RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Bush threatens to veto anti-torture bill

Quote:

---

Bush will veto anti-torture law after Senate revolt
By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 07/10/2005)


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.

The mutiny was the latest setback for an administration facing an increasingly independent and bloody-minded legislature. But it also marked a key moment in Congress's campaign to curtail the huge powers it has granted the White House since 2001 in its war against terrorism.

The late-night Senate vote saw the measure forbidding torture passed by 90 to nine, with most Republicans backing the measure. Most senators said the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal and similar allegations at the Guantanamo Bay prison rendered the result a foregone conclusion.

The administration's extraordinary isolation was underlined when the Senate Republican majority leader, Bill Frist, supported the amendment.

The man behind the legislation, Republican Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner in Vietnam, said the move was backed by American soldiers. His amendment would prohibit the "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of prisoners in the custody of America's defence department.

The vote was one of the largest and best supported congressional revolts during President George W Bush's five years in office and shocked the White House.

"We have put out a Statement of Administration Policy saying that his advisers would recommend that he vetoes it if it contains such language," White House spokesman Scott McClellan warned yesterday.

The administration said Congress was attempting to tie its hands in the war against terrorism.

The veto would be Mr Bush's first use of his most extreme legislative option. But senators pointed out that a presidential veto can be overturned by a two-thirds majority in both houses.

For now the amendment's fate depends on negotiations between the Senate and the lower chamber, the House of Representatives, which is more loyal to the administration.

But senators said they were confident that most of the language would survive and that the issue could pose an extremely awkward dilemma for the president.

The amendment was 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.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
I think the basis for the threatened veto may be the use of the word "degrading." That's a pretty broad term and one could easily argue many things that are commonly accepted as humane treatment of prisoners are, however, "degrading" to them.

In fact, if you outlaw "degrading" treatment of prisoners, I guarantee that the ACLU or some other group will argue that orange jumpsuits, regimented meals, sparse cells and other typical and necessary conditions of imprisonment are "degrading" to people who crave individuality in their ordinary lives.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
I think the basis for the threatened veto may be the use of the word "degrading." That's a pretty broad term and one could easily argue many things that are commonly accepted as humane treatment of prisoners are, however, "degrading" to them.

In fact, if you outlaw "degrading" treatment of prisoners, I guarantee that the ACLU or some other group will argue that orange jumpsuits, regimented meals, sparse cells and other typical and necessary conditions of imprisonment are "degrading" to people who crave individuality in their ordinary lives.

---

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
I think the basis for the threatened veto may be the use of the word "degrading." That's a pretty broad term and one could easily argue many things that are commonly accepted as humane treatment of prisoners are, however, "degrading" to them.

In fact, if you outlaw "degrading" treatment of prisoners, I guarantee that the ACLU or some other group will argue that orange jumpsuits, regimented meals, sparse cells and other typical and necessary conditions of imprisonment are "degrading" to people who crave individuality in their ordinary lives.

---

Quote:

---

Captain Sammitch said:

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
I think the basis for the threatened veto may be the use of the word "degrading." That's a pretty broad term and one could easily argue many things that are commonly accepted as humane treatment of prisoners are, however, "degrading" to them.

In fact, if you outlaw "degrading" treatment of prisoners, I guarantee that the ACLU or some other group will argue that orange jumpsuits, regimented meals, sparse cells and other typical and necessary conditions of imprisonment are "degrading" to people who crave individuality in their ordinary lives.

---

---

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
I think the basis for the threatened veto may be the use of the word "degrading." That's a pretty broad term and one could easily argue many things that are commonly accepted as humane treatment of prisoners are, however, "degrading" to them.

In fact, if you outlaw "degrading" treatment of prisoners, I guarantee that the ACLU or some other group will argue that orange jumpsuits, regimented meals, sparse cells and other typical and necessary conditions of imprisonment are "degrading" to people who crave individuality in their ordinary lives.

---

Quote:

---

First Amongst Daves said:
Do you know that for a fact, or is that speculation?

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Now, now, Sammitch we must make sure to send a message to the terrorist that, while they're chopping off our heads, blowing up our buildings and hijacking our airliners, we'll make sure not to flush their books down a toilet.

After all, that would make us no better than them.

---

Stooping to the enemies level always makes them respect democracy!

