Why are Dems on the Hill so silent now that we know the White House approved torture...

[Blackhatjack]

They should be incensed and fighting mad. Or is it that they knew all along?

Now that we have evidence that the torture was reviewed, planned and approved out of the White House, there ought to be action by the House and Senate to hold them accountable.

Have we fallen so far down the rabbit hole that the Congress and the Media no longer even react to evidence of torture committed in the name of this country?

[L. Coyote]

1. They are not.

[Supersedeas]

18. Oh? You have example of mass outrage and calls to 'action'??

[DJ13]

2. Or is it that they knew all along?

Several knew.

Jane Harmon has admitted as much in the past.

[hisownpetard]

3. They're not interested in the least in impeachment. They're interested

in their own political advancement.

[Disturbed]

7. Most of the Dems were complicit in allowing Torture.

They will condemn this & then they will not do nothing.

[hisownpetard]

11. They will 'not do nothing'? You mean, they will do something?

Or maybe it was a typo.:shrug:

[karynnj]

4. Because they already knew it and have said so on record since 2003!

I am posting 3 Senators' speeches against the bill that McCain, Warner and Graham claimed STOPPED torture - but actually gave Bush the power to torture. (Many Democrats spoke - I liked Kerry, Leahy, and Kennedy - Dodd's was great too)

Here's Kerry:

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the last week before we leave for a long recess has always been extraordinarily busy--particularly when an election is only 42 days away. But, sadly, this has become too much the way the Senate does business and often its most important business.

Today, the leadership of the Senate has decided that legislation that will directly impact America's moral authority in the world merits only a few hours of debate. What is at stake is the authority that is essential to winning and to waging a legitimate and effective war on terror, and also one that is critical to the safety of American troops who may be captured.

If, in a few hours, we squander that moral authority, blur lines that for decades have been absolute, then no speech, no rhetoric, and no promise can restore it.

Four years ago, we were in a similar situation. An Iraq war resolution was rushed through the Senate because of election-year politics--a political calendar, not a statesman's calendar. And 4 years later, the price we are paying is clear for saying to a President and an administration that we would trust them.

Today, we face a different choice--to prevent an irreversible mistake, not to correct one. It is to stand and be counted so that election-year politics do not further compromise our moral authority and the safety of our troops.

Every Senator must ask him or herself: Does the bill before us treat America's authority as a precious national asset that does not limit our power but magnifies our influence in the world? Does it make clear that the U.S. Government recognizes beyond any doubt that the protections of the Geneva Conventions have to be applied to prisoners in order to comply with the law, restore our moral authority, and best protect American troops? Does it make clear that the United States of America does not engage in torture , period?

Despite protests to the contrary, I believe the answer is clearly no. I wish it were not so. I wish this compromise actually protected the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions. But it does not. In fact, I regret to say, despite the words and the protests to the contrary, this bill permits torture . This bill gives the President the discretion to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions. It gives confusing definitions of ``torture'' and ``cruel and inhuman treatment'' that are inconsistent with the Detainee Treatment Act, which we passed 1 year ago, and inconsistent with the Army Field Manual. It provides exceptions for pain and suffering ``incidental to lawful sanctions,'' but it does not tell us what the lawful sanctions are.

So what are we voting for with this bill ? We are voting to give the President the power to interpret the Geneva Conventions. We are voting to allow pain and suffering incident to some undefined lawful sanctions.

This bill gives an administration that lobbied for torture exactly what it wanted. And the administration has

GPO's PDF

been telling people it gives them what they wanted. The only guarantee we have that these provisions will prohibit torture is the word of the President. Well, I wish I could say the word of the President were enough on an issue as fundamental as torture . But we have been down this road.

The administration said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaida, that they would exhaust diplomacy before they went to war, that the insurgency was in its last throes. None of these statements were true.

The President said he agreed with Senator McCain's antitorture provisions in the Detainee Treatment Act. Yet he issued a signing statement reserving the right to ignore them. Are we supposed to trust that word?

He says flatly that ``The United States does not torture ,'' but then he tries to push the Congress into allowing him to do exactly that. And even here he has promised to submit his interpretations of the Geneva Conventions to the Federal Register. Yet his Press Secretary announced that the administration may not need to comply with that requirement. And we are supposed to trust that?

Obviously, another significant problem with this bill is the unconstitutional limitation of the writ of habeas corpus. It is extraordinary to me that in 2 hours, and a few minutes of a vote, the Senate has done away with something as specific as habeas corpus, of which the Constitution says: ``he Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.''

Well, we are not in a rebellion, nor are we being invaded. Thus, we do not have the constitutional power to suspend the writ. And I believe the Court will ultimately find it unconstitutional.

The United States needs to retain its moral authority to win the war on terror. We all want to win it. We all want to stop terrorist attacks. But we need to do it keeping faith with our values and the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. President, a veteran of the Iraq War whom I know, Paul Rieckhoff, wrote something the other day that every Senator ought to think about as they wrestle with this bill . He wrote that he was taught at Fort Benning, GA, about the importance of the Geneva Conventions. He didn't know what it meant until he arrived in Baghdad. Paul wrote:

America's moral integrity was the single most important weapon my platoon had on the streets of Iraq. It saved innumerable lives, encouraged cooperation with our allies and deterred Iraqis from joining the growing insurgency. But those days are over. America's moral standing has eroded, thanks to its flawed rationale for war and scandals like Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and Haditha. The last thing we can afford now is to leave Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions open to reinterpretation, as President Bush proposed to do and can still do under the compromise bill that emerged last week.

We each need to ask ourselves, in the rush to find a ``compromise'' we can all embrace, are we strengthening America's moral authority or eroding it? Are we on the sides of the thousands of Paul Rieckhoffs in uniform today, or are we making their mission harder and even worse, putting them in greater danger if they are captured?

