maelorin: (staring)

Friday, May 05, 2006
Senate panel OKs demand for legal opinion on interrogation methods
Jeannie Shawl at 9:35 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Senate Armed Services Committee [official website] on Thursday added a provision to the 2007 defense spending bill which would require the Bush administration to provide "a US government coordinated legal opinion on whether certain specified interrogation techniques would constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005." The provision was inserted into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 [S 2507 summary] as the committee completed markup [press release, PDF] of the bill. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 [JURIST document], passed as part of the 2006 military spending bill, prohibits "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of detainees "under the physical control of the United States Government," but clear rules defining these terms have yet to be provided to military interrogators. US Defense Department [official website] officials have been updating the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation [current text] to provide clearer guidelines, but the revised manual has not yet been released [JURIST report]. The release has been held up due to debate on whether specific guidelines on interrogation techniques [JURIST report] should be classified. The Defense Department's draft would keep secret specific descriptions of what constitutes acceptable interrogation practices, but Armed Services Committee members have raised concerns that by keeping this information classified, there is no way to ensure that the guidelines fall within the bounds of US and international law.

The US House is set to vote on its defense spending bill next week, and the full Senate could begin debate on the Senate version by the end of the month. The interrogation opinion provision will become law only if it is still included in the reconciled version of the spending bill eventually passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.

AP has
more.

Excuse me while I wonder why getting their own opinion on whether their opinion regarding what may, or may not, be "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" seems a bit ... well ...

At least someone is thinking that there may be a flaw or two in this program.
Music:: thy dungeonman 3 (homestar runner)
Mood:: 'groggy' groggy
maelorin: (staring)

Friday, May 05, 2006
Senate panel OKs demand for legal opinion on interrogation methods
Jeannie Shawl at 9:35 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Senate Armed Services Committee [official website] on Thursday added a provision to the 2007 defense spending bill which would require the Bush administration to provide "a US government coordinated legal opinion on whether certain specified interrogation techniques would constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005." The provision was inserted into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 [S 2507 summary] as the committee completed markup [press release, PDF] of the bill. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 [JURIST document], passed as part of the 2006 military spending bill, prohibits "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of detainees "under the physical control of the United States Government," but clear rules defining these terms have yet to be provided to military interrogators. US Defense Department [official website] officials have been updating the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation [current text] to provide clearer guidelines, but the revised manual has not yet been released [JURIST report]. The release has been held up due to debate on whether specific guidelines on interrogation techniques [JURIST report] should be classified. The Defense Department's draft would keep secret specific descriptions of what constitutes acceptable interrogation practices, but Armed Services Committee members have raised concerns that by keeping this information classified, there is no way to ensure that the guidelines fall within the bounds of US and international law.

The US House is set to vote on its defense spending bill next week, and the full Senate could begin debate on the Senate version by the end of the month. The interrogation opinion provision will become law only if it is still included in the reconciled version of the spending bill eventually passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.

AP has
more.

Excuse me while I wonder why getting their own opinion on whether their opinion regarding what may, or may not, be "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" seems a bit ... well ...

At least someone is thinking that there may be a flaw or two in this program.
Music:: thy dungeonman 3 (homestar runner)
Mood:: 'groggy' groggy
maelorin: (no happy ever after)

Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Revised Army interrogation manual held up by secrecy concerns
Jamie Sterling at 9:05 AM ET

[JURIST] The release of a revised US Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation [current text] has been delayed while Defense Department [official website] officials continue to debate whether a portion of the manual should remain secret. Discussions have been underway for over a year on updates to the field manual, but officials have not been able to agree on whether specific guidelines on interrogation techniques [JURIST report] should be classified. This portion of the manual would describe specifically what constitutes acceptable interrogation practices, and concerns have been raised that making this information public would enable terrorists to prepare for interrogation while knowing the limits that US forces are authorized to reach. On the other hand, rights activists and some members of Congress have said that if part of the manual remains classified, there is no way to ensure that the guidelines fall within the bounds of US and international law. Last year, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act [JURIST document], which prohibits "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of detainees "under the physical control of the United States Government."

The field manual is being revised after the
Abu Ghraib abuse scandal [JURIST news archives] and in light of concerns that Abu Ghraib interrogators did not have clear instruction on what they were allowed to do. Military lawyers have also raised concern that interrogation methods employed at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] are inconsistent with the field manual [JURIST report].

AP has
more.

Perhaps they think that if we don't know what they think constitutes torture, we won't find out? It's not like they assume we can't hold them to account, do they ...
Mood:: 'pessimistic' pessimistic
Music:: penn & teller: bullshit (ground zero)
maelorin: (no happy ever after)

Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Revised Army interrogation manual held up by secrecy concerns
Jamie Sterling at 9:05 AM ET

[JURIST] The release of a revised US Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation [current text] has been delayed while Defense Department [official website] officials continue to debate whether a portion of the manual should remain secret. Discussions have been underway for over a year on updates to the field manual, but officials have not been able to agree on whether specific guidelines on interrogation techniques [JURIST report] should be classified. This portion of the manual would describe specifically what constitutes acceptable interrogation practices, and concerns have been raised that making this information public would enable terrorists to prepare for interrogation while knowing the limits that US forces are authorized to reach. On the other hand, rights activists and some members of Congress have said that if part of the manual remains classified, there is no way to ensure that the guidelines fall within the bounds of US and international law. Last year, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act [JURIST document], which prohibits "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of detainees "under the physical control of the United States Government."

The field manual is being revised after the
Abu Ghraib abuse scandal [JURIST news archives] and in light of concerns that Abu Ghraib interrogators did not have clear instruction on what they were allowed to do. Military lawyers have also raised concern that interrogation methods employed at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] are inconsistent with the field manual [JURIST report].

AP has
more.

Perhaps they think that if we don't know what they think constitutes torture, we won't find out? It's not like they assume we can't hold them to account, do they ...
Mood:: 'pessimistic' pessimistic
Music:: penn & teller: bullshit (ground zero)

May

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
          1
 
2
 
3
 
4 5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31