Sources: White House to Accept Torture Ban

DavidsonBap · Dec 15, 2005

The right thing to do.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051215/ap_on_go_co/congress_detainees

Pastor Larry · Dec 15, 2005

Someone's lying to you ... The know it alls on this website have made it clear that Bush is for torture and against the torture ban.

Forget the news sources. Listen to the people on here.

Daisy · Dec 15, 2005

It passed Senate, the Republican-majority Senate.

From the above link:

...A day earlier, the House endorsed the Senate-passed ban, agreeing that the United States needed to set uniform guidelines for the treatment of prisoners in the war on terror and to make clear that U.S. policy prohibits torture.

That put pressure on the White House at a time when the president finds himself defending his wartime policies daily amid declining public support for the Iraq war and his own low standing in opinion polls.

The White House at one point threatened a veto if the ban was included in legislation sent to the president's desk, and Vice President Dick Cheney made an unusual personal appeal to all Republican senators to give an exemption to the CIA...
Click to expand...

The news sources agree with the people, well, most the people, on here.

From a slightly later story, same site:

WASHINGTON - President Bush reversed course on Thursday and accepted Sen. John McCain's call for a law banning cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of foreign suspects in the war on terror.
Click to expand...

Terry_Herrington · Dec 15, 2005

I believe this is the right thing to do.

Rocko9 · Dec 15, 2005

Thumbs up to the President on this one, it was the right thing to do.

hillclimber · Dec 15, 2005

I believe it is a disaster, and the next GOP candidate for CIC, J. McCain is responsible.

KenH · Dec 15, 2005

Originally posted by DavidsonBap:
The right thing to do.
Click to expand...

Amen.

Bro. Curtis · Dec 15, 2005

I agree with hillclimber, a complete waste of time & money.

Unfortunately, political hacks will say if you are against this measure, then you are for torture. A no-win situaton. Pretty soon making someone sit behind bars will be considered torture.

LadyEagle · Dec 15, 2005

You got that right.

Baptist in Richmond · Dec 16, 2005

Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
I agree with hillclimber, a complete waste of time & money.

Unfortunately, political hacks will say if you are against this measure, then you are for torture. A no-win situaton. Pretty soon making someone sit behind bars will be considered torture.
Click to expand...

Greetings from Buffalo, Bro. Curtis:

Hope all is well with you and your wonderful family.

The first sentence in the link provided in the initial post reads:

After months of resistance, the White House has agreed to accept Sen. John McCain's call for a law specifically banning cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of foreign suspects in the war on terror, several congressional officials said Thursday.
Click to expand...

Who among us would claim that this is a bad thing? What would be the rationale for claiming that this is a bad thing?

Regards,
BiR

hillclimber · Dec 16, 2005

BiR, My understanding is that we currently have plenty of laws and rules on the books keeping us behaving as the civilized nation we are. We have never condoned torture as a tool, and the enactment of this new law adds further restrictions on information gathering, that has absolutely no positive value.

The emphasis here is on the FACT that the USA does not torture prisoners, and the liberals using isolated instances to instigate these new impediments to our security are grossly troubling.

Daisy · Dec 16, 2005

Originally posted by hillclimber:
The emphasis here is on the FACT that the USA does not torture prisoners,...
Click to expand...

True, we outsource all our torture to Syria, Saudi Arabia and the like.

See "extraordinary rendition" (link) for details.

... and the liberals using isolated instances to instigate these new impediments to our security are grossly troubling.
Click to expand...

How many "isolated" incidents does it take to add up to a policy?

McCain is hardly a liberal.

The New Yorker has a pretty good article, including recent background, of this issue:

<snip>

One reason these C.I.A. officials may not be facing charges is that, in recent years, the Justice Department has established a strikingly narrow definition of torture. In August, 2002, the department’s Office of Legal Counsel sent a memo on interrogations to the White House, which argued that a coercive technique was torture only when it induced pain equivalent to what a person experiencing death or organ failure might suffer. By implication, all lesser forms of physical and psychological mistreatment—what critics have called “torture lite”—were legal. The memo also said that torture was illegal only when it could be proved that the interrogator intended to cause the required level of pain. And it provided interrogators with another large exemption: torture might be acceptable if an interrogator was acting in accordance with military “necessity.” A source familiar with the memo’s origins, who declined to speak on the record, said that it “was written as an immunity, a blank check.” In 2004, the “torture memo,” as it became known, was leaked, complicating the nomination of Alberto R. Gonzales to be Attorney General; as White House counsel, Gonzales had approved the memo. The Administration subsequently revised the guidelines, using language that seemed more restrictive. But a little-noticed footnote protected the coercive methods permitted by the “torture memo,” stating that they did not violate the “standards set forth in this memorandum.”