Paul writes eloquently:

If America continues to erode the meaning of the Geneva Conventions, we will cede the ground upon which to prosecute dictators and warlords. We will also become unable to protect our troops if they are perceived as being no more bound by the rule of law than dictators and warlords themselves. The question facing America is not whether to continue fighting our enemies in Iraq and beyond but how to do it best. My soldiers and I learned the hard way that policy at the point of a gun cannot, by itself, create democracy. The success of America's fight against terrorism depends more on the strength of its moral integrity than on troop numbers in Iraq or the flexibility of interrogation options.

I wish I could say this compromise serves America's moral mission and protects our troops, but it doesn't. No eloquence we can bring to this debate can change what this bill fails to do.

We have been told in press reports that it is a great compromise between the White House and my good friends, Senator MCCAIN, Senator WARNER, and Senator GRAHAM. We have been told that it protects the ``integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions.''

I wish that what we are being told is true. It is not. Nothing in the language of the bill supports these claims. Let me be clear about something--something that it seems few people are willing to say. This bill permits torture . This bill gives the President the discretion to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions. This bill gives an administration that lobbied for torture exactly what it wanted.

We are supposed to believe that there is an effective check on this expanse of Presidential power with the requirement that the President's interpretations be published in the Federal Register.

We shouldn't kid ourselves. Let's assume the President publishes his interpretation of permissible acts under the Geneva Convention. The interpretation, like the language in this bill , is vague and inconclusive. A concerned Senator or Congresswoman calls for oversight. Unless he or she is in the majority at the time, there won't be a hearing. Let's assume they are in the majority and get a hearing. Do we really think a bill will get through both houses of Congress? A bill that directly contradicts a Presidential interpretation of a matter of national security? My guess is that it won't happen, but maybe it will. Assume it does. The bill has no effect until the President actually signs it. So, unless the President chooses to reverse himself, all the power remains in the President's

hands. And all the while, America's moral authority is in tatters, American troops are in greater jeopardy, and the war on terror is set back.

Could the President's power grab be controlled by the courts? After all, it was the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan that invalidated the President's last attempt to consolidate power and establish his own military tribunal system. The problem now is that the bill strips the courts the power to hear such a case when it says ``no person may invoke the Geneva Conventions ..... in any habeas or civil action.''

What are we left with? Unfettered Presidential power to interpret what--other than the statutorily proscribed ``grave violations''--violates the Geneva Conventions. No wonder the President was so confident that his CIA program could continue as is. He gets to keep setting the rules--rules his administration have spent years now trying to blur.

Presidential discretion is not the only problem. The definitions of what constitute ``grave breaches'' of Article 3 are murky. Even worse, they are not consistent with either the Detainee Treatment Act or the recently revised Army Field Manual. These documents prohibit ``cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment'' defined as ``the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.'' The definition is supported by an extensive body of case law evaluating what treatment is required by our constitutional standards of ``dignity, civilization, humanity, decency, and fundamental fairness.'' And, I think quite tellingly, it is substantially similar to the definition that my good friend, Senator MCCAIN, chose to include in his bill . And there is simply no reason why the standard adopted by the Army Field Manual and the Detainee Treatment Act, which this Congress has already approved, should not apply for all interrogations in all circumstances.

In the bill before us, however, there is no reference to any constitutional standards. The prohibition of degrading conduct has been dropped. And, there are caveats allowing pain and suffering ``incidental to lawful sanctions.'' Nowhere does it tell us what ``lawful sanctions'' are.

So, what are we voting for with this bill ? We are voting to give the President the power to interpret the Geneva Conventions. We are voting to allow pain and suffering incident to some undefined lawful sanctions. The only guarantee we have that these provisions really will prohibit torture is the word of the President.

The word of the President. I wish I could say the words of the President were enough on an issue as fundamental as torture . Fifty years ago, President Kennedy sent his Secretary of State abroad on a crisis mission--to

GPO's PDF

prove to our allies that Soviet missiles were being held in Cuba. The Secretary of State brought photos of the missiles. As he prepared to take them from his briefcase, our ally, a foreign head of state said, simply, ``put them away. The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me.''

We each wish we lived in times like those--perilous times, but times when America's moral authority, our credibility, were unquestioned, unchallenged.

But the word of the President today is questioned. This administration said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda, that they would exhaust diplomacy before we went to war, that the insurgency was in its last throes. None of these statements were true, and now we find our troops in the crossfire of civil war in Iraq with no end in sight. They keep saying the war in Iraq is making us safer, but our own intelligence agencies say it is actually fanning the flames of jihad, creating a whole new generation of terrorists and putting our country at greater risk of terrorist attack. It is no wonder then that we are hesitant to blindly accept the word of the President on this question today.

The President said he agreed with Senator MCCAIN's antitorture provisions in the Detainee Treatment Act. Yet, he issued a signing statement reserving the right to ignore them. He says flatly that ``The United States does not torture'' --and then tries to bully Congress into allowing him to do exactly that. And even here, he has promised to submit his interpretations of the Geneva Convention to the Federal Register--yet his Press

Secretary announced that the administration may not need to comply with that requirement.

We have seen the consequences of simply accepting the word of this administration. No, the Senate cannot just accept the word of this administration that they will not engage in torture given the way in which everything they have already done and said on this most basic question has already put our troops at greater risk and undermined the very moral authority needed to win the war on terror. When the President says the United States doesn't torture , there has to be no doubt about it. And when his words are unclear, Congress must step in to hold him accountable.

The administration will use fear to try and bludgeon anyone who disagrees with them.

Just as they pretended Iraq is the central front in the war on terror even as their intelligence agencies told them their policy made terrorism worse, they will pretend America needs to squander its moral authority to win the war on terror.

They are wrong, profoundly wrong. The President's experts have told him that not only does torture put our troops at risk and undermine our moral authority, but torture does not work. As LTG John Kimmons, the Army's deputy chief of staff for intelligence, put it:

No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that. Any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, through the use of abusive techniques, would be of questionable credibility. And additionally, it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. We can't afford to go there.

