torture supporters in the Senate

[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)

Comments

[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.

[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."

[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.

[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?