US Senate bans abuse of captives

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4314304.stm

White House threatens veto?!?! :lol:

With a 90-9 vote, a Supreme Court Justice that needs to get confirmed, 1/3 of the Senate worried about re-election, the US embroiled in a public diplomacy fiasco over Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the Senate Armed Services Committee giving Casey, Abizaid, Myers and Rummy a royal b0llocking only last week, risking playing politics with troop funding (usually political suicide) and Bush's polling numbers dropping like a lead balloon and precious little political capital left, they're talking about threatening a veto? That'll be fun to watch. I'll be there with my tv locked onto C-Span, my feet on my coffee table and a big bowl of popcorn for that.
 
#2
US senators have voted overwhelmingly to outlaw cruel or degrading treatment of detainees held in US custody abroad.

So with the votes at 90 - 9. Does that mean there was 9 yanks who wanted the cruel or dergrading treatment to carry on?
 
#3
Nope -
Just 9 SENATORS - I'm sure that if you trawl the redneck backwoods you can find hundreds if not thousands of people who not only condone the treatment but don't think it's tough enough (and that's only in the USA!) and quite a few who would be glad to place the electrodes/broomsticks/whatever... Wow what a great world we live in!
 
#4
The shaved ape is living in a different world. His administration was ordered to release the suppressed Abu Ghraib images. One week later, he wants to veto an attempt to stop such abuses happening in future.

8O
 
#5
His best bet is to try and lobby the House for the amendment to be killed in conference (i.e. House and Senate each generate a bill, then get together and argue over differences so that a joint bill finally gets sent to the president for signature).

Vetoing the bill would be a huge thing and would draw far more attention than any Republican, or any other hawk, wants right now. Overriding will require a 2/3 majority of both House and Senate both most House members sure as hell wouldn't want the press that comes with appearing to condone torture, just as their re-election campaigns are starting to get into gear, and senators of any persuasion don't like being told they're wrong, even by the White House. If fact even the threat to veto that has already been made is, to my mind, a political mistake since it's drawing attention already.
 
#6
crabtastic said:
His best bet is to try and lobby the House for the amendment to be killed in conference (i.e. House and Senate each generate a bill, then get together and argue over differences so that a joint bill finally gets sent to the president for signature).

Vetoing the bill would be a huge thing and would draw far more attention than any Republican, or any other hawk, wants right now. Overriding will require a 2/3 majority of both House and Senate both most House members sure as hell wouldn't want the press that comes with appearing to condone torture, just as their re-election campaigns are starting to get into gear, and senators of any persuasion don't like being told they're wrong, even by the White House. If fact even the threat to veto that has already been made is, to my mind, a political mistake since it's drawing attention already.
'scuse me for being ignorant but WHY do they want to openly approve torture?
Couldn't they just officially say "that's bad" & look the other way - worked for years for loads of democratic states didn't it?(I don't approve of this tactic but it is a reality)
 
#7
Yes_Sir! said:
US senators have voted overwhelmingly to outlaw cruel or degrading treatment of detainees held in US custody abroad.

So with the votes at 90 - 9. Does that mean there was 9 yanks who wanted the cruel or dergrading treatment to carry on?
I don't think so. Our American friends are no doubt against ill treatment of detainees. Probably these 9 are against some second-degree details.

And the Administration is against torture and abusement.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/09/20050928-2.html

Q The papers have been satiated in the last few days, again with another round of our abuse of prisoners and detainees and torture. Has the President ever issued a directive to all military prisons under our control that they should not torture and they should abide by the Geneva Accord?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. Yes. In fact, we did that quite some time ago.

Q There is an actual directive?

MR. McCLELLAN: If people are involved in wrongdoing, they're going to be held to account. And that's exactly what -- that's exactly what this administration has done.

Q I asked you if the President has issued any executive order against torture.

MR. McCLELLAN: The President made it very clear that we do not torture and we do not condone torture. And if people --

Q But we do.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and if people break the law, they are brought to account. And that's exactly what we've done in the instances that you're referring to.

Q Why don't they know it, then? I mean, why has there been this continued abuse?

MR. McCLELLAN: They do know it. And the Secretary of Defense and military leaders have taken steps to prevent such horrible atrocities from happening again.

Q But not if it goes beyond sergeant. Why is that?

MR. McCLELLAN: You might want to talk to the Department of Defense, because they can brief you --

Q No, I think this is something at the presidential level.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, but I think it's important --

Q It has to do something with our reputation.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think it's important for the American people to know the facts. And if you look at the facts, people have been brought to justice that are involved in wrongdoing. And any allegation of wrongdoing is taken very seriously by this administration. We have an outstanding military; 99.9 percent of the men and women in uniform do an outstanding job and represent the American people in the best possible way. They uphold our standards and our values.

Q Do you have any papers showing the President has issued a directive against torture?

MR. McCLELLAN: We've actually put out paper previously about the directives that he's made --

Q An actual order?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and he has publicly stated it very clearly to everyone in his administration and to the American people.

Q Then why is it still going on?
 
#8
KGB_resident said:
I don't think so. Our American friends are no doubt against ill treatment of detainees. Probably these 9 are against some second-degree details.

And the Administration is against torture and abusement.
Unless its in camp X-Ray.
 
#9
American Senate opposes violations of human rights also in Uzbekistan:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4314432.stm

The US Senate has voted to block a $23m payment to Uzbekistan, after the Uzbek government ended an agreement for US troops to use an airbase there
...
"Paying our bills is important. But more important is America's standing up for itself, avoiding the mis-impression that we overlook massacres and avoiding cash transfers to the treasury of a dictator," said Republican Senator John McCain
 
#10
Its not law yet. This amendment was to be attached to the defense authorization act. Before it can become law the House and Senate need to resolve differences and finally the President has to sign the bill. I dont see this as being approved in its present form.
 
#11
tomahawk6 said:
Its not law yet. This amendment was to be attached to the defense authorization act. Before it can become law the House and Senate need to resolve differences and finally the President has to sign the bill. I dont see this as being approved in its present form.
Already dealt with 'how a bill becomes a law'. See above post.

The problem for the House is that this has already become a story. If they try and kill the amendment in conference, they run the chance of encountering criticism. On the other hand, it could be that the senate voted for the amendment, safe in the knowledge that it would be killed. Cynical of me to suggest, but it happens.
 
#13
Good for them. I favor the use of non-physical means to soften up prisoners. But it seem's on the left that everything is torture. What happened at Abu Garab was NOT torture. Was it demeaning ? Certainly, but I dont want to see the military limited to inquiring of a prisoner if they would like to share information and if they dont, pat them on the head and send them to their cell. Information from prisoners can save lives if obtained in a timely manner. I dont favor beating prisoners or pulling out finger nails or other medieval forms of persuasion as it tends to be unreliable.
 
#14
Allard (R-CO); Bond (R-MO); Coburn (R-OK); Cochran (R-MS); Cornyn (R-TX); Inhofe (R-OK); Roberts (R-KS); Sessions (R-AL); Stevens (R-AK).
Spot the connection between the gentlemen...

No, it is not that they are all Republican. They all hail from states in which frying criminals, owning lots of guns or indulging in "squeal piggy squeal" sexual activities are mandatory. In some cases, all 3 practices are!
 
#15
tomahawk6 said:
Good for them. I favor the use of non-physical means to soften up prisoners. But it seem's on the left that everything is torture. What happened at Abu Garab was NOT torture. Was it demeaning ? Certainly, but I dont want to see the military limited to inquiring of a prisoner if they would like to share information and if they dont, pat them on the head and send them to their cell. Information from prisoners can save lives if obtained in a timely manner. I dont favor beating prisoners or pulling out finger nails or other medieval forms of persuasion as it tends to be unreliable.
So, T6, explain exactly what you DO favour.....?
 
#16
hansvonhealing said:
tomahawk6 said:
Good for them. I favor the use of non-physical means to soften up prisoners. But it seem's on the left that everything is torture. What happened at Abu Garab was NOT torture. Was it demeaning ? Certainly, but I dont want to see the military limited to inquiring of a prisoner if they would like to share information and if they dont, pat them on the head and send them to their cell. Information from prisoners can save lives if obtained in a timely manner. I dont favor beating prisoners or pulling out finger nails or other medieval forms of persuasion as it tends to be unreliable.
So, T6, explain exactly what you DO favour.....?
Whatever Karl Rove tells him to favour. :D
 
#18
tomahawk6 said:
Sleep/sensory deprivation. Psychological means. Perhaps even the use of chemicals - i.e. so called truth drugs.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/26/torture.htm
From the article:-'Sodium Pentothal will not make a person tell the truth against his will. The recipient likely will lose his inhibition, and therefore he might be more likely to tell the truth.'
OK T67, lets try it on you. Are you, with your endless optimistic bulletins from 'Fortress America', just another Yank troll trying to 'chummy-up' to the Brits?....'Yes?'...f*ck, it works!
 
#20
Tricam -

The context in which the abuse occured is wrong. It was done by bored MP's trying to have some fun at the expense of captured prisoners. In a different setting I might agree with it. While the prisoners were humiliated it wasnt torture. We put our military through a SERE program where they get a taste of what life would be like as a POW. We also know that should we become a prisoner of the terrorist there will be no Geneva convention nicities. Better a self inflicted gunshot wound to the head.

The bottom line is that the enemy has information that can save the lives of our fellow soldiers or citizens. We need to know what they know. There should be limits but those limits should not become public knowledge. The US and UK has extensive experience in dealing with folks that have knowledge that would be helpful to force protection or insuring the safety of our citizens. Physical torture or better known as the 3d degree is not pursued by the police or security services. Everything else is fair game.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top