Neither justice nor good intelligence comes at the hands of torture . In fact, both depend on the rule of law. It would be wrong--tragically wrong--to authorize the President to require our sons and daughters to use torture for something that won't even work.

Another significant problem with this bill is the unconstitutional elimination of the writ of habeas corpus. No less a conservative than Ken Starr got it right:

Congress should act cautiously to strike a balance between the need to detain enemy combatants during the present conflict and the need to honor the historic privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Ken Starr says, ``Congress should act cautiously.'' How cautiously are we acting when we eliminate any right to challenge an enemy combatant's indefinite detention? When we eliminate habeas corpus rights for aliens detained inside or outside the United States so long as the Government believes they are enemy combatants? When we not only do this for future cases but apply it to hundreds of cases currently making their way through our court system?

The Constitution is very specific when it comes to habeas corpus. It says, ``he Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.'' We are not in a case of rebellion, nor are we being invaded. Thus, we really don't have the constitutional power to suspend the Great Writ. And, even if we did, the Constitution allows only for the writ to be suspended. It does not allow the writ to be permanently taken away. Yet, this is exactly what the bill does. It takes the writ away--forever--from anyone the administration determines is an ``enemy combatant,'' even if they are lawfully on U.S. soil and otherwise entitled to full constitutional protections, and even if they have absolutely no other recourse.

Think of what this means. This bill is giving the administration the power to pick up any non-U.S. citizen inside or outside of the United States, determine in their sole and unreviewable discretion that he is an unlawful combatant, and hold him in jail--be it Guantanamo Bay or a secret CIA prison--indefinitely. Once the Combatant Status Review Tribunal determines that person is an enemy combatant, that is the end of the story--even if the determination is based on evidence that even a military commission would not be allowed to consider because it is so unreliable. That person would never get the chance to challenge his detention; to prove that he is not, in fact, an enemy combatant.

We are not talking about whether detainees can file a habeas suit because they don't have access to the Internet or cable television. We are talking about something much more fundamental: whether people can be locked up forever without even getting the chance to prove that the Government was wrong in detaining them. Allow this to become the policy of the United States and just imagine the difficulty our law enforcement and our Government will have arranging the release of an American citizen the next time our citizens are detained in other countries.

Mr. President, we all want to stop terrorist attacks. We all want to effectively gather as much intelligence as humanly possible. We all want to bring those who do attack us to justice. But, we weaken--not strengthen--our ability to do that when we undermine our own Constitution; when we throw away our system of checks and balances; when we hold detainees indefinitely without trial by destroying the writ of habeas corpus; and when we permit torture . We endanger our moral authority at our great peril. I oppose this legislation because it will make us less safe and less secure. I urge my colleagues to do the same

[glowing]

5. Because they already know.. and Nancy Pelosi was in on the "intel".. those

roads would lead to all the corrupt politicians.. and the house of cards would come crashing down.. which needs to happen anyway.

[maddezmom]

6. Conyers invited them to testify

The Politico) House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) Friday invited several former Bush administration officials to testify at an upcoming committee hearing on the legality of several torture techniques.

Conyers invited a slew of high profile names, including former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former CIA Director George Tenet, former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, Chief of Staff to the Vice-President David Addington, and former Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin to testify at the hearing which will take place on May 6.

Conyers also invited John Yoo, a former Justice Department official who authored a controversial March 2003 memorandum establishing the legal guidelines for the interrogation of detainees.

“New and troubling allegations suggest that the decisions on torture came from the highest levels of government,” said Conyers in a statement. “These reports, if true, represent a stain on our democracy. The American people deserve to hear directly from those involved.”

Democrats have seized on the torture issue in the 110th Congress, fueled by several high-profile stories in the media, hoping to link the controversial issue directly to President Bush.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/11/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4010254.shtml

[karynnj]

8. Here's Kennedy's "torture bill speech" (spoken in support of his amendment to define 10 things as

toture.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have here before me the Department of Army regulations and rules for interrogating prisoners. In the document I have here, which is the official military document to define permissible interrogation techniques, it outlines certain interrogations which are prohibited and it lists these: forcing the person to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain; waterboarding; using dogs; inducing hypothermia or heat injury; conducting mock executions; depriving the person of necessary food, water, and medical care.

Those techniques are prohibited by the Department of Defense. Those techniques are prohibited from being used against adversaries in any kind of a conflict, blatant violations the requirement for humane treatment, and what I would consider to be torture . Certainly the Army and Department of Defense have effectively found that out that these techniques do not work. They have banned them and there has not been any objection to it.

What does our amendment say? Well, it says we in the United States are not going to tolerate those techniques if any of our military personnel are captured. But not all of the people who are representing the United States in the war on terror are wearing a uniform. For example, we have SEALs, we have some special operations, special forces, we have CIA agents. We have contractors and aid workers. We have more people around the world looking out after our security interests than any other country in the world.

What does this amendment say? Well, if our military personnel are not going to do this those we capture, we are saying to countries around the world: You cannot do this against any American personnel you are going to capture in this war on terror, or in any other conflict. This amendment is about protecting American personnel who are involved in the war on terror. It is saying to foreign countries: If you use any of these techniques, the United States will say this is a war crime and you will be held accountable. How can anybody be against that? This administration has sown confusion about our commitments to the Geneva Conventions, so that protection does not exist now. That protection does not exist now. Restoring that protection is basically what this amendment is all about.

I am not going to take much time, but I just want to remind our colleagues about how we viewed some of these techniques in our conflicts in previous wars.

On the issue of waterboarding, the United States charged Yukio Asano, a Japanese officer on May 1 to 28, 1947, with war crimes. The offenses were recounted by John Henry Burton, a civilian victim:

After taking me down into the hallway they laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water. The torture continued and continued. Yukio Asano was sentenced to fifteen years of hard labor. We punished people with fifteen years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II.

What about the case of Matsukichi Muta, another Japanese officer, tried on April 15 to 25, 1947, for, among other charges, causing a prisoner to receive shocks of electricity and beating prisoners. Shocks of electricity. He was sentenced to death by hanging. Death by hanging. We could go on.

