Bush will veto anti-torture law after Senate revolt

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
Sorry to disagree, but the President, VP Cheney and Rumsfield have all said that we are not abiding by existing international law (the Geneva Convention) in dealing with prisioners taken in this war because our opponents are terrorists and not soldiers. Since our government is refusing to abide by existing international law, maybe we do need American law to cover this area.

That's completely incorrect!

We do abide by the Geneva Convention rules. In fact, we're one of the principal nations on the face of this earth that helped forge those rules and set the example prior to them.

What some of you just can't seem to understand, or accept, is that the Geneva Conventions affords different kinds of protection to different categories of persons. We have, are, and should apply those differences. Further, not every detail is spelled out in the Geneva Conventions alone. There's a whole body of law covering war which our nation follows.

None of those differences, however, allow for torture. Torture is not the in the book or in the officially authorized practice. It never has been in modern times. What is in the book and is permitted is varying degrees of interrogation techniques. Most are "standard" practice but some require higher level of approvals as a further safeguard. These details are not covered in a broad document like the Geneva Conventions.

Some people just can't sort out the difference between torture, other illegal mistreatment, and legal interrogation techniques.

They want to give terrorists - who are not recognized as prisoners of war by the Geneva Conventions - the same legal protections and rights as those prisoners of war. Some want to go further than that and treat them like criminals in the civil justice system. The difference is not about torture which isn't "approved" by any part of the GC nor any part of law nor any part of our policy and practice. The difference is about what techniques can be used for interrogation and what legal rights the detainees have.

If torture and other forms of mistreatment were approved by our "rules" why do you think we've investigated, charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced those - from top to bottom - who broke those rules? Have you all been asleep during the due process of this justice?

Let's understand, and acknowledge, that people have and will fail our system but the system is not designed to condone or approve misconduct.

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
Do you think a decent country let alone one that calls itself a "Christian nation" tortures its prisioners?

When it comes to conduct in war we are and have been the most decent country in history. We do not, as a matter of any approved policy, torture our prisoners. Let's not let the widely publizied misconduct - punishable misconduct - of some lead us to believe otherwise. Let's give credit to our nation where it deserves it.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by kiwimac:
Perhaps you could point me to the passage in the Bible where Jesus says he is OK with torture?

Kiwimac

Your question is based on the incorrect assumption that torture is condoned by policy and widely practice which it completely untrue. Those who've violated our prohibition against either torture or other lessor forms of mistreatment have been, and will be, investigated, charged, and tried by our military justice system. If found guilty, they have been, and will be, punished.

 

[El_Guero]

Dragoon is correct.

As much as I do not want to see terrorists tortured, they are TERRORISTS.

As for the law, I would like to see some protection given to these evil doers under US law while on US soil. Maybe we could guarantee an expense paid trip to one of those countries where they still execute terrorists ...

 

[Brother James]

Originally posted by kiwimac:
Perhaps you could point me to the passage in the Bible where Jesus says he is OK with torture?

Kiwimac

It's that new part. Didn't you read it. It's called the project for a new american century. All the great Baptist pastors love it!

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by Brother James:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by kiwimac:
Perhaps you could point me to the passage in the Bible where Jesus says he is OK with torture?

Kiwimac

It's that new part. Didn't you read it. It's called the project for a new american century. All the great Baptist pastors love it! </font>[/QUOTE]Frankly, prisoners - of all types - in our hands are treated far better than they were during the time the Bible was written.

Are you suggesting, by your comment, that those who don't support this new law must, therefore, support torture and stand against the word of God?

[ October 08, 2005, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: Dragoon68 ]

 

[Brother James]

Originally posted by Grimlock Prime:
Good for the President. The last thing we want to hand the terrorists is a handbook of our limitations. If we're going to succeed against these fascist bullies we need to make them so afraid of hurting us that they wet themselves when we glare their way.

Now we need to take the gloves off when it comes to dealing with the Fascist Left in our own nation.

Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

 

[rivers1222]

StraightAndNarrow writes:

Do you think a decent country let alone one that calls itself a "Christian nation" tortures its prisioners?
--------------------------
I'm sorry group. I know I am gonna take some flak for this, however. If our intelligence community captures a terrorist who has knowledge of an emminent attack on our nation in which many innocent civilians will be killed, I would hope they would see it as their OBLIGATION to extract this info BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE.

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by poncho:
The Bush administration pledged yesterday to veto legislation banning the torture of prisoners by US troops after an overwhelming and almost unprecedented revolt by loyalist congressmen.

The mutiny was the latest setback for an administration facing an increasingly independent and bloody-minded legislature. But it also marked a key moment in Congress's campaign to curtail the huge powers it has granted the White House since 2001 in its war against terrorism.

