Category — Iraq

On December 13th, 2007, Peter Roskam cast another vote in support of the continued use of torture by CIA interrogators.

The vote was on the conference report for HR 2082, the intelligence funding bill, and Roskam voted against it. The bill, if signed into law, would explicitly prohibit the use of such inhumane interrogation techniques as waterboardiing, electrocution, sensory deprivation, induced hypothermia, and deprivation of food, water and medical care. The bill also would require that all detainees be accorded the protections of the Geneva Conventions, ending the practice by the Bush administration of using the “enemy combant” designation invented by the Bush administration as a means of escaping its obligation to meet minimum standards in the treatment of prisoners of its so-called “War on Terrorism”.

It is unclear whether Roskam’s vote reflects a pro-torture conviction on his part or is just another “rubber stamp” of approval on administration policy. It is also possible that Roskam is simply too distracted by his principal agenda of promoting corporate interests to fully attend to the question of torture.

As of this writing, Roskam’s House web site is silent on the issue of torture.

[Read more →]

Walt Zlotow at Heartland Progressive published a great letter to Peter Roskam regarding his support for Bush’s War against Iraq. Great job, Walt. I wish I could write like you. Keep it up and lets get us a new Representative.

LZ at Reluctant Activist 3:1 also just published a good letter to Roskam’s Chief of Staff inquiring about Roskam’s views on torture. Keep writing.

Wonder if Old Rubber Stamp is finally beginning to get the message that his constituents abhor torture and needless wars.

On Wednesday, November 14, Peter Roskam voted to continue the war in Iraq and refused to outlaw torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners in the conduct of that war, continuing to demonstrate his unfailing support for the policies of the Bush administration.

Roskam voted “no” on H.R. 4156: Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act, 2008. The bill, if enacted would:

• Express the opinion of the Congress that U.S. military personnel, should be commended for their work in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the war in Iraq should be brought to a rapid conclusion and our troops brought home as quickly as possible, and that funds allocated under this bill should be used, not to prolong the war, but rather to end it. (These are non-binding provisions).
• Prohibit allocated funds from being used in violation of the United Nations conventions regarding torture
• Prohibit the president from deploying a military unit to Iraq that he has not certified as “fully mission capable”
• Prohibit allocated funds from being used to establish permanent bases in Iraq or from being used to exercise control over Iraqi oil
• Require the administration to report to Congress on it’s plans for attaining regional stability in the Middle East and on measure of progress in Iraq
• Provide funding for the troops

The bill passed in the House and was referred to the Senate.

On Saturday, in his weekly radio address, President Bush berated the Congress for not supporting the troops and, paradoxically, threatened to veto the spending bill that he was demanding they pass. Why? Because, he says, Congress is telling his generals what to do.

But aside from expressing the sense of the Congress regarding an end to the war, the bill only demands 4 things:

1. Don’t torture
2. Don’t steal Iraqi oil
3. Don’t set up permanent military bases in Iraq
4. Keep the Congress informed as to how things are going

So what does Peter Roskam’s and George Bush’s refusal to support this bill to fund the troops?

• They want to be able to continue to practice torture and other inhumane treatment
• They want to control Iraqi oil reserves
• They want to occupy Iraq permanently
• And they believe that they should be able to do whatever they want without any accountability to the American public, and, in Peter’s case, to the voters in his district