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 Bad Guys do not play by "The Rules."
This is the lesson that everybody should have taken away from Vietnam.
Is anybody in Washington listening?
Actually the president didn't sacrifice anything, mccain has sacrificed the safety of this country to the altar of a liberal press, but that's Bush's fault also, correct.
I remember reading a quote a while back, can't remember offhand who said it: "Amatures talk of tactics, generals talk of logistics."
Logistics is the art of dotting every "i" and crossing every "t".
And a reminder for everyone about those darling terrorist prisoners they are so eager of protecting:
Gitmo Gulag? Serious bad guys at Guantanamo would love to kill you. (Abuse BY prisoners)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1507583/posts
Our young military men and women routinely endure the vilest invective imaginable, including death threats that spill over to guards' families. All soldiers and sailors working "inside the wire" have blacked out their name tags so that the detainees will not learn their identities. Before that step was taken the terrorists were threatening to tell their al-Qaida pals still at large who the guards were.
"We will look you up on the Internet," the prisoners said. "We will find you and slaughter you and your family in your homes at night. We will cut your throats like sheep. We will drink the blood of the infidel."
That is bad enough, but the terrorist prisoners throw more than words at the guards. On a daily basis, American soldiers carrying out their duties within the maximum-security camp are barraged with feces, urine, semen, and spit hurled by the detainees. Secretly fashioned weapons intended for use in attacking guards or fellow detainees are confiscated regularly.
When food or other items are passed through the "bean hole"--an opening approximately 4 inches by 24 inches in the cell doors--the detainees have grabbed at the wrists and arms of the Americans feeding them and tried to break their bones.
When guards enter the cells to remove detainees for interrogation sessions, medical visits, or any number of reasons, detainees sometimes climb on the metal bunks and leap on the guards. They have crammed themselves under the bunks, requiring several guards to extract them. Some have attacked unsuspecting soldiers with steel chairs.
Determined to inflict maximum damage, detainees have groped under the protective face masks of the guards, clawing their faces and trying to gouge eyes and tear mouths.
Keep in mind that our soldiers--young men and young women--are absolutely forbidden from responding in kind. They are constrained to maintain absolute discipline and follow humane operating procedures at all times, at risk of serious punishment.
Documents recently obtained by The Associated Press through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit show that one detainee punched a guard in the mouth, knocking out his tooth, then began to bite the MP. Several guards were required to repel the prisoner's attack; one soldier who came to the rescue delivered two blows to the inmate's head with a handheld radio.
For this he was dropped in rank to private.
I think that you're not getting my point. Thanks for the talk though.
> How are you going to get them to talk, if they know that NOTHING bad could possibly happen to them.
Tickle them until they pee their pants. Pillow-fight them until they run out of breath. Be mean, call them names, play nasty tricks on them and don't share your candy...
Or point a CNN camera at their ugly mugs. Then they'll talk alright: but after-the-fact, after the bomb has gone off.
And the logistics of giving your enemy a boost isn't very logical is it.
Quite disgusting and this is from the House side.
My question is does this apply only to military personnel,or does it include CIA/FBI as well??
The President has said we don't condone or use torture, the Vice-President has said we don't condone or use torture, the Secretary of State has said we don't condone or use torture. This is just applying what they said. Isn't it?
NO this isn't. This prohibits virtually ANY ability to interrogate prisoners, EVERYTHING can be claimed to be "degrading". As I said in a previous post, you can't even intimidate them by having a dog bark at them. So what CAN you do?
Another article with more detail, read it and weep.
House vote backs McCain language on torture
A clear message to the administration that Congress supports the legislation
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/15/MNGADG892M1.DTL
Rep. Walter Jones Jr., R-N.C., was among the many conservative Republicans who voted for Murtha's motion. He said in an interview that experts have told lawmakers that harsh interrogation methods often produce misleading or false misinformation because the detainee "will tell you what he thinks you want to hear" to end the pain.
Jones said he believed extreme interrogation tactics resulted in some of the bad intelligence that led the administration to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the invasion.
McCain's language is stalling the Defense Authorization bill, a policy-setting measure, as the White House continues to negotiate for exceptions and legal protection for interrogators who might unwittingly cross the proposed new lines
Despite McCain's unwavering stance, the White House continues to push for some level of exemption for officials working in the U.S. intelligence services and most specifically the CIA. Sources familiar with the negotiations said Wednesday that McCain and Hadley's one-on-one meetings over the past month had centered on the White House's request for some level of legal protection from liability for CIA operatives should they be found in violation of the standards.
Such an exception would allow interrogators to use a defense that a "reasonable person" would not have thought their actions were illegal, similar to military laws about following orders.
Yes, and he has promised to do so!
LLS
If everything is open to interpretation then I guess it's possible that we're already using torture, just not calling it that?
Ever watch the show "24"?? That exact scenario is what caused "jack" to fake his own death and loose everything, depite saving the nation and millions of lives.
Even if they release them or cut a deal with them that the west don't like?
Not on the battlefield it isn't.
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.