In another case prosecuted from March 3 to April 30, 1948--the Japanese officer was sentenced for exposing prisoners to extreme cold temperatures, forcing them to spend long periods of time in the nude, making the prisoner stand in the cold for long periods of time, hour after hour, throwing water on him and inducing hypothermia. This officer received 15 years of hard labor. Fifteen years.

We didn't tolerate those abuses, and we should not tolerate those abuses inflicted on any Americans who are going to be taken in the war on terror. That is what this amendment is all about. It will tell the Secretary of State to notify every signatory from 194 nations, that if any of their governments are going to use any of these techniques on any Americans that are taken in this war on terror, that we will consider this a violation of the Geneva Conventions and that they will be accountable.

This is to protect our servicemen and servicewomen, those who are in the intelligence agencies, those performing dangerous duties, those who are not wearing the uniform in their battle against terror. We are putting everyone on notice.

We did not make up this list. All these techniques are taken right out of the Defense Department's code of conduct for interrogations.

I would take more time and review for my colleagues, where we tried individuals in World War II and sentenced individuals who performed these kinds of abuses on Americans to long periods of incarceration and even to death.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

<later>
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it will be quite surprising to me if the Senate is not prepared to accept this amendment. I look back at the time that we actually passed the War Crimes Act of 1996. At that time it was offered by Walter B. Jones, a Republican Congressman. It was offered in response to our Vietnam experience, where American servicemen--including one of our own colleagues and dear friends, Senator McCain--had been subject to torture during that period of time.

When this matter came up, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States, it passed in the Senate of the United States without a single objection. It passed the House by voice vote. This is what it says, under War Crimes, chapter 118:

Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime .....

And it talks about the circumstances--

..... as a member of the armed forces of the United States or a national United States. It is in Title 18 so those out of uniform are subject to the code.

So that is the CIA. Those are the SEALS. Those are the people involved now in our war on terror. Then it continues along to define a war crime as a violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. That provision protects against cruel treatment and torture . It prevents the taking of hostages. It prohibits outrages upon personal dignity. Those are effectively the kinds of protections that act affords.

We heard a great deal from the administration, from the President, that he wanted specificity in the War Crimes Act and the Geneva Conventions in terms of what is permitted and what is not permitted. He felt those terms are too vague. Well, on that he is right. There is confusion in the world. There is confusion in the world about our commitment to the Geneva Conventions and what we think it means. There is a good deal of confusion in the world in the wake of what happened at Abu Ghraib. There we found out that these harsh interrogation techniques had been used. Sure, we have had 10 different reviews of what happened over there. What we always find out is it is the lower lights, the corporals and the sergeants who are the ones being tried and convicted. Those in the higher ranks are not. No one has stood up and said clearly, those are violations of the Geneva Conventions. So we have Abu Ghraib, which all of us remember. And it has caused confusion.

We have the circumstances in Guantanamo--the conduct of General Miller, who brought these harsh interrogation techniques to Guantanamo at Secretary Rumsfeld's direction. When the Armed Services Committee questioned his whole standard of conduct, he moved toward early retirement to avoid coming up and facing the music. This caused confusion about our commitments to the Geneva Conventions.

Then you had the Bybee memorandum, which was effectively the rule of law for some 2 years, which permitted torture , any kind of torture , and it said that any individual who is going to be involved in torturing would be absolved from any kind of criminality if the purpose of their abusing any individual was to get information and there was no specific intent to have bodily harm for that individual. This caused confusion about our commitments to the Geneva Conventions.

That was the Bybee amendment. Finally, Attorney General Gonzales had to repudiate that or he never would have been approved as the Attorney General of the United States. That is the record in the Judiciary Committee. I sat through those hearings. I heard the Attorney General say they were repudiating the Bybee memorandum on that.

This is against a considerable background of where we have seen some extraordinary abuses.

Then we have tried to clarify our commitment. We have the action in the Senate of the United States, by a vote of 90 to 9, accepting Senator McCain's Amendment to prohibit cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment; to make the Army Field Manual the law of the land; to say we are not interested in torture . Senator McCain understands. He believes that waterboarding is torture . He believes using dogs is torture . This is not complicated. We don't have to cause confusion. We have it written down on this list of prohibited techniques. It is not my list of prohibited techniques, but it is written down by the Department of Defense. This amendment says if a foreign country is going to practice these kinds of behavior against an American national who is out there in the war on terror and is being picked up, we are going to consider this to be a war crime. This is about protecting Americans.

I don't understand the hesitancy on the other side, not being willing to accept this amendment. Let's go on the record about what we say is absolutely prohibited and what we know has been favored techniques that have been used by our adversaries at other times. Let's go on the record for clarity.

Looking back in history, at the end of World War II and otherwise, we are all familiar with the different examples where these techniques--frighteningly familiar to the series of techniques used in Iraq and Guantanamo--and are often frequently used against Americans.

I am reminded--I gave illustrations: electric shocks, waterboarding, hypothermia, heat injury. We all remember the 52 American hostages who were held in the U.S. Embassy in Iran. They were subjected to the mock executions.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hope we could accept this amendment. I yield myself 1 more minute.

It basically incorporates what the Senate did several years ago with war crimes. It is trying to respond to what the President says. He wants specificity about what is going to be prohibited and what will not be.

The Department of Defense has found these areas to be off limits for the military. All we are saying is if other countries are going to do that to Americans, they are going to be held accountable.

This is about protecting Americans. That is the least we ought to be able to do for those who are risking their lives in very difficult circumstances.

I yield the floor.

[kenny blankenship]

9. We're so far down that burrow now,

We see worms lighting their farts and think it's the stars.

[karynnj]

10. Here' Leahy

Mr. LEAHY. Thank you, Madam President. If I require further time beyond 10 minutes I will take time from that reserved to the Senator from Vermont.

