary Ann,

Oops - I pressed "Post" a bit prematurely - guess I'm not fully awake yet this morning. I agree whole heartedly with your concern about the likelihood that they will simply redefine torture, as they have already attempted to do.