rachmaninoff
Dec15-05, 06:00 PM
He didn't back down until the Senate was against him 10:1, well that's politics for you.
NY Times 12/15 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/politics/15cnd-detain.html?hp&ex=1134709200&en=9fa71e8f76960984&ei=5094&partner=homepage)
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - The White House, after weeks of resistance, agreed today to Senator John McCain's call for a law specifically banning cruel or inhuman treatment of terror suspects anywhere in the world.Interestingly enough, they let this clause in:
Under the agreement, interrogators for the Central Intelligence Agency would be granted the right - already extended to members of the military - to defend themselves from charges of abuse by saying that a reasonable person would believe that they were obeying a legal order. The protection of C.I.A. interrogators had been a key objective of Vice President Dick Cheney.This seems vague and ambigious - if a CIA agent uses torture, and he says he "thought it was legal", that has merit?
I'm still uncertain as to what exactly this deal means.
NY Times 12/15 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/politics/15cnd-detain.html?hp&ex=1134709200&en=9fa71e8f76960984&ei=5094&partner=homepage)
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - The White House, after weeks of resistance, agreed today to Senator John McCain's call for a law specifically banning cruel or inhuman treatment of terror suspects anywhere in the world.Interestingly enough, they let this clause in:
Under the agreement, interrogators for the Central Intelligence Agency would be granted the right - already extended to members of the military - to defend themselves from charges of abuse by saying that a reasonable person would believe that they were obeying a legal order. The protection of C.I.A. interrogators had been a key objective of Vice President Dick Cheney.This seems vague and ambigious - if a CIA agent uses torture, and he says he "thought it was legal", that has merit?
I'm still uncertain as to what exactly this deal means.