McGentrix wrote:Could you guys go find another thread to post your garbage?
Calling the truth 'garbage' indicates how deeply, abysmally delusional you are, McG.
Bush, GOP 'rebels' agree on detainee bill
WASHINGTON - The White House and rebellious Senate Republicans announced agreement Thursday on rules for the interrogation and trial of suspects in the war on terror. President Bush urged Congress to put it into law before adjourning for the midterm elections.
"I'm pleased to say that this agreement preserves the single most potent tool we have in protecting America and foiling terrorist attacks," the president said, shortly after administration officials and key lawmakers announced agreement following a week of high-profile intraparty disagreement.
Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona, one of three GOP lawmakers who told Bush he couldn't have the legislation the way he initially asked for it, said, "The agreement that we've entered into gives the president the tools he needs to continue to fight the war on terror and bring these evil people to justice."
"There's no doubt that the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved," McCain said, referring to the international treaties covering the treatment of prisoners in wartime.
The central sticking point had been a demand from McCain, Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia and Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record) of South Carolina that there be no attempt to redefine U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
The agreement contains key concessions by the White House, including dropping a provision that would have interpreted Geneva Convention obligations and another allowing a defendant to be convicted on evidence he never sees if it is classified. The legislation, however, makes clear the president has the authority to enforce the treaty.
CIA Director Michael Hayden has said the agency needed to be confident that its interrogation program for high-value terror suspects is legal.
"Much remains in the legislative process," he said in a written statement to the agency personnel. But "if this language becomes law, the Congress will have given us the clarity and the support that we need to move forward with a detention and interrogation program that allows us to continue to defend the homeland, attack al-Qaida and protect American and allied lives."
Added Stephen Hadley, the president's national security adviser, on CIA interrogations: "The good news is the program will go forward."
Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., who opposed such a measure, indicated he was not satisfied with the piece on classified information: "We're going to look at it closely. And we have some recommendations with respect to classified information."
Hadley said the bar would be "very high" and that classified information would not be automatically shared with terrorists.
"Our view is we think it's a good approach because the likelihood of that occurring would be very remote," Hadley said.
Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he wouldn't consider the agreement sealed until Bush signed on.
That happened within an hour, when the president stepped before microphones in Orlando, Fla., where he was campaigning for Republican candidates in the fall.
The agreement "clears the way to do what the American people expect us to do ?- to capture terrorists, to detain terrorists, to question terrorists and then to try them," he said.
The accord was sealed in a 90-minute session in the office of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who had earlier in the day told Warner, McCain and Graham it was time to close the deal. The four lawmakers were joined by Hadley, as well as other administration officials, for the final session.
If it survives scrutiny, the accord would fulfill a Republican political and legislative imperative ?- pre-election party unity on an issue related to the war on terror, and possible enactment of one of Bush's top remaining priorities of the year.
The evident compromise came less than a week after Bush emphatically warned lawmakers at a news conference he would shut down the interrogation of terror suspects unless legislation was sent to his desk. "Time's running out," he said.
The White House shifted its tone from combative to compromising within 48 hours, though, and officials began talking of a need for an agreement that all sides would be comfortable with.
Whatever the outcome, the controversy has handed critics of the president's conduct of the war on terror election-year ammunition.
Bush's former secretary of state, Colin Powell, dismayed the administration when he sided with Warner, McCain and Graham. He said Bush's plan, which would have formally changed the U.S. view of the Geneva Conventions on rules of warfare, would cause the world "to doubt the moral basis" of the fight against terror and "put our own troops at risk."
The handling of suspects is one of two administration priorities relating to the war on terror.
The other involves the president's request for legislation to explicitly allow wiretapping without a court warrant on international calls and e-mails between suspected terrorists in the United States and abroad. One official said Republicans had narrowed their differences with the White House over that issue, as well, and hoped for an agreement soon.
Republican leaders have said they intend to adjourn Congress by the end of the month to give lawmakers time to campaign for re-election.
The Supreme Court ruled in June that Bush's plan for trying terrorism suspects before military tribunals violated the Geneva Conventions and U.S. law.
The court, in a 5-3 ruling, found that Congress had not given Bush the authority to create the special type of military trial and that the president did not provide a valid reason for the new system. The justices also said the proposed trials did not provide for minimum legal protections under international law.
About 450 terrorism suspects, most of them captured in Afghanistan and none of them in the U.S., are being held by military authorities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Ten have been charged with crimes.
Thomas wrote: And what I'm proposing is that there be clarity in the law so that our professional posters will have no doubt
What????
Are you even suggesting that some posters here are receiving
remuneration for posting here?
I'm absolutely devasted at the mere thought.
I've always taken it as an article of faith that all of us were just plain folks who put ourselves and our own ideas into every post........
dyslexia wrote:jpinMilwaukee wrote:Why didn't you post the whole rule, Walter?
Quote:...or deliberately disrupt topics with repetitive messages, meaningless messages or "spam."
This is the Bush Supporters thread. Posters here have repeatedly "spammed" the thread with the purpose of "deliberately disrupt(ing)" the topic. McG kindly asked that they desist and they refuse. Next time, why don't you get your rule book out for them as well.
I suppose this applies to posters such as SierraSong or Ticomaya as well as others from the "far side" on such topics supporting left or democrats? or not?
Of course it does. And I defy you to show me
just one instance where I've done that, dys.
dyslexia wrote:okie wrote:dyslexia wrote:ANNAPOLIS, Md. - A national black Republican group is running a radio advertisement accusing Democrats of starting the Ku Klux Klan and saying the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican, a claim challenged by civil-rights researchers.
Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, the black Republican nominee for Maryland's open Senate seat, disavowed the ad Thursday as "insulting to Marylanders". He said his campaign asked the Washington-based National Black Republican Association to stop running it.
