Senate Supports Interrogation Limits (90-9 vote to protect terrorist detainees)

Washington Post ^ | Oct. 6, 2005 | Charles Babington and Shailagh Murray

[FairOpinion]

The Senate defied the White House yesterday and voted to set new limits on interrogating detainees in Iraq and elsewhere, underscoring Congress's growing concerns about reports of abuse of suspected terrorists and others in military custody.

Forty-six Republicans joined 43 Democrats and one independent in voting to define and limit interrogation techniques that U.S. troops may use against terrorism suspects, the latest sign that alarm over treatment of prisoners in the Middle East and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is widespread in both parties. The White House had fought to prevent the restrictions, with Vice President Cheney visiting key Republicans in July and a spokesman yesterday repeating President Bush's threat to veto the larger bill that the language is now attached to -- a $440 billion military spending measure.

But last night, 89 senators sided with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former prisoner of war in Vietnam who led the fight for the interrogation restrictions.

[hoosierham]

If you are so disturbed by contrary opinions on tactics,then perhaps you should appeal to Mr. Robinson to have such posters as myself banned.Or just stand in front of a mirror and rant.

[Czar]

"...perhaps you should appeal to Mr. Robinson to have such posters as myself banned."

According to Jim Robinson, FR is a conservative site for conservatives. Go to the FR homepage where you can read all about it, including Jim's personally written conservative supplement. He well knows how the conservatives around here feel about the influx of non-conservatives like you. We don't much care for the GOP Big Tent RINOs, liberals and moderates.

"Or just stand in front of a mirror and rant."

In case you haven't noticed, your Amnesty International/ACLU views are in the minority. In fact, you are the minority.

You may want to try that mirror yourself.

[hoosierham]

Even the ACLU is correct on now and then.You may be,too.But not in this case.

.I don't believe we share the same definition of conservative.Just for the record:only Vermont and Alaska adhere to the ,in my view,original and correct reading of the 2nd admendment.There ought be more executions of murderes. Violent criminals and major embezzlers ought never be released but should be confined in single person cell except when engaged in productive work.Legalized abortion is America's worst sin and glaring example of selfishness,stupidity,and shortsidedness.I don't care if someone uses alcohol or marijuana(which the gov't once encouraged the cultivation of for other useful purposes) as long as they do neither to excess and cause no harm to others. I believe that if it is a good idea to test you and me for substance abuse as a job requirement,then it is doubly so for those who make the laws and rules.I also believe requiring Americans to take such on a presumption of "guilty until proven innocent" is a travesty and contrary ro the Constitution. Same for "drunk-driver" roadblocks and the other trappings of a police state. On the other hand,I think the gov't has no business telling people who they must do business with in the matter of rentals,services,or sales.The gov't at all levels is required to treat all the same,but individuals should be allowed their opinions. Flag burning is an inflammatory act;a Constitutional admendment to ban flag burning is over-reacting.Any religion or political system which cannot withstand or tolerate dissent is too weak to stand on its own,and should fade away.

The melting pot idea of American immigration is better for all than the diversity currently promoted.

Eminent domain and gov't powers tend to be abused for personal greed not patriotism.

Just trying to set the record .

[Czar]

"I don't believe we share the same definition of conservative."

Correct.

"...only Vermont and Alaska adhere to the ,in my view,original and correct reading of the 2nd admendment."

And just exactly what is the Vermont and Alaska position on the Second Amendment?

"The melting pot idea of American immigration is better for all than the diversity currently promoted."

This is pure gibberish. Explain your position on illegal aliens and the continuing invasion of illegals into this country.

[hoosierham]

Neither Vermont nor Alaska require permits for citizens to carry weapons for self-defense.You could have found that with a little research.

I sympathize with the illegals desire for a better life.I condemn those who HIRE illegals in violation of America's laws,I also condemn those charged with enforcing the laws because they seldom if ever, punish the companies,executives,or individuals responsible for those illegal hiring. I really don't like the idea of a "Berlin Wall" around America. What I DO want is strong enforcement and major fines and jail time meted out to any company,farmer,political hack who employs illegal immigrants. IF we truly need those workers then raise the immigration quota,screen out the criminals and other undesirables.That Frenchman's poem about the Statue of Liberty should never be allowed to override America's best interests. We can never take all the poor,all the huddled masses yearning to breathe free;far better to encourage and help them become less poor and more free in their own countries.

It is my belief that if those presently here and those trying to get here illegally for jobs and criminal activity knew deportation would be quick and certain and they would not be permitted to take or send their illegally acquired wealth home,then they would stop coming. The U.S. is the safety valve and dumping ground for the mis-managed countries of the world and it must stop.Too bad few seem to care;and if one speaks up publicly the gov't as well as the ACLU slap him down.

[Czar]

Well, good for Vermont (isn't this the home of Bernie Sanders?) and Alaska. Alaska doesn't surprise me, but Vermont sure as hell does.

"You could have found that with a little research."

I suppose so, but I suspected you wouldn't be able to resist filling me in. Looks like we agree on the critical importance of the Second Amendment.

" I sympathize with the illegals desire for a better life."

So do I, right up to the point where they become lawbreakers by entering our country illegally. That's where my sympathy stops.

"I really don't like the idea of a "Berlin Wall" around America."

I support it as necessary only because we simply cannot trust the federal government to do what it is sworn to do: protect our borders and strictly enforce our immigration laws. If it takes a wall, lets get busy with construction.

" What I DO want is strong enforcement and major fines and jail time meted out to any company,farmer,political hack who employs illegal immigrants."

Agree completely. Unfortunately, Bush seems determined to oppose any kind of strict enforcement.

"The U.S. is the safety valve and dumping ground for the mis-managed countries of the world and it must stop."

Agree completely.