Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

VOTE ON TERROR RULES DEFIES BUSH (GOP-led panel gives detainees more protections)
The Houston Chronicle via The NY Times ^ | 9/14/06 | KATE ZERNIKE

Posted on 09/15/2006 5:03:46 AM PDT by demkicker

WASHINGTON - On a frantic day of Republican infighting, the Senate Armed Services Committee defied President Bush on Thursday as four Republicans joined Democrats in approving a plan for the trial and interrogation of terror suspects that the White House has rejected.

The Republican rebellion was led by Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the committee chairman, with backing from Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine. The White House had warned that their legislation would leave the United States no option but to shut down a CIA program to interrogate high-level terror suspects.

The vote came despite an all-out effort by the White House to win support for its own approach, which provides far fewer protections for detainees. Bush himself traveled to Capitol Hill with Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday morning, and the administration released a brief letter in which the top lawyers for the military branches said they did not object to the White House proposal to redefine a key provision of the Geneva Conventions.

But former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell sided with the senators, saying in a letter that Bush's plan to redefine the Geneva Conventions would encourage the world to "doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism" and "put our own troops at risk."

Powell's statement amounted to a rare public breach with the White House he served, but reflected his opposition while in office to the administration's assertions that the war against al-Qaida should not be bound by the Geneva Conventions.... (continued at link)

(Excerpt) Read more at houstonchronicle.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-139 next last
To: Kerretarded
Patriotic Americans should introduce legislation to the House of Reps to have a vote of no confidence of our entire Senate! this may be the way to go, your idea is sound.
41 posted on 09/15/2006 5:42:51 AM PDT by From One - Many (Trust the Old Media At Your Own Risk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: demkicker

That makes me so happy that they care so much about people who are out to kill me. If they care so much about terrorists and being liked so much let them move to Iran or the Sudan then they can all be cat pals. These people should not be in office, at least not making my laws and rules.


42 posted on 09/15/2006 5:43:03 AM PDT by betsyross1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach

Supposedly, McCain has said that if this hurts his presidential chances in '08, that's fine. He'll still run, but I'm not so sure he'll run as a Republican since he's hurt the GOP and is so disliked.

My guess is that he'll run as a "maverick independent" and get the media salivating over his candidacy. He'll be the Ross Perot of '08 and time will tell if he peels off enough votes to put Hillary in the White House, or if it backfires and helps the GOP candidate.


43 posted on 09/15/2006 5:43:28 AM PDT by demkicker (democrats, terrorists, Powell, McCain, Graham & Collins are intimate bedfellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: demkicker

Many here know me as a McCain loyalist but I be damned if I can understand this, especially in light of what terrorists do to our people when captured. I intend to write a letter to my senator (Warner) and find out exactly what is driving the philosophy...I understand "high moral ground" but I don't understand it in the case of stateless persons engaged in armed conflict against the United States. I can only suppose that Graham, McCain, Warner, Collins and Powell believe this is the only way they can get the Supreme Court to agree on legislation dealing with interrogation tactics?


44 posted on 09/15/2006 5:45:38 AM PDT by meandog (While Bush will never fill them, Clinton isn't fit to even lick the soles of Reagan's shoes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kerretarded
This pisses me off especially when Graham was all over the airwaves a few months ago saying how much of a travesty it was that the Supreme Court decided the way it did.

OMG, thanks for reminding us what an absolute traitor Graham is! And I love your idea:

Patriotic Americans should introduce legislation to the House of Reps to have a vote of no confidence of our entire Senate!

45 posted on 09/15/2006 5:46:18 AM PDT by demkicker (democrats, terrorists, Powell, McCain, Graham & Collins are intimate bedfellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: demkicker

Oh how interesting. I hadn't heard that he's commented on his presidential chances with regard to this subject. I think your analysis of how he'll run is spot on.


