McCain on Prisoner Treatment Guidelines

Posted on Thursday 6 October 2005

In reference to an early post I made, it looks like Congress has finally decided that we will get federal guidelines for our service men and women for the handling of prisoners. The effort was spearheaded by Republicans and got the approval of 90% of the Senate!

Delivering a rare wartime slap at Pentagon authority and President Bush, the GOP-controlled Senate voted 90-9 on Wednesday to back an amendment that would prohibit the use of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” against anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held.

Sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the proposal also would require all service members to follow procedures in the Army Field Manual when they detain and interrogate terrorism suspects.

Republican supporters say U.S. troops interrogating terrorism suspects do not know which techniques are allowed. “We have let the troops down when it comes to trying to give them guidance in very stressful situations,” said Graham, an Air Force judge for 20 years.

Once in awhile a politician says something that gives you faith in the system. Such is the speech by John McCain regarding this amendment, which is worth reading in its entirety. Some money quotes:

Several weeks ago I received a letter from Captain Ian Fishback, a member of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, and a veteran of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. Over 17 months he struggled to get answers from his chain of command to a basic question: what standards apply to the treatment of enemy detainees? But he found no answers. In his remarkable letter, he pleads with Congress, asking us to take action, to establish standards, to clear up the confusion – not for the good of the terrorists, but for the good of our soldiers and our country. The Captain closes his letter by saying, “I strongly urge you to do justice to your men and women in uniform. Give them clear standards of conduct that reflect the ideals they risk their lives for.” I believe that the Congress has a responsibility to answer this call – a call that has come not just from this one brave soldier but from so many of our men and women in uniform.

We owe it to them, Mr. President. We sent them to fight for us in Afghanistan and Iraq. We placed extraordinary pressure on them to extract intelligence from detainees. But then we threw out the rules that our soldiers had trained on, and replaced them with a confusing and constantly changing array of standards. We demanded intelligence without ever clearly telling our troops what was permitted and what was forbidden. And then when things went wrong, we blamed them and we punished them. We have to do better than that.

Mr. President, to fight terrorism we need intelligence. That much is obvious. What should also be obvious is that the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all our fighting men and women. To do differently would not only offend our values as Americans, but undermine our war effort, because abuse of prisoners harms – not helps – us in the war on terror. First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence, because under torture a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop. Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers U.S. troops who might be captured by the enemy – if not in this war, then in the next. And third, prisoner abuses exact on us a terrible toll in the war of ideas, because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions. American values should win against all others in any war of ideas, and we can’t let prisoner abuse tarnish our image.

And yet reports of detainee abuse continue to emerge, in large part, I believe, because of confusion in the field as to what is permitted and what is not. The amendment I am proposing will go a long way toward clearing up this confusion.

Mr. President, let me just close by noting that I hold no brief for the prisoners. I do hold a brief for the reputation of the United States of America. We are Americans, and we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they may be. To do otherwise undermines our security, but it also undermines our greatness as a nation. We are not simply any other country. We stand for something more in the world – a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these terrorists, and we will we win. The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don’t deserve our sympathy. But this isn’t about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies.

I think it’s safe to say that John McCain understands prisoner interrogation in a way most of us never will.


Tags: , , ,

4 Comments for 'McCain on Prisoner Treatment Guidelines'

  1.  
    October 7, 2005 | 4:34 pm
     

    Its tough to argue with a John McCain on this issue. I definately agree that Congress needs to solidly define prisoner treatment. I’m still uncertain of how they’ve really defined it as all I’ve heard is “stick to the field manual”.

    However, I’m hesitant to take all methods of information extraction through discomfort off the board. I wonder if things like water boarding, sleep deprevation, etc are not worthwhile tactics, and would be interested to see data on the veracity of the information gained through use of those techniques. I have a feeling that information may be more useful than McCain makes it seem, but I could be wrong. In a time pressured situation in which America and its men, women, and children may come under great harm I think there has to be some additional forms of persuation available to our servicemen. The show 24 comes to mind…

  2.  
    FOB-FriendofBush
    October 9, 2005 | 9:47 pm
     

    Will McCain screw up the interrogation process the same way he screwed up the “Soft Campaign Money” process with Feingold? I think he could. The US should use ALL methods available to obtain information from islamofacists including killing their family members. McCain fought in a different kind of war, and his enemies were not seeking to blow themselves and the world up with atomic weapons or destroy humanity with bioweapons. Besides, my friend GWB has threatened a veto. I don’t think McClain could overide it.

  3.  
    October 10, 2005 | 2:29 pm
     

    FOB:

    1. Your friend GWB was evidently a supporter of McCain’s campaign finance rules since he was the one that signed it into law. GWB had much more power to stop those campaign finance rules from becoming law than McCain or Feingold ever did.
    2. While you seem to believe that Vietnam was a kinder, gentler war, as I’m sure photos and first-hand accounts bear witness:

      How is it that this makes you more qualified to know about prisoner treatment than an ex-POW, regardless of what war they fought in?
    3. If you are familiar with how a veto works in the US, a two-thirds majority of Congress is necessary to override one. The amendment passed with 90 votes, well beyond the 67 votes necessary to override a presidential veto.
    4. “If you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” – Friedrich Nietzsche
      Think about how this applies to resorting to torture because you are fighting evil people.
  4.  
    October 10, 2005 | 2:47 pm
     

    ToddB, I think that’s one of the good things about such an amendment is that it gives the servicemen and women guidelines that they can follow. They shouldn’t have to worry about whether or not what they’re doing is officially sanctioned by the US or if they’ll be the fall guy if one of their officers all of a sudden needs to try to cover their own butt.

    Plus, it allows transparency in the debate of what should be allowed in terms of prisoner treatment rather than just requiring us to trust that executive power will not extend beyond what the US public considers acceptable.

Leave a comment

(required)

(required)


Information for comment users
Line and paragraph breaks are implemented automatically. Your e-mail address is never displayed. Please consider what you're posting.

Use the buttons below to customise your comment.


RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI

 

Bad Behavior has blocked 133 access attempts in the last 7 days.