Bush agrees to McCain torture ban

  • News
  • Thread starter rachmaninoff
  • Start date
In summary, the White House has agreed to Senator John McCain's call for a law banning cruel or inhuman treatment of terror suspects. This deal also grants protection to CIA interrogators who can now defend themselves by saying they believed they were following a legal order. However, some are still unsure about the implications of this clause. Despite resistance, the House vote of 3:1 ultimately convinced McCain to back down. This highlights the influence of politics in decision making.
  • #1
rachmaninoff
He didn't back down until the Senate was against him 10:1, well that's politics for you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/p...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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
rachmaninoff said:
Interestingly enough, they let this clause in:
A case of "The Devil's in the Details." They should get rid of that clause.
 
  • #3
rachmaninoff said:
He didn't back down until the Senate was against him 10:1, well that's politics for you.
Actually it was the House vote of 3:1 that finally convinced him.

Without Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff the stick and carrot, or Hammer and golf outings, the House Republicans are paying closer attention to their constituents. I think this is a good thing.:smile:
 

1. What is the significance of Bush agreeing to the McCain torture ban?

The McCain torture ban, also known as the Detainee Treatment Act, was a piece of legislation introduced by Senator John McCain in 2005 to prohibit the use of torture on detainees in US custody. By agreeing to this ban, President George W. Bush effectively acknowledged that the use of torture is not an acceptable means of interrogation and that the US government would adhere to international standards of human rights.

2. When did Bush agree to the McCain torture ban?

President Bush signed the Detainee Treatment Act into law on December 30, 2005.

3. Was Bush the only president to agree to the McCain torture ban?

No, President Barack Obama also reaffirmed the ban in 2009 through an executive order that prohibited the use of torture and ordered the closure of CIA "black sites" where detainees were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques.

4. Did the McCain torture ban completely eliminate the use of torture in the US military?

The ban did not completely eliminate the use of torture in the US military, as it allowed for certain "enhanced interrogation techniques" to be used in extreme circumstances with proper authorization. However, these techniques were later prohibited by President Obama in 2009.

5. How did the McCain torture ban impact the international perception of the US?

The signing of the McCain torture ban by President Bush was seen as a positive step towards restoring the international perception of the US as a country that upholds human rights and the rule of law. It also helped to repair the damage caused by the revelation of US interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prison.

Similar threads

Replies
264
Views
25K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top