Text of torture "compromise" bill

[wtmusic]

S.3929 introduced by Mitch McConnell (R-KY) <<< MUST BE STOPPED >>>

Highlights --

1) It's OK to inflict "transitory mental harm" (Sec. 950ss)
2) It's OK to inflict "cuts, abrasions, and bruises" (Sec. 950ss)
3) Some risk of death is acceptable, as is minor "loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty" (950ss b.2)
4) Non-severe physical pain has been deemed acceptable, as has minor disfigurement.(950ss b.2)

Oh and looky here:

Sec. 108:

"No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions...as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories."
"...the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions..."

2441, the 1996 War Crimes Act, is amended to allow "pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions" for those in US custody.

Title II goes on to completely gut FISA as Title I guts Geneva. I can't believe what I'm reading.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3929:%22

onedit: compare to Geneva Article 17:

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. Link doesn't work.

[wtmusic]

2. should work now nt

[femmedem]

3. I have a probably stupid question:

Does this awful bill say anything about renditions?

Edit to add: Never mind. Link's working now, I'll read for myself. If I can stand to.

[Solly Mack]

4. Just speechless

for now...give me a minute

[uppityperson]

5. Rest of presidential interpretation bit

(3) INTERPRETATION BY THE PRESIDENT- (A) As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

(B) The President shall issue interpretations described by subparagraph (A) by Executive Order published in the Federal Register.

(C) Any Executive Order published under this paragraph shall be authoritative (as to non-grave breach provisions of common Article 3) as a matter of United States law, in the same manner as other administrative regulations.

(D) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the constitutional functions and responsibilities of Congress and the judicial branch of the United States.

Even though (D) implies seperation of the 3 branches of gvt, seems like (A)(B)(C) all do this, give executive branch anti-constitutional powers over the the other 2 branches.

[femmedem]

7. We aren't to construe it as affecting checks and balances...

See, whether or not it actually does isn't the issue. The important thing is, we aren't to construe it that way. That's the law.:puke:

[uppityperson]

13. I understand that a lot of this is about military, and pres is commander..

but it just seems wrong. Now, off to look at Terrorist Surveillance Act.

[MGD]

43. This interesting, It seems the AG has the authority to define "reasonable"

AS IT APPLIES TO THE PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN INITIATING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE AND APPLYING FOR A FISA PERMIT. TO ME, THIS SAYS HE CAN/MAY INIATIATE SURVEILLANCE ON SOMEBODY, GATHER INTELLIGENCE FOR HOWEVER LONG HE WANTS, AND THEN APPLY FOR A PERMIT. IF HE IS DENIED, HE HAS STILL OBTAINED EVERYTHING HE NEEDS OR WANTS ON WHOEVER HE WANTS. (I ACCIDENTALY HIT THE CAPS LOCK, I'M NOT YELLING AND I'M NOT RETYPING THIS).

B) CONTINUATION OF SURVEILLANCE-

`(i) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may continue surveillance of a target under this title as specified in subparagraph (A)(ii) only if the Attorney General makes an application under section 104 for an order for electronic surveillance of the target under section 105 as soon as the Attorney General determines practicable after the date on which the Attorney General makes the determination to continue surveillance of the target under subparagraph (A)(ii).

`(ii) PERIOD- The period during which the Attorney General may continue surveillance of a target under this title after the Attorney General has determined that making an application is practicable shall be limited to a reasonable period, as determined by the Attorney General, during which the application is prepared and the period during which the application of the Attorney General under section 104 for an order for electronic surveillance of the target under section 105 is pending under title I, including during any period in which appeal from the denial of the application is pending with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review or the Supreme Court under section 103(b).

[Jcrowley]

6. K & R

We have reported here in great detail on the voluminous evidence establishing that the endemic, systematic torture in Bush's gulag was created by the White House, sanctioned by Bush's appointed "legal experts" who ruled that as Commander-in-Chief, he is not constrained by laws against torture or indeed, by any law whatsoever. Equally copious evidence establishes that Rumsfeld and selected Pentagon officials eagerly implemented the torture regimen then systematically worked to block or limit investigations once the truth began leaking out. 

