Cheney: The CIA Needs The Freedom To Abuse Detainees!

by hilzoy

WaPo:

"The Bush administration has proposed exempting employees of the Central Intelligence Agency from a legislative measure endorsed earlier this month by 90 members of the Senate that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoners in U.S. custody.

The proposal, which two sources said Vice President Cheney handed last Thursday to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the company of CIA Director Porter J. Goss, states that the measure barring inhumane treatment shall not apply to counterterrorism operations conducted abroad or to operations conducted by "an element of the United States government" other than the Defense Department.

Although most detainees in U.S. custody in the war on terrorism are held by the U.S. military, the CIA is said by former intelligence officials and others to be holding several dozen detainees of particular intelligence interest at locations overseas -- including senior al Qaeda figures Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaida."

Marty Lederman saw this coming, and points out why it's a very bad idea:

" If Stevens (read: Cheney) is successful in this endeavor, and if the Congress enacts the Amendment as so limited, it will be a major step backwards from where the law currently stands. This can't be overemphasized: If Stevens is successful at adding his seemingly innocuous "augment[ation]," it would make the law worse than it currently is.

Those wishing to learn all the details of why this is so are encouraged to read my previous posts (particularly those of January 8, 12, 18 and 25, and May 11) about how the Administration has construed numerous federal laws to make certain that the CIA is permitted to engage in cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment -- i.e., to engage in all forms of coercive interrogation short of the small category of conduct denominated "torture." Here's a quick synposis of why the Stevens "CIA carve-out" would make matters worse, the basic gist of which is this: Although the McCain Amendment would helpfully clarify and reaffirm some of the law applicable to military interrogations, it would not impose any substantive limitations on the Armed Forces that are not already in current law. The McCain Amendment would, however, emphatically reject the Administration's view that the CIA may engage in cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in certain locations outside the U.S. -- a very significant development, but one that the Stevens "augmentation" would eviscerate. (...)

But if Senator Stevens has his way, and successfully exempts the CIA from the McCain Amendment's otherwise unequivocal ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, the Congress will for the first time have ratified the Administration's view that such cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is not uniformly off-limits, and will have given a green light to the CIA to engage in such conduct. Moreover, as explained above, that very unfortunate result would not be offset by any meaningful improvement in the law as it applies to the Armed Forces.

Accordingly, it is imperative that those Senators and Representatives supporting the McCain Amendment must resist any effort to "augment" the Amendment with a CIA carve-out."

I completely agree. This is shameful.

And by the bye, I still have no idea why more Democrats didn't respond to Senator Stevens' recent "threat" to resign if his bridge was defunded by calling his bluff. He voted against the McCain amendment, he has strenuously resisted any attempt to rein in spending, and he threatened to block avian flu funding. It seems that every time I write a post on any serious issue confronting the Senate, Senator Stevens is leading the charge for the wrong side. Why wouldn't we respond to his "threat" by saying: wonderful news! Here's your defeat! Please, please make good on your threat!" Even if it hadn't been the right vote independently, the prospect of ditching Ted Stevens should have made it irresistible. But, to coin a phrase: sadly, no.

Comments

[Ugh]

But hilzoy we have to torture innocent people because otherwise the terrorists win. Why are you objectively pro-terrorist hilzoy? In fact, I find the name hilzoy suspicious all by itself. I'm calling DHS, stay where you are.

[trilobite]

To quote Buffy Summers (re Spike's threat to commit suicide): "And this is bad why?"

[DaveL]

But Hilzoy, the Stevens/Inouye Mutual Backscratching Society is a critical part of Hawaii's economy! How can you want him gone just because he's for torture and pork (and ANWR drilling, and a few other things that we probably shouldn't talk about in polite company)?

[Anderson]

As I was musing earlier, it's almost tempting to propose a deal to Cheney:

CIA can use any techniques that Patrick Fitzgerald is allowed to use on Libby and Rove.

Despite the thought of Rove on the waterboard, we must adhere to our principles ... sigh.

[Edward_]

I need the freedom to smack Cheney upside his head.

[liberal japonicus]

Perhaps this should go into the previous thread, but Steve Clemons has this

This just in from a close friend who worked inside the pinnacle of Republican power in the Senate a few years ago, so while this is rumor -- it's Republican rumor, which makes it interesting:

Steve, just heard from trusted friend that McCain was approached about serving as VP if Cheney has "health problems" or otherwise steps down.
Beyond that, speculation that Miers will step down to be replaced by a Bork-like sub (even better, Bork himself...). In other words, Cheney takes a bullet, a titanic battle over SCOTUS ensued to change the subject. You didn't hear this from me, but feel free to pass on such unsubstantiated rumors.

Maybe it's just me, and maybe the above is just rumors, but this really pisses me off. Kerry apparently went directly to McCain to ask him to be VP on a unity ticket. If he couldn't figure out then that he was needed, and only now realizes he needs to step up to the plate, I have to think that he's a posturing idiot. Of course, perhaps McCain is firmly turning down such offers (if indeed, such offers are really on offer) but, as others have observed, where the hell are the grown-ups in that party?

[Anderson]

LJ, maybe this is the right thread. Such an extravagant rumor might be spread to suggest to McCain that if he backs off the torture ban, he might be VP.

Snowball's chance in hell of course, but egos smaller than McCain's have been misled by less.

[John Thullen]

McCain's role in my political universe is to serve as aggrieved victim of the Bush/Rove slime machine and the recipient of the "liberal RINO" slur from "principled" Republicans.

He has served the role well. May he remain there and not ascend to the Presidency. I mean, he might turn out to be Harry Truman or Teddy Roosevelt, but I doubt it.

I have a feeling my principles will graduate from victim of the current clown show to the cramped confines of a tiger cage during a McCain Presidency.

[John Thullen]

McCain's role in my political universe is to serve as aggrieved victim of the Bush/Rove slime machine and the recipient of the "liberal RINO" slur from "principled" Republicans.

He has served the role well. May he remain there and not ascend to the Presidency. I mean, he might turn out to be Harry Truman or Teddy Roosevelt, but I doubt it.

I have a feeling my principles will graduate from victim of the current clown show to the cramped confines of a tiger cage during a McCain Presidency.

[John Thullen]

As Johnny Carson was fond of saying:

That's "weird, weird stuff" going on in Typepad today.

[CharleyCarp]

I hear good news from the conference. Let's hope the rumor pans out . . .

[Katherine]

wow. I was so sure it was doomed in conference.