Liberated Text -> Congressional Record -> Nine Senators of Shame
Mr. Obama: Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Arizona. I commend Senator McCain for his leadership on this important issue. This amendment prohibits the cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of persons under custody or control of the U.S. Government. In other words, it outlaws the torture of prisoners by agents of the United States, regardless of their geographic location.
I am, and always have been, opposed to the use of torture. I believe that our brave men and women serving in the Armed Forces share this view. Now more than ever, we must make it absolutely clear to our allies and our enemies that the United States does not and will not condone this practice. This amendment does that in no uncertain terms. It acknowledges and confirms existing obligations under our own Constitution and the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
Let me be clear on another point. I am committed to fighting terrorism and protecting our citizens and troops at home and abroad. I have the utmost respect, gratitude and admiration for our troops who are fighting on the frontlines of the War on Terror, and I have no intention of undermining the important job that they do.
But the use of torture does not enhance our national security. In fact, senior U.S. military officers have argued that practicing torture can place U.S. troops in grave danger--especially if they are taken prisoner. In working to keep our Nation and troops safe, we must not lose sight of this critical truth.
The United States should set an example for the international community. Senator McCain's amendment reaffirms a fundamental value of the American people--that torture is morally reprehensible and has no place in this world. I am proud to support this affirmation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. LEAHY: Mr. President, I strongly support Senator McCain's amendment to provide clear guidance for the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. This administration has steadfastly refused to address the black mark on our Nation caused by its interrogation policies and the resulting abuse of detainees. Congress needs to take action.
Our credibility and reputation as a world leader in human rights suffers from our unwillingness to openly address the flaws in our system. More importantly, the failure to provide clear guidance on the treatment of detainees puts our own troops at risk and undermines their efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. I commend my colleagues across the aisle who are attempting to address this problem, despite resistance from members of their own party and the strong opposition of the White House. The President has threatened to veto any legislation that would regulate the treatment of detainees, claiming that it would impinge on his Commander-in-Chief authority. I fail to see how a bill requiring the humane treatment of detainees--the same treatment the President claims they now receive--would impinge on his authority in any way.
It is Congress's right under the Constitution to issue regulations governing the armed forces. This was something I asked Chief Justice Roberts at his confirmation hearings, and he agreed "that Congress can make rules that may impinge upon the President's command functions." He answered, "Certainly . . . the Constitution vests pertinent authority in [this] area in both branches. The President is the Commander-in-Chief . . . On the other hand; Congress has the authority to issue regulations governing the armed forces, another express provision in the Constitution."
Senator Graham said on the floor this morning that, "Congress has been AWOL when it comes to the war on terror in terms of interrogation, detention and prosecution, and we've done it in a way to weaken our Nation." I agree with my friend, the Senator from South Carolina. Without congressional action, the problem of prisoner abuse will continue to fester.
We continue to learn of abuses from press reports and the court- ordered release of government documents in response to Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, litigation. Documents that were recently made public by the FOIA case demonstrate why Senator McCain's amendment is necessary.
These documents reveal a troubling pattern of abuses that occurred because soldiers did not know what was acceptable under this administration's vague detention and interrogation policies. Several of the documents are transcriptions of interviews of military personnel in Iraq that show a systematic failure of the Pentagon to properly train soldiers on how to treat detainees. One report describes soldiers who, because of a lack of guidance and training from their command, engaged in "interrogations using techniques they literally remembered from movies." Another document describes the shooting of an Iraqi detainee in U.S. custody. The report concludes that "this incident could have been prevented if [the soldier] had better training." Another report, released last week by Human Rights Watch and based on firsthand accounts of soldiers in the 82nd Airborne Division, details the widespread abuse of Iraqi detainees by soldiers at Camp Mercury, a forward operating base near Falluja, Iraq. The report states that detainees were severely beaten and mistreated from 2003 through 2004, even after the photos from Abu Ghraib became public. The witnesses claim that detainees were abused at the request of military intelligence personnel as part of the interrogation process, but also claim that the abuse occurred simply as a way for troops to "relieve stress." One soldier allegedly broke a detainee's leg with a baseball bat. In another incident, detainees were stacked into human pyramids and denied food and water. It is time for this administration to finally acknowledge that such incidents were not the isolated acts of a few bad apples. These horrific acts were not isolated incidents on the night shift at Abu Ghraib. Unfortunately, similar acts occurred at locations throughout Iraq and Afghanistan.
A group of 28 senior military officers, including General John Shalikashvili, recently wrote to Senator McCain in support of his amendments addressing detainee treatment. That letter stated, "The abuse of prisoners hurts America's cause in the war on terror, endangers U.S. servicemembers who might be captured by the enemy, and is anathema to the values Americans have held dear for generations. Our servicemembers were denied clear guidance, and left to take the blame when things went wrong. They deserve better than that." I hope the President will consider these words before he vetoes a bill that contains Senator McCain's amendment.