The late-night Senate vote saw the measure forbidding torture passed by 90 to nine, with most Republicans backing the measure. Most senators said the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal and similar allegations at the Guantanamo Bay prison rendered the result a foregone conclusion.

The administration's extraordinary isolation was underlined when the Senate Republican majority leader, Bill Frist, supported the amendment.

The man behind the legislation, Republican Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner in Vietnam, said the move was backed by American soldiers. His amendment would prohibit the "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of prisoners in the custody of America's defence department.

The vote was one of the largest and best supported congressional revolts during President George W Bush's five years in office and shocked the White House.

SOURCE

Good for him. If it's going to save one American life, then I say torture all you want.

 

[Brother James]

Originally posted by Mike McK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by poncho:
The Bush administration pledged yesterday to veto legislation banning the torture of prisoners by US troops after an overwhelming and almost unprecedented revolt by loyalist congressmen.

The mutiny was the latest setback for an administration facing an increasingly independent and bloody-minded legislature. But it also marked a key moment in Congress's campaign to curtail the huge powers it has granted the White House since 2001 in its war against terrorism.

The late-night Senate vote saw the measure forbidding torture passed by 90 to nine, with most Republicans backing the measure. Most senators said the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal and similar allegations at the Guantanamo Bay prison rendered the result a foregone conclusion.

The administration's extraordinary isolation was underlined when the Senate Republican majority leader, Bill Frist, supported the amendment.

The man behind the legislation, Republican Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner in Vietnam, said the move was backed by American soldiers. His amendment would prohibit the "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of prisoners in the custody of America's defence department.

The vote was one of the largest and best supported congressional revolts during President George W Bush's five years in office and shocked the White House.

SOURCE

Good for him. If it's going to save one American life, then I say torture all you want. </font>[/QUOTE]This is a strange kind of chritian love and mercy.

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Brother James:
This is a strange kind of chritian love and mercy.

Not really.

It's precisely because I do love the innocent that I believe any means necessary should be used to extract information from the guilty, if it means that innocents will be saved.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by SeekingTruth:
Posted by straightand narrow
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Do you think a decent country let alone one that calls itself a "Christian nation" tortures its prisioners?

What evidence is there that this country has tortured prisoners? Except for the minor incidents in AbuGhraib (sp?) I haven't seen any. By the way, in case you have been on another planet, the ones who did mistreat prisoners are being punished. The prisoners at Gitmo are being fed at least as good as, and probably better, than the MREs our troops eat. There are no beatings, beheadings, etc.

What torture has taken place? As Dragoon68 has said, there are enough laws on the books and enough executive orders in place to more than adequately protect prisoners, whether they are covered by the Geneva convention or not. IMHO, McCain is so bitter over losing the nomination to Bush that he is using this as another attempt to embarass Bush.

Still no proof of torture, unless one counts the assumption of Brother James as proof. </font>[/QUOTE]This thing went all the way up to Rumsfield. Are you naive enough to believe that these low ranking soldiers were the only ones involved?

 

[SeekingTruth]

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow
This thing went all the way up to Rumsfield. Are you naive enough to believe that these low ranking soldiers were the only ones involved?

What is your source for saying this? It is easy to make accusations without providing substantiation. I do not consider myself naive, but I also do not believe that Rumsfield or any other high ranking DOD oficial (ciovilian or militry) ordered or condoned the incidents at AbuGhraib. Secondarily, while these were absolutely inappropriate, from what has been reported, I do not believe they rise to the level of torture.

Even so, if causing these prisoners some humiliation saved the life of even one American, it is worth it.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by SeekingTruth:
BJ, In effect as signatories of the Geneva Convention, we do have laws against torture. Furhtermore, since the prisoners currently in question are not soldiers, but terrorists, they are protected by law.

Are you suggesting that this somehow justifies the use of torture? I certainly hope not........

Regards,
BiR

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by SeekingTruth:
Even so, if causing these prisoners some humiliation saved the life of even one American, it is worth it.

Ah, so the ends justify the means. I see....

You can disregard the previous question, as you answered it with this post. Sorry: I was working from page one and didn't see it

Regards,
BiR

 

[SeekingTruth]

BIR, read my post again. I said humiliation not torture. Since when is embarassment equivalent to torture? A few synonyms for torture are: torment, agony, pain, suffer, etc. Humiliating treatment is not in the same ballpark.

And yes, I still believe if a little embarrassment saved one American life it was worth it. Embarrassment and humiliation are not torture by any stretch of the imagination. Check you dictionary.

 

[SeekingTruth]

Point #2.

Posted by Baptist in Richmond:
Are you suggesting that this somehow justifies the use of torture? I certainly hope not........

