|
The Senate Passes a Bill So Vile That Bush Might Finally Excercise Veto!!!
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: |
Senate ignores veto threat in limiting detainee treatment
Measure added to Pentagon spending bill
Thursday, October 6, 2005 Posted: 0717 GMT (1517 HKT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Setting up a possible veto showdown with the White House, the Senate voted overwhelmingly for an amendment to a Pentagon spending bill that sets standards for the treatment of prisoners in U.S. military custody.
The measure, sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, would require American troops to follow interrogation standards set in the Army Field Manual and bar "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of prisoners in U.S. custody.
On Wednesday night, senators voted 90-9 to include the provision to the $440 billion Defense Department spending bill now wending its way through Congress.
Earlier, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said President Bush would likely veto the defense spending bill if McCain's language were included, calling the amendment "unnecessary and duplicative."
"If it's presented, then there would be a recommendation of a veto, I believe," McClellan said.
McClellan said existing law already prohibits the mistreatment of prisoners in American custody, and the amendment "would limit the president's ability as commander-in-chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism."
If Bush does veto the bill, it would be his first veto during nearly five years in office.
Arguing for his amendment, McCain, a former Navy pilot who spent more than five years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, said "our troops are not served by ambiguity."
"We demanded intelligence without ever clearly telling our troops what was permitted and what was forbidden. And then, when things went wrong, we blamed them and we punished them. We have to do better than that," he said.
McCain said an officer in the 82nd Airborne Division, Capt. Ian Fishback, urged his office to push for clear guidelines for the treatment of prisoners after unsuccessfully attempting to get answers from his superiors for 17 months.
McCain, a former GOP presidential contender, said he was willing to consider "technical changes" in the amendment -- "as long as those changes are technical, truly." He warned that his proposal could be removed when senators and House members try to reconcile their versions of the defense bill, and urged supporters to keep up the pressure on lawmakers.
"The image of the United States was very badly harmed by the pictures of prisoner abuse. We have to send a message to the world that we will not ever allow such kind of treatment to be repeated," he said.
In a letter to McCain, published last week in The Washington Post, Fishback stated that he and troops under his command witnessed "death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment" of prisoners in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Allegations that Americans have tortured prisoners have dogged the Bush administration since April 2004, when graphic photographs of Army reservists mistreating prisoners at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad became public. Nine low-ranking soldiers were convicted or pleaded guilty in the Abu Ghraib scandal and their commander was demoted, but Pentagon investigators cleared higher-ranking officers of any wrongdoing.
McCain said Wednesday that intelligence is needed to fight terrorism, but "the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all our fighting men and women." Torturing prisoners not only yields unreliable answers, but also endangers captured U.S. troops and allows "the cruel actions of a few to darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions," he said.
"The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy," he said. "But this isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies."
He bristled at remarks by his Republican colleague, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, questioning Fishback's account. Sessions also called it "sort of odd" that Fishback refused to disclose the names of sergeants in his unit who reported similar conduct.
"Captain Fishback is a noble, brave young American," McCain said. "He does not deserve to be disparaged on the floor of this Senate by any senator, and the senator from Alabama owes him an abject and deep apology."
Sessions said the McCain amendment was unnecessary, since those responsible for the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib "are being held to account." He said he did not believe he questioned Fishback's integrity, and he said senators who questioned whether abuses were sanctioned by top officers or the Pentagon should consider an apology.
"To suggest to the world that we have as systemic pattern of abuse in the military is not true," he said.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITIC...nees/index.html
|
Why do those 90 senators hate america? The founders faught the tryanny of England so we could have our god-given right to torture! |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
Wow. I don't get how there are ppl that can't see through that bull.
Comments like "McClellan said existing law already prohibits the mistreatment of prisoners in American custody, and the amendment "would limit the president's ability as commander-in-chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism.""
First he is saying that we already have law prohobiting this, but then he says that this law would limit the powers of the president. Wow. Takes a smartass to see through that bull. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Earlier, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said President Bush would likely veto the defense spending bill if McCain's language were included, calling the amendment "unnecessary and duplicative."
"If it's presented, then there would be a recommendation of a veto, I believe," McClellan said. |
So this "duplicative" language (I'm presuming that by this McClellan is implying that similar anti-torture legislation exists elsewhere in this bill or in existing US law?) would be reason enough for Bush to wield his first veto as president? Man, they may not know much about spending money sensibly, but they sure as hell know how to conserve paper! C'mon Mr. Bush, if there's one thing the country doesn't need right now in this era of cripling paper-scarcity, it's a couple of paragraphs being wasted on reaffirming the US's commitment to upholding the fundamental principles of the Geneva Convention!
| quote: | | the amendment "would limit the president's ability as commander-in-chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism." |
Yeah, because revelations of prisoner abuse and torture have been particularly helpful in the pursuit of curbing terrorist activity so far, right?
| quote: | | "The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy," he said. |
Ah, the old "sympathising with the terrorists" rouse. Been a while since they've pulled that one out.
But I'd be interested to know how he reconciles this "but if they're bad guys then we no longer have any obligation to abide by basic principles of human rights" stance with his next sentence:
| quote: | | "But this isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies." |
Precisely, Mr. McClellan. It's not about the moral principles of the enemy, it's about committing to the moral principles you claim to abide by. If the GOP does not believe in the basic tennets of human rights (and freedom from torture, I'd argue, is one of the most basic tennets of any human rights doctrine) then how can they possibly expect to have any authority when they demand a certain manner of conduct from others? How can he possibly talk about his party's superior "values" while they're implicitly condoning the application of electrodes to the genitals of an enemy combatant?