For example, one of the low-ranking "bad apples" finally convicted in the Afghan murders after extended Pentagon coverups was sentenced to just three months in jail by a military court this week, AP reports: three months for helping beat a chained, helpless man to death. The message Bush is sending to his shock troops in the gulag is clear: If by some freak chance your torture duties are uncovered, you will be gently removed from the scene with only nominal punishment ­ as long as you don't rat out your superiors, of course. 

The evidence of the Regime's culpability for torture, for mass murder is overwhelming. The burden of proof is no longer on Bush's accusers, but on those who would defend his evil actions. Yes, evil is the word. The Nuremberg Tribunal called aggressive war "essentially an evil thing." To initiate such a war under any circumstances "is not only an international crime," said the Tribunal, "it is the supreme international crime," because it carries all the others in its wake. It breaks down all barriers of law and morality, in states and in individuals, creating the necessary inner chaos and physical opportunity for the most abysmal perversions of human nature.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8947.htm

[uppityperson]

8. How does "POW" differ from "enemy combatant? link/words here

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109VfIqzA:e5108:

Sec. 948a. Definitions

`In this chapter:

`(1) ALIEN- The term `alien' means an individual who is not a citizen of the United States.

`(2) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- The term `classified information' means the following:

`(A) Any information or material that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to statute, Executive order, or regulation to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.

`(B) Any restricted data, as that term is defined in section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)).

`(3) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means an individual who is--

`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;

`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or

`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

`(4) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant.

All I can see is that they have substituted "lawful enemy combatant" for "POW", and if you are not part of an organized group belonging to a State Party or gvt (even not recognized by USA), you are an "unlawful enemy combatant". Why just change the words from "POW" to "LEC"?

[wtmusic]

11. It doesn't, and it doesn't matter anyway

under Geneva everyone is covered, whether they are "actively engaged in hostilities" or not

[Solly Mack]

14. This link explains why the Bush Regime does not use the term POW

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/002239.html

[uppityperson]

17. Thanks, POW gives more rights. LEC gives less.

"Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that if there is "any doubt" as to whether captured combatants should be recognized as POWs, "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."


I would think they might pause to think "what if Clinton were pres? Would we want him to be able to do this?" but noooooo. Sometimes I really wonder if they are planning on ruling forever.

[Solly Mack]

18. Exactly. He calls them that to deny them their rights

What's beyond disgusted?

Cause that's where I'm at

[davekriss]

41. My understanding is that...

...the Bush Regime removed the word "alien" and the permission to torture, and to hold in indefinate detention, applies to any "person", be that person a U.S. citizen or not.

It is Bushboi's version of the Enabling Act, folks.

On edit: Though I thought I heard on CSPAN2 today that the current text of this bill strikes the word "alien" and replaces it with "persons", I cannot find anything online to support this. So (um), we're only denying human rights, obliterating the right to habeus corpus, reserving the right to torture into oblivion, for non-U.S. citizens.

On further edit, this bill effectively ends our participation in the Geneva Conventions:

"In General- No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions, or any protocols thereto, in any habeas or civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States, is a party, as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories.

<snip>

(3) INTERPRETATION BY THE PRESIDENT- (A) As provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

(B) The President shall issue interpretations described by subparagraph (A) by Executive Order published in the Federal Register.

(C) Any Executive Order published under this paragraph shall be authoritative (as to non-grave breach provisions of common Article 3) as a matter of United States law, in the same manner as other administrative regulations.

(D) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the constitutional functions and responsibilities of Congress and the judicial branch of the United States."

Note the absence of checks-and-balances on the interpretations of our Supreme Ruler, el Pretzeldente.

This is a disgusting bill and should be rejected whole.

[MGD]

44. Why just change the words from "POW" to "LEC"?

Because it reinforces the legitimacy of the "unlawful combatant" and his lack of certain Geneva convention rights I suspect.

[uppityperson]

9. Sentence limits are set by President or SOD!

`Sec. 949t. Maximum limits

`The punishment which a military commission under this chapter may direct for an offense may not exceed such limits as the President or Secretary of Defense may prescribe for that offense.


OK, how is this keeping the 3 branches seperate?????

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Habeus Corpus

"SEC. 106. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.

