Bush will veto anti-torture law after Senate revolt

I thought we already had anti-torture legislation.

 

Apparently not. I find it amusing that our "born again" president is upset that the senate doesn't want him to torture people. How do you do that antway? Do you have a prayer meeting before you beat the guy? Do you invoke the blessings of Christ before you attache electrodes to thier private parts?

 

BJ, In effect as signatories of the Geneva Convention, we do have laws against torture. Furhtermore, since the prisoners currently in question are not soldiers, but terrorists, they are protected by law.

By the way, what evidence do you have that President Bush wants to torture people? Can you provide a source to support your claim? I was wondering if you held prayer meeting before posting such baseless claims.

 

Another of the party faithfull. Since he was not truthfull about the entire Iraq matter to begin with I just took the other for granted, especially since he wants to veto such a common sense thing.

 

We have international treaties which should have the force of law...but if we make new classifications that aren't covered or if we ship them off to a non-participating country for "questioning" we can get around it.

 

This brings up a question I've had since the beginning of the "War on Terror," What is the difference between a "prisoner of war" and an "enemy combatant?"

also, there is the problem of defining what "torture" is and is not. There is probably a great range for this definition on this board. We need to define what we mean officially.

Also, when did supporting or doing what you personally think is right a legislator becomea "mutiny" or a "revolt?" Is not the legislature to be independent of the executive branch?

Just a thought.

Tim

 

Is this "source" reliable or is it a National Enquirer kind of thing?

 

I saw John Mcain interviewed about it at lunch today on the noon news on CBS. The article above is front the UK. I'd say the story is reliable.

 

BJ--another faithful Bush Basher. The old canard that Bush lied about the Iraq war really isn't true. He, along with most of Congress, believed the intelligence reports about Iraq, and acted accordingly. Those in Congress who say he lied are tarring themselves with the same brush.

I will repeat my earlier question. Did you have prayer meeting before you posted your baseless claim? To make such a statement based on an assumption, which in turn was not based on hard fact, is pretty far fetched.

 

Torture is already illegal for all categories of prisoners. Other mistreatment is also illegal. All the misconduct we've seen graphically reported has resulted in investigations, changes, trials, and convictions under due process for those that committed the crimes. No new laws were required to effect that discipline. The system we have works. Those that violated the law - top to bottom - are being held accountablity for it. Others have taken note that there is accountability for both leaders and followers. The proposed law goes beyond what's required and risks giving more protection than is wise to certain categories of our enemy. It would limit our ability in apply legal but maximum interrogation techniques. It would afford the same status to terrorits that we do prisoners of war or, perhaps, even ordinary criminals. That's just not a good idea and not in the best interest of our nation's ability to fight wars! Certain enhancements - doctrine, organization, procedures, etc. - and effective training may be in order to help prevent the things that went wrong from happening again. The typical response to problems is to expect the government to make new laws. We have enough already!

[ October 07, 2005, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Dragoon68 ]

 

Thank you my southern brother!

 

Sorry to disagree, but the President, VP Cheney and Rumsfield have all said that we are not abiding by existing international law (the Geneva Convention) in dealing with prisioners taken in this war because our opponents are terrorists and not soldiers. Since our government is refusing to abide by existing international law, maybe we do need American law to cover this area.

Do you think a decent country let alone one that calls itself a "Christian nation" tortures its prisioners?

 

Posted by straightand narrow

What evidence is there that this country has tortured prisoners? Except for the minor incidents in AbuGhraib (sp?) I haven't seen any. By the way, in case you have been on another planet, the ones who did mistreat prisoners are being punished. The prisoners at Gitmo are being fed at least as good as, and probably better, than the MREs our troops eat. There are no beatings, beheadings, etc.

What torture has taken place? As Dragoon68 has said, there are enough laws on the books and enough executive orders in place to more than adequately protect prisoners, whether they are covered by the Geneva convention or not. IMHO, McCain is so bitter over losing the nomination to Bush that he is using this as another attempt to embarass Bush.

Still no proof of torture, unless one counts the assumption of Brother James as proof.

 

Good for the President. The last thing we want to hand the terrorists is a handbook of our limitations. If we're going to succeed against these fascist bullies we need to make them so afraid of hurting us that they wet themselves when we glare their way.

Now we need to take the gloves off when it comes to dealing with the Fascist Left in our own nation.

 

Perhaps you could point me to the passage in the Bible where Jesus says he is OK with torture?

Kiwimac

 

terrible legislation.