The commitment to a certain level of moral conduct is what sets us apart from these "terrorists", not the empty "us vs them" rhetoric being served up right now (and for the past 4 years) by the Republicans. Actions speak louder than words, so if we are of a stronger moral fibre than our enemies, let's demonstrate that in the way we act. The enemy may not "deserve our sympathy" in these matters, but that doesn't justify the erosion of our own values to see that the enemy is defeated. To reduce ourselves to the questionable moral spectrum of "terrorists" is to make any victory acheived a Pyrrhic one at best: we may win, but at what (moral) cost? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| I don't know what to say. This is so messed up. |
|
|
| Vlad |
 |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Ah, the old "sympathising with the terrorists" rouse. Been a while since they've pulled that one out.
But I'd be interested to know how he reconciles this "but if they're bad guys then we no longer have any obligation to abide by basic principles of human rights" stance with his next sentence:
Precisely, Mr. McClellan. |
Actually, that quote was from McCain. It's basically meant to say "terrorists may be bastards, but that doesn't mean that we should stoop to their level".
But, I do agree with your general point.;)
Oh, except: If Bush is really right in stating that these guidelines are already stated elsewhere, then I agree with him that they shouldn't be stated again. Having laws more than one place in the legal texts opens up for misinterpretations ("hey if they stated it once more, maybe that first mention means something else"), as well as problems with precedence (usually when two laws are conflicting either the newer or older prevails as a matter of principle).
But, as St_Andrew pointed out, if Bush was really right, how could this limit his options? |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Actually, that quote was from McCain. |
Haha, whoops. Disregard all that then, I'm an idiot. :clown:
| quote: | | Oh, except: If Bush is really right in stating that these guidelines are already stated elsewhere, then I agree with him that they shouldn't be stated again. Having laws more than one place in the legal texts opens up for misinterpretations ("hey if they stated it once more, maybe that first mention means something else") |
If the wording of the ealier legislation is ambiguous enough to be open to misinterpretation, then it just furthers the case for a second, more explicitly worded piece of legislation. It surely can't be too difficult to unambiguously legislate against the use of torture (as defined in the Geneva convention) by US troops against enemy combatants?
| quote: | | as well as problems with precedence (usually when two laws are conflicting either the newer or older prevails as a matter of principle). |
Which begs the question why the Republicans would consider the earlier legislation to be preferential to McCain's proposed legislation? Is the latter not lenient enough to allow for the sort of wiggle-room the Republicans are currently exploiting (such as by sending enemy combatants to be sent to less human-rights conscious nations - like Egypt and Jordan - to be tortured)?
| quote: | | But, as St_Andrew pointed out, if Bush was really right, how could this limit his options? |
Yep, exactly. If this new bill adds nothing new, then how is it going to affect the US's conduct in the "war on terror"? If it does add something new, then what particular aspect of the bill do they find to be so repugnant as to threaten the use of the first veto of Bush's presidency? |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
Renegade:
McCain's amendment states that the Army Field Manual will be the standard by which all prisoner treatment will be measured. Its guidlines are those that the US Army has been using for decades and it leaves little or no wiggle room since it was written to make sure that US soldiers stay within the bounds of the Geneva Convention. It is entirely possible that other republicans don't like McCain's amendment because, frankly, it is McCain who wrote it. McCain is a modern-day Bull Moose and does not toe the line enough for their liking.
What do you expect from an administration that cooked up a new term "enemy combatant" with no legal precedent to weasel their way around both US law and the terms of the Geneva Conventions which the US was a signator on.
This administration has done nothing but throw away every single treaty this country has gone into in good faith over the last 100 years that they do not like.
ABM treaty: No thanks, "terrorists" are developing ICBMs so we should make more.
Geneva Convention: We are the most powerful country in the world, we can do what we want, em.
Kyoto: Global warming doesn't exist and we have a god given right to drive Hummers everywhere.
Sigh......
MrS |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
Wouldn't it be fitting if this administration's first veto was in defense of torture? Where do these ******s get off in calling themselves Christians?
I'm going to let Justice Brandeis speak for me, because I simply couldn't say it any better:
Crime is contagious....if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law. -- Justice Louis Brandeis |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
First he is saying that we already have law prohobiting this, but then he says that this law would limit the powers of the president. Wow. |
I've posted long before on this issue of government sanctioned torture, and also enumerated the various US laws and treaties on the books that have already been violated.
I'm just too tired to search for it right now. Sorry.
What just chaps my hide is that toadies and small-timers like Lyndie England are taking the fall for what is a policy formulated at the top chains of command. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
I've posted long before on this issue of government sanctioned torture, and also enumerated the various US laws and treaties on the books that have already been violated.
I'm just too tired to search for it right now. Sorry.
What just chaps my hide is that toadies and small-timers like Lyndie England are taking the fall for what is a policy formulated at the top chains of command. |
Yes I know about all those problems... I have posted a few myself ;) |
|
|
| Verona^My |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
Wouldn't it be fitting if this administration's first veto was in defense of torture? Where do these ******s get off in calling themselves Christians?
[/i][/b] |
Because they can. Why do people convicted of a major crime suddenly find god after they get sentenced to life in prison... Cause religion is nothing more than a get out of hell free card....
Oh, he found god they say.
Well how come he didn't before he became a serial killer?
Nuff said, religion is just bogus wishy washy nonsense. Either you give the bad guys hell or you dont... I want none of this you get out of hell if you suck god's dick hard enough . I want a REAL religion. |
|
|
|
|
