Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
topaz: (2632)
[personal profile] topaz
The McCain-Graham anti-torture amendment passed the Senate last night by a startling 90-9 margin.  Curiously, none of the articles I saw listed the nine senators who voted to continue torturing detainees.

Fortunately, senate.gov did post a roll call:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00249

Wayne Allard (R-CO)
Christopher Bond (R-MO)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
James Inhofe (R-OK)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Ted Stevens (R-AK)

Date: 2005-10-06 04:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sconstant.livejournal.com
Who was abstinent?

Date: 2005-10-06 04:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sconstant.livejournal.com
Sorry, I used your link. Corzine-D NJ.

Couldn't find anything that said whether it was strategic or family-member-having-surgery-ish.

Date: 2005-10-06 04:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] opadit.livejournal.com
I heard on the news this morning that the President has said he'll veto it.

Objectively pro-torture

Date: 2005-10-06 04:20 pm (UTC)
ext_12920: (dress)
From: [identity profile] desdenova.livejournal.com
Wouldn't that make it the first thing he's vetoed, ever? What a thing to begin with.

Re: Objectively pro-torture

Date: 2005-10-06 05:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] harimad.livejournal.com
It would be the first thing he's vetoed but since it takes 67 votes to override and the amendment is backed by both McCain and Powell, CW is the veto will be overridden.

Did those who voted against ever serve in the military? I know Jeff Sessions is a joke (so incompetent a lawyer that when Reagan nominated him to the Federal bench, his own senator (Heflin) risked his seat to vote nay), what about the rest?

Date: 2005-10-06 04:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] feste-sylvain.livejournal.com
By my count, I think the Senate has sufficient votes to override. I do wonder about the House, tho.

Date: 2005-10-06 05:47 pm (UTC)
drwex: (V)
From: [personal profile] drwex
I agree - this will never make it to the point where the Prez has to veto it. It will be quietly dropped in conference committee and not be in the final bill that the Prez will sign. This will give both sides what they want - the Congresscritters can go home to re-election campaigns saying "see, we tried to do something about this" and Rummy's boys can go right on torturing without fear that anyone in Congress will do anything.

Date: 2005-10-06 09:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dilletante.livejournal.com
which makes the actions of the senators who voted against it even more entertaining.

"i knew this would never make it into law, but it's important to take a stand for torture on principle."

Date: 2005-10-07 01:29 pm (UTC)
drwex: (Default)
From: [personal profile] drwex
I haven't checked, but I'd bet decent money that none of those who voted for torture are up for reelection. By the time they are they can depend on the voters' short memories not to hold it against them.

Date: 2005-10-07 02:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dilletante.livejournal.com
even if the populace forgets you voted for torture, your opponent will remind them.

and even if he didn't-- this presupposes there's actually a good reason to vote against this bill. what would such a reason be?

Date: 2005-10-06 04:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lady-mishegas.livejournal.com
I really don't get how they are going to defend that to their constituents. "Oh yes, I'm PRO TORTURE. The Geneva Convention, that's for wimps."

Date: 2005-10-06 04:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sconstant.livejournal.com
You haven't been listening. They'll stand in front of a backdrop repeatedly imprinted with "Keeping America Safe" and talk about the need to protect our country from terrorism and, almost more importantly, from those who would be soft on terrorism. Then they'll ask the reporter from the Rightist News Service for a question. He will ask, "How does it feel to be so courageously defending our nation?" It feels good, say these senators, modestly. Thus endeth the news conference.

Date: 2005-10-06 05:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lady-mishegas.livejournal.com
Which is just another way of saying, "The Geneva convention, that's for wimps," really.

Date: 2005-10-06 05:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] catya.livejournal.com
the defense of it i heard on npr this morning was that it requires them to write out every 'legit'/non-tortue technique they ight use, which would take thousands of pages.

Date: 2005-10-06 05:48 pm (UTC)
drwex: (Default)
From: [personal profile] drwex
That was Ted Stevens lying through his teeth again.

What the amendment says is "follow the goddamn manual you already wrote." It doesn't call for writing any new manuals.

Date: 2005-10-06 05:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] harimad.livejournal.com
Thanks for digging this up, I'd noticed the lack but lacked the time to investigate.

Date: 2005-10-06 11:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] crouchback.livejournal.com
All of these guys are rather uninspiring: Stevens is my nominee for worst Senator (beating out Robert Byrd, now, which takes some doing.)

May 2018

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930 31  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Page generated Jul. 4th, 2025 03:45 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios