World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Detainee Treatment Act

Article Id: WHEBN0030857940
Reproduction Date:

Title: Detainee Treatment Act  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: John McCain, Enhanced interrogation techniques, FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation, The Nightingale's Song, Faith of My Fathers
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Detainee Treatment Act

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) is an Act of the United States Congress that was passed on 30 December 2005. Offered as an amendment to a supplemental defense spending bill, it contains provisions relating to treatment of persons in custody of the Department of Defense, and administration of detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including:[1]

Legislative details

The amendment affected the United States Senate Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006 (DOD Act); the amendment is commonly referred to as the Amendment on (1) the Army Field Manual and (2) Cruel, Inhumane, Degrading Treatment, amendment #1977 and also known as the McCain Amendment 1977. It became the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) as Division A, Title X of the DOD Act.[2] The amendment prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners, including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, by confining interrogations to the techniques in FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation. Also, section 1005(e) of the DTA prohibits aliens detained in Guantanamo Bay from applying for a writ of habeas corpus.[3] Certain portions of the amendment were enacted as 42 U.S.C. § 2000dd.

Amendment 1977 amended the Defense Appropriations Bill for 2005 (H.R.2863) passed by the United States House of Representatives. The amendment was introduced to the Senate by Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) on October 3, 2005 as S.Amdt.1977.

The amendment was co-sponsored by a bi-partisan group of senators, including Lindsey Graham, Chuck Hagel, Gordon H. Smith, Susan M. Collins, Lamar Alexander, Richard Durbin, Carl Levin, John Warner, Lincoln Chafee, John E. Sununu, and Ken Salazar.

On October 5, 2005, the United States Senate voted 90-9 to support the amendment.[4]

The Senators who voted against the amendment were 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), and Ted Stevens (R-AK).

Signing statement by President Bush

After approving the bill President Bush issued a signing statement, a document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law. In it Bush said:[5]

The Boston Globe quoted an anonymous senior administration official saying, "Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, (but) he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case. We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it's possible that they will".[6]

Criticism

The Act sets the Army's standards of interrogation as the standard for all agencies in the Department of Defense. It prohibits all other agencies of the U.S. government, such as the CIA, from subjecting any person in their custody to "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment." However, the Act does not provide detailed guidelines that spell out the meaning of that phrase.[7] In an effort to provide clarification, Congress passed legislation in 2008 to similarly constrain the intelligence community to the Field Manual's techniques.[8] McCain voted against this bill and recommended that President Bush follow through on his threat to veto it, arguing that the CIA already could not engage in torture but should have more options than afforded to military interrogators.[9] That bill was passed by both chambers of Congress but, once vetoed, failed to pass with sufficient votes to override the executive veto.[10]

The Detainee Treatment Act cited the U.S. Army's Field Manual on interrogation as the authoritative guide to interrogation techniques, but did not cite a specific edition of the Manual. The contents of the Manual are controlled by the Department of Defense, and thus the executive branch controls whether a given technique will be permitted or banned. The Manual has been revised since the Amendment became law. The Department of Defense has claimed that none of the techniques permitted by the new Field Manual 2-22.3 is classified.[11]

Also, the Detainee Treatment Act's anti-torture provisions were modified by the Graham-Levin Amendment, which was attached to the $453-billion 2006 Defense Budget Bill. The Graham-Levin Amendment permits the Department of Defense to consider evidence obtained through torture of Guantanamo Bay detainees, and expands the prohibition of habeas corpus for redetainees, which subsequently leaves detainees no legal recourse if they are tortured.

Critics say these two actions deflate the Detainee Treatment Act from having any real power in stopping torture by the United States government, and these were the reasons why President Bush and McCain "conceded" to Congressional demands. The mainstream media credited their concession to "overwhelming Congressional support" for the measure.[12][13] Amnesty International claims that the amendment's loopholes signal that torture is now official US policy.[14]

The Republican senators Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl have been criticized for their amicus curiae brief filed in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) case, in which they argued that the Detainee Treatment Act's passage sufficed to deny the Supreme Court jurisdiction over the case. Language in the Congressional Record, which is cited in the majority opinion, was inserted by Graham and Kyl into the Record for the day on which the amendment passed after the legislation had already been enacted. The language in question was worded in such a manner as to imply it had been recorded in live debate. The revised Record contains such phrasing as Kyl's "Mr. President, I see that we are nearing the end of our allotted time" and Sen. Sam Brownback's "If I might interrupt". Brownback has not responded to press inquiries.[15] Justice Scalia's dissent noted this incident as an example on which he has based his longstanding hostility to the use of legislative history in court decisions.