At an event in Baltimore, Steele said, "I don't know exactly what the intent of the ad was" but that "it's not helpful to the public discourse."
If you want to see viscousness, witness liberal blacks attack conservative blacks, so turnabout may be part of the equation here, but I think it is undeniable that some of the biggest segregationists were southern Democrats, and I would not be surprised if many of them were important movers and shakers of the KKK in its heyday. Hey, even Senator Byrd has a history of some involvement in the KKK in his past, and he is still a vaunted spokesman and powerbroker of the Democratic Party.
You are obviously ignorant of reality and history, the dixiecrats left the democrat party with the nomination of H S Truman (who supported integration) and became true to themselves Republicans and or American Independent Party) and yes, of course, they were often members of the KKK just as their republican brethren. If you really want to see viscousness visit your county or state Republican party strategy meetings.
Before responding, yes I plead guilty to not checking my spelling; it is vicious, not viscous, I knew something did not look right, but concerning the subject here, dyslexia and others should read the following:
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/pcism/sad_history.htm
I couldn't agree more, and the Democrats shiver in their boots at the prospect that more and more blacks might just wake up to the fact at how they've been used and "kept on the plantation" by their beloved Democratic Party and their own race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and friends.
Stradee told us how McCain, Graham and Warner have betrayed the people of the USA and worse of all, future US troops that may be captured by an enemy in subsequent wars, by capitulating to the demands of the neanderthals. It appears that not only has torture been redefined, but that the prisoners will not have the right to see the evidence gathered against them since it is classified. This is a real assault against the Geneva Convention and another stain on the rule of George W, Bush!
MarionT wrote:Stradee told us how McCain, Graham and Warner have betrayed the people of the USA and worse of all, future US troops that may be captured by an enemy in subsequent wars, by capitulating to the demands of the neanderthals. It appears that not only has torture been redefined, but that the prisoners will not have the right to see the evidence gathered against them since it is classified. This is a real assault against the Geneva Convention and another stain on the rule of George W, Bush!
What Bush wants is not torture. It would be like calling a cold lung cancer.
What about what Bush has admitted to--having a prisoner in a freezing room for days. Isn't that torture?
mrcool011 wrote:MarionT wrote:Stradee told us how McCain, Graham and Warner have betrayed the people of the USA and worse of all, future US troops that may be captured by an enemy in subsequent wars, by capitulating to the demands of the neanderthals. It appears that not only has torture been redefined, but that the prisoners will not have the right to see the evidence gathered against them since it is classified. This is a real assault against the Geneva Convention and another stain on the rule of George W, Bush!
What Bush wants is not torture. It would be like calling a cold lung cancer.
Oh boy.
Like Bushie says, we needs to join the solar system!!
mruncool, you are a bona fide sheeple. Congrats.
pachelbel wrote:mrcool011 wrote:MarionT wrote:Stradee told us how McCain, Graham and Warner have betrayed the people of the USA and worse of all, future US troops that may be captured by an enemy in subsequent wars, by capitulating to the demands of the neanderthals. It appears that not only has torture been redefined, but that the prisoners will not have the right to see the evidence gathered against them since it is classified. This is a real assault against the Geneva Convention and another stain on the rule of George W, Bush!
What Bush wants is not torture. It would be like calling a cold lung cancer.
Oh boy.
Like Bushie says, we needs to join the solar system!!
mruncool, you are a bona fide sheeple. Congrats.
Yes, we revert to childish insults....
Contrary to what you think, im not a republican nor do i support Bush. I call it how i see it not based on a party. Thus i am no ones sheep. I did not vote for bush nor would i ever. But i do know one thing, that is not torture.
You are the sheep who blindy follows one idea. :wink:
mrcool wrote:
Quote:I did not vote for bush nor would i ever. But i do know one thing, that is not torture.
Two questions for you.
First, why would you never vote for Bush?
Second, how would you define/recognize "torture"?
And a helpful tip to all...
Marion appears to be a five-eyed slutosaur from the Alpha Centauri system, specifically, the reeking fourth planet Bernardagattos.
Yeah, I picked up on that. Unbelievable, huh?
blatham wrote:And a helpful tip to all...
Marion appears to be a five-eyed slutosaur from the Alpha Centauri system, specifically, the reeking fourth planet Bernardagattos.
snood wrote:Yeah, I picked up on that. Unbelievable, huh?
Huh? I think you may not have picked up on that correctly.
"Quote Ticomaya"
Huh? I think you may not have picked up on that correctly
"End of quote"
-----
I am afraid, Mr. Ticomaya hasn't followed that over the time.
tico
Certainty at 85%. Typical first clue...starts off writing awkwardly with syntax or spelling errors but within a couple of days, the grammer smooths out. At about one week (not quite there yet) out a'bursting comes "I am much afraid" and "the esteemed jurist Posner" and "I pee on Canada".
(I got the heads-up from another and I think timber noted it first)
Isn't Timber a mod? Would not 'outing' the identity of a member violate mod rules or something?
The one reason some of us appreciate this thread when the trolls aren't roaming is that it could be used to actually discuss issues, happenings, etc. among those who don't see the President as the devil incarnate and who can see both the good and the bad where it exists. We are tired of of threads dealing in insults and personal slurs of the type that is typical of most (not all, just most) of the Democrat/leftists posting on this thread.
Serious discussion all sides of an issue is appropriate and appreciated and disagreement that includes civility is a good thing. But the constant red herrings, spamming with inappropriate material, ad hominems, and personal attacks on people is not. .
Those who insist on doing that are rude, unkind, and sadly appear to be quite typical of the group they represent. I think they deserve neither response nor respect.