I did not say as you seem to have inferred that being signatory to the Geneva Convention justifies torture. Don't put words into my mouth err posts. There have been accusations of torture made. There has been not one shred of credible documentation in support of these claims provided.

You are basing your comments of a so called fact that has not been shown to be true. You and others are dodging my question. I simply asked for some documentation in support of the wild accusations being tossed about.

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by Mike McK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother James:
This is a strange kind of chritian love and mercy.

Not really.

It's precisely because I do love the innocent that I believe any means necessary should be used to extract information from the guilty, if it means that innocents will be saved. </font>[/QUOTE]First define "guilty".

Are we to assume in other countries as we do here in the USA that you are innocent until proven guilty or do we assume that everyone is guilty until proven innocent? And if it's the latter, how long before we assume the same here in the USA with our own people?

How many innocents are you willing to use "any means necessary" on find out who is actually guilty and who is not? Do we "humiliate" everyone that is taken into custody in order to seperate the giulty from the innocent?

A confidential report in February by the International Committee of the Red Cross said that "military intelligence officers told the ICRC that in their estimate between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake." Some of those people were released by units in the field without ever being sent to a permanent prison, the report said.

In interviews since, a senior Army officer who served in Iraq criticized as overly cumbersome a process in which the Iraqi prisoners who had been labeled as security detainees, as opposed to common criminals, could be freed only by the release board.

In one incident described in detail by the senior Army officer, an aggressive round-up in September brought 57 Iraqis into custody. But a review by military intelligence officers at Abu Ghraib determined that only two of them had intelligence value and that the rest should be freed.

A U.S. general at the headquarters in Baghdad overruled that decision, and dictated that all 57 Iraqis be kept in custody. The senior Army officer quoted the general as saying something like, "I don't care if they are innocent; if we release them, they'll go out and tell their friends that we're after them."


SOURCE

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by SeekingTruth:
Point #2. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Posted by Baptist in Richmond:
Are you suggesting that this somehow justifies the use of torture? I certainly hope not........

I did not say as you seem to have inferred that being signatory to the Geneva Convention justifies torture. Don't put words into my mouth err posts. There have been accusations of torture made. There has been not one shred of credible documentation in support of these claims provided.

You are basing your comments of a so called fact that has not been shown to be true. You and others are dodging my question. I simply asked for some documentation in support of the wild accusations being tossed about. </font>[/QUOTE]The problem you're dealing with , ST, is that to some, the definition of "torture" is anything more than saying "pretty please".

 

[Dragoon68]

The misconduct was against the rules and was wrong. That's why the matters were under investigation long before they became public. That's why people were charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced.

Any attempts to "justify" the misconduct by a "means justifies the ends" argument is very ill founded. It is understandable why retaliation can happen when dealing with prisoners. It can happen at every step of the process from surrender, to transport, to detention. However, understanding why it might happen does not justify or excuse it. Believe me, I understand the temptation! However, we can not lower our standards because of the behavior of others no matter how wrong they might be. We must hold to our law.

However, we do not need new or additional law to make acts illegal that are already illegal. We also do not want laws that could restrict legal interrogation techniques by misclassification of all detainees into the same collective status. We must continue to recognize the difference between lawful and unlawful combatants. A person fighting lawfully should not be personally held accountable for lawful acts of war. A person fighting unlawfully, however, is fully accountable for all that they do. This is big difference between soldiers of an enemy armed force and a band of terrorist. We must not loose sight of this difference.

Some clarification of existing military doctrine - including command responsibility - within the military for handling detainees to further reduce the chance of misunderstanding the rules and making responsibilities and authorities of the various units involved - especially MP and MI - so there are no infractions of rules and so one does not manipulate the other in ignorance of responsibility and authority.

In addition, requirements for persons responsible for handling - particularly protecting - detainees needs to be re-evaluated with the goal of eliminating those who do not have the "right stuff" for the job. Character matters and only so much can be accomplished with training. Some troops simply do not belong in MP or MI roles or many others for that matter. Maturity is very important.

Also, the various categories of detainees needs to be more clearly - openly - defined and made known to all - including the public - so there's no doubt about the classification in which they're placed. The differences in the legal protection and rights afforded these categories also needs to be advertised more effectively. The differences in legal interrogation techniques - types and required approvals - needs to be published.

 

[Dragoon68]

Originally posted by carpro:
The problem you're dealing with , ST, is that to some, the definition of "torture" is anything more than saying "pretty please".

That's correct, Carpro. Some people don't understand the difference between torture, other types of lessor misconduct, legimate treatment of detainees, and varying but legal degrees of interrogation techniques.