Quote:

---

Anonymous One said:
Frankly I do see the need of it under cicumstances. But it must be strictly monitored and with medical professionals and equipment near. To make the inhumanity humane as possible.

Furthermore I don't see why the government should let it slide to only war detainees and people that don't apply under international and American law. This stuff should also be allowed to convicted guilty as hell slime that are citizens.

---

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:It's good for the people to see what is being done in their name. Same for executions. We should see the terror in the eyes of the accussed.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:It's good for the people to see what is being done in their name. Same for executions. We should see the terror in the eyes of the accussed.

---

We used to have public hangings in this country. It didn't make people anti-capital punishment.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:It's good for the people to see what is being done in their name. Same for executions. We should see the terror in the eyes of the accussed.

---

Yeah, the same people who watch "Fear Factor" and countless other "reality" shows are going to be repulsed by watching some scumbag get executed and go all anti-death penalty on us.

Wrooooong.

We used to have public hangings in this country. It didn't make people anti-capital punishment.

All that would do is further desensitize people.

---

Quote:

---

actually public hangings left people very uncomfortable. hangmen were often pariahs (which has always meant unliked) and people wanted a more humane form of execution.

---

Quote:

---

You'll note I said "I THINK the basis... MAY BE..."

---

Quote:

---

Stooping to the enemies level always makes them respect democracy!

---

Quote:

---

Just wanted to be plain on your apologist stance on the issue of torture.

---

Quote:

---

theory9 said:
I don't have an issue with torture, persay, but its primary problem is the unreliability of the information obtained. If you're sticking hot pins under someone's fingernails for a few hours, I'm sure they'll shower you with stories of how did anything vile you want to know about--whether its true or not. But most intelligence agencies--including Mossad, who are frankly artists when it comes to torture--will tell that the info obtained often doesn't pan out.

---

First of all, you have the morals of a hungry crocodile. That said, do you really think someone that is willing to strap tnt on their body and detonate it in a crowd will respond to needles under their fingernails?

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:

Quote:

---

theory9 said:
I don't have an issue with torture, persay, but its primary problem is the unreliability of the information obtained. If you're sticking hot pins under someone's fingernails for a few hours, I'm sure they'll shower you with stories of how did anything vile you want to know about--whether its true or not. But most intelligence agencies--including Mossad, who are frankly artists when it comes to torture--will tell that the info obtained often doesn't pan out.

---

First of all, you have the morals of a hungry crocodile. That said, do you really think someone that is willing to strap tnt on their body and detonate it in a crowd will respond to needles under their fingernails?

---

Quote:

---

theory9 said:

Quote:

---

magicjay38 said:

Quote:

---

theory9 said:
I don't have an issue with torture, persay, but its primary problem is the unreliability of the information obtained. If you're sticking hot pins under someone's fingernails for a few hours, I'm sure they'll shower you with stories of how did anything vile you want to know about--whether its true or not. But most intelligence agencies--including Mossad, who are frankly artists when it comes to torture--will tell that the info obtained often doesn't pan out.

---

First of all, you have the morals of a hungry crocodile. That said, do you really think someone that is willing to strap tnt on their body and detonate it in a crowd will respond to needles under their fingernails?

---

A coward is willing to die instantly. A person straps bombs to their body. Get the picture? And what do you mean by "morals of a hungry crocodile"?

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
So, jay, if, for example, there was an imminment risk of death to your loved one(s) by terrorist, and there was a decent chance that torture would prevent that death, you'd be against torture?

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Simmaer down jay.

The people here "supporting" torture have said they do so only in extreme circumstances, such as the one noted above.

You are saying, apparently, that even in an extreme circumstance, even if it would save the life of your loved ones, you would not want to see a terrorist tortured.

If that's your opinion, so be it. I think its wrongheaded and I think it says something about the value you place on your family, but who knows. No one's challenging your right to hold that opinion, simply questioning if, in fact, that is your opinion

You're being silly and confrontational over nothing.

---

Quote:

---

If something happened to my child I doubt I could go on living.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

If something happened to my child I doubt I could go on living.

---

But you wouldn't sanction torture to save the child?

---

Quote:

---

G-man said:
Thank you. I hereby acknowledge that your liberal ideals mean more to you than your child.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Thank you. I hereby acknowledge that your liberal ideals mean more to you than your child.

---