Nine GOP Senators Refuse to Reject Torture

by Scott Shields, Wed Oct 05, 2005 at 07:08:30 PM EDT

Last night, I posted an item about Bill Frist's continued efforts to stall the 2006 Pentagon authorization bill from coming to a full vote on the floor of the Senate. At issue were proposed amendments that would prohibit the use of torture by the American military. Tonight, one of those amendments has passed the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan majority.

Defying the White House, senators voted 90-9 to approve 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.

The amendment was added to a $440 billion military spending bill for the budget year that began Oct. 1.

The proposal, sponsored by Sen. John McCain, also requires all service members to follow procedures in the Army Field Manual when they detain and interrogate terrorism suspects.

Though Frist will likely continue to block the full bill, even he wasn't stupid enough to vote against the amendment. Every member of the Democratic caucus voted for the bill. Jon Corzine, in the thick of campaigning for Governor in New Jersey, did not vote. Nine Republicans actually did vote against the amendment. They are:

Wayne Allard - Colorado
Kit Bond - Missouri
Tom Coburn - Oklahoma
Thad Cochran - Mississippi
John Cornyn - Texas
James Inhofe - Oklahoma
Pat Roberts - Kansas
Jeff Sessions - Alabama
Ted Stevens - Alaska

Some of the reasons they've offered for rejecting the amendment are absolute nonsense. Stevens claims the amendment might endanger those doing classified work. Sessions claims it's just unnecessary, saying that the military doesn't "have a system of systematic abuse of prisoners," which is entirely beside the point. McCain noted that the problem exists not with the troops in the field, but among the upper echelons of the government, which "demanded intelligence without ever clearly telling our troops what was permitted and what was forbidden."

There still remains a fight on this bill. Though the amendments may be accepted with broad support, there's no guarantee that the bill will even come to a vote, much less pass. The White House has vowed to veto it even if it does pass. Those of us who believe that torture is as morally wrong as it is ineffective can't rest on the passing of one or two or even three amendments. Every one of these Senators must be called to account for supporting torture. And if the bill is passed and reaches the House, where these provisions have not yet been approved, pressure must be brought to bear on any Representative who opposes it.

Tags: Republicans (all tags)

Comments

44 Comments

Sort by

permalink

What's in the water there in Oklahoma?

Is it just me, or are those two Okie senators the craziest seatmates to ever be elected to the Senate in this country?

by jgarcia 2005-10-05 07:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What's in the water there in Oklahoma?

Hell if I know. Well, I do. It's called religious fundamentalism. It's rampant here. I hope that it's discredited soon, as I grow more and more weary of it by the minute.

by nanoboy 2005-10-05 07:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What's in the water there in Oklahoma?

It would seem a nice moderate Republican could run these guys by pointing out how their vote is UNfundamentally religious.

by Robert P 2005-10-06 04:23AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What's in the water there in Oklahoma?

They did run a moderate Republican -- Brad Carson. He just happened to be on the Democratic ticket.

Coburn, who is a complete head case, beat Carson convincingly.

by norcalpolitics 2005-10-06 02:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What's in the water there in Oklahoma?

Nope, it's not just you. Inhofe/Coburn is my #1 pair of Most Lamentable Senators from A Single State...it's an award you won't see at the Oscars so I'm glad you prompted me here.

by InigoMontoya 2005-10-05 08:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What's in the water there in Oklahoma?

Think back to all the crap that came up during Coburn's race. I would bet Coburn would gladly use the hot pokers himself if he could.

by yitbos96bb 2005-10-05 08:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

We went 220 years without torture.. through..

two world wars.. wars in which our opponents did 'make extensive use of' torture.

The fact that we did not torture or kill people for their thoughts, their ethnic background, or their membership in the amorphous, ever changing 'enemy' groups that totalitarian governments need to scapegoat - and kill.. to keep the permanent seige mentality - the 'permanent war' that they require.. WAS THE REASON WE WON THOSE WARS...

We can't forget that. If we start torturing.. its a slippery slope.

It's easy to dehumanize 'the enemy'. To practice what Richard Nixon described as his 'madman theory' of warfare. Look it up.

But, in my opinion and that of many others, that kind of thinking makes enemies as fast or faster than it 'eliminates' them.

We all wonder why we have a problem in the rest of the world with our image, but we don't know our history of interventions and worse.

We really need to. Often, there was a justification on one level or another for what we did.. (for example, when we were fighting Stalin.) But instead of admitting the mistakes of the past and allowing a public dialogue on the ways to clear the air in these countries.. we are still practicing major denial. Why can't we admit the past? Why do we have to keep repeating the mistakes of the past?

WHY CAN'T WE GET SOME FRESH IDEAS INSTEAD OF THE SAME OLD TIRED COLD WAR - ZERO SUM MENTALITY..

by ultraworld 2005-10-05 09:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: We went 220 years without torture.. through..

I do think we should be honest and admit there probably was all kinds of torture, but we won. The difference this time is that the soldiers had digital cameras and email access from the battlefield.

by Robert P 2005-10-06 04:24AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: We went 220 years without torture.. through..

Na! The damn japs really had it in for us. We just tried to put them all in prison camps.

Q: How do you stop Karl Rove from laughing at you?
A: Hit him in the face with a hatchet.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-06 05:58AM | 0 recs

permalink

LMAO!

turner that joke is priceless. =)

by annatopia 2005-10-06 08:01AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What's in the water there in Oklahoma?

I hang my head in shame. Oklahoma sucks sooooooo bad. We have the two worst Senators in the Union. Colburn is actually crazier than Santorum. Inhofe is such a tool.

by teknofyl 2005-10-06 05:36AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What's in the water there in Oklahoma?

I'm ON to Oklahoma.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-06 05:55AM | 0 recs

permalink

they are the wing nut brigade....

Throw in Cornyn, Brownback and Roberts and something is really wrong with the Southern high plains.

by Keith Brekhus 2005-10-06 07:39AM | 0 recs

permalink

Mah dad was an Okie

And an atheist.

And he ran away from home at 16 and never returned to Oklahoma.

by jcjcjc 2005-10-06 09:31AM | 0 recs

permalink

The Dr. Mengele Nine

by Andrew C White 2005-10-05 07:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

2008's the year

that seven of these jokers come up for election. This is the class elected due to the 9/11 panic/fraud.

by David Kowalski 2005-10-05 08:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 2008's the year

And, interestingly, none of these guys are up for re-election this year. What a surprise.

by DavidNYC 2005-10-05 09:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 2008's the year

Allard will be up for re-election in 2008, and he already has a candidate running against him. In purple trending Colorado, I think he's going down, down, down.

by AC4508 2005-10-06 09:21AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 2008's the year

HM. Who will be a first-term incumbent in 2008?

DeMint, Coburn, Vitter, Martinez, Isakson, Burr, Thune.

If we work hard, we should be able to run strong against Burr, Martinez, maybe Vitter. Maybe Isakson if we can get the R base to stay home.

Interesting.

by texas dem 2005-10-06 09:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

that's 2010, actually.

I'd give good odds that Stephanie Herseth will be running against Thune.

by johnny longtorso 2005-10-06 10:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 2008's the year

The "curse" of Sam Ervin's old seat will hold. Burr goes down in 2010.

by wayward 2005-10-08 04:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 2008's the year

Unfortunately, not that many of them look vulnerable. The only guy I'd say should be sweating would be Allard, but he's retiring in 2008 (term-limit pledge), and we actually have a good shot at picking up his seat then with Rep. Mark Udall running.

Stevens is also rumored to be retiring in 2008, which is the only way we'll have a shot at his seat (although we ran the perfect Democrat against the worst Republican in 2004, and still lost).

by Skaje 2005-10-06 09:29AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 2008's the year

Allard's pledge is less than iron-clad; he pledged not to run again unless he was needed (by Coloradoans) in the Senate. Heaven-only-knows what "needed" means. He's already hinted that he hasn't ruled out running again in 2008.

But I think Mark Udall has a great chance of picking up this seat, especially if the GOP meltdown continues.

by Phoenix Rising 2005-10-06 09:34AM | 0 recs

permalink

Allard, you crazy bastard... n/t

by pacified 2005-10-05 09:23PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Allard, you crazy bastard... n/t

Started up the verbal battle against Allard last night on ColoradoPols. Unsurprisingly, there are some over there that think Allard was doing the Right Thing. Hopefully the Denver papers will pick up on this vote and run with it.

Mark Udall is so going to clean Allard's clock with this if Allard decides to run for re-election in 2008 (which is questionable).

by Phoenix Rising 2005-10-06 09:30AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: all this dignity and integrity in the white ho

I saw a poll somewhere the other day that said ~55% of all people have had sex in their place of work. So, Bill was in the majority.

Another point, how many people work with their wives? So, you do the immorality math........

by Robert P 2005-10-06 04:25AM | 0 recs

permalink

Evangelism is simple

Evangelism is simple:

Think for a second how stupid it would sound to say 'Gods Gray Earth' , or 'God's Greenhouse'

instead of "Gods Green Earth". Anyone here who wants to replace it with "no bid contract" is just making the whole thing too complicated.

Clinton? Gimme a break. Censure the dude and be done with it. Grover cleveland did alot worse.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-06 07:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

Could you identify which of these guys

have (or don't have) military background or careers?

by ROGNM 2005-10-06 04:33AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Could you identify which of these guys

g00gl3 them

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-06 04:56AM | 0 recs

permalink

Easy Sweatheart

If I had the time to blog, I'd have my own blog.

Scott, Chris, Jerome, et. al. have decided to take the time to write about political issues, and my suggestion might add to the point of this story.

I come here to get information, learn and be educated.

Your "google it your damn self" is just nasty.

Cheers.

by ROGNM 2005-10-06 05:03AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Easy Sweatheart

I did N0t say google them your damn self.
I just said..

g00gl3 them.