Mr. Hagel: Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator McCain's amendment No. 1977 regarding the treatment of individuals who are in the custody or control of the United States.
I cosponsored this amendment because the men and women making sacrifices to defend our country deserve clear standards for the treatment of detainees under U.S. control. It is the responsibility of both the Executive and Congress to provide clear guidance and leadership that will direct the actions of our troops.
We have failed to meet this obligation. Soldiers continue to report that the lack of clear guidance has created an atmosphere of confusion and uncertainty around the world. Our failure to confront this issue puts our troops at greater risk of abuse and mistreatment and undermines our credibility.
This amendment will strengthen our ability to fight those who threaten the United States. This amendment codifies into law that the Army Field Manual must be used as the standard for interrogations. In addition, the amendment codifies that the U.S. will not subject detainees to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.
This is a commonsense amendment that protects our troops and upholds the standards that this country has held to since the beginning of our Republic.
I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.
Mrs. Feinstein: Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 1977, offered by my colleague, Senator McCain.
This amendment would bring much-needed clarity to the rules governing how Americans treat captured prisoners and detainees.
It will make clear that the Geneva Conventions apply to all people held in the custody of the Department of Defense.
It provides a workable definition of "cruel and inhumane," based on the rules which govern how we treat criminals in the United States, and based firmly in the constitutional prohibitions of cruel and unusual punishment.
Most importantly, it sets rules that are clear, simple and in accord with basic American values.
First, let me make clear my view that in this modern world of asymmetric warfare, non-state actors, and unconventional threat, there is an absolute necessity to have a program to securely hold prisoners and effectively interrogate them to provide timely intelligence.
But in my judgment, the current system is not working.
Over the course of the past 4 years, there has been a great deal of confusion over the policies and practices of the United States towards individuals the Government has taken into custody.
This confusion has been evident at the highest levels of decisionmaking at the Pentagon, with memoranda authorizing this technique or that technique being issued and rescinded within weeks of one another.
The confusion has been noted here in the Senate. I sit on two committees with jurisdiction, and have sat through hours and hours of hearings and briefings--our Nation's policy with respect to detainees and prisoners of war is still unclear to me.
Frankly, the administration's repeated statements about "wherever possible adhering to law" are confusing and unhelpful.
And the confusion has filtered down to the front lines.
Seventeen months ago, enlisted members of the 82nd Airborne Infantry Division--honorable men risking their lives in Iraq--asked their commanding officer what the rules were for the treatment of prisoners.
For 17 months, their commander, CPT Ian Fishback, diligently searched for the answer up and down his chain of command. Here is what he has found, and I quote:
We've got people with different views of what "humane" means and there's no Army statement that says "this is the standard for humane treatment for prisoners to Army officers." Army officers are left to come up with their own definition of humane treatment.
Captain Fishback and his men have a right to clear guidance. Their sacrifices entitle them to be allowed to do their job. An infantryman should not need to be a graduate of a law school to know what to do with a prisoner.
What this amendment does is to provide clarity. It is incumbent on Congress to provide this clarity. In fact, we have a constitutional mandate to do it.
Article VII, section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to "make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water," and also "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."
Our men and women in combat badly need this legislation. But there is more at stake here than immediate military necessity.
Our soldiers and our Nation have a long and honorable tradition of ethical behavior. For more than 200 years we have prided ourselves on being different than our adversaries in war. Simply put, there are some things that Americans do not do, not because it is illegal, or some lawyer says we cannot, but because it is wrong.
The laws of war, codified in the Geneva Conventions, represent a bare minimum of acceptable behavior toward captives. The United States has consistently championed the Geneva Conventions for over a century, knowing that our behavior is a beacon to the world, and that our adherence to principle--as well as projecting American values--saves American lives.
I am not naive. I do not expect our current enemy to respect the Geneva Conventions. Our captured troops cannot expect humane treatment at the hands of al-Qaida. But make no mistake--the eyes of the world are still on us, and our policies have real consequences.
Even now, millions of young Muslims around the world are evaluating the United States. They are deciding whether to take up arms against us, or whether to work with us towards a peaceful resolution with liberty and justice for all. We must show them, clearly, emphatically, that the rhetoric of democracy and freedom is not empty. We must show them that we are a government of laws, clearly written, openly promulgated and fairly enforced.
Captures and interrogations are part of war and, no less than other tools of war, must be wielded intelligently, humanely, and within a set of rules for warfare that govern all who serve in uniform--whether privates or generals, seamen or admirals.
Our men and women in uniform, serving in Afghanistan, Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay, have the right to clear, direct and lawful leadership.
This amendment is good policy, is just, and is long overdue.