PDA

View Full Version : It's About Time


Boogyman
09-15-2006, 00:04
Senate panel rejects Bush anti-terrorism plan

Colin Powell also blasts president’s proposal for interrogations

• Senate committee defies Bush on detainee treatment
Sept. 14: Against President Bush's wishes, the Senate Armed Services committee approved a bill Thursday governing the treatment of prisoners. NBC Chief White House Correspondent David Gregory reports.

Updated: 2 hours, 55 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - A rebellious Senate committee defied President Bush on Thursday and approved terror-detainee legislation he has vowed to block, deepening Republican conflict over terrorism and national security in the middle of election season.

Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia, normally a Bush supporter, pushed the measure through his Armed Services Committee by a 15-9 vote, with Warner and three other GOP lawmakers joining Democrats. The vote set the stage for a showdown on the Senate floor as early as next week.

Earlier in the day, Bush had journeyed to the Capitol to try nailing down support for his own version of the legislation.

“I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity,” Bush said at the White House.

The president’s measure would go further than the Senate package in allowing classified evidence to be withheld from defendants in terrorist trials, using coerced testimony and protecting U.S. interrogators against prosecution for using methods that violate the Geneva Conventions.

The internal GOP struggle intensified along other fronts, too, as Colin Powell, Bush’s first secretary of state, declared his opposition to the president’s plan.

“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” Powell, a retired general who is also a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in a letter.

A risk to our troops, Powell argues
Powell said that Bush’s bill, by redefining the kind of treatment the Geneva Conventions allow, “would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”

Firing back, White House spokesman Tony Snow said Powell was confused about the White House plan. Later, Snow said he probably shouldn’t have used that word.

“I know that Colin Powell wants to beat the terrorists too,” he said.

Countering Powell’s letter, the administration produced one from the current secretary of state to Warner. In it, Condoleezza Rice wrote that narrowing the standards for detainee treatment as Bush has proposed “would add meaningful definition and clarification to vague terms in the treaties.”

In the committee vote, Warner was supported by GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine. Warner, McCain and Graham had been the most active senators opposing Bush’s plan. The vote by the moderate Collins underscored that there might be broad enough GOP support to successfully take on Bush on the floor of the Republican-run Senate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14814940/

Olds
09-15-2006, 06:17
Is it not interesting what election time does to some folk.....

Boogyman
09-15-2006, 09:41
Is it not interesting what election time does to some folk.....

Well, Olds, if that's what it takes to get Congress to finally stand up to this power-mad administration, then great.

This is more than just election-time politics. People are finally realizing the disastrous decisions and policies being made by this Whitehouse. They see the results, and they see where it's taking us.

When you have people like Colin Powell speaking up against Bush, you know something is wrong. He's absolutely right when he says:

“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” Powell said that Bush’s bill, by redefining the kind of treatment the Geneva Conventions allow, “would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”

Of course, the Bushies have already begun to discredit Powell, calling him "confused". This happens to anyone who disagrees with them.

It makes me sick that Bush wants to "redifine" the Geneva Convention. If we torture prisoners, it makes us no better than the very people we are fighting. I hate to see America sink that low.

cowboy117
09-15-2006, 15:39
I've always heard that the Geneva Convention applied to soldiers in uniform,not common criminals,terrorists and suicide bombers.Can anyone verify this?This is an enemy that breaks all rules of war.[I'm not a fan of rules in war,by the way.Kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out,then bring the troops home!]:2guns:Bush ,in his speech today ,said in no uncertain terms,that the congress would see it his way or else!Go get 'em W!:usa:

JimS
09-15-2006, 16:03
I've always heard that the Geneva Convention applied to soldiers in uniform,not common criminals,terrorists and suicide bombers.Can anyone verify this?This is an enemy that breaks all rules of war.[I'm not a fan of rules in war,by the way.Kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out,then bring the troops home!]:2guns:Bush ,in his speech today ,said in no uncertain terms,that the congress would see it his way or else!Go get 'em W!:usa:

Try this site. Of course you will have to interpret it - which I believe was the main thing (I have been on the road - so have not been able to sort it out completely yet) President Bush was asking Congress to do in order to insure that guidances were provided to those holding prisoners (e.g., CIA).

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

cowboy117
09-15-2006, 16:29
The bone of contention is article 3,which is vauge,IMHO.Bush wants it interpreted one way,his opposition another.Time will tell which way this one goes.I think McCain is trying to distance himself from Bush for a Presidential run;plus,the sting of South Carolina might be playing a part [do ya' think?]Don't know why the other Republicans are going along with him.Maybe they want jobs if he gets elected.:blink:

Boogyman
09-15-2006, 19:19
I've always heard that the Geneva Convention applied to soldiers in uniform,not common criminals,terrorists and suicide bombers.Can anyone verify this?This is an enemy that breaks all rules of war.[I'm not a fan of rules in war,by the way.Kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out,then bring the troops home!]:2guns:Bush ,in his speech today ,said in no uncertain terms,that the congress would see it his way or else!Go get 'em W!:usa:

Cowboy, we are supposed to be better than terrorists, especially morally. Do we not treat even our worst criminals with at least some level of decency?

What's next? Torturing murder and rape suspects in order to extract confessions?

It's been proven that torture doesn't produce reliable information anyway. Enough pain and they will tell you anything.

McCain has experienced this first hand, five years in North VN prison camps. Are you gonna listen to him or somebody like Bush who maybe cut his finger once?

Doesn't it bother you that so many of our experienced military leaders, guys who have been there, are now taking a stance against the draft-dodging chickenhawks in the Whitehouse?

I understand that some people are going to stubbornly and blindly support Bush no matter what, but with the way things have been going, a reasonable person will eventually say enough is enough.

Are we forgetting that our elected officials are supposed to enact the will of the people? If it takes the threat of losing the election to do that, you are seeing Democracy in action.

2/3's of the American people are against this war, and no longer support the Bush Administration. That sounds like the will of the people to me.

If I was a Republican, I'd be relieved that my party leaders are finally standing up for what's right, instead of marching in lock-step with the Neo-Cons.

plinky
09-15-2006, 19:55
Senate panel rejects Bush anti-terrorism plan

Colin Powell also blasts president’s proposal for interrogations


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14814940/

Gen. Colin Powell is an intelligent and respectable man....unlike our beloved president.

plinky
09-15-2006, 19:58
Btw Dumbuya argues with the GOP about the rejected terro bill...two more years, man...two more years...

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Bush_Administration

freesw
09-16-2006, 00:08
“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” Powell said that Bush’s bill, by redefining the kind of treatment the Geneva Conventions allow, “would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”

Of course, the Bushies have already begun to discredit Powell, calling him "confused". This happens to anyone who disagrees with them.

This so typifies this administration.

The problem with Bush's approach is so obvious that I wonder why we don't see it spelled out in print more often. Our troops pick up people, intelligence officers sort them out. They do as good a job as they can of filtering out the ones that are really terrorists, and may have information we need. But - innocent people also get caught up in this, or persons "guilty" of being combatants, but not privvy to the information they are thought to have. Now, those persons are in one hell of a bind, aren't they? Because on the one hand, they are the least "deserving" of torture of all the prisoners, yet on the other hand, they are the least capable of providing the information their interrogators are convinced they have! Catch 22.

Then it becomes a question of, how much coercion and denial will go on before the interrogator realizes there's no info there? The innocent person looks just like the most hardened terrorist in this case, a case which must be common, and suffers for it. When finally released, he becomes a most effective witness to the "brutality" meted out by his American captors. Hearts and minds are won, but for whom?