(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking subsection (e) (as added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742)) and by striking subsection (e) (as added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477)); and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who--

`(A) is currently in United States custody; and

`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

Note that this says that no non-citizen detained as an enemy combatant has any rights in regular court at all - this includes both legal combatants and the dubious category of illegal combatants.

Note also that section 108 abolishes the applicability to the Geneva Conventions to *all persons* - there is no exemption of any sort here. The GC are simply abolished.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Get out of jail free

"(2) RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY- The amendments made by this subsection, except as specified in subsection (d)(2)(E) of section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, shall take effect as of November 26, 1997, as if enacted immediately after the amendments made by section 583 of Public Law 105-118 (as amended by section 4002(e)(7) of Public Law 107-273)."

Once enacted this cannot be undone (ex post facto.)

[uppityperson]

16. kick, thanks, I can't read more

[davekriss]

42. Un-f*cking-believable

What a disgrace, this Regime.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. We have the october surprise.

This is it.

[Canuckistanian]

29. Is this supposed to make people want to vote for them?

It pretty much enthrones the monkey and pardons all potential criminal charges against him and his cronies.

Is this the American way?

Is this America?

[Warren Stupidity]

45. I think the idea is to get people to either not vote

or vote against us. Motivate their base, demotivate ours. Depending on how this plays out on the floor, it could very well succeed. I know that I will be demotivated by another failure to lead from our party. I'll still vote, but you would have to nail me to the floor to stop me from voting.

[Canuckistanian]

46. I hope there are more people like you

A LOT more.

[Solly Mack]

19. We need more recommendations and more responses

You have to read this. You have to see what your government is voting for

You owe it to those being tortured to read what your government is doing

Someone has to speak for them.

And if you don't speak up for them...why would you expect anyone to speak up for you?

[Solly Mack]

20. I'm printing the bill out. (147 pages) to compare with Bush's original

proposal and the so-called "counter-proposal" by McPain, Waterboarder, and Grim

So far, of what I've read.....there is no honor...no integrity...no deceny...in voting for this "compromise"

[BootinUp]

21. Since only Bush can interpret the Geneva Conventions

after this law is passed, I think we should name the law in his honor: "The Bush Torture Conventions".

[wtmusic]

22. I love that part

kinda makes the rest insignificant, no?

[uppityperson]

25. He not only gets to interpet the Geneva Conventions, but gets to

define sentences also.

[Generator]

56. Apparently he also gets to define reality

We are less safe, threatened and the rest but all is fine according to him and his ilk. What's most shocking is how many are willing to follow the crazy man.

[Solly Mack]

23. Accurate. Honest. The truth

I'll call it that

[Canuckistanian]

31. Bush couldn't interpret the instuctions on a shampoo bottle

This is going to be Abu Gonzales or Rummy's or Darth Cheney's "interpretations". And we've seen the results of their "interpretations" already.

And you're right, if this passes, Shrub will go down in history as the leader of the first western democracy to legislate it's way out of the Geneva Convention.

[Clarkie1]

24. This must be stopped by any means necessary.

It's an attack on America and fundamental human rights.

I have already contacted both Senator Boxer and Feinstein (my senators).

[uppityperson]

26. I wrote mine already also.

Just because it is a compromise doesn't mean it should pass.

[hootinholler]

27. Happy to rec.

My thread is getting nothing, but, it's a tad edgy.

-Hoot

[gully]

28. Arlen Spector just came out against this ------>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060924/ap_on_go_co/congress_terrorism

NO way will Dems support this legislation.

[Clarkie1]

32. Glad to hear it. It's important this be fought by people of conscience

from both sides of the aisle. This should not be a partisan issue, too much is at stake.

[BuyingThyme]

34. Stop. Arlen is just playing the same game.

They're trying to make it look like they're thinking this thing through -- that they're covering all the bases before they say, "Torture them fucking brown people!"

How many times can arlen fool people here?! Stop.

[BootinUp]

36. I agree with you. n/t

[wtmusic]

38. EXactly

Arlen will squawk and then quietly knuckle under when the controversy dies down. Just like he always does.