Let's understand exactly what we are talking about here. There are approximately 12 million lawful permanent residents in the United States today. Some came here initially the way my grandparents did or my wife's parents did. These are people who work for American firms, they raise American kids, they pay American taxes.

Section 7 of the bill before us represents a choice about how to treat them. This bill could have been restricted to traditional notions of enemy combatants--foreign fighters captured on the battlefield--but the drafters of this bill chose not to do so.

Let's be very clear. Once we get past all of the sloganeering, all the fundraising letters, all the sound bites, all the short headlines in the paper, let's be clear about the choice the bill makes. Let's be absolutely clear about what it says to lawful permanent residents of the United States. Then let's decide if it is the right message to send them and if it is really the face of America that we want to show.

Take an example. Imagine you are a law-abiding, lawful, permanent resident, and in your spare time you do charitable fundraising for international relief agencies to lend a helping hand in disasters. You send money abroad to those in need. You are selective in the charities you support, but you do not discriminate on the grounds of religion. Then one day there is a knock on your door. The Government thinks that the Muslim charity you sent money to may be funneling money to terrorists and thinks you may be involved. And perhaps an overzealous neighbor who saw a group of Muslims come to your House has reported ``suspicious behavior.'' You are brought in for questioning.

Initially, you are not very worried. After all, this is America. You are innocent, and you have faith in American justice. You know your rights, and you say: I would like to talk to a lawyer. But no lawyer comes. Once again, since you know your rights, you refuse to answer any further questions. Then the interrogators get angry. Then comes solitary confinement, then fierce dogs, then freezing cold that induces hypothermia, then waterboarding, then threats of being sent to a country where you know you will be tortured, then Guantanamo. And then nothing, for years, for decades, for the rest of your life.

That may sound like an experience from some oppressive and authoritarian regime, something that may have happened under the Taliban, something that Saddam Hussein might have ordered or something out of Kafka. There is a reason why that does not and cannot happen in America. It is because we have a protection called habeas corpus, or if you do not like the Latin phrase by which it has been known throughout our history, call it access to the independent Federal courts to review the authority and the legality by which the Government has taken and is holding someone in custody. It is a fundamental protection. It is woven into the fabric of our Nation.

Habeas corpus provides a remedy against arbitrary detentions and constitutional violations. It guarantees an opportunity to go to court, with the aid of a lawyer, to prove that, yes, you are innocent.

As Justice Scalia stated in the Hamdi case:

The very core of liberty secured by the Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.

Of course, the remedy that secures that most basic freedom is habeas corpus.

Habeas corpus does not give you any new rights, it just guarantees you have a chance to ask for your basic freedom.

If we pass this bill today, that will be gone for the 12 million lawful, permanent residents who live and work among us, to say nothing of the millions of other legal immigrants and visitors who we welcome to our shores each year.

That will be gone for another estimated 11 million immigrants the Senate has been working to bring out of the shadows with comprehensive immigration reform.

The bill before the Senate would not merely suspend the great writ, the great writ of habeas corpus, it would eliminate it permanently. We do not have to worry about nuances, such as how long it will be suspended. It is gone. Gone.

Over 200 years of jurisprudence in this country, and following an hour of debate, we get rid of it. My God, have any Members of this Senate gone back and read their oath of office upholding the Constitution? This cuts off all habeas petitions, not just those founded on relatively technical claims but those founded on claims of complete innocence.

We hundred Members in the Senate, we privileged men and women, are supposed to be the conscience of the Nation. We are about to put the darkest blot possible on this Nation's conscience. It would not be limited to enemy combatants in the traditional sense of foreign fighters captured in the battlefield, but it would apply to any alien picked up anywhere in the world and suspected of possibly supporting enemies of the United States.

We do not need this bill for those truly captured on the battlefield who have taken up arms against the United States. That is why the definition of enemy combatant has been so expansively redefined behind closed doors in the dark of night.

This bill is designed instead to sweep others into the net. It would not even require an administrative determination that the Government's suspicions have a reasonable basis in fact. By its plain language, it would deny all access to the courts to any alien awaiting--what a bureaucratic term, to determine your basic human rights, ``any alien awaiting''--a Government determination as to whether the alien is an enemy combatant. The Government would be free to delay as long as it liked--for years, for decades, for the length of the conflict which is so undefined and may last for generations.

One need only look at Guantanamo. Even our own Government says a number of people are in there by mistake, but we will not get around to making that determination. Maybe in 5 years, maybe 10, maybe 20, maybe 30. And we wonder why some of our closest allies ask us, what in heaven's name has happened to the conscience and moral compass of this great Nation? Are we so terrified of some terrorists around this country that we will run scared and hide? Is that what we will do, tear down all the structures of liberty in this country because we are so frightened?

It brings to mind that famous passage in ``A Man for All Seasons.'' Thomas More is talking to his protege, William Roper, and says something to the effect that England is planted thick like a forest with laws. He said, Would you cut down those laws to get after the devil? And Roper said, of course I would cut down all the laws in England to get the devil. And then More said, Oh, and when the last law was down and the devil turned on you, what will protect you?

GPO's PDF

This legislation is cutting down laws that protect all 100 of us, and now almost 300 million Americans. It is amazing the Senate would be talking about doing something such as this , especially after the example of Guantanamo. We can pick up people intentionally or by mistake and hold them forever.

How many speeches have I heard in my 32 years in the Senate during the cold war and after, criticizing totalitarian governments that do things such as that? And we can stand here proudly and say it would never happen in America; this would never happen in America because we have rights, we have habeas corpus, and people are protected.

I am not here speculating about what the bill says. This is not a critic's characterization of the bill . It is what the bill plainly says, on its face. It is what the Bush-Cheney administration is demanding. It is what any Member who votes against

the Specter-Leahy amendment and for the bill today is going to be endorsing.

The habeas stripping provisions in the bill go far beyond what Congress did in the Detainee Treatment Act in three respects. First, as the Supreme Court pointed out in Hamdan, the DTA removed habeas jurisdiction only prospectively, for future cases. This new bill strips habeas jurisdiction retroactively, even for pending cases. This is an extraordinary action that runs counter to long-held U.S. policies disfavoring retroactive legislation.