46 posted on 09/15/2006 5:47:10 AM PDT by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: demkicker

The House is doing their job.....the Senate is not. We may as well offically lose the senate to the Dims...it's almost as if we have anyway with these idiots acting like wanna-be libnuts. McCain thinks this type of thing is gonna get him the Republican Nomination? Not a chance in hell.


47 posted on 09/15/2006 5:47:25 AM PDT by GLH3IL (What's good for America is bad for liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
If other countries adopt a two-tiered system the way we proposed to do, then our captured special ops or intel guys could automatically face a "Geneva free" hotel stay

Name the other countries that are at war with us and abide by the Geneva convention.

48 posted on 09/15/2006 5:48:46 AM PDT by jveritas (Support The Commander in Chief in Times of War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: From One - Many
Yes, but your State Legislators are easier to defeat, monetarily and logistically. State voters are easier to reach.

It is a good debate, and one that looks to me, more interesting each year.
49 posted on 09/15/2006 5:49:41 AM PDT by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: meandog
I can only suppose that Graham, McCain, Warner, Collins and Powell believe this is the only way they can get the Supreme Court to agree on legislation dealing with interrogation tactics?

Bad supposition. These five have clearly embarked on an attempt to weaken our President, country and war on terror. The President put forth a request that has already been legally scrutinized for a Supreme Court test so there is no excuse for their revolt.

50 posted on 09/15/2006 5:50:16 AM PDT by demkicker (democrats, terrorists, Powell, McCain, Graham & Collins are intimate bedfellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon

Point for you and Zell.


51 posted on 09/15/2006 5:52:27 AM PDT by From One - Many (Trust the Old Media At Your Own Risk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Dem
They are out of touch.<<

Of course they are!!!..They are Senators!!!..The minute they get elected, their "wisdom" supersedes the Constitution
52 posted on 09/15/2006 5:53:42 AM PDT by M-cubed (Why is "Greshams Law" a law?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: demkicker
I honestly don't know how you can look at it any other way than a coup attempt.

Probably because real coups involve guns and stuff. This is just normal democracy in action. (Inaction?)

And your quote is irrelevant since our President isn't resorting to terrorist tactics to win!

The arguement is the core of the issue we're dealing with. Handing people over to a third party so they can "interrogate" them for us ain't beanbag. How rough are we willing to play? We generally treat prisoners very well; they used to ask us to send them to Abu G, and not to the Iraqis. Or worse, the Kurds. What good is the great effort we normally make, if our reputation is sullied by other instances?

I agree that the idea of "torture" is abused and stretched, but KSM and Abu Zubaydah got more than a wedgie before they started giving up the goods. If we're going to go down that road, then fine, but let's at least be cognizant of the unintended consequences.

Tell our military men and women that we are in an ideological war with al-Qa'ida while they try to hang onto their heads.

I don't need to. They know. In the end, the military realizes that the GWOT is a global counterinsurgency effort that isn't going to be won with firepower.

53 posted on 09/15/2006 5:55:17 AM PDT by Steel Wolf (- Islam will never survive being laughed at. -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: demkicker

"Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the committee chairman, with backing from Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine."

Terrorist appeasers enabling OBL.


54 posted on 09/15/2006 5:55:46 AM PDT by CSM ("The fatter we get as a country the more concerned we get about smoking" - ichabod1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demkicker; Steel Wolf
Tell our military men and women that we are in an ideological war with al-Qa'ida while they try to hang onto their heads. Sorry, but your 'U.N. speak' doesn't hold water.

"The war we fight today is more than a military conflict," Bush told thousands of veterans at the American Legion convention. "It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century."

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:83r13H3HEPUJ:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14599961/+bush+ideological&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8

55 posted on 09/15/2006 5:56:42 AM PDT by TexKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jveritas
Name the other countries that are at war with us and abide by the Geneva convention.

Did you even read my post?

(A) I was talking about future conflicts with actual nations.

(B) I pointed out that our troops have always been abused when captured.