[meuniermr]

49. Unless he's got some kind of motivation to save his own skin. eom.

[gully]

39. What makes you think I'm fooled?

nt

[cynatnite]

30. The Geneva Convention applies everywhere but the US....

Did I read that right? :wtf:

Nobody can invoke those conventions. :puke: I think I'm gonna be sick. bush wants to legalize torture.

[savemefromdumbya]

64. but international court can get Bush

[spanone]

33. 'minor disfigurement' ? Who are these animals?

Now that the democrats hopefully have a copy of this I expect them to come out fighting.

This is just sick beyond comprehension.

Our country has been hijacked by some saddistic force.

This is not my America.

[BootinUp]

35. I guess thats like a missing finger.

whats the big deal bout that? :sarcasm:

[wtmusic]

40. Compromise: a missing fingernail or two

Really now, we need our "tools" to help America safe! :crazy:

[countryjake]

59. Here's just one example...

from the Salon.com Abu Ghraib Files

[Ksec]

37. I just heard them say on Fox that the US doesnt torture

And then I read this. How do you argue with people who have no basis in the truth?

[Jcrowley]

47. It's not torture

Pentagonspeak tells us it is "Tactical human intelligence collection"(?)

[countryjake]

48. Key Elements of Torture Bill "Compromise" from FCNL

Friends Committee on National Legislation
Key Elements of Torture Bill "Compromise"
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=2076&issue_id=70

War Crimes Act Revision

Still eliminates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions as the standard for prosecution

Still allows retroactive immunization from War Crimes charges

Still allows secret CIA prisons, and “disappeared” detainees

Still allows the CIA to use brutal and abusive interrogation techniques

Still prohibits U.S. federal courts from hearing suits based on violation of the Geneva Conventions, for past as well as future suits

**NEW** Gives president legal authority to approve brutal and abusive interrogation techniques by Presidential Order to be published in the Federal Register and treated as an administrative regulation.


Elimination of habeas corpus for U.S. detainees

Still denies habeas corpus to detainees at U.S. facilities outside U.S.


Procedural Rules for Military Commissions

Allows coerced evidence to be introduced against defendant only with military judge’s permission (based on reliability and the probative value of the evidence, the interests of justice). Does not allow evidence elicited by torture to be admitted.

Allows defendant or his attorney to review the evidence to be used against him, with protection built in for intelligence sources, methods or activities.

Still does not have time deadlines before, during, or after the trials

Still authorizes president’s use of “enemy combatant” status (as defined by the president) as the starting point for detention

Still does not permit federal court appeal of finding of guilt. (Merely gives jurisdiction for federal appeals court to examine whether the military commission followed its own procedural rules.)


Mid-day, Sept. 22, 2006

[grizmaster]

51. Handy summary- I used them in my emails to Chafee and Reed

This is the email I sent (with a few changes for Chafee's version). The drop-down comment was for both Senators. Both their contact subject drop downs didn't include torture as a topic.

-------------
first an aside- You should add torture as a general topic on your subject drop-down menu. That alone is a sad commentary. It shames me that our country is debating what kinds of torture should be allowed.

Sen Reed,

I was dismayed to catch a snippet on one of the news stations yesterday where it seemed you were considering going along with the shameful rewriting of the Geneva Convention and the War Crimes Act. These two laws are completely clear as written. The current "debate" is a sham only meant to give cover to those in the current adminstration who have ordered our troops and CIA to use illegal and immoral methods of interrogation on prisoners.

Already there have been as many as a thousand people subjected to criminal interrogations and/or renditions from Gitmo. Up to now only 10 indictments have started, which means hundreds have been subject to a minimal of illegal confinement and many were by our own military's admission abused or worse.

Senator, no compromise of the principles or wording of the Geneva Convention or the War Crimes Act is acceptable.

And most importantly there should be NO retroactive aspect to any rewrite. This is obviously just to protect the torture architects in the White House. If it's not, I challenge you to demand wording that does not absolve anyone of high officer rank or anyone from the executive offices of the President and see how quickly it will be unmasked who this bill is suposed to protect.

With the bill running over 140 pages it would take me another hundred pages to point out all that is wrong in this bill. So I will leave with what I have already stated, that no compromise is acceptable when it comes to legalizing torture and undermining the world standard on minimal humane treatment as spelled out in the Geneva Convention.

