Bush will veto anti-torture law after Senate revolt


The Bush administration pledged yesterday to veto legislation banning the torture of prisoners by US troops after an overwhelming and almost unprecedented revolt by loyalist congressmen.

I always thought that torture of POW happened for practical reasons and the violation of human rights was implicitly overlooked to suit this end. I didn't know it was legal all this while

I'm rather confused. Is Bush supporting torture? Does anyone know more about this?? What would be the downside of passing such a law? Is it because it really would be a duplication of the Geneva Convention rules??

The Senate vote 90-9 to ban torture by troops. Bush wants to veto it so I'd say he does support torture.

For us Westerners, none. Tough luck on any army detainees though.

I support Bush vetoing this bill. Although since the senate voted 90-9 to pass it. I'd say they have the two thirds needed to override the veto.

So you support people being tortured?

Do they?

I wonder if the Bush administration still has control of their own party in Congress...

So you support people being tortured? [/b][/quote]Well generally pat no I not support people being tortured. But these prisoners are not people IMHO they're monsters without any redeeming qualities.

So you support people being tortured? [/b][/quote]Well generally pat no I not support people being tortured. But these prisoners are not people IMHO they're monsters without any redeeming qualities. [/b][/quote]What if a suspected terrorist is taken in and tortured, but is later found innocent in court?

So you support people being tortured? [/b][/quote]Hell yeah!! Can I be the guy to inflict it?

Then I guess Dubya would probably say something along the lines of: "We are deeply sorry at the misfortune suffered by those detainees later found to be innocent. Now, watch this drive!"

Now this is where our leaders are irresponsible, and play politics with the well being of our soldiers and our nation :

>>"The amendment is attached to the $440 billion ($247 billion) defence spending bill and if Mr Bush vetoes the amendment, he would have to veto the entire bill.
That would leave America's armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan short of cash as early as the middle of next month."<<

By attaching this ammendment to the defense spending bill, our political leaders are putting the well being and survival of our soldiers, and our country, in harms way for their own political agendas.

This should have been treated as a seperate bill. This way if the issue of torture gets tied up in political protocol, as it will, it would not affect the needed monies that would go to our soldiers and the overall defense of our nation.

Now a whole defense bill, one that could provide the needed monies for our troops, will get delayed because of a seperate issue that IMO has nothing to do with providing funds for the troops during a war.


Don Cardi

I wonder if I can get my wife on this anti-torture thing?

God probably told him to do it. :p

I wonder if the terrorists are also trying to have laws passed that would protect our soldiers and people from torture and beheadings? :rolleyes:


DS

So you support people being tortured? [/b][/quote]Hell yeah!! Can I be the guy to inflict it? [/b][/quote]No, I'll get to be the one and you are gonna get it! :p

So we should lower ourselves to their inhumane level?

When you fight an animal, sometimes you have to think like the enemy in order to win. And let's face it, if we had stooped down to their level, we would have carpet bombed the whole region by now. We didn't do that. Instead we fought a compassionate war and that's what has gotten so many of the soldiers killed.

Politicians should not fight a war. Didn't we learn that with Vietnam? Let the generals fight the war.

Terrorists are not human beings, they are animals, and they don't deserve any rights.


DS

The problem is our method of torture. We always think of the physical persuasion. That is the emotional response. But I would think that psychological methods would be more productive. Feed them three meals a day; coffee with lots of sugar and milk, pop-tarts and bacon; for lunch - a Big Meal, and for dinner barbecue ribs and french fries, fried chicken and mashed potatoes, hot dogs and beans, kielbasa and saurerkraut. Show them Disney movies and pornography; play Christian rock and gangster rap. Martinis and Coor Light. After a few weeks of that they will either convert to Americanism or go nuts.

And act like animals to? You may be quite willing to become an inhuman, vile terrorist in the misguided belief that this will help us to "beat" them. But if we become them, they have won.

Anyone who uses the phrase "compassionate war" apparently without irony is - how can I put this kindly - not on the same page as someone who realizes what a war actually is.

Politicians are responsible for foreign policy and for the conduct of the state in foreign affairs.

It is sometimes because they are treated like animals and accorded no rights that people become terrorists in the first place. Nothing is gained and much of our own humanity is lost in torturing them.

Yeah ok. Usama Bin Laden was treated like an animal and accorded no rights and that is why he became a terrorist. :rolleyes:

Or maybe the real reason is that sometimes they are brought up and raised like animals. Raised to hate and to become terrorists.

There is no excuse in the world that one can make for a terrorist.

"They're animals anyway. So let them lose their souls."


Don Cardi

Anyone who uses the phrase "compassionate war" apparently without irony is - how can I put this kindly - not on the same page as someone who realizes what a war actually is.

Politicians are responsible for foreign policy and for the conduct of the state in foreign affairs.

[/b][/quote]I was quoting the 2004 democratic presidential candidate. Kerrys words. His idea of fighting a war was to fight a compassionate war and the democratic senators are following his lead. These scumbag terrorists hide inside of mosques, shoot at us from the places that they claim to be holy and religious, and our soldiers are not allowed to fire back because it is a mosque. It is not the correct thing to do. :rolleyes: That's a politicians way of fighting a war. Generals should be allowed to fight a war the way a war should be fought. Based on what's going on inside the war zone and what situasion they face at the moment in a war zone. Not have some rich bastard sitting in Washington deciding how the general should command his troops.

As DC said, was Bin Laden treated badly as a child? He was rich and had everything in the world. They are all just sick bastards that have no place in the world.

If it takes torture of a terrorist to save our world, then I say torture a terrorist.


DS

Interesting choice of words ...

You're right. That is a pretty dumb tactic. But it has nothing to do with torture, which is an humanitarian issue, not a tactical one.

That's a very convenient but rather unlikely scenario. Of course if the whole world really were at stake, then surely the torture of any one person - even the heroic George Duyba Bush - would be morally justified to save the lives of everyone on the planet.

I'm pretty sure that would drive 90% of the world population insane regardless of race and religion

EB

First Congress bans the assassination of foreign leaders. Now they want stop us from torturing captured enemy combatants for intelligence information.

Wow. No wonders we have things like 9/11 happening. Let's just tie our other hand behind our back as long as we're at it, since we're not willing to play dirty enough with the enemy, I guess we'll take the moral high ground and REALLY play with a handicap.

Kudos to President Bush for having the sense to veto this incredibly stupid legislation. And what if it had passed? If a army officer who tortured an enemy combatant against the law and found out the site of a horde of suicide bombers in a mosque, or undercovered plans to attack US territory, would congress then force him to be prosecuted for breaking the law, despite saving potentially hundreds of lives?

As someone already said, I wonder why the terrorists aren't passing anti-beheading laws. As far as I'm concerned, if you capture an enemy combatant, feel free to go Rodney King on him, or any other suitable methods of exactracting information. Thank you.

Best,
Double-J

Well for a start, they don't have a legislature.

Well for a start, they don't have a legislature. [/b][/quote]...and they have a different set of values.

Don Cardi

So was Richard Kuklinski.

Let's all take a step back. The things people are questioning shouldn't even be asked in the first place; truth is, we are in a bit of a political and social crisis at the moment, and nobody seems to know what to do about it. Never mind PoWs. What about the people we should be caring about? The soldiers who are risking their lives every second they are in Iraq.

I'm against torturing humans; animals against our cause? Yeah, I agree. But to torture is to shed our humane skin and reveal the primitive, immoral nastiness which we can share with animals. What sets us apart on this Earth is morality, and the freedom to choose to uphold that. Knowing you can and choosing not to (that can apply to anything, really) gains respect, self-honesty and self-contentness. The way we're going about things isn't solving anything, neither for ourselves or anybody else.

Kicking a terrorist all over may make one feel happy, or make one feel happy to hear about it. Some of the people condoning such violence would, I suspect, run a fucking mile if they were offered the chance to kick the same terrorist's teeth out themselves; they really would. Not everybody, however.

Anyway, kicking a terrorist all over, or attaching electric wires to his genitals, or something (I don't know how they work it) isn't going to solve the bigger problem. So why do it? Is it our good old "eye for an eye" policy? If that was the case, then go all the way and let's start beheading people, and quick. As it is, it seems, to me, little more than childish "well they did it first" behaviour that I left behind in primary school. Or kindergarten, if that went over your head.

Thanks for reading,
Mick

The more I read you, the more I admire you, Mick. You got brain. And talent.