Well it's a sort of a body-blow to the mid-section of the 1600 Crew. Figuratively speaking...
Confronting new doubts raised by government memos, the Senate voted Wednesday to make clear that the United States will not use torture against detainees.
...
The measure says the United States "shall not engage in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment ... a standard that is embodied in the U.S. Constitution and in numerous international agreements which the United States has ratified."
...
Memos from Justice Department and White House lawyers have argued that a president can order torture or any other interrogation methods as part of his powers as commander in chief of the military. One, an August 2002 memo from then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, says torture "may be justified" in some interrogations of terrorist suspects.
Well, Duh. Treaties ...laws ... minor stuff like international obligations. Things that the 1600 Crew would much rather forget about when inconvenient. How so like them.
In other news, after the Senate vote, Snake-Handler Johnny was seen dry-humping the infamous draped statue out of frustration claiming "something has to get screwed around here besides me and my good intentions".
posted by Jo Fish on 06.16.04 at 07:27 PM
Comments:
I'm proud Dick Durbin (the senator who introduced the anti-torture amendment) is my senator, but I'm ashamed that we need bills like these in the first place. The President swears an oath to uphold the laws of the US, right? Why does he need to be reminded?
Which Dems crossed the aisle to vote against the contractor-reduction amendment?
Why does anyone think this is going to make a difference? Torture was already against international law, not to mention the US Constitution (there is a provision against cruel & unusual punishment the last time I checked)... George W. Bush has ignored every law that has ever been inconvenient to him (Florida election law in 2000 being prominently among them) - so why will one more change things?