And in the end. The love you give. is equal=2.
The l0v3. u make.

to qu0t3 the b3atl3z
ov course..

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-06 05:53AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Could you identify which of these guys

# Jeff Sessions - Alabama
# Ted Stevens - Alaska

Sen Allard is a vet... veterinarian.

Bond mentions no military service in his Senate website biography.

Coburn's bio mentions no military service.

Cochran was in the Naval Reserves in 1959-1961, stationed in Boston and New Orleans.

Cornyn grew up an Air Force brat but his bio is silent on any military experience he might otherwise have.

Inhofe served in the US army, but his bio is silent about when, where, or how long.

Roberts was in the Marines, 1958-1962. Doesn't mention where he was stationed.

Sessions mentions no service in his Senate biography.

Stevens was a pilot in the Air Force in Burma in WWII and got two DFCs.

by Nina Katarina 2005-10-06 06:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Could you identify which of these guys

whoops, forgot to edit those two notes out. Sorry.

by Nina Katarina 2005-10-06 06:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Could you identify which of these guys

thanks katrina - thats kool. Looks like the group knows what they're talking about.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-06 07:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Could you identify which of these guys

So from their website bios, the only one with war experience is Stevens, and that was WWII. It's long enough ago that he probably only remembers the good parts.

by Nina Katarina 2005-10-06 10:54AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Could you identify which of these guys

IIRC, Inhofe served in peacetime during the 1950's. But I don't have anything to verify this.

by wayward 2005-10-08 04:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

A shining Moment

This is why I work for campaigns, and help out senators and reps in my free time. This is why I rally for Moveon.org and other organizations.

I believe this is a shining moment for America.
To see especially John McCain, who was tortured by brutal communists - well. Hes the right man for the job. This is a showdown that should've happened in 2000 and this time, I will be taking careful notes.

No country has ever traversed the path to torture and returned from it. Rove wants a fourth Reich to rise up in America, his "40 year" plan for the party - in truth, Rove is acting out of his own interests and pushing everyone, including Bush, down a cliff. And that has dire consequences - Nazis torture people.

And Nazis fall.

by turnerbroadcasting 2005-10-06 04:55AM | 0 recs

permalink

Most of the ones you'd expect

Coburn and Cornyn have, in fairness, been consistently pro-torture.

Actually, the one thing that gets gravely overlooked in this bill is that it is worded to draw distinctions between lawful and unlawful enemy combatants.

In other words: freedom fighters vs terrorists.

That wording alone practically waters the entire bill into nothingness.

by jcjcjc 2005-10-06 06:56AM | 0 recs

permalink

Finally!

I'm so glad the Senate finally came together(mostly) to do the right thing. It took way too long for them to do the right thing.

by Crystal Patterson 2005-10-06 07:27AM | 0 recs

permalink

In the cemetery

This morning's national news about the vote was very welcome. The local news, here in Texas, is about the expansion of a (handsome) cemetery for vets. I was thinking about John Cornyn's vote, and the extent to which he has disgraced those vets who are now or who will eventually lie in that state cemetery. Cornyn once had regard of even some Democrats. But no longer. Over the years of his term in the Senate, he has become one of Texas' many political embarrassments.

by Bean 2005-10-06 07:31AM | 0 recs

permalink

box turtles again?

i am so embarrassed to say that john cornyn is one of my senators. he is always on the wrong side of the issues.

by annatopia 2005-10-06 07:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

House will do Bush's dirty work.

The House will do Bush's dirty work and kill this in committee. Even without DeLay, the hard right still controlls House leadership.

by wayward 2005-10-08 04:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Thank you Sen Allard for your vote

I stumbled upon this blog while searching for some information to send Sen Allard a thank you note for voting against this useless amendment. As a lifelong Colorado Republican, it was interesting to hear how the other side thinks about things like this. No civilized society condones the brutal torture of an individual, but I believe we already have safeguards in place to prevent widespread prisoner abuse. However, we are in a different type of war today, and it is unrealistic to tie the hands of our military and intelligence communities when the possibility exists that thousands or millions of American lives could be saved by the prudent use of higher level interrogation techniques. This amendment that you are condemning nine Senators for voting against appears to be a hollow, feel-good piece of legislation that accomplishes nothing except creating additional confusion in the minds of the men and women who have sacrificed much to protect us from an enemy who does not think twice about providing "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" to us, their sworn enemy. Sen Allard has his faults, but seriously now, Udall for the Senate? I don't think so. He has been my non-responsive Representative too long. One good thing about a possible Senate run is that he may give up his Congresssional seat.

by locutus33 2005-11-08 09:10AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Nine GOP Senators Refuse to Reject Torture

Stevens is also rumored to be retiring in 2008, which is the only way we'll have a shot at his seat (although we ran the perfect Democrat against the worst Republican in 2004, and still lost).

accouchement
acupuncture
allaitement
aphrodisiaque
bebe
bebe
bebe
couche
couple