that s the truth right there. It's probably too late though.
josh4
Strange I'm having trouble finding much information on the provision for immunity. From what I understand its not worded to specifically include the President but "those responsible for the torture" which is supposed to mean people like the CIA operatives but could apply to the Administration as well.
As of this post the bill is up for vote in the Senate and they just got through rejecting an amendment that would have granted detainees the right to appeal.
"The House legislation is open to broad interpretation. It could provide the administration authority to continue secret prisons, interrogation techniques that have long been considered torture, immunity for those responsible for torture, and cruel and ill-treatment of prisoners. These acts do not reflect policies or principles of which the nation can be proud. Amnesty International urges the Senate to uphold U.S. and international standards of human rights and justice by voting against the House-passed legislation." http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=73339
quote:
"This is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American," said Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the committee's top Democrat. "It is designed to ensure that the Bush-Cheney administration will never again be embarrassed by a United States Supreme Court decision reviewing its unlawful abuses of power." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6092800741.html
Itarillë
well that should have the founding fathers of this country rolling around in their graves...
the geneva convention mandates may as well be as good as non existent with this git of a prez...
pmoisse
Sad. Unbelieveably sad.
So much for waving the moral authority flag now, George!
Kapedan
I dont think Bush or Cheney started a war to kill innocent people. You cant possibly trial them like Miloshevic i.e. Whats to trial them for war crimes? What have they done? Kill al quida terrorist. Bush doesnt tell his generals to kill innocent people. CNN are a bunch of liberal scums that only want to make Bush sound and look as bad as they can make him.
trancaholic
I still remember when occrider argued me about the sensibility of the US staying out of the ICC because the US justice system already had these issues covered. Not so anymore, it seems.
I'm curious, however, whether the US system allows for thís amendment to be overruled, if decent senators get into power later on? That is, if the US suddenly became the beacon of freedom and justice it wants to be, could the system allow for prosecution of Bush and his cohorts eventually?
And Kapedan: Milosovic didn't start a war to kill innocent people. That's a stupid comment.
pmoisse
for kapedan:
Um, dude, they invaded a sovereign nation under false pretences which were presented to the UN by Colin Powell and George Bush.
Nevermind the whole rendition program to torture people beyond the reach of US laws. The fact that this legislation gives amnesty to the CIA operatives & Administration further proves the methods used in the rendition program.
Nobody is really arguing about the Afghanistan war. There was a justifyable link between 9/11, Al-Quaeda and the Taliban gov't in Afghanistan. You could lump the Pakistani intellingence services in with being complicit in Al-Quaeda activity along their border.
The really laughable thing is the moral superiority with which Bush and his cabal carry out their little war on terrar.
Kapedan
Milosevic didnt start a war to kill innocent people? wtf are you on? what was all that ethnic cleansing about?
Did you say a sovereign nation? Are we on the same page here? Listen DUDE. You have to look at a bigger picture here. What would happend if Saddam would of been in power today and if we focused our war on afghanistan? We would have another crazy leader with the capibility to do anything to us. We didnt want that. Look at how Iran is acting now? Imagen what Saddam would of done with all of this.
We are fighting terrorist, and i support anything in order so we can be safe. Everyone is bringing this morality issue. You people are on crack. Whats immoral about bringing terrorist or suspected terrorist in prisons. I guess the world doesnt understand these people arent againts them, they are againts us. I'm not the biggest Bush fan out there, but I cant possibly think that he would do all of what you guys think he is doing.
Its this whole anti Bush air out there, with the media and all. wtf do you think the media wants? they want more viewers and they will do anything to do that, so they play this whole anti bush card.
pmoisse
If the focus would have been left on Afghanistan, Bin Laden might already be captured.
Iran is getting cocky because finally they can see a Shiite rising in Iraq (rememeber that they lost the Iran/Iraq war where Iraq was armed by the US). Iran enjoys the instability also because it has driven the price of oil through the roof.
Removing Saddam created a power vacuum which the US was ill-prepared to fill. They could have helped themselves by actually employing locals from the outset of the rebuilding efforts instead of paying KBR/Halliburton guys insane amounts of money to do the work. Removing Saddam also allowed for the Shiite uprising which has created the conditions for a civil war. The civil war is a fertile training ground for future insurgents/terrorists/militants.
Furthermore, you have the Sunni side that is being funded by Saudi because they want to stem the tide of Shiite dominance in the region.
Both of which are causing havoc for the US rebuilding efforts.
I don't blame the troops at all. They're doing their job and they're doing it well. They're in a ing tough position though, made worse by the wishes of their Sec. Defense. They need more troops to accomplish their mission. 140,000 isn't enough to police the country, but Rummy thought he could do this whole show on a budget.
At this point, pulling out of Iraq would cause more harm than good. I'm not waving the white flag of retreat in the least. I just question the motives of going in there in the first place.
DJ Shibby
quote:
Originally posted by Kapedan
CNN are a bunch of liberal scums that only want to make Bush sound and look as bad as they can make him.