Second, the DTA applied only to detainees at Guantanamo. This new legislation goes far beyond Guantanamo and strips the right to habeas of any alien living in the United States if the alien has been determined an enemy combatant, or even if he is awaiting a determination--and that wait can take years and years and years. Then, 20 years later, you can say: We made a mistake. Tough. It allows holding an alien, any alien, forever, without the right of habeas corpus, while the Government makes up its mind as to whether he is an enemy combatant.

And third, the impact of those provisions is extended by the new definition of enemy combatant proposed in the current bill . The bill extends the definition to include persons who supported hostilities against the United States, even if they did not engage in armed conflict against the United States or its allies. That, again, is an extraordinary extension of existing laws.

If we vote today to abolish rights of access to the justice system to any alien detainee who is suspected--not determined, not even charged; these people are not even charged, just suspected--of assisting terrorists, that will do by the back door what cannot be done up front. That will remove the checks in our legal system that provide against arbitrarily detaining people for life without charge. It will remove the mechanism the Constitution provides to stop the Government from overreaching and lawlessness.

This is so wrong. It grieves me, after three decades in this Senate, to stand here knowing we are thinking of doing this . It is so wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American. It is designed to ensure the Bush-Cheney administration will never again be embarrassed by a U.S. Supreme Court decision reviewing its unlawful abuses of power. The Supreme Court said, you abused your power. And they said, we will fix that. We have a rubberstamp Congress that will set that aside and give us power that nobody--no king or anyone else setting foot in this land--had ever thought of having.

In fact, the irony is this conservative Supreme Court--seven out of nine members are Republicans--has been the only check on the Bush-Cheney administration because Congress has not had the courage to do that. Congress has not had the courage to uphold its own oath of office.

With this bill , the Congress will have completed the job of eviscerating its role as a check and balance on the administration. The Senate has turned its back on the Warner-Levin bill , a bipartisan bill reported by the Committee on Armed Services, so it can jam through the Bush-Cheney bill . This bill gives up the ghost. It is not a check on the administration but a voucher for future wrongdoing.

Abolishing habeas corpus for anyone the Government thinks might have assisted enemies of the United States is unnecessary and morally wrong, a betrayal of the most basic values of freedom for which America stands. It makes a mockery of the Bush-Cheney administration's lofty rhetoric about exporting freedom across the globe. We can export freedom across the globe, but we will cut it out in our own country. What hypocrisy.

I read yesterday from former Secretary of State Colin Powell's letter in which he voiced concern about our moral authority in the war against terrorism. The general and former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State was right.

Admiral John Hutson testified before the Judiciary Committee that stripping the courts of habeas corpus jurisdiction was inconsistent with our history and our tradition. The admiral concluded:

We don't need to do this . America is too strong.

When we do this , America will not be a stronger nation. America will be a weaker nation. We will be weaker because we turned our back on our Constitution. We turned our back on our rights. We turned our back on our history.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a letter from more than 60 law school deans and professors who state that the Congress would gravely disserve our global reputation by doing this .

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

SEPTEMBER 27, 2006.
To United States Senators and Members of Congress.

Dear Senators and Representatives: We, the undersigned law deans and professors, write in our individual capacity to express our deep concern about two bills that are rapidly moving through Congress. These bills, the Military Commissions Act and the National Security Surveillance Act, would make the indefinite detention of those labeled enemy combatants and the executive's program of domestic surveillance effectively unreviewable by any independent judge sitting in public session. While different in character, both bills unwisely contract the jurisdiction of courts and deprive them of the ability to decide critical issues that must be subject to judicial review in any free and democratic society.

Although the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (S. 3929/S. 3930) was drafted to improve and codify military commission procedures following the Supreme Court's June 2006 decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, it summarily eliminates the right of habeas corpus for those detained by the U.S. government who have been or may be deemed to be enemy combatants: Detainees will have no ability to challenge the conditions of their detention in court unless and until the administration decides to try them before a military commission. Those who are not tried will have no recourse to any independent court at any time. Enacting this provision into law would be a grievous error. As several witnesses testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution specifies that ``he Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it,'' conditions that are plainly not satisfied here.

Similarly, the National Security Surveillance Act of 2006 (S. 3876) would strip courts of jurisdiction over pending cases challenging the legality of the administration's domestic spying program and would transfer these cases to the court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). The transfer of these cases to a secret court that issues secret decisions would shield the administration's electronic surveillance program from effective and transparent judicial scrutiny.

These bills exhibit a profound and unwarranted distrust of the judiciary. The historic role of the courts is to ensure that the legislature promulgates and the executive faithfully executes the law of the land with due respect for the rights of even the most despised. Any protections embodied in these bills would be rendered worthless unless the courts can hold the executive accountable to enacted law. Moreover, the bills ignore a central teaching of the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: the importance of shared institutional powers and checks and balances in crafting lawful and sustainable responses to the war on terror. Absent effective judicial review, there will be no way to enforce any of the limitations in either bill that Congress is currently seeking to place upon the executive's claimed power.

We recognize the need to prevent and punish crimes of terrorism and to investigate and prosecute such crimes. But depriving our courts of jurisdiction to determine whether the executive has acted properly when it detains individuals in this effort would endanger the rights of our own soldiers and nationals abroad, by limiting our ability to demand

GPO's PDF

that they be provided the protections that we deny to others. Eliminating effective judicial review of executive acts as significant as detention and domestic surveillance cannot be squared with the principles of transparency and rule of law on which our constitutional democracy rests.

The Congress would gravely disserve our global reputation as a law-abiding country by enacting bills that seek to combat terrorism by stripping judicial review. We respectfully urge you to amend the judicial review provisions of the Military Commissions Act and the National Security Surveillance Act to ensure that the rights granted by those bills will be enforceable and reviewable in a court of law.