Senator I implore you not to allow Bush to make us into a rogue nation of the sort America has traditionally despised.

below is a summary of my objections.

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=2076&issue_id=70

War Crimes Act Revision

Still eliminates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions as the standard for prosecution

Still allows retroactive immunization from War Crimes charges

Still allows secret CIA prisons, and “disappeared” detainees

Still allows the CIA to use brutal and abusive interrogation techniques

Still prohibits U.S. federal courts from hearing suits based on violation of the Geneva Conventions, for past as well as future suits

**NEW** Gives president legal authority to approve brutal and abusive interrogation techniques by Presidential Order to be published in the Federal Register and treated as an administrative regulation.


Elimination of habeas corpus for U.S. detainees

Still denies habeas corpus to detainees at U.S. facilities outside U.S.


Procedural Rules for Military Commissions

Allows coerced evidence to be introduced against defendant only with military judge’s permission (based on reliability and the probative value of the evidence, the interests of justice). Does not allow evidence elicited by torture to be admitted.

Allows defendant or his attorney to review the evidence to be used against him, with protection built in for intelligence sources, methods or activities.

Still does not have time deadlines before, during, or after the trials

Still authorizes president’s use of “enemy combatant” status (as defined by the president) as the starting point for detention

Still does not permit federal court appeal of finding of guilt. (Merely gives jurisdiction for federal appeals court to examine whether the military commission followed its own procedural rules.)

[countryjake]

53. I searched all over the Internets for something more concise...

spent hours Friday, trying to get a good grip on that "compromise" and the Friends site seemed to be the most up on the issue, even before they had updated that particular page. I think it'd be useful if one of our Congresspeople did the same thing, so I suggested it to one of my Senators, who also doesn't have much on the torture issue at her site, (missing from her drop-down, too) even tho she is a very strong advocate for supporting our troops (in the right manner) and has worked tirelessly on military matters. Seems if anyone should be concerned about this, it's her.

I mentioned that my dream is a vision of her grabbing our other weak-kneed Senator by the arm and literally dragging her out of there, if filibustering fails and this legislation makes it far enough to be voted on, lol!

Just shut the place down, if they have to! (like those brave Texan Dems did)

One note, I still think actual letters make more of an impression on our personal reps, tho it is now too late to fool around with snail mail on this issue. As a rule tho, I use pen and paper if it's something I really want to be seen by my legislator.

[grizmaster]

60. Too late for snail mail on this one

And I bet the repubs planned it that way.

I'm going to follow up with multiple phone calls to both their offices and probably do the same as the House version moves forward too.

[Solly Mack]

52. Thanks, cj!!!!!

Those'll be going in my next batch of emails

[countryjake]

54. It's nice to see it layed out that way, in black and white...

for those of us who weren't quite sure what the "deal" implied.

This should be sent to all of them QUICK

[usregimechange]

50. Kick!

[QuestionAll...]

55. this is so horrific...!

i can't believe this. what was 'compromised'? how did they initially want to torture if this is the watered down version?

any one, anyone who doesn't scream to stop this may as well be holding the instruments of torture themselves.

if any dems go along with this - THIS IS THE FUCKING WAKE UP CALL, AMERICA.

Corporate Party System of 1.

FUCK!

[Generator]

57. Reading that was disgusting (reality of it incomprehensible)

But we cannot live in denial. It really is too much to take some days.....

[meldroc]

58. K&R, and...

I'm immediately writing both my senators to express opposition to this bill.

[slaveplanet]

61. It was all a setup

and the Supreme court was in on it.

the Republican opposition stooges were in on it

---------------------------

Bush declares he can do these things

SC says no you can't

Now Bush is green-lighted to codify it into law

Media complies and says how good it all is

all orchestrated, all planned

Now not only can he torture and spy on foreign enemies

he can do it domestically under his own definitions, all codified if this should pass
----------------------------

Death of America, mission accomplished

We're the real target

We were always the real target

[Kashka-Kat]

62. THANKS for doing our collective homework and posting this!! Have a stupid

question, where is this bill now in congress ie who will vote and when?

THANKS MUCH, IM supposed to be at work and getting work done so cant devote as much time to informing myself as I would like....

[savemefromdumbya]

63. hope our Dem representatives are reading all the pages?