0
   

US Senate Pours Fuel on the Burning Bush

 
 
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 08:57 pm
Quote:
US Senate Pours Fuel on the Burning Bush

The US Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly voted to outlaw the abuse of military prisoners in American custody. The move is being seen as a slap in the face to a President Bush who is retreating on all fronts. It's the "biggest defensive battle" of his career.

It is more than two years since allegations of abuse in Abu Ghraib prison emerged, but it was only this week that the US Senate agreed on a motion to outlaw brutal treatment of military prisoners. The long-overdue measure would require soldiers to follow strict guidelines when holding and questioning prisoners. The move was proposed in response to both the Abu Ghraib scandal and concern over the poor treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Although the Bush Administration opposed the motion, arguing that it was unnecessary and would interfere with interrogation procedures, the Republican-dominated US Senate backed the bill by a vote of 90-9. This astonishing move, effectively a revolt against Bush by his own party, is being seen by many in Europe as just comeuppance for a president who the old continent feels has been guilty of astounding hubris. Bush's leadership qualities, once his strongest suit, have been called into question by the disorganized relief effort following Katrina. And with every casualty in Iraq, the president's popularity drops further still. Even the right-wing of the party -- some of his most vociferous supporters during his first term -- are disappointed with him, with Bush this week nominating dark horse, and possibly even moderate, Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Are German commentators worried for Bush? Hardly. They couldn't be happier.

...



If you want to read more about what the German paper are saying, it's all here.

Now, I'm not happy that it has taken so much time for somebody to realize that it might not be a good idea if too many US soldiers were torturing prisoners, and that it might taint America's self-proclaimed image as the beacon of freedom and democracy.

But finally, somebody has noticed.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,430 • Replies: 28
No top replies

 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 09:04 pm
I especially like this quote from Die Welt:

Quote:
the US Senate has reminded George W. Bush that America can only win the war if it doesn't lose its soul


Sums it all up, really.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 09:05 pm
Whoa!!!! THAT is wonderful news.


If it translates to anything practical...
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 09:07 pm
Bush will reverse the decision.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 09:13 pm
But what would be the rationale behind that? "No, American soldiers should be able to torture prisoners"?
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 09:14 pm
Bush and his cronies believe torture to be an essential element in fighting the war on terror.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 09:17 pm
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Bush will reverse the decision.



Is that within his powers?




or will he just redefine abuse in the military regs, or whatever they are, to not include acts of torture etc. as abuse within the working definitions?
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 09:22 pm
He'll exercise the power of veto, something he hasn't had to do in the past because everything has gone his way.

Things are beginning to unravel for Georgie.
0 Replies
 
Bob Lablob
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 09:24 pm
Does this mean I can't torture my next door neighbor anymore?

Goddamit.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 09:24 pm
Well, he could do a lot:

Quote:
Senate Moves to Protect Military Prisoners Despite Veto Threat

WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - Defying the White House, the Senate overwhelmingly agreed Wednesday to regulate the detention, interrogation and treatment of prisoners held by the American military.

The measure ignited a fierce debate among many Senate Republicans and the White House, which threatened to veto a $440 billion military spending bill if the detention amendment was tacked on, saying it would bind the president's hands in wartime. Nonetheless, the measure passed, 90 to 9, with 46 Republicans, including Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, joining 43 Democrats and one independent in favor.

More than two dozen retired senior military officers, including Colin L. Powell and John M. Shalikashvili, two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, endorsed the amendment, which would ban use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against anyone in United States government custody.

It would also require all American troops to use only interrogation techniques authorized in a new Army field manual. It would not cover techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Republicans and Democrats took to the Senate floor on Wednesday in a passionate debate over the measure, which supporters said would clarify a jumble of conflicting standards and cast a new spotlight on the treatment of detainees at American prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and Cuba. "Confusion about the rules results in abuses in the field," said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican and the measure's main sponsor. "We need a clear, consistent standard."

Mr. McCain, who was a prisoner of war in the Vietnam War, added in closing Wednesday night: "Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But every one of us - every single one of us - knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies."

Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, questioned why the White House would oppose a measure that codifies military procedures and policies, and reaffirms a ban against torturing detainees. "It is time for Congress, which represents the people, to clarify and set the rules for detention and interrogation of our enemies," he said.

...




Very patriotic bunch, they are...
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 09:27 pm
Oh my! Aren't they dominated by Republicans???!!!!
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 09:29 pm
Yes, well, as far as America losing its soul---- I think that has already happened. Certainly seems much more spiritless than it did in the 60's.

It was a Faustian deal that Bush made long ago. For him to lose face would never do. He has too much hubris.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 09:29 pm
I'm not surprised that Bill Frist voted aye. He's another rat caught in a trap and he's desperately trying to chew his leg off.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 09:31 pm
"it would bind the president's hands in wartime" to ban use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against anyone in United States government custody.

Said the White House.
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 09:32 pm
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
I'm not surprised that Bill Frist voted aye. He another rat caught in a trap and he's desperately trying to chew his leg off.


I've seen videos of him. I can confidently say that he's in a permanent vegetative state.

Edit: 444! 444! I'll have to stop posting.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 09:46 pm
When the news came in that the soldiers who tortured innocent civilians to death got something between 30 and 90 days in jail I was really outraged.

But if the White House would veto regulation that would prevent abuse, torture and murder in the first place or dealing justice to those transgressing, it would basically mean that what those soldiers did is actually wished for.

I can't see any other interpretation.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:20 pm
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Bush will reverse the decision.


Die Welt wrote:
Although the Bush Administration opposed the motion, arguing that it was unnecessary and would interfere with interrogation procedures, the Republican-dominated US Senate backed the bill by a vote of 90-9.


A presidential veto can be overturned by a two thirds majority in both houses. Clearly, the Senate already has that two thirds majority with much to spare. If the sentiment in the House of Representatives is even remotely similar to that of the Senate, any Bush veto would simply be overridden and the bill would become law.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:28 pm
I still can't make any sense of why the White House would choose to veto it in the first place. Why wouldn't the president want US soldiers act accordingly to the Army field manual??

And why veto it in spite of a 90-9 majority of senators in favor of such regulations?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:31 pm
Hey, we in America lost our souls, but we won christianity. They are now working to teach Intelligent Design with Science. The Conservatives are now working to get the Supreme Court filled with conservative judges to overturn Roe vs Wade. God is talking to Bush about attacking another Arab country. I think it's either Syria or Iran. Onward Christian soldiers....

Good (or god's) works doesn't come cheap; we've lost almost 2,000 of our military with about 15,000 injured, and over $200 billion. No matter that our coalition forces killed about 100,000 innocent Iraqis. They must sacrifice too!
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 10:54 pm
On the very same day that the House threatened to veto a bill intended to prevent abuse, torture and murder of prisoners by US soldiers, Bush announced what the States would have to do in order to defeat Islamic terrorists:

George W. Bush, on October 5 wrote:
"promote democratic reform, respect for human rights, and enforcement of the rule of law in the Middle East to undermine the ability of terrorists to recruit new followers"


On the very same day!

"We want democratic reform, respect for human rights, enforcement of the rule of law, and our soldiers to be able to torture prisoners to death."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » US Senate Pours Fuel on the Burning Bush
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 10:35:20