(C) The point of my post was that future opponents could openly torture our guys and shrug it off as necessary, and leave us no room to protest. It turns a potential war crime into an administrative shuffle.

56 posted on 09/15/2006 5:59:39 AM PDT by Steel Wolf (- Islam will never survive being laughed at. -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
In the end, the military realizes that the GWOT is a global counterinsurgency effort that isn't going to be won with firepower.

Why not? It works every time it is tried. I believe it is called peace through victory.

57 posted on 09/15/2006 5:59:52 AM PDT by From One - Many (Trust the Old Media At Your Own Risk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: demkicker
Ultimately, this is a result of the defeat of the effort to remove Lincoln Chaffee that emboldened these senators to act against the interests of the nation and their party. Three of these senators have presidential aspirations. A silly thought when you look at the few Senators that actually can become president. These aspirations have them nodding to the nutroots crowd and accepting flawed a flawed basis for acting.

They generalize that the treatment of legal soldiers will be affected by out treatment of these terrorists. This error equates unlawful combatants with true soldiers and attempts to put them on the same level. This actually weakens the whole Geneva framework rather than strengthening it. Because it encourages governments and groups to cease clothing and identifying their soldiers for the protections of the Geneva Conventions. If spies and terrorist are given the same protections, why put a soldier in a uniform and make them an easy target??? This is the gigantic foolishness of this whole approach. Instead, the Senate should very carefully define what is and what is not a soldier and how these terrorists miss this test and therefore waive the rights accorded to lawful combatants.

As for Republicans, we need to look at our whole system of nominating and think hard. Term limits didn't work because it had the perverse element of removing the most qualified and worthy with the idiots who need changing. I was a big advocate of using the primary process to remove the RINOs worst at the margin but the National Party in clear calculation of not being able to let go of a single seat risks all seats to hold on to the very individuals that make the base insane. Losing more seats just makes these idiots more powerful, not less. We need a process that establishes party discipline. The removal of Chaffee would have done that but this is not possible and this pattern kept Spectre in the previous cycle despite the availability of a far superior candidate for the post.

I have been thinking about perhaps reducing the number of delegates for the convention that are awarded in the General primaries, and introducing State nominating conventions for Statewide and National Seats. This is a call back to smoke filled rooms, so these rooms need to have blowers called bloggers and public disclosure of the debates. The run up to the convention could be preceded by discussion forums and access via internet by statewide party members something that wasn't possible before the internet.

The emphasis of the activity prior to State conventions and the National convention would be on selecting delegates. Something that has completely slipped to the wayside. The effect of this would be to call into question until very late in the nominating season who the final candidate would be. This gives all of the states input on the nominating process rather than the current two or three states. It also builds a party apparatus that can act to keep by acclamation certain candidates and dump others early in the process. Right now a Senator has to decide to step down once elected. No other alternative apparently works. Something has to be done.

58 posted on 09/15/2006 6:01:12 AM PDT by dalight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
I hadn't heard that he's commented on his presidential chances with regard to this subject

McCain stands his ground on CIA jails ("willing to risk the presidency")

59 posted on 09/15/2006 6:01:48 AM PDT by demkicker (democrats, terrorists, Powell, McCain, Graham & Collins are intimate bedfellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: demkicker

Terrorists should be considered international outlaws.

These three want to give the them more legal rights than the Soldiers who fight them.

Next they will advocate the death penalty for any Soldier that kills one of them.

That the Democrats want to give the terrorists more legal protections than our Soldiers and wish to prosecute our soldiers for killing terrorists does not sutprise me. The Democrats and terrorists have the same goals and are on the same side.

It is the Republicans doing this that sickens me.

There are more than a few on this forum who would like to see John Mc Cain elected President of the United States because in their words, He is tough on terrorism."

If what he did and wants to do is tough on terrorism, I hope I never see him being tender on terrorism.


60 posted on 09/15/2006 6:02:29 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-139 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson