Posted on 11/09/2005 5:07:14 PM PST by concretebob
A bipartisan group of senators has attacked the president's intention to veto any legislation that includes Sen. John McCain's so-called anti-torture amendment. They claim that failure to make clear U.S. interrogation policy tarnishes not only our international standing, but also subverts the very idea of America.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
I am going to ping you to a thread I was on last night regarding torture...
You can read it...and participate if you want to...
Maybe it's just me........
Let's see. We have Islamofacists who hate us, and would cut off our heads, and cut out our hearts if they could. They hate us and everything we stand for.
But, if captured, they want to hide behind our Constitution, and our laws. Do I have this correct so far???
Well, I've got news for them. I say kill them all, and spare us the trial!!!
My God!! Have we lost our minds?? Do we REALLY want to give our enemies the same Constitutional protection and laws as we the citizens??
If the Islamofacists like our laws and constitution so much, let THEM adopt them.
Until they do, I say "Do unto others as they would do unto you"!!
Let me wade in here for a moment. I think it's perfectly acceptable for a young man to be idealistic in revering our Constitution. What you and Concretebob may be reacting to is not our Constitutional protections extended to captured terrorists, but the caricatures that the ACLU has twisted and turned our basic rights into.
There's a world of difference between fundamental human decency, for which George Washington set the precedent by his treatment of British captives, and the kind of treatment our POWs received in Vietnam.
Fact is, what goes around, comes around. If we deal in torture, we can expect our troops, which now include women (not my idea, so let's not get sidetracked on it), to be treated the same way.
Is there no middle ground besides denouncing a brilliant and courageous young survivor of Saddam's murderous rampage and enthusiastic FReeper --one who has learned the Constitution in order to adopt it as his heart's fondest standard?
BINGO! We have a winner! That is the ultimate solution.
I don't give a rat's a$$, what stupid dildo dems say, putting underwear on a scumbag's head is NOT torture.
Fact is, they are ALREADY treated that way, including non-combatants, civilian workers, innocent children, reporters, tourists in other countries, anyone these monsters consider non-believers or infidels..
when you kill indiscriminately, when you have no regard for life, when you hide in Mosques, store munitions in hospitals, use emergency vehicles to attack, use children as shields, you give up any pretext to any sort of rights..
The fact is, the sooner these monsters are eliminated from the face of the planet, the sooner we can begin to show the people who WANT to be free, who WANT what we have enjoyed our entire lives, the way the system really works.
First of all, I never denounced anyone.
Second, I never mentioned the word "torture".
My point was, the Islamofacists hate us, our way of life, our laws, and our Constitution. Unless, of course, they are captured. Then and only then, do they want to be protected by the same laws and constitution they find so revolting.
Hypocrisy?? You bet it is. Just kill the bastards and be done with it!!
My point was rather obviously to agree with the article that this stuff should have been hashed out behing closed doors in committee in Congress and in the cloakrooms, over lunch; whatever, but not used as political grandstanding in McCain or anyone else's presidential politicking. Too many lives are at stake. Just more evidence that ego rules in Washington.
So? Any combatant caught in the act of doing any of these things except munitions storage can be shot on site by a member of the armed forces. The discussion of torture is about the treatment of prisoners.
That is exactly my point.
Just kill the bastards !! No trial, no constitutional protections !!!
I agree with your comments about the hypocrisy of Islamofascists wanting to be protected by the same system they abhor and desire to overthrow. It is a stated part of their strategy to use our humanity against us.
My reply was to Concretebob in 60 and you in 63 at the same time about the torture issue, but my reference to denouncing was about his post 60, not to yours. Apologies.
A lesson learned: Never trust John McCain.
You mean if we torture terrorists detainees Al Quaida might resort to doing things like cutting off heads and stuff?</SARCASM>
How to Interrogate Terrorists Heather MacDonald
...Obedience to Geneva rules rests on another bedrock moral principle: reciprocity. Nations will treat an enemy’s soldiers humanely because they want and expect their adversaries to do the same. Terrorists flout every civilized norm animating the conventions. Their whole purpose is to kill noncombatants, to blend into civilian populations, and to conceal their weapons. They pay no heed whatever to the golden rule; anyone who falls into their hands will most certainly not enjoy commissary privileges and wages, per the Geneva mandates. He—or she—may even lose his head...
