Posted on 09/18/2006 7:43:27 PM PDT by tobyhill
WASHINGTON - The White House told lawmakers it would send Congress a revised proposal late Monday for dealing with terrorism suspects as the number of GOP senators publicly opposing President Bush's initial plan continued to grow.
A Republican-led Senate committee last week defied Bush and approved terror-detainee legislation that Bush vowed to block. Sen. John Warner, normally a Bush supporter, pushed the measure through his Senate Armed Services Committee by a 15-9 vote.
John Ullyot, a spokesman for Warner, said the Virginia senator expected to receive another draft of the legislation. No details were immediately available.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
its going to be hard for him to carry that slogan into the primaries "vote for me, otherwise I'll run as an independent to help Hillary".
If I join al Qaida, will someone from the gubmint bake me cookies and bring me Subway sammiches and Filets O'Fish?
Not THAT certain!
Nobody understands or even has paid a dimes worth of attention to that article. Neither the U.S. or any other country has used it. It was a generalization and a cop-out to begin with.
The senate needs to put the presidents responsibility for the treatment of these civilian terrorists in law with some oversight and limits, and leave it up to him.
This would take the court out of it and give the president the protection of law.
But they can't and won't.
So in lieu of this non-decision, they need to decide what article three actually means. But they won't.
Somebody has to interpret the uninterpretable!
But it is election eve.
Whatta mess........
It won't be hard for McCain because he really thinks he's the next President either as a Republican or Independent and he's so egotistical that he couldn't see that his running as an Independent will just hand Hillary the win.
TR got Hearst to "yellow Journalism" us into a stupid war, that there was NO reason to fight. Teddy thoroughly enjoyed playing ROUGHRIDER and had his uniform made by Brooks Brothers; IIRC.....it could have been the original Abacrombie&Fitch.
And there was NO war to fight, when Teddy was president.
If you think that Ike wouldn't have allowed torture on an enemy combatant, during WW II, you're nuts. Oh and BTW, there were NO wars during Ike's presidency.
Reagan?
You obviously don't even know recent history; let alone what occurred in the last century.
Hello! No torture!
he could never win the election as an independent.
SPOT ON!
I'm not letting you get away with that smear. Abu Gharab was a dispicable act of poorly led, poorly trained soldiers. No one approved of that situation and it was investigated by higher authorities before the media made it the national humiliation that it was.
On the other side of the arguement, taking your position a Moooslim could claim that his interrogation by a female was degrading and she could be prosecuted for a war crime under the Geneva convention. Is that what you want?
Do we have a right to do any interrogation? or should we simply build a large Hilton hotel and provide inhouse phones for them to plan our destruction with?
Are you prepared for the next 9/11?
Be nice. You'll give Petronski nightmares.
I cannot think the unthinkable....It would be cruel and unusual punishment...torture!
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.