[4] He fooled almost everyone. Mr. Bush probably consulted beforehand with Republicans like House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), who has vehemently opposed the McCain Amendment. The ultra-militaristic Hunter undoubtedly would applaud - if he didn't actually propose - the Pentagon's vile revisions to eviscerate the Amendment.
[5] Judd Legum, et al., in the American Progress Action Fund's 12-15-05 Progress Report article, "Torture: Bush Administration Changes Army Field Manual To Skirt Anti-Torture Legislation" (read the full text here):
"With Congress on the verge of passing the sweeping McCain Anti-Torture Amendment, the Bush Administration has moved to get around the proposed rules should they become law. [A] The McCain Amendment would make the 'Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation' the standard for questioning subjects. [B] That manual explicitly prohibits the use of 'coercive interrogation techniques.' Realizing this, the Pentagon one-upped McCain and simply re-wrote the manual. For the first time in thirteen years, the Pentagon approved 'a 10-page classified addendum to a new Army field manual' that 'would help teach [interrogators] how to walk right up to the line between legal and illegal interrogations.' [C] 'This is a stick in McCain's eye," one official said. 'It goes right up to the edge.'"
[A] Nico Pitney's 12-14-05 ThinkProgress.org article, "As Torture Amendment Nears Passage, Pentagon Rewrites Army Detainee Standards":
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/14/torture-rewrite/
[B] DOD's addendum to the Army Field Manual on Intelligence
Interrogation:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/toc.htm
[C] Eric Scmitt's 12-14-05 IHT/NYT article, "New Army Rules May Snag Talks With McCain On Detainee Rights":
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/14/news/torture.php
[6] Ibid; see Nico Pitney at [4][a] above.
[7] Ray McGovern's 12-13-05 CD/TD essay, "McCain's Defining Moment"
[Contains excellent moral reasoning about torture, but it no longer matters if Senator McCain compromises his amendment's language in negotiations with the Republican leaders. Mr. Bush's minions in the Pentagon have already checkmated McCain by issuing a major revision to the Army Field Manual's interrogation standards. Even if the McCain Amendment passes, their revision's purpose is to ensure the continuation of "coercive interrogation techniques" that humiliate, abuse, and torture prisoners and detainees.]:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1213-34.htm
[8] NY Times' 12-16-05 editorial, "Ban Torture. Period." [This is a good editorial, so far as it goes. However, its theme should've gone farther than "when it comes to torture, the nation and its military men and women need moral clarity, not more legalistic wiggle room."]:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/opinion/16fri1.html?th&emc=th
[9] Elisa Massimo's 11-21-05 CD essay, "Heading Toward the Dark Side"
[The Bushites claim they're "above the law" whereas their enemies are "below the law." These claims are calculated to subvert the rule of law and convert Americans to the Dark Side.]:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1121-25.htm
Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D., who is the Executive Director of the American Center for International Law ("ACIL").
[5] Judd Legum, et al., in the American Progress Action Fund's 12-15-05 Progress Report article, "Torture: Bush Administration Changes Army Field Manual To Skirt Anti-Torture Legislation" (read the full text here):
"With Congress on the verge of passing the sweeping McCain Anti-Torture Amendment, the Bush Administration has moved to get around the proposed rules should they become law. [A] The McCain Amendment would make the 'Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation' the standard for questioning subjects. [B] That manual explicitly prohibits the use of 'coercive interrogation techniques.' Realizing this, the Pentagon one-upped McCain and simply re-wrote the manual. For the first time in thirteen years, the Pentagon approved 'a 10-page classified addendum to a new Army field manual' that 'would help teach [interrogators] how to walk right up to the line between legal and illegal interrogations.' [C] 'This is a stick in McCain's eye," one official said. 'It goes right up to the edge.'"
[A] Nico Pitney's 12-14-05 ThinkProgress.org article, "As Torture Amendment Nears Passage, Pentagon Rewrites Army Detainee Standards":
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/14/torture-rewrite/
[B] DOD's addendum to the Army Field Manual on Intelligence
Interrogation:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/toc.htm
[C] Eric Scmitt's 12-14-05 IHT/NYT article, "New Army Rules May Snag Talks With McCain On Detainee Rights":
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/14/news/torture.php
[6] Ibid; see Nico Pitney at [4][a] above.
[Contains excellent moral reasoning about torture, but it no longer matters if Senator McCain compromises his amendment's language in negotiations with the Republican leaders. Mr. Bush's minions in the Pentagon have already checkmated McCain by issuing a major revision to the Army Field Manual's interrogation standards. Even if the McCain Amendment passes, their revision's purpose is to ensure the continuation of "coercive interrogation techniques" that humiliate, abuse, and torture prisoners and detainees.]:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1213-34.htm
[8] NY Times' 12-16-05 editorial, "Ban Torture. Period." [This is a good editorial, so far as it goes. However, its theme should've gone farther than "when it comes to torture, the nation and its military men and women need moral clarity, not more legalistic wiggle room."]:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/opinion/16fri1.html?th&emc=th
[9] Elisa Massimo's 11-21-05 CD essay, "Heading Toward the Dark Side"
[The Bushites claim they're "above the law" whereas their enemies are "below the law." These claims are calculated to subvert the rule of law and convert Americans to the Dark Side.]:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1121-25.htm
Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D., who is the Executive Director of the American Center for International Law ("ACIL").
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