The Bush Administration has resisted disclosing the contents of two Justice Department memos that established a detailed interrogation policy for the Pentagon and the C.I.A. A March, 2003, classified memo was “breathtaking,” the same source said. The document dismissed virtually all national and international laws regulating the treatment of prisoners, including war-crimes and assault statutes, and it was radical in its view that in wartime the President can fight enemies by whatever means he sees fit. According to the memo, Congress has no constitutional right to interfere with the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief, including making laws that limit the ways in which prisoners may be interrogated. Another classified Justice Department memo, issued in August, 2002, is said to authorize numerous “enhanced” interrogation techniques for the C.I.A. These two memos sanction such extreme measures that, even if the agency wanted to discipline or prosecute agents who stray beyond its own comfort level, the legal tools to do so may no longer exist. Like the torture memo, these documents are believed to have been signed by Jay Bybee, the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel, but written by a Justice Department lawyer, John Yoo, who is now a professor of law at Berkeley.

<snip>

Even more troubling is the possibility that, under the Bush Administration’s secret interrogation guidelines, the killing of Jamadi might not have broken any laws. Jeffrey Smith says it’s possible that the Office of Legal Counsel’s memos may have opened too many loopholes for interrogators like Swanner, “making prosecution somehow too hard to do.” Smith added, “But, even under the expanded definition of torture, I don’t see how someone beaten with his hands bound, who then died while hanging—how that could be legal. I’d be embarrassed if anyone argued that it was.”

<snip>

Source: New Yorker (11-14-2005 issue: by Jean Mayers (linkie)
Click to expand...

Scott J · Dec 16, 2005

This is truly an issue of definitions.

Most if not all of what went on at Abu Ghraib is not "torture" by any reasonable definition. It may not have been smart or even ethical... but much worse things have been done to college pledges.

"Offending" a muslim by stepping on he Koran... is not torture. Isolating prisoners is not torture. Sleep deprivation is harsh but not "torture".

Of course, there are those who will argue these things are torture... thus no ban will ever be effective unless we stop trying to gather intelligence from prisoners altogether... since they don't just offer it up because you ask them nicely.

Scott J · Dec 16, 2005

Daisy, Just what is your program for dealing with terrorism and those who hate us just because we are who we are and happen to now be the biggest kid on the block?

DavidsonBap · Dec 16, 2005

The government is doing the right thing and I'm glad they are going forward to stop torture. Many Christians hated what went on in Abu and Gitmo. Our prayers our answered. Those who want to play word games on what torture is or make excuses because they dislike Muslims...too bad and suck it up. Deal with it because the voice of reason has won.

Bro. Curtis · Dec 16, 2005

Yeah. They completely stopped torture, with one swipe of the pen.

DavidsonBap · Dec 16, 2005

Bro.Curtis, don't worry. You don't have to like it. Either way, this is a step in the right direction and it helps to make people accountable.

I'm Lovin it

Daisy · Dec 16, 2005

Originally posted by Scott J:
Daisy, Just what is your program for dealing with terrorism and those who hate us just because we are who we are and happen to now be the biggest kid on the block?
Click to expand...

Not torture, surely.

International cooperation and police action for the most part. Limited military intervention when necessary.

What's yours?

Bro. Curtis · Dec 16, 2005

Originally posted by DavidsonBap:
Bro.Curtis, don't worry. You don't have to like it. Either way, this is a step in the right direction and it helps to make people accountable.

I'm Lovin it
Click to expand...

Makes WHO accountable ? I look at it as another way to hate on military folks. And I sure wish you guys were as vocal about true crimes against humanity by the likes of Mugabe and Hussein, as you are about panties on the head in a chilly room. Maybe a scary dog in somebody's face. Or a koran that was mishandled.

How 'bout them U.N. rape squads ? Who holds them responsible ? Or is it only the U.S. who needs a torture bill ?

DavidsonBap · Dec 16, 2005

Daisy

Human rights should be every Christians concern.
Torture is defined as causing excruciating physical or mental pain. What happened at Abu was certainly torture.
This agreement makes people more accountable in the future. It doesn't wipe it out. It just moves us closer to better human rights.
People can disagree all they want. But wisdom and compassion have prevailed.
It is sad Christians have to debate if this is news to celebrate. But we know some fundamentalists have a bad cause of Islamophobia so their views should be marginalized.

Our Church and many others have prayed for this, and it has come to pass.

Praise Jesus!

[ December 16, 2005, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: DavidsonBap ]

Sources: White House to Accept Torture Ban

DavidsonBap New Member

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter

Daisy New Member

Terry_Herrington New Member

Rocko9 New Member

hillclimber New Member

KenH Well-Known Member

Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter

LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

Baptist in Richmond Active Member

hillclimber New Member

Daisy New Member

Scott J Active Member
Site Supporter

Scott J Active Member
Site Supporter

DavidsonBap New Member

Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter

DavidsonBap New Member

Daisy New Member

Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter

DavidsonBap New Member

Useful Searches

Sources: White House to Accept Torture Ban

DavidsonBap New Member

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b> Site Supporter

Daisy New Member

Terry_Herrington New Member

Rocko9 New Member

hillclimber New Member

KenH Well-Known Member

Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif> Site Supporter

LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

Baptist in Richmond Active Member

hillclimber New Member

Daisy New Member

Scott J Active Member Site Supporter

Scott J Active Member Site Supporter

DavidsonBap New Member

Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif> Site Supporter

DavidsonBap New Member

Daisy New Member

Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif> Site Supporter

DavidsonBap New Member

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter

Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter

Scott J Active Member
Site Supporter

Scott J Active Member
Site Supporter

Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter

Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter