Intelligent Discontent

• Written by: DanOctober 26th, 2005
• Comments:No Comment
• Category:Iraq War, The World, US Politics
• Rating:
  (No Ratings Yet)
  
   Loading ...

One might logically assume that Dick Cheney might suspend his more nefarious activities while there is an ongoing investigation into a leak which exposed a CIA operative for political reasons; a leak that may well have originated in his very office. It makes sense that when under investigation one acts as beatific as possible. But that would be projecting an image of rationality where none exists.
Cheney continues to demonstrate the applicability of the Bush administration’s simple good v. evil thinking. But I don’t think that it is in the way that he intends. Today the Washington Post has a report that Cheney has been personally pushing for a rider to be attached to the defense authorization bill that would exempt intelligence officers from the proposed provision that government operatives may not use inhumane treatment against any person anywhere. And it gets worse; Cheney and CIA Director Porter Goss tried to get John McCain to introduce the legislation … three times. So let me summarize: the Vice President of the United States and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency have repeatedly tried to pressure a former torture victim to put forward the position that intelligence officers should be allowed to use torture.

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

Cheney’s meeting with McCain last week was his third attempt to persuade the lawmaker, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, to accept a less broad legislative bar against inhumane treatment. Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride declined to comment, saying, “the vice president does not discuss private conversations that he has with members [of Congress] . . . or information that may be exchanged with members.”

She added that the intent of such meetings is usually “to build consensus on legislative issues, still in the policymaking process.” CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a former Cheney aide, said the agency does not comment on the director’s meetings.

I don’t know how it gets more unconscionable than that. I didn’t think that I could be shocked by this government any more, but I was wrong. This comes after the Senate virtually unanimously voted to hold the United States government to a higher moral standard in the treatment of prisoners. So much for attempting to “build consensus on legislative issues” - what a nice euphemism.

I don’t know how it gets more unconscionable than that. I didn’t think that I could be shocked by this government any more, but I was wrong. This comes after the Senate virtually unanimously voted to hold the United States government to a higher moral standard in the treatment of prisoners. So much for attempting to “build consensus on legislative issues” - what a nice euphemism.

The provision in question — which the Senate on Oct. 5 voted 90 to 9 to attach to its version of the pending defense appropriations bill over the administration’s opposition — essentially proscribes harsh treatment of any detainees in U.S. custody or control anywhere in the world. It was specifically drafted to close what its backers say is a loophole in the administration’s policy of generally barring torture, namely its legal contention that these constraints do not apply to treatment of foreigners on foreign soil.

At some point you just have to ask what it is all for. What is the point of going out of your way to promote torture? It has long been acknowledged that it isn’t a very effective means of intelligence gathering, because people will tell you whatever you want to alleviate physical pain. And under such duress people can make themselves believe just about anything as a psychological defense mechanism. Plus, it’s just plain evil.
Just in case you were wondering who the nine senators were that voted against this provision, I did some research and found the actual roll call vote. Senators voting against were: Allard (R-CO), Bond (R-MO), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Cornyn (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Roberts (R-KS), Sessions (R-AL), Stevens (R-AK). When it came time to vote on the bill as a whole with the amendments, they all apparently changed their minds.