No he won't
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 ...
At the same time I don't like US troops raping, murdering, and beating people.
That will be kind of difficult, since they are set up to retire on our dime.
I would love to see a movement in this country to eliminate Senatorial pensions. Let them retire on investments.
You haven't documented your claims, little libertarian masquerading as a "conserv."
What do you know about the U.S. military? When and where did you serve?
You are simply anti-military. I like my U.S. troops just fine. I like that they are protecting your ass as well as mine. Isn't that noble enough for you?
A serious problem that can be solved by a "time out" according to you. Not even a slap on the wrist: that would be "torture."
The Abu Ghraib guards themselves documented them.
What do you know about the U.S. military? When and where did you serve?
I have not served but several friends and family have. I am very pro-military and I support the war in Iraq. How can you claim that I am anti-military? Because I don't like seeing our troops break laws and embarrass themselves and the whole country?
I am not embarrassed, why are you? You seem to be a U.N.type, always shivering at the thought of world opinion.
You're no troop supporter, the way you fling out general allegations about misconduct. You're a leftist MSM fan. Maybe if you stuck to facts, you would be credible.
The Real Abuse at Guantanamo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1498575/posts
"Many of the orange jumpsuit-clad detainees fight their captors at every opportunity. They attack guards whenever the soldiers enter their cells, trying to reach up under protective face masks to gouge eyes and tear mouths. They make weapons and try to stab the guards or grab and break limbs as the guards pass them food. These terrorist prisoners openly brag of their desire to kill Americans. One has promised that if he is released he would find MPs in their homes through the Internet, break into their houses at night and 'cut the throats of them and their families like sheep.' These recalcitrant detainees are known euphemistically as being "non-compliant."
Yet these thugs are treated with an amazing degree of compassion: They are given ice cream treats and recreational time. They live in clean facilities, and receive a full Muslim religious package of Koran, prayer rug, beads, and prayer oils. An arrow in every cell points to Mecca. The call to prayer is played five times daily. They are not abused, hanged, tortured, beheaded, raped, mutilated or in any way treated the way that they once treated their own captives or now treat their guards. "
That is a great article. Thanks
Housing naked prisoners was instituted by MI and practiced at AbuG and elsewhere.
You can't play with Amnesty International rules against Islamic terrorists.
What you do is kill every one of them you can find. Leave alive only the ones that can provide useful information that will save American and Iraqi lives. Get that information any way necessary.
It's always desirable to win "clean" when you can afford it. If we can't, then win "dirty" if that is what it takes.
That's the way I feel about it.
Congress ain't going to give you a pass to mistreat prisoners. It's that simple.
"It's always desirable to win "clean" when you can afford it. If we can't, then win "dirty" if that is what it takes.
That's the way I feel about it."
The traditional way to do that is to have the rules and the laws in place to protect human rights and if law enforcement or the military feels so strongly then they break the law.
If puts a very high burden on the decision to torture, as it should.
In other words, you are fine with all of this as long as you can hang the military for "breaking the rules". Makes it go down easier for you, does it?
The military should be fully protected in such matters. Using them as scapegoats is not acceptable.
"In other words, you are fine with all of this as long as you can hang the military for "breaking the rules". Makes it go down easier for you, does it?
The military should be fully protected in such matters. Using them as scapegoats is not acceptable."
The problem is that torture is about as un-Christian and un-American as you can get. But there are circumstances when the alternatives are worse. How do you make sure that it is only used in those once in a decade situations?
No jury is going to convict a cop who beats up a suspect who then tells the cop where a victim is buried alive. That means cops have to be extremely careful about who they torture - and that is a good thing.
You do understand that this is already army code, yes? I find it kind of hard to believe that we are arguing about whether torture should be legal.
I am strict construction constitutionalist -the founding fathers clearly didn't want this sort of behavior because they knew it would be abused.
Much is made of the fact that these are not soldiers we are fighting. Well the Geneva convention cover people who take up arms against an invader whether in uniform or not.
So the troops are already obligated to not torture.
This bill mainly protects the troops from verbal orders to engage in torture.
Bush will veto anti-torture law after Senate revolt
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1498594/posts
No he won't
I'm still not persuaded.
Don't mistreat the prisoners.
"Nothing new here.
I'm still not persuaded."
You know what, its probably for the best. If I could change your mind that easily you wouldnt be very sincere about something so important. You obviously love this country and would do what needs to be done to defend it. That's good and I respect you for it.
My disagreement is about tactics to get to the same objective and discussion is healthy.
Best,
Paul
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.