Posted on 12/15/2005 10:05:55 AM PST by jamese777
White House Agrees to McCain Torture Ban Move Comes After House and Senate Back Language By LIZ SIDOTI, AP
WASHINGTON (Dec. 15) - After months of resistance, the White House has agreed to accept Sen. John McCain's call for a law specifically banning cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of foreign suspects in the war on terror, several congressional officials said Thursday.
The congressional officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they did not want to pre-empt an expected announcement later in the day at the White House, possibly by President Bush and McCain.
These officials also cautioned the agreement was encountering opposition in the House from Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
Wednesday, in a symbolic move, the House endorsed the Senate-passed ban. Approved 308-122, the procedural vote in the House puts political pressure on negotiators - but does not require them - to include the ban and another provision standardizing interrogation techniques used by U.S. troops in a final wartime military spending bill.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.news.aol.com ...
bttt!
>>>He chose to let others go before him.
A STAGED few! For show. Most if not all of the rest are now dead.
There's a lot of McCain complaining on this forum, but I really believe that the WH simply uses him as a conduit for things they really believe in but want to be perceived as being backed into a corner in having to do.
Why else would the President be so cozy with the Senator? Let McCain do the dirty work and take the heat.
If McCain is soooooo against torture, why is his ugly mug on television all the time??
McCain should be illegal.
This is where I get that working knowledge. I was 13 in 1984, we weren't at war and our greatest adversary had a standing army and adhered to the Geneva Conventions so this particular convention slipped below my radar. But, now that I've read it, it's good to know that John McCain took this thing pretty much verbatim and slapped his name on it. He's quite the visionary. Now wonder the media worships him.
My first question is, if these restrictions were already in place, what purpose does this amendment serve?
My second question is, do you honestly believe the wording of this twenty-one year old convention is appropriate for this war, against this enemy? And do you believe that the restrictions against "degrading treatment" will not be exploited by lawyers for the jihadists? I mean, couldn't confinement in a structure with no windows facing Mecca (for example) be considered "degrading treatment" of a devout Muslim jihadist?
It's nice to hear someone who has done their homework...John boy is not all he is cooked up to be......
IMHO, there was no agreement.
The "deal" was that McCain was holding all the cards in this instance, considering the the congressional votes regarding this issue.
We have a serious problem in Congress, we have way to many Republicans allowing the Democrats to call the shots.
There is no way the President can credibly threaten to veto any bill now, let alone the bill to which this amendment was attached, considering the congressional votes held on this issue to date.
The veto power can only be a credible threat if exercised previously when such a threat had a chance of succeeding and for whatever reason McCain and the RINO contingent appears to have allowed the President to at least save face here by putting forth the illusion that some sort of "deal" has been reached.
In 1780 he formed a plot to take control of the fort at West Point, New York and hand it over to the British. This would have given the Tory forces control of the Hudson River valley and split the colonies in half. The plot was thwarted, but Arnold successfully evaded capture by Continental forces. As a reward he was given a commission as Brigadier General in the British Army, along with a reduced award of £6000 sterling.
The name Benedict Arnold has become an eponym for "traitor" in the United States.
So you see, even heroes can become traitors.
2008 is going to shatter the Republican Party.
But the best thing we got going for us is the Democrat Party and their day-by-day meltdown. Just as the Federalist Party died a deserved death due to a dearth of patriotism, so go the 'Rats.
Control of the House for 11 years, the Senate for the same amount of time except for Jim Jeffords' defection and the Presidency for 5 years now.
Government is bigger than ever. It's grown MORE under Bushie than Slick Willie.
Bush is as weak as his father, both wobblies.
I'm not sure you can say the growth has been greater. If so, only because The 'Toon cut defense by far too much, and Bush has had to build it back up. Do you really think 'Rat control of government would shrink spending?
That's a common and convienent excuse by Republibots/Bushbots.
http://www.sentryoveramerica.com/issue24_Surge_of_Socialism.htm
I'd like to be considered 'nothing' as well. Who are we to criticize inane legislation, because the writers served in Nam and therefore they are NOT to be questioned....
If he does beat Hillary, he will do it without my vote.
"Ah - weighing in without even a working knowledge of the fundamentals?"
When citing this treaty, the left always omits exemptions regarding stateless fighters
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/cat/treaties/convention-reserv.htm
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.