Posted on 12/15/2005 1:14:03 AM PST by FairOpinion
The House of Representatives on Wednesday threw its weight behind a Senate-approved ban on the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation techniques - a major defeat for President Bush that raises pressure on the White House to reach a compromise on the measure. Democrats were joined by 107 Republicans in the 308-122 vote, which instructed House members to adopt the Senate ban during conference committee negotiations over a Defense Department spending bill. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who has recently clashed with the White House over Iraq policy, proposed the instruction. Only one Democrat, Jim Marshall of Georgia, voted against it. "We cannot torture and still retain the moral high ground. Torture brings discredit upon the United States," said Murtha, the only House member who spoke before the vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
The entire Congress should be fired, they want to protect the terrorists, at the expense of the lives of potentially thousands of innocent Americans.
EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS -- THE ACTUAL TEXT, GIVING THE TERRORIST DETAINEES FULL RIGHTS AND PROTECTION OF THE US CONSTITUTION ANYWHERE, EVEN OUTSIDE THE US AND CREATING US LAW BASED ON THE UN.
THIS IS WHAT THE US CONGRESS IS MAKING LAW:
(a) In General.--"No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section.
(c) Limitation on Supersedure.--The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section.
(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.--In this section, the term ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984. "
====
Here is the link to the Senate vote, you can go from there via the link on that page to the actual text, but for some reason, when I put in the direct link to the text it gives me an error.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00249
Looks like a "liberal" type law, take the "options" from us so the criminal can be protected.
Looky there, "true conservatives" ron paul and tom tancredo voted with the democrats, restraining our military.
Well that's it for Tancredo then, he'll never darken the steps at the White House again.
Weldon also voted with the dems.
"Looky there, "true conservatives" ron paul and tom tancredo voted with the democrats, restraining our military."
===
Thanks for the link to the votes and for poiting out the above.
I guess Tancredo is really upset about some illegal aliens who come here to work, but wouldn't want to harm a hair on the head of the darling terrorists. Obviously he cares nothing about REALLY protecting the American people.
(For the record, I am against illegal immigration, but I am for realistic solutions.)
This is crazy.
Ron Paul is my congress critter and he is a pain.
It's worse than crazy, it's suicidal.
Many terrorist attacks have been preventing by interrogating terrorists who knew about it. Now our fine Congress is taking that option away from our hard working military and intelligence agents.
I guess it will take an attack with WMD, before they will wake up.
I can just see after an attack, they will form a commission to find out about "the intelligence failure".
My congressman (former Vietnam POW) Sam Johnson led the fight against this garbage legislation. However, Congress would prefer to follow the lead of RINO McCain, the MSM, and the Michael Moore Moonbats. Sickening.
Rome at the peak of its military power collapsed from within thanks in large part to corrupt officials. When people lose faith in their government, nothing can hold it together except force. I'm beginning to see the 8 years of Bill Clinton as a symptom of a much larger problem faced by our nation.
The government is rotting, from judicial tyrants in black robes to congressmen who sell out the Constitution in exchange for fawning MSM coverage, bribes, and retention of power for the sake of power. Throw in a Hillary Clinton presidency and it is game over.
Assuming this crap passes both houses, can't the President just stick it in a drawer and not sign it?
The only way that such an attack would wake them up is if it took the lives of a significant number of them or their friends and families. Most of Congress now operates on a "What's in it for me?" basis rather than per the Constitution.
In Bush's shoes, I'd veto this legislation, make a prime time speech announcing why he was vetoing it, and dare Congress to override his veto. If the veto was overriden, he should challenge the legislation for its interference with his constitutional duty to defend the country against enemies, both foreign and domestic, and simultaneously announce that pending appeal all interrogations of terrorists would be conducted by our 'allies' in Jordan, Egypt and the new Iraqi and Afghanistan governments.
The unintended consequence of this law is that we're going to stop taking the senior leadership alive. Pretty much every single mid level leader we take knows that all he has to do is shut up and say 'I'm not telling you anything', because all we can do is ask them questions for a few hours a day. Consequently, we don't get much out of those guys. It was only the really high ups that were in any danger of rendition, and it was for them that the gloves came off.
No terrorist leader afforded the full protection of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is ever, ever going to break in interrogation. It won't happen. This means that there's no real incentive for us to catch these guys alive. Capturing them is considerably more difficult than killing them, and the risk to do so is now no longer worth the effort.
That is unfortunate, because we're going to lose what little HUMINT we had. As gratifying as it can be to see terrorists wake up to a 500lb alarm clock, it's always with a sense of loss. You can't help but wonder what attacks they were planning, and you find yourself wishing that we had taken them alive to find out what they knew. Now, every interrogator will be in terror of being personally prosecuted under this extremely subjective law, and won't so much as raise his voice to any detainee we have. Our HUMINT collection is about to slow to a quiet trickle.
"Now, every interrogator will be in terror of being personally prosecuted under this extremely subjective law, and won't so much as raise his voice to any detainee we have. Our HUMINT collection is about to slow to a quiet trickle."
==
Exactly. I don't understand how members of Congress can't see the obvious you stated.
Harking back to my fourth grade civics class, I think he can either veto it or sign it, but that if he does not sign it, it becomes law after a month or so. If the Congress for that year ends before the time limit for the bill becomes law runs out, then it does not become law. That is called a pocket veto.
It already passed the Senate by 90-9 margin and now it just passed the House, with overwhelming margin, so it's veto proof.
Congress is signing all of us up against our will for a suicide pact. We won't hurt the terrorists, so they can murder us by the thousands at their leisure. Anyone making a darling terrorist uncomfortable will be prosecuted to the full extend of the law, even if it would mean preventing an attack causing mass casualties of innocent people.
The problem is that it's attached to the Defense bill.
End of conversation!
If we have to provide terrorists a full legal defense, complete with a lawyer advising them not to incriminate themselves, then forget about it. News of this legislation is already making the rounds among the insurgency and the terrorists, and when it passes it will be celebrated.
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.