US Senate bans abuse of captives

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by crabtastic, Oct 6, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    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.

  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. '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. 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.

  8. Unless its in camp X-Ray.
  9. American Senate opposes violations of human rights also in Uzbekistan:

  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. 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.
  12. The Nine U.S. Senators Who Voted FOR Torture
    Story posted by Research1

    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).
  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. 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. So, T6, explain exactly what you DO favour.....?