Bush defends detainees policy (Right On!)

CNN ^

[indianrightwinger]

Bush defends detainees policy 'We do not torture,' president says

Monday, November 7, 2005; Posted: 11:07 a.m. EST (16:07 GMT)

PANAMA CITY, Panama (AP) -- President Bush vigorously defended U.S. interrogation practices in the war on terror Monday and lobbied against a congressional drive to outlaw torture.

"There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again," Bush said. "So you bet we will aggressively pursue them but we will do so under the law."

He declared, "We do not torture."

Over White House opposition, the Senate has passed legislation banning torture. With Vice President Dick Cheney as the point man, the administration is seeking an exemption for the CIA. It was recently disclosed that the spy agency maintains a network of prisons in eastern Europe and Asia, where it holds terrorist suspects.

The European Union is investigating the reports, which have not been confirmed by the White House.

"Our country is at war and our government has the obligation to protect the American people," Bush said. "Any activity we conduct is within the law. We do not torture."

Bush pointedly noted that Congress as well as the White House has an obligation to protect U.S. citizens.

Not only is the Republican-controlled Congress challenging an element of Bush's policy, but the Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a challenge to the administration's policy on military tribunals for foreign terror suspects. The case, which won't be decided for months, is a major test of presidential wartime powers.

[indianrightwinger]

It is a shame that the President has to defend common sense, but McPain left no choice.

[clee1]

I wish the NVA had KEPT McAnus.

[kingattax]

Over White House opposition, the Senate has passed legislation banning torture.

Idiots...just plain idiots

[GeorgiaDawg32]

there are the prisons we see, then there are the prisons we don't see and will never know exist..the former are for show, the latter for serious business..I don't know this for a fact, but rather a guess..

[pissant]

The good news is that McPain continues to become more and more irrelevant.

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

You'd think that if ANYBODY knew how well "torture" works, it'd be a former resident of the Hanoi Hilton.

[Fiddlstix]

I wish the NVA had KEPT McAnus.

Ditto That!

[Soul Seeker]

I demand John McCainiac and his merry 90 Senators experience what these terrorists do before they deem to call it torture.

Good start Mr. President. Next, you should turn it around on these nitwits and ask them why in hell they are so concerned with the welfare of those that murder our troops and our civilians and less concerned with the protection of those that elected them!

[samtheman]

I don't know if the word aggressive can be applied to this defense. It was good. And I'm glad he did it. But it wasn't aggressive. Aggressive would have included some mention of the horrific nature of a future terrorist strike against the US, of the fact that "tough interrogation techniques" do, in fact, work, and that the critics "on the left" (a phrase I really wish he would use more often) care more about the rights of terrorists than the lives of the American people. That would be aggressive. This is just ok.

[conserv13]

If we don't torture, then why is Bush against the McCain amendment?

[indianrightwinger]

Actually, it is wrong to say the law bans torture.

The law basically grants all the rights of a criminal detainee in the US to terrorists.

[indianrightwinger]

It is a start. Now I know that Bush wants to fight this issue and won't take it down laying from McPain.

[samtheman]

True. It's a start. And a good one. I'd really like him to build up some steam on this issue. It does, after all, play into his greatest public strength.

[indianrightwinger]

Because it bans pretty much every interrogation procedure, and practically grants the terrorists the same rights as our criminal detainees and POWs.

Come on!

[XJarhead]

There already is a law on the books banning torture. 18 U.S.C. 113(C). This proposed law goes well byond "torture", and includes anything that is "degrading". Now maybe we should ban that too, but I jsut hate seeing this bill lauded as an "anti-torture" bill when it most assuredly is not.

[Bush 100 Percent]

You asked:

"If we don't torture, then why is Bush against the McCain amendment?"

Because, like every other "feel good" amendment by Congress, that is not fully studied and looked at from all aspects, it will turn into a big problem for those who need to make judgments in the REAL WORLD.

First of all, McCain is basing this on WWII or Vietnam type situations. He thinks his amendment will somehow make the rest of the world like us and that they won't treat our prisoners badly if we don't treat theirs that way. This is TERRORISM and not a war with a standard enemy force.

If the terrorists know that we can't use "inhumane" treatment, they will be emboldened to take us on, rather than be intimidated.

Just like the Gorelick "Wall" and Torticelli Princliple, et al - things in the real world are not that simple. Human Rights Watch will say it is "inhumane" to intimidate, or smoke in the same room, or look too "mean" at the poor terrorist suspects. I'm not kidding. These things always result in unintended consequences that will tie the hands of our soldiers and other military who are risking their lives and trying to save ours. Finally, the only real world result will be to have our military put on trial by our Congress for risking their lives and trying to save ours. With a Congress like this ....

PS. I find this lack of respect for our Military so disturbing, that I will not vote for anyone who supports these amendments for President. They are not qualified to be CIC for a Military that deserves better. And all for a "feel good" measure by a Congress that thinks it knows better than our Military.

[oceanview]

and what is "torture" to McCain? are truth serums torture? turning down the air conditioning, is that torture? basically, these jerks want to define torture as anything except hotel style accomodations.

[oceanview]

yes, Bush has to put the people like McCain asking for this - on defense. let's see McCain define "torture", let's see McCain tell us exactly how Khallid Sheik Mohammed ought to be treated. should he get a US trial? should he not be questioned vigourosly? should he gets visits and chocolates from the Red Cross?