LOL
I don't think Bush needs help from CNN with that! :haha: :haha:
josh4
Well it passed. Accountability is out the door as well as the United States Constitution & dignity of a Nation. This is so going to come back and bite us in the ass. All hail His Majesty the All Powerful.
quote:
Senate Passes Detainee Bill Sought by President Bush
By KATE ZERNIKE
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — The Senate approved legislation this evening governing the interrogation and trials of terror suspects, establishing far-reaching new rules in the definition of who may be held and how they should be treated.
The vote, 65-to-34, came after more than 10 hours of often impassioned debate touching on the Constitution, the horrors of Sept. 11 and the nation’s role in the world, but it was also underscored by a measure of politics as Congress prepares to break for the final month of campaigning before closely fought midterm elections.
The legislation sets up rules for the military commissions that will allow the government to prosecute high-level terrorists including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, considered the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It strips detainees of a habeas corpus right to challenge their detentions in court and broadly defines what kind of treatment of detainees is prosecutable as a war crime.
The bill was a compromise between the White House and three Republican senators who had pushed back against what they saw as President Bush’s attempt to rewrite the nation’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions. But while the president had to relent on some of the key specifics, it allowed him to claim victory in achieving one of his main legislative priorities.
“As our troops risk their lives to fight terrorism, this bill will ensure they are prepared to defeat today’s enemies and address tomorrow’s threats,” Mr. Bush said in a statement shortly after the vote.
A similar bill was passed by the House of Representatives on Wednesday by a vote of 253 to 168, and the measure should be ready to go to Mr. Bush by the end of the week for his signature.
Republicans argued that the new rules would provide the necessary tools to fight a new kind of enemy. “Our prior concept of war has been completely altered, as we learned so tragically on September 11th, 2001,” said Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia. “And we must address threats in a different way.”
Democrats argued that the rules were being rushed through for political gain too close to a major election, that they would fundamentally threaten the foundations of the American legal system, and that they would come back to haunt lawmakers as one of the greatest mistakes in history.
“I believe there can be no mercy for those who perpetrated the crimes of 9/11,” said Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York. “But in the process of accomplishing what I believe is essential for our security, we must hold onto our values and set an example that we can point to with pride, not shame.”
Twelve Democrats crossed party lines to support the legislation, while one Republican, Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, opposed it. Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, did not vote.
Mr. Bush attacked Democrats for voting against the legislation even before the vote began, signaling Republicans’ intention to use it as a hammer in their efforts to portray themselves as the party of strength on national security.
But provisions of the bill came under criticism from Republicans as well as Democrats, with several of them crossing lines on some amendments to the bill that failed along narrow margins.
Among the amendments that failed were one that would have struck the habeas corpus provision, one that would have established a sunset on the legislation to allow Congress to reconsider it in five years, and one that would have require the Central Intelligence Agency to submit to Congressional oversight.
A fourth amendment would have required the State Department to inform other nations of what interrogation techniques it considers illegal for use on American troops, a move intended to prompt the administration to say publicly what techniques it considers out of bounds.
Senator Carl M. Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, argued that the habeas corpus provision “is as legally abusive of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution as the actions at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and secret prisons were physically abusive of detainees.”
And even some Republicans who said voted for the bill said they expected the Supreme Court to strike down the legislation because of the habeas corpus provision, ultimately sending the legislation right back to Congress.
“We should have done it right, because we’re going to have to do it again,” said Senator Gordon Smith, a Republican from Oregon, who had voted to strike the habeas corpus provision, yet supported the bill.
The legislation broadens the definition of enemy combatants beyond the traditional definition used in wartime, to include noncitizens living legally in this country as well as those in foreign countries, and also anyone determined to be an enemy combatant under criteria defined by the president or secretary of defense.
It strips detainees being held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, of a habeas right to challenge their detention in court, relying instead on procedures known as combatant status review trials, which have looser rules of evidence than the courts.
It allows evidence seized in this country or abroad to be taken without a search warrant. It bars evidence obtained by cruel and inhumane treatment, except that obtained before Dec, 30, 2005, when Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act. Democrats charged that the date was set conveniently after the worst abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at Guantánamo Bay.
The legislation establishes several “grave breaches” of Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions that are felonies under the War Crimes Act, including torture, rape, murder and any act intended to cause “serious” physical or mental pain or suffering.
It leaves to the president the definition of specific interrogation techniques and rules barring any techniques that do not rise to the level of grave breaches.
The issue was sent to Congress as a result of a Supreme Court decision in June that struck down military tribunals the Bush administration had established shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The court ruled that the tribunals violated the Constitution, and it upended the president’s claim that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the war on terror.
The White House submitted another bill in early September, setting off weeks of intraparty fighting as the three Senate Republicans, John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, insisted they would not support a provision that in any way appeared to alter the nation’s commitments under Geneva. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/w...cnd.html?ref=us
