Posted on 12/17/2005 6:57:41 AM PST by PlainOleAmerican
You know, I've just read the UN convention on torture and I'm not sure if waterboarding is illegal. There doesn't seem to be anything about not being able to cause fear suffering or pain...only causing suffering or pain is banned.
Waterboarding causes intense fear that one is being harmed but not the actual harm.
But I suppose it falls under the category of mock executions.
"Those two were in those prisons like McCain and many others. Those are the ones I'm protecting because they and many others are doing things for us that will keep us from having it happen to us. God Bless them ALL."
A quick off topic on the character of American soldiers.
My uncle Ford was an aviator shot down early in WW2 and spent the duration in a Nazi camp - they were treated well at first but after German cities started to be bombed they were tortured.
The camp was liberated by the Russians who invited the Americans to join them in looting and raping. The Americans, according to my uncle, refused to participate and the Russians locked them back up where they remained without food for almost a week until the Americans got there.
THAT is character.
I don't believe we should cause terrorists pain. I have no problem with keeping them awake, making them stand, feeding them irregularly, etc to make them more malleable to interrogation. These things are not torture, and from what I've read .
But I doubt McCain's bill makes any differentiation. If all we can do is ask them questions, over and over, with no coercion at all, we'll lose information.
"I don't believe we should cause terrorists pain. I have no problem with keeping them awake, making them stand, feeding them irregularly, etc to make them more malleable to interrogation. These things are not torture, and from what I've read .
But I doubt McCain's bill makes any differentiation. If all we can do is ask them questions, over and over, with no coercion at all, we'll lose information."
Depends on how they have stand. The Japanese in WW2 use standing at attention as as a horrible punishment. But I think we should be able to make them stand as long as we expect new recruits in boot camp to be able to stand.
McCain's bill apparently copies it's language from the U.S. army field manual - I'll look for the text.
...unless the USA has been so 'feminized' that these people speaking out fear the loss of their popularity amongst the voters of America...
...if so future generation will note this as a dark period for this country with leaders that had no backbone or beliefs that they felt were worth fighting for
"...unless the USA has been so 'feminized' that these people speaking out fear the loss of their popularity amongst the voters of America..."
Haven't you ever seen two girls fight? If you download 10 random unstaged catfight videos off then net there will likely be hairpulling, clawing to the face and continuing to fight and/or insult after the fight is clearly won in 9 of them.
Disclaimer: The above post should not be taken as an admission that I have ever downloaded any video of anything from the internet.
This big head will never win a Republican primary. Now, maybe if he ran as a RAT.....
And Dubya shoulda knocked 'em on his @ss for embarrassing him...AGAIN.
But then there's the question: WHY would the President give the dishonorable McCain the Oval Office itself to launch yet one more grandstanding opportunity aimed at weakening U.S. security and free speech (CFR)?
The the SS GOP appears to have hit an iceburg -- and it's name is John McCain.
"But then there's the question: WHY would the President give the dishonorable McCain the Oval Office itself to launch yet one more grandstanding opportunity aimed at weakening U.S. security and free speech (CFR)?"
The President's flip flop on the McCain bill was really, really, unfortunate. I assumed that he changed his position in response to the international reaction and the realization that rejecting this bill would spend much of our political capital around the world -capital we need to use forother things. I never considered the possibility that President Bush did it to help McCain...
But if the President was trying to help McCain, why threaten to veto it and then act like he changed his mind?
Yeah, President Bush should have vetoed this legislation to accomplish two things, 1. Tell McCain "screw you!", and 2. Tell the U.S. troops "screw you!".
McCain only looks out for himself. Shame on McCain for attaching his idiotic bill to the military spending bill.
McCain screwed the president into a sticky situation, knowing that his bill would be passed if he attached it to key legislation.
The media won't reveal that McCain's bill is attached to military spending.
Had the president vetoed it, the media and McCain would be out there saying the president doesn't give a sh** about the troops.
I will vote for Rudy before McCain. (Nothing against Rudy, I just disagree with him on alot of things) Heck, I may even vote for Hillary before Him. At least you know Hillderbeast is trying to take down the Constitutional Republc.
"Yeah, President Bush should have vetoed this legislation to accomplish two things, 1. Tell McCain "screw you!", and 2. Tell the U.S. troops "screw you!"."
Once he threatened to veto then he should have gone ahead.
I assume your comment #2 is a typo.
"My point is that with the nebulous phrasing in the McCain amendment, whiny pacifist will ensure prosecution for the practice."
I hope you are wrong but you are probably right. The problem is that suffering and humiliation is in the eye of the beholder.
"Had the president vetoed it, the media and McCain would be out there saying the president doesn't give a sh** about the troops."
I see your point.
EARTH TO McCAIN: THESE EVIL DOERS WANT TO KILL US ALL!!!
No comment #2 is not a typo. McCain's hideous bill is attached to the defense appropriations bill.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe torture worked on McCain....
He's a perfect example of the need for separation of Military and State!
"No comment #2 is not a typo. McCain's hideous bill is attached to the defense appropriations bill."
I read comment #2 as saying that the President was saying screw you to the troops. Sorry I misunderstood.
>>Yeah, President Bush should have vetoed this legislation to accomplish two things, 1. Tell McCain "screw you!", and 2. Tell the U.S. troops "screw you!".<<
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.