Posted on 10/05/2005 8:08:18 PM PDT by FairOpinion
The Senate defied the White House yesterday and voted to set new limits on interrogating detainees in Iraq and elsewhere, underscoring Congress's growing concerns about reports of abuse of suspected terrorists and others in military custody.
Forty-six Republicans joined 43 Democrats and one independent in voting to define and limit interrogation techniques that U.S. troops may use against terrorism suspects, the latest sign that alarm over treatment of prisoners in the Middle East and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is widespread in both parties. The White House had fought to prevent the restrictions, with Vice President Cheney visiting key Republicans in July and a spokesman yesterday repeating President Bush's threat to veto the larger bill that the language is now attached to -- a $440 billion military spending measure.
But last night, 89 senators sided with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former prisoner of war in Vietnam who led the fight for the interrogation restrictions.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
To many strikes to count now.
Right now we have a specific threat to the NY subway system.
Suppose we have a terrorist in custody, who may be able to tell us enough, so we could prevent it, but we would have to interrogate him, using methods, which may not be torture, but may offend his dignity, therefore it's considered "degrading", so we can't do it.
I would like to ask the Senators, what is more important to them: protecting the terrorists or protecting the American people?
Can you explain that claim, or is it self evident?
If he does, it will be the first time.
Mentioned GOP as it is usually my frame of reference in the ballot box (although have voted for the rare dem). They should ALL be voted out.
Not to mention, that with 90 votes for it, it's veto-proof, they culd easily override the Veto.
Our only hope is the House, that they will strip it out in conference with the Senate.
But even if we doge the bullet this time, all those Senators who are willing to endanger innocent Americans, to protect terrorists, should be fired.
If you say so… You should write and correct the Attorney General on what he thinks POW treatment entails:
"Gonzales authored a January 2002 memo to the President advising against Colin Powell's plea that the President reverse his earlier decision that Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners were not prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions entitled to their protections. In it, Gonzales wrote that, "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges…athletic uniforms and scientific instruments." Gonzales later approved an August 2002 Justice Department opinion, written at the CIA's request, that defined torture -- illegal under U.S. law and international convention -- to be the infliction of pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."
"Gonzales wrote that, "In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners"
So? Obviously lots of folks have opinions on the matter. The Senate/Congress will now speak on the matter. They are after all the only voice that counts, as per Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.
They could if they had the courage of their "convictions", a commodity in very short supply in the Senate. An override vote will shine a bright light on these gutless cockroaches and many will scatter. Suddenly, it isn't 90 votes any more.
"Our only hope is the House, that they will strip it out in conference with the Senate."
I would think it likely, but you never know.
"...all those Senators who are willing to endanger innocent Americans, to protect terrorists, should be fired."
For some time now, the Senate has not been much more than a collection of useless political hacks whose principal interest is in getting re-elected, holding on to power, and feathering their own nests. Collectively, they are a national disgrace. With few exceptions, they deserve to be booted out on their asses.
Becoming as evil as the enemy in order to defeat him proves what?
And now I know Gonzales certainly isn't suitable for the USSC.
90 senators are "stuck on stupid". They're all jackasses.
I didn't know that. What’re we doing discussing this then. Let’s just leave it to Congress…
On this one, I will have to agree with you.
That's reasonable unless there's some tangible item worth contesting. Contesting Congress going over the matter is ridiculous.
"Becoming as evil as the enemy in order to defeat him proves what?"
YOU WIN. That's the ONLY way to win, to fight fire with fire.
And your premise is WRONG. Fighting evil with everything we got does not make us evil, it makes us effective.
Did our Navy respond to, and defeat the Nipponese kamikazes by having Navy pilots carry out suicide attacks?Did the U.S. and its allies carry out mass exterminations in camps set up for that purpose?And did you realize the firebombing of Dresden angered the German populace while destroying very little of military value?
Why copy the standards and techniques of losers?
You don't think that killing terrorists has military value?
What would you like to do with them, adopt them?
Perhaps the Framers were wise to have set the Senate as the group whose members would be selected by the state legislatures,thereby obviating the need for massive re-election campaigning. The closer the general populace ,including you and I, are to having a direct vote on every issue ,the less of a republic this is;and the loss of rights and property under mobs was demonstrated by the French a long time ago.
We do NOT choose a KING,we elect a president ,who is to be the chief executive officer of a government whose laws are to be proposed and enacted by Congress. We do not need international and modern versions of the Oxbow Incident carried out by our gov'instead of eager vigilantes.
Oh yeah,deport illegal aliens .
I must respectfully disagree.
As a Constitutionalist, I believe that our Rights are an inherent part of our humanity. They are not bequeathed to us by the Constitution, nor are they subject to the whims of any government. A tyrannical government can prevent its citizens from exercising their rights, but the citizens STILL have them. It is the belief in inalienable rights of all people, endowed by their Creator, that gives us the license to free oppressed people, or for opppressed people to rise up against their oppressors.
In short, just because these detainess are not Americans (meaning, they should not receive the same PRIVILEGES as other Americans), we should, as a people, respect their RIGHTS, which were not granted by us, but by GOD.
Detaining people indefinitely without charging them with a specific crime is a subversion of their rights. Personally, I would love to see terrorists and their supporters simply shot and left for dead on the streets of whatever cr*phole they were found skulking around in, but once we take these folks into custody, we should only have a set period of time to hold them before they have to be charged or released.
Remember Project Megiddio? This notorious bit of "theorizing" was put together under the Clinton Administration, through the FBI, and pointed the finger at Conservative Christians as the greatest threat to American national security. It was released in 1999 and shortly thereafter disappeared due to the wild uproar it caused.
The reality is that Bush will only be in the White House until 2008. Should the tables turn, and the Republicans lose the White House, we could have a radically different CIC. I don't want the powers being granted to this administration (which I feel is using them fairly, all things considered) to be ABUSED, as is so often the case (see The Rapist or his co-conspirator wife, Old Crusty) under a different administration.
Don't get me wrong, here. As a former NYer, I have many friends who lost loved ones in the World Trade Center. Every 9-11, I sit and watch "9-11" to remind myself of that day, and I still weep buckets. I have been a strong supporter of our efforts in Iraq and have written articles ripping the Dems apart for their continued lies about the war.
But IMHO, in this instance, these folks were correct.
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.