The Hill reports a major win for Republicans and the CIA on a Democrat ambush on the agency and its agents. The Democrat sneak-attack unfolded as the healthcare summit took the national stage, but the GOP was watching.
Democrats inserted an 11-page addition into the bill late Wednesday night as the House Rules Committee considered the legislation.
The provision, previously not vetted in committee, applied to “any officer or employee of the intelligence community” who during interrogations engages in beatings, infliction of pain or forced sexual acts. The bill said the acts covered by the provision would include inducing hypothermia, conducting mock executions or “depriving the [detainee] of necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care.”
The language gave Congress the discretion to determine what the terms mean, and it would have imposed punishments of up to 15 years in prison, and in some cases, life sentences if a detainee died as a result of the interrogation.
Rep. Pete Hoesktra (R-MI) called out the Democrats:
“This will fundamentally change the nature of the intelligence community by creating a criminal statute governing interrogations,” said Rep. Pete Hoesktra (R-Mich.). [This] had appeared “out of nowhere” in a manager’s amendment.
“Would someone on the other side please explain the rationale behind this and why the majority was unwilling to have hearings on this issue?” he said.
“Republicans brought this to the attention of the American people, who were rightly outraged that Democrats would try to target those we ask to serve in harm’s way and with a unified push we were successful in getting them to pull the bill,” Hoekstra said in a statement. “The annual intelligence bill should be about protecting and defending our nation, not targeting those we ask to do that deed and giving greater protections to terrorists.”
The language was pulled from the bill. However, this latest development makes you want to ask, “Who’s side are the Democrats on?” And the next question is, “How can the CIA recruit exceptional talent and additional agents under these conditions and threats?” Neither one, though, is rhetorical.