there are now 175 states parties to the convention against torture. re importantly than that, every state in the world has ratified a convention that prohibits torture of some form. the convention on the rights of the child, for example, also prohibits torture against children. that is a very positive thing that as a matter of rhetoric, there is accepted agreement. however, in practice, there is a wide variation. what i say is there is no state with a perfect record. one could even categorise countries into different groupings. there are those states that blatantly use torture or cover up when it is used, but it is widely understood that they are using it by their populations, by the public officials and by the wider community. then there are a whole series of countries that perhaps are transitioning from dictatorship to democracy, who are emerging out of wars, who are building and trying to build democratic and human—rights—based communities. they are doing some good things and still have remnants and struggles of overcoming the past. and then one cou

well, the rules that he's talking about are the geneva conventions, which establish bare minimum protections against violence, torture, and inhumane treatments, and they don't just protect those people who are fighting on the battle field, they protect american soldiers. during his hearing, mr. hegseth doubled down to say, quote, restrictive rules of engagement have made it more difficult to defeat our enemies, and that it would be his priority, quote, that lawyers aren't getting in the way. well, unfortunately, and dangerously, this appears to be one of the few issues that mr. hegseth is consistent on. he has a documented history of supporting individuals who have violated military and international law by committing war crimes. these are individuals who were turned in not by our enemies but by members of their own units, who were convicted of crimes by our own military juries, individuals for whom mr. hegseth lobbied to get pardons. i don't think we can afford to entrust the safety and success of our men and women in uniform to a man who would himself disregard the laws of armed conflict and leave american credibil

the rules he's talking about the conventions which establish their minimum protections against violence,to tortureand treat me and inhumane treatment they don't predict justice people fighting in the battlefields, they protected american soldiers. during his hearing, pete hegseh doubled down to say restrictive rules of engagement have made more difficult to defeat our enemies predict and it would be his priority and live years are getting their way. and unfortunately, and dangerously, this appears to be one of the few issues that pete hegseth is consistent on any has documented history of supporting individual who would violated military and international law by committing war crimes. these are individuals who were turned in, not by our enemies, but by members of their own units were convicted of crimes by our own military jury individuals for whom they lobbied to get parted. i don't think we can afford to entrust the safety and the success of our men and women in uniform man who would himself disregard the loss of conflict and leave american credibility and moral authority in tatters on the world

workable rules of engagement, our prohibitions against torture come from american laws and treaties ratified by the united states, including the geneva conventionserefore, i will vote against the nomination on the senate floor today. democratic leader chuck schumer said this. >> i want. >> my colleagues. >> to think about how absurd it is that this nominee has even made it to the floor. it's a shame that that has happened. we are being tasked to trust our armed forces. to a man with a history of erratic behavior, one of the kindest words that might be used to describe mr. hegseth is erratic, and that's a quality you don't want as head of dod. he has a history of excessive drinking, of domestic, of alleged domestic abuse and zero experience leading a large organization of any kind. how on earth can america entrust our safety and security to a man who has allegedly shown up to work and other events inebriated? what if he shows up inebriated during a crisis? what's going to happen? this is dangerous. >> nbc news is reporting that the top two lawmakers on the senate armed services committee, quote, received a third briefing yesterday evening on the

the rules he's talking about by the geneva convention which established their minimum protections against violence, torture, and inhumane treatments. and they don't just protect those people we are fighting on the battlefield. they protect american soldiers. during his hearing mr. hegseth double down to say, quote, restrictive rules of engagement have made it more difficult to defeat our enemies. and that he would be his priority, quote, that lawyers are not getting in the way. well, , unfortunately, and dangerously, this appears to be one of the few issues that mr. hegseth is consistent on. he has a documented history of supporting individuals who have violated military and international law by committing war crimes. these are individuals who were turned in not by our enemies but by members of their own units who were convicted of crimes by our own military jury come individuals from mr. hegseth lobbied to get pardoned. i don't think we can afford to entrust the safety and success of our men and women in uniform to a man who would himself disregard the laws of armed conflict and leave american credibility

well, the rules that he's talking about are the geneva conventions, which establish bare minimum protections against violence, torture, and inhumane treatments, and they don't just protect those people who are fighting on the battle field, they protect american soldiers. during his hearing, mr. hegseth doubled down to say, quote, restrictive rules of engagement have made it more difficult to defeat our enemies, and that it would be his priority, quote, that lawyers aren't getting in the way. well, unfortunately, and dangerously, this appears to be one of the few issues that mr. hegseth is consistent on. he has a documented history of supporting individuals who have violated military and international law by committing war crimes. these are individuals who were turned in not by our enemies but by members of their own units, who were convicted of crimes by our own military juries, individuals for whom mr. hegseth lobbied to get pardons. i don't think we can afford to entrust the safety and success of our men and women in uniform to a man who would himself disregard the laws of armed conflict and leave american credibil

workable rules laws, our prohib torture come from american laws and treaties, ratified by the united states, including the geneva convention. therefore, i will vote against the nomination. end quote. mr. hegseth has demeaned and dismissed the importance of the geneva convention. in fact, he's berated the lawyers in the department of defense who set standards and guidelines for what can be done. i will never forget talking to our former colleague, our great colleague, a friend and mentor to me, john mccain, about why he opposes torture, waterboarding, that kind of physical abuse, why he believed that these laws have to be followed by our military, not just as a matter of humanity, but effective military str strategy. torturing to gain information often pro dupeses false information -- produces false information, but it also reduces the quality of our military performance. and yet, mr. hegseth seems to dismiss those ideas about the geneva convention, about standards for military conduct. as categorically, as he does many other of the standards that should apply. i hope my colleagues will listen to senator murkowski and senator collins, because in their sta

convention. maybe this is a bit old-fashioned to me but i think we should have the secretary of defense who is firmly against war crimes not one who has spoken in favor of torture like in favor of people convicted of war crimes and questions whether we should follow the geneva convention. and let's not forget in addition to having no real qualifications and many alarming positions mr. hegseth also has many red flags that raise serious concerns the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from california. mr. schiff: mr. president, the men and women serving at home and overseas under the flag of the united states of america are counting on us to guide the pentagon through times of war or peace they need and deserve a secretary of defense who is a person of considerable experience and can run a mammoth agency, who has exhibited good judgment, who is a person of good character, who appreciates the role of women in the military, in and out of combat, and they can look on in confidence to guide us through some of the most difficult and complex national security threats we have ever faced. and while i greatly respect his time in the service, regrettably that