Sincerely,

James J. Alfini, President and Dean, South Texas College of Law.

Michelle J. Anderson, Dean, CUNY School of Law.

Katharine T. Bartlett, Dean and A. Kenneth Pye Professor of Law, Duke Law School.

Molly K. Beutz, Yale Law School.

Harold Hongju Koh, Dean and Gerard C. & Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law, Yale Law School.

Harold J. Krent, Dean & Professor, Chicago-Kent College of Law.

Lydia Pallas Loren, Interim Dean and Professor of Law, Lewis & Clark Law School.

Dennis Lynch, Dean, University of Miami School of Law.

John Charles Boger, Dean, School of Law, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Jeffrey S. Brand, Dean, Professor and Chairman, Center for Law & Global Justice, University of San Francisco Law School.

Katherine S. Broderick, Dean and Professor, University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clarke School of Law.

Brian Bromberger, Dean and Professor, Loyola Law School.

Robert Butkin, Dean and Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law.

Evan Caminker, Dean and Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School.

Judge John L. Carroll, Dean and Ethel P. Malugen Professor of Law, Cumberland School of Law, Samford University.

Neil H. Cogan, Vice President and Dean, Whittier Law School.

Mary Crossley, Dean and Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law,

Mary C. Daly, Dean & John V. Brennan Professor Law and Ethics, St. John's University School of Law.

Richard A. Matasar, President and Dean, New York Law School.

Philip J. McConnaughay, Dean and Donald J. Farage Professor of Law, The Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law.

Richard J. Morgan, Dean William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Fred L. Morrison, Popham Haik Schnobrich/Lindquist & Vennum Professor of Law and Interim Co-Dean, University of Minnesota Law School,

Kenneth M. Murchison, James E. & Betty M. Phillips Professor of Law, Louisiana State University, Paul M. Hebert Law Center.

Cynthia Nance, Dean and Professor, University of Arkansas, School of Law.

Nell Jessup Newton, William B. Lockhart Professor of Law, Chancellor and Dean, University of California at Hastings College of Law,

Maureen A. O'Rourke, Dean and Professor of Law, Michaels Faculty Research Scholar, Boston University School of Law.

Margaret L. Paris, Dean, Elmer Sahlstrom Senior Fellow, University of Oregon School of Law.

Stuart L. Deutsch, Dean and Professor of Law, Rutgers School of Law-Newark.

Stephen Dycus, Professor, Vermont Law School.

Allen K. Easley, President and Dean, William Mitchell College of Law.

Christopher Edley, Jr., Dean and Professor, Boalt Hall School of Law, UC Berkeley.

Cynthia L. Fountaine, Interim Dean and Professor of Law, Texas Wesleyan University School of Law.

Stephen J. Friedman, Dean, Pace University School of Law.

Dean Bryant G. Garth, Southwestern Law School, Los Angeles, California.

Charles W. Goldner, Jr., Dean and Professor of Law, William H. Bowen School of Law, University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Mark C. Gordon, Dean and Professor of Law, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law.

Thomas F. Guernsey, President and Dean, Albany Law School.

Don Guter, Dean, Duquesne University School of Law.

Jack A. Guttenberg Dean and Professor of Law.

LeRoy Pernell, Dean and Professor, Northern Illinois University College of Law.

Rex R. Perschbacher, Dean and Professor of Law, University of California at Davis School of Law.

Raymond C. Pierce, Dean and Professor of Law, North Carolina Central University School of Law.

Peter Pitegoff Dean and Professor of Law, University of Maine School of Law.

Efrén Rivera Ramos, Dean, School of Law, University of Puerto Rico.

William J. Rich, Interim Dean and Professor of Law, Washburn University School of Law.

James V. Rowan, Associate Dean, Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.

Edward Rubin, Dean and John Wade-Kent Syverud Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University.

David Rudenstine, Dean, Cardozo School of Law.

Lawrence G. Sager, Dean, University of Texas School of Law, Alice Jane Drysdale Sheffield Regents Chair in Law, Capital University Law School.

Joseph D. Harbaugh, Dean and Professor, Shepard Broad Law Center, Nova Southeastern University.

Lawrence K. Hellman, Dean and Professor of Law, Oklahoma City University School of Law.

Patrick E. Hobbs, Dean and Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law.

José Roberto Juárez, Jr., Dean and Professor of Law, University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

W. H. Knight, Jr., Dean and Professor, University of Washington School of Law, Seattle, Washington.

Brad Saxton, Dean & Professor of Law, Quinnipiac University School of Law.

Stewart J. Schwab, the Allan R. Tessler Dean & Professor of Law, Cornell Law School.

Geoffrey B. Shields, President and Dean and Professor of Law, Vermont Law School.

Aviam Soifer, Dean and Professor, William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawai'i.

Emily A. Spieler, Dean, Edwin Hadley Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law.

Kurt A. Strasser, Interim Dean and Phillip I. Blumberg Professor, University of Connecticut Law School.

Leonard P. Strickman, Dean, Florida International University, College of Law.

Steven L. Willborn, Dean & Schmoker Professor of Law, University of Nebraska College of Law.

Frank H. Wu, Dean, Wayne State University Law School.

David Yellen, Dean and Professor, Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

Mr. LEAHY. Kenneth Starr, the former independent counsel and Solicitor General for the first President Bush, wrote that the Constitution's conditions for suspending habeas corpus have not been met and that doing it would be problematic.

The post-9/11 world requires us to make adjustments. In the original ÐPATRIOT Act five years ago, we made adjustments to accommodate the needs of the Executive, and more recently, we sought to fine-tune those adjustments. I think some of those adjustments sacrificed civil liberties unnecessarily, but I also believe that many provisions in the PATRIOT Act were appropriate. I wrote many of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act, and I voted for it.

This bill is of an entirely different nature. The PATRIOT Act took a cautious approach to civil liberties and while it may have gone too far in some areas, this bill goes so much further than that. It takes an entirely dismissive and cavalier approach to basic human rights and to our Constitution.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Congress provided in section 412 of the PATRIOT Act that an alien may be held without charge if, and only if, the Attorney General certifies that he is a terrorist or that he is engaged in activity that endangers the national security. He may be held for seven days, after which he must be placed in removal proceedings, charged with a crime, or released. There is judicial review through habeas corpus proceedings, with appeal to the D.C. Circuit.

Compare that to section 7 of the current bill . The current bill does not provide for judicial review. It would preclude it. It does not require a certification by the Attorney General that the alien is a terrorist. It would apply if the alien was ``awaiting'' a Government determination whether the alien is an ``enemy combatant.'' And it is not limited to seven days. It would enable the Government to detain an alien for life without any recourse whatsoever to justice.

What has changed in the past 5 years that justifies not merely suspending but abolishing the writ of habeas corpus for a broad category of people who have not been found guilty, who have not even been charged with any crime? What has turned us? What has made us so frightened as a nation that now the United States will say, we can pick up somebody on suspicion, hold them forever, they have no right to even ask why they are being held, and besides that, we will not even charge them with anything, we will just hold them? What has changed in the last 5 years?

Is our Government is so weak or so inept and our people so terrified that we have to do what no bomb or attack could ever do, and that is take away he very freedoms that define America? We fought two world wars, we fought a civil war, we fought a revolutionary war, all these wars to protect those rights.

And now, think of those people who have given their lives, who fought so hard to protect those rights. What do we do? We sit here, privileged people of the Senate, and we turn our backs on that. We throw away those rights.

Why would we allow the terrorists to win by doing to ourselves what they could never do and abandoning the principles for which so many Americans today and throughout our history have fought and sacrificed? What has happened that the Senate is willing to turn America from a bastion of freedom into a cauldron of suspicion, ruled by a government of unchecked power?

Under the Constitution, a suspension of the writ may only be justified during an invasion or a rebellion, when the public safety demands it. Six weeks after the deadliest attack on American soil in our history, the Congress that passed the PATRIOT Act rightly concluded that a suspension of the writ would not be justified.

But now, 6 weeks before a midterm election, as the fundraising letters are running around, the Bush-Cheney administration and its supplicants in Congress deem a complete abolition of the writ the highest priority, a priority so urgent that we are allowed no time to properly review, debate, and amend a bill we first saw in its current bill less than 72 hours ago. There must be a lot of fundraising letters going out.

Notwithstanding the harm the administration has done to national security--first by missing their chance to stop September 11 and then with their mismanaged misadventures in Iraq--there is no new national security crisis. Apparently, there is only a Republican political crisis. And that, as we know, is why this un-American, unconstitutional legislation is before us today.

We have a profoundly important and dangerous choice to make today. The danger is not that we adopt a pre-9/11 mentality.

We adopted a post-9/11 mentality in the PATRIOT Act when we declined to suspend the writ, and we can do so again today.

The danger, as Senator Feingold has stated in a different context, is that we adopt a pre-1776 mentality, one that dismisses the Constitution on which our American freedoms are founded.

Actually, it is worse than that. Habeas corpus was the most basic protection of freedom that Englishmen secured from their King in the Magna Carta. The mentality adopted by this bill , in abolishing habeas corpus for a broad swath of people, is not a pre-9/11 mentality, it is a pre-1215--that is the year, 1215--mentality, a mentality we did away with in the Magna Carta and our own Constitution.

Every one of us has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. In order to uphold that oath, I believe we have a duty to vote for this amendment--Ðthe Specter-Leahy amendment--and against this irresponsible and flagrantly unconstitutional bill . That is what I will do.

The Senator from Vermont answers to the Constitution and to his conscience. I do not answer to political pressure.

Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

[Wizard777]

12. Yeah but do you have evidence that they commited a crime? Okay so you do have evidence.

Now you have to have proof that they are evil incarnate before you can do anything about it. Once you've done that. You have to capture bigfoot and Nessy. Then all the democrats have to travel back in time to prevent themselves from being decieved by Bush's lies. Then the democrats have to tell the children of the world that there is no tooth fairy, santa claus, or easter bunny. To prove there are no beneficent uses of lies. Then once we have expolored all of outter space and found the actual physical location God and Heaven.......

[damntexdem]

13. Chronic spinelessness.

It has been endemic on the Hill so long now that it appears to have evolved immunity to all courses of treatment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. I've concluded that Bush could kill and EAT a baby on national TEEVEE

and these fuckers will do NUTHING...

At this point my only recourse is NOT to vote for these fuckers.. and I wont

Sorry, just got off the phone with the staffer for my so-called Democratic congress critter... and she gave me all the usual excuses

Of course I think they are in it.. and are afraid that the war crimes tribunal would put them on the docket too

History will judge all of these fuckers for what they are: Weak kneed cowards

[Dr Fate]

15. They are "keeping their powder dry, for the next fight." OR-

"Playing Chess"

OR

"Playing rope-a-dope"

OR

"Waiting for them to fall on their own swords"

OR

"Giving them enough rope to hang themselves with"

OR

<insert comforting talkingpoint/excuse here.>

[melody]

16. They saw what happens when you directly threaten the Bush dynasty

See also "Paul Wellstone".

Leahy is a very brave man, as is every person standing up against them.

[EOTE]

17. Excuse me? I think you mean "enhanced interrogation techniques"

Surely you know that America doesn't torture. Now enhanced interrogation techniques, America is damn good at that.

[librechik]

19. I think they heard it as"Torture Congress Memo"

and that the 4th amendment was suspended so they could be punished for opposing Bush. They're probably right. After all, they are privileged to know more than we are, right?

[Blackhatjack]

20. The point I was making was there ought to be dozens in Congress speaking out...

They ought to be holding press conferences, standing in mass on the steps of Congress.

IF they wanted the press coverage they could get it.

They ought to be making the 'Bush torture enablers' supporters' go on the record in vote after vote.

Bottom line, there ought to be univeral condemnation of torture and those who enable it.