meta-roj

White House Fought New Curbs on Interrogations, Officials Say [ny times, january 13, 2005, registration]

The Senate had approved the new restrictions, by a 96-to-2 vote, as part of the intelligence reform legislation. They would have explicitly extended to intelligence officers a prohibition against torture or inhumane treatment, and would have required the C.I.A. as well as the Pentagon to report to Congress about the methods they were using.

…

In interviews on Wednesday, both Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican negotiator, and Representative Jane Harman of California, a Democratic negotiator, said the lawmakers had ultimately decided that the question of whether to extend the restrictions to intelligence officers was too complex to be included in the legislation.

so, the senate stepped up to this job, 96-2, but ultimately it was canned by leadership because it was “too complex”? i thought the whole point of having senators and representatives was to deal with issues that were too complex for me to understand with the busy life i lead.

of course, i haven’t seen the language (anyone feel like diggint that far?), so i’m working on second- and third-hand accounts, but i think the issue is pretty clear.

in fact, the issue is so simple, our president has spoken directly to the question…

president george w. bush, june 27, 2003

The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment.

do as we say, not as we do, right? this is how america leads by example in the 21st century?