Scalia wrote:

See also

References

  1. ^ """Summary of "Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 . Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 12 November 2012. 
  2. ^ See Pub.L. 109–148, div. A, tit. X, §§ 1001-1006, 119 Stat. 2680, 2739-44 (2005). Congress also enacted a nearly identical version of the DTA as a component of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, see Pub.L. 109–163, div. A, tit. XIV, §§ 1401-1406, 119 Stat. 3136, 3474-80 (2006) -- an appropriations authorization act that the President signed into law on January 6, 2006 (a week after he signed the original DTA into law). The December 2005 and January 2006 versions of the DTA are generally identical except for certain provisions in the section relating to training of Iraqi security forces (section 1006 of the Dec. '05 DTA and section 1406 of the Jan. '06 DTA). As of 2009, there had been no litigation challenging the validity of either of the DTA statutes on these grounds.
  3. ^ 109th U.S. Congress (2005-12-18), Conference Committee Report 109-359 to accompany H.R. 2863, House of Representatives, retrieved 2008-11-02 
    See n.3. Section 1405(e) of the Jan. '06 DTA purports to make changes to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the habeas corpus statute, that are nearly identical to those made by section 1005(e) of the Dec. '05 DTA. The current codified version of § 2241 states in a footnote that two subsection (e)s for the section have been enacted.
  4. ^ "U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session".  
  5. ^ Bush, George W. (December 30, 2005). "President's Statement on Signing of H.R. 2863".  
  6. ^ Savage, Charlie (January 4, 2006), Bush could bypass new torture ban; Waiver right is reserved,  
  7. ^ "Detainee Treatment Act of 2005", Harvard Human Rights Journal 19, Spring 2006, retrieved April 25, 2009 
  8. ^ "U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 2nd Session".  
  9. ^ Quaid, Libby (February 21, 2008), McCain urges Bush to veto waterboard bill (AP), San Franscico Chronicle, retrieved April 25, 2009 
  10. ^ "H.R.2082: Major Congressional Actions", 110th Congress, March 11, 2008
  11. ^ Dept. of Defense (September 6, 2006), Briefing with Deputy Assistant Secretary Stimson and Lt. Gen. Kimmons, The Pentagon, retrieved April 25, 2009 
  12. ^ Henry, Ed (December 15, 2005), McCain, Bush agree on torture ban, CNN.com, retrieved April 25, 2009 
  13. ^ NBC News, AP (December 15, 2005), Bush accepts Sen. McCain’s torture policy, MSNBC.com, retrieved April 25, 2009 
  14. ^ McCoy, Alfred W. (March 2006), Invisible in Plain Sight: CIA Torture Techniques Go Mainstream, Amnesty International Magazine, retrieved April 25, 2009 
  15. ^ Bazelon, Emily (March 27, 2006), Invisible Men: Did Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl mislead the Supreme Court?, Slate.com, retrieved April 25, 2009 

External links

  • Bush, McCain and 'torture' - Robert J. Caldwell, The San Diego Union-Tribune - September 24, 2006
  • Text of Amendment
  • Senators who voted for and against the amendment
  • McCain statement
  • Editorial The McCain Amendment would hamstring U.S. interrogators. WSJ Opinion Journal (October 30, 2005)
  • McCain and the Not So Effectual Ban on Torture- Matthew R. McNabb, National Security Crimes Blog
  • Umansky, Eric Detention Tension Slate (November 2, 2005)
  • Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (White House), JURIST, (December 31, 2005)
  • McCain Undermined: The 'Obedience to Orders' Defense, JURIST, (January 6, 2006)
  • No Habeas at Guantanamo? The Executive and the Dubious Tale of the DTA, JURIST, (March 6, 2006)
  • Why the McCain Torture Ban Won't Work: The Bush legacy of legalized torture by Professor Alfred W. McCoy, TomDispatch, February 8, 2006
  • Invisible Men: Did Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl mislead the Supreme Court? by Emily Bazelon, Slate, March 27, 2006
  • The criticized amicus brief filed by Senators Graham and Kyl on Dec. 21, 2005
  • Smintheus, "Has McCain Flip-Flopped on Torture?" Daily Kos, April 11, 2008.
  • Human Rights First; Undue Process: An Examination of Detention and Trials of Bagram Detainees in Afghanistan in April 2009 (2009)
  • Human Rights First; Tortured Justice: Using Coerced Evidence to Prosecute Terrorist Suspects (2008)
  • Human Rights First; Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Hawaii eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.