I am fascinated that those advocating due process rights (even U.S. constitutional rights) for the enemy, beyond those conferred on the Nazis or Communists, and beyond those compelled by existing domestic and international law, are viewed as the humanitarians in this debate. Torture is already illegal. In fact, mistreatment that falls below the torture threshhold -- case in point, Abu Ghraib -- violates military policy and is prosecuted. I am not aware that our government is employing torture against the enemy as a matter of policy. However, I am aware that certain foreign governments, self-appointed human-rights organizations and politicians have made the claim to advance their opposition to the war. I am also aware that the al-Qaeda handbook directs detainees to claim torture regardless of the nature of their treatment. We ought not set national security policy based, even in part, on these considerations.What nation on this earth grants enemy combatants constitutional rights? You have no idea what it is your asking for. Wake up!The fact is that we were much more brutal to prisoners of war during World War II, under the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, than we are today -- pre-Geneva Conventions. Even the Geneva Conventions distinguish between prisoners of war and unlawful enemy combatants, the later receiving no protection. Those who rightly praise "the Greatest Generation" say little today of the military and interrogation tactics employed by that generation to defeat the Axis powers, for to do so would make evident that our current military techniques and detention methods are far more "humane."
The McCain Amendment doesn't merely codify interrogation requirements, as some of its advocates have suggested. It actually grants unlawful enemy combatants Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment protections under our Constitution. In past wars, such an approach would have been considered unthinkable - detrimental to our ability to successfully wage war. What's changed today? Is there any doubt that lawyers armed with these new legal rights will make interrogation extremely difficult? Does anyone honestly believe that this will curb allegations of torture? Is there any doubt that today's detainees are actually more dangerous than detainees of the past in that a single terrorist, properly armed, can unleash mass destruction on a U.S. city? So, why are we doing this? To prove our humanity? This is a major departure from our past practices during war-time.
To my way of thinking, protecting millions of innocent American citizens is far more humane than conferring rights -- beyond traditional rights -- on a particularly evil and lethal enemy. The purpose of detention, as understood throughout our history and under international treaties, is not punishment, but security. These people are detained for two reasons: 1. prevent them from returning to the battlefield in the midst of a war; 2. elicit information from the detainees to prevent future attacks on our homeland. I fear that we are now doing that for which we criticized the Clinton administration -- litigating the war on terrorism.
And now for some apologies
I sincerely apologize for being an American, and speaking out against granting the Al'Queda freedom fighters the rights my ancestors died preserving.
How crass and callous, how selfish I was, to deny these freedom loving terrorists the rights I took an oath to defend and preserve.
Please, oh please, can I ever find forgiveness?
Will I ever be able to look at myself in the mirror, knowing I was so wantonly single-minded?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHEHEHEEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE
I am also aware that the al-Qaeda handbook directs detainees to claim torture regardless of the nature of their treatment.
We ought not set national security policy based, even in part, on these considerations.
Thanks for the great articles Buford.
Hey I am the one with the sign saying torture the terrorists, but feed them! This is the DU photoshop of the freep that they "borrowed" from a report!
The best part is the signs actually reflect my opinions...somewhat!
Thanks for the great posts, Buford. I'd like to go on record as saying I'm not in favor of drawing and quartering, chopping off hands, feet or other body parts, and I'm not in favor of any treatment of unlawful enemy combatants that involves the ACLU.
I'm perfectly OK with degrading prisoners of war -- what is the point of interrogations without degradations of some kind? This word is too broad and vague and should definitely be vetoed.
I don't think the taxpayers should have to provide lawyers for any foreigners who entered this country illegally, except for minor children like Elian Gonzales, for instance. Nor for unlawful combatants.
I agree we should provide physical health care of basic situations, but once these international do-gooder groups or the Anti-Christian Lawyers United (ACLU) gets involved, you get lawsuits by prisoners who want chunky peanut butter instead of smooth (actual case).
That said, will one of you please define exactly what forms of torture you think ARE acceptable? Be specific.
You're most welcome, Sweety!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.