"President Bush May Veto Anti-torture Amendment"
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/President_Bush_may_veto_anti-torture_amendment

"Bush will veto anti-torture law after Senate revolt"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/07/wus207.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/07/ixworld.html

In response to these articles, I am wondering if anyone can find anything that addresses the administration's reason(s) for possibly vetoing this amendment? The implications of a possible veto are immense, and a veto would strike me as an admission of the United States' improper practises in the detainment of prisoners. As the Telegraph article points out, it would be particularly embarassing for Bush if his veto were overridden in the end. With all this at stake, I wonder what the great motivation behind the veto is?

When the neocon gulag is terminated, the stories (highly damaging to the Bushmen) will be told.

The implications of a possible veto are immense, ...

Like what, exactly??

...a veto would strike me as an admission of the United States' improper practises in the detainment of prisoners.

How would that be an "admission" of anything?

...., I wonder what the great motivation behind the veto is?

What? You didn't even read the links that you posted yourself? Read the links for the answers.

Baron Max

I read both links very thoroughly. The only answer I saw in the first article seemed very vague and did not seem to give a clear picture of the administration's reasons behind its veto threat:

The White House sent a "statement of administration policy" to the Senate declaring strong opposition to the legislation, alleging that it would tie the nation's hands in the "War on Terrorism". (Wikinews)

Maybe I'm not reading enough into this, but it doesn't seem very specific to me. That's why I was asking for any insight from the people on this forum as to their interpretation of how the amendment might "tie [this] nation's hands" etc.

"...Republican Senator John McCain, .... His amendment would prohibit the "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of prisoners in the custody of America's defence department.

"We have put out a Statement of Administration Policy saying that his advisers would recommend that he vetoes it if it contains such language," White House spokesman Scott McClellan warned yesterday.

The administration said Congress was attempting to tie its hands in the war against terrorism." (bold my own!)

From the second link in your post.

Baron Max

The idea that "Congress was attempting to tie its hands in the war against terrorism" is not much of a reason. It's vague. By "implications" I mean that the headline, "Bush Vetoes Anti-Torture Amendment" is not going to sit well with many people, and it might look especially bad for Bush if Congress ends up overturning his veto.

The idea that "Congress was attempting to tie its hands in the war against terrorism" is not much of a reason. It's vague.

Well, what do you want? ...a reason that YOU are comfortable with? Why should anyone give a fuck whether YOU are comfortable or not?

...is not going to sit well with many people, and it might look especially bad for Bush if Congress ends up overturning his veto.

Well, everything will "look especially bad" to SOME people ...no matter what they do or say. And I don't think the congress has enough votes to overturn a presidential veto.

Baron Max

heh
bush: i am PRO WAR And PRO TORTURE
bush: i like to KILL. i like to inflict PAIN and DEATH on prisoners

there is something pathological about labeling yourself “pro-war,” and "pro torture". we americans however have no problems embracing and identifying with these horrific acts of brutality and madness

think about it. this kind of discourse would have been unimaginable in saner times. we now have christian figures that openly advocate assasinations. the masses rally with ghoulish placards and props at thier war rallies urging death and destruction

welcome to america
welcome to bush's america where madness and hate reigns

Gustav, your sensationalism is no different to what you're accusing others of doing!

Calm down, lose the sensationalist rhetoric and be rational and reasonable. It'll help you in the long run with debates and discussions.

Baron Max

Well, what do you want? ...a reason that YOU are comfortable with? Why should anyone give a fuck whether YOU are comfortable or not?

Baron Max

actually i give a shit.
as does sciforums where all can air their opinions.
as does the 15th amendment

now
don those jackboots, nazi thug, and strut yer way outta here

It'll help you in the long run with debates and discussions.

Baron Max

suck my dick nazi

Well, what do you want? ...a reason that YOU are comfortable with? Why should anyone give a fuck whether YOU are comfortable or not?

Well, I was under the impression that in a democracy the people are supposed to be given the reasons for the choices the government is making. I don't think this has anything to do with my comfort, rather I think it has to do with the comfort of those detained in US prisons, at the moment.

"The late-night Senate vote saw the measure forbidding torture passed by 90 to nine, with most Republicans backing the measure." (Telegraph). There are decent odds that congress could overturn a veto.

Well, I was under the impression that in a democracy the people are supposed to be given the reasons for the choices the government is making.

We were ....we voted to elect government representatives to take care of all of that for us so we wouldn't have to deal with it ourselves, personally. That's what's called a "representative republic".

I don't think this has anything to do with my comfort, rather I think it has to do with the comfort of those detained in US prisons, at the moment.

Why should we care about those who've been imprisoned for reasons thought justified by the military and/or the CIA? You think that those prisoners are there because they're nice guys and loving, happy family men????

Baron Max

It'll help you in the long run with debates and discussions.

Baron Max

heh
lets eyeball the nazi's debating skills

Well, what do you want? ...a reason that YOU are comfortable with? Why should anyone give a fuck whether YOU are comfortable or not?


lets apply this to some of nazi's posts

I still don't think her confession is enough to prove her guilt of the accident.
Baron Max

Well, what do you want? ...a reason that YOU are comfortable with? Why should anyone give a fuck whether YOU are comfortable or not?

Should we FORCE those people to eat broccolli? And should we condemn them for their "reasoning"? Should we segragate them from the general population? Baron Max

Well, what do you want? ...a reason that YOU are comfortable with? Why should anyone give a fuck whether YOU are comfortable or not?

I actually don't see it as much different then plain old murder ...Baron Max

Well, what do you want? ...a reason that YOU are comfortable with? Why should anyone give a fuck whether YOU are comfortable or not?

the tactic is to hypocritically and disingenuously introduce a red herring (comfort) into the discussion.

baron max > a troll of blinding stupidity

I think it goes like this: The Conference Committee strips out the anti-torture amendment and then sends the bill back to the Senate for another vote. If the Senate passes the military spending bill that comes back from the Conference Committee then Torture is still allowed and Bush does not have to veto anything.

Bush has yet to Veto his first Bill.

Cut the crap. The current President of the United States likes for people to suffer pain and depravation.

Why should we care about those who've been imprisoned for reasons thought justified by the military and/or the CIA? You think that those prisoners are there because they're nice guys and loving, happy family men????

Baron Max

the nazi retard attempts to reason and fails
as ususal

*The four British men previously held at Guantanamo Bay were released without charge on Wednesday. Martin Mubanga, Feroz Abbasi, Richard Belmar and Moazzam Begg had been questioned by anti-terrorist officers in the UK after being held at the camp in Cuba for three years. INNOCENT (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3500156.stm)

*It said some coalition military intelligence officers estimated that “between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake. INNOCENT (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/News/International%20News/Mideast%20and%20N.%20Africa/Iraq%20conflict/Red%20Cross%20report.pdf)

*According to Time, activities leading toward release of the 140 prisoners have accelerated since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. It said U.S. officials had concluded some detainees were kidnapped for reward money offered for al Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

*Slated for release were "the easiest 20 percent" of detainees, a military official told the magazine. It did not identify its source, who said the military was waiting for"a politically propitious time to release them."

Hmm.
That's quite the statement that Bush appears to be making.
Isn't this, in a way, his own admission of guilt in the Abu Ghraib scandal? When that broke wasn't everyone scurrying for cover and looking for a scapegoat? But, this is a situation where the adage "the buck stops here" cannot be denied. Bush can't look to blame his pro-torture views on anyone else this time. He won't be able to courtmartial the soldiers involved in the torture and who were only acting upon orders of their higher-ups. Their is no higher-up in this decision. Bush's veto is his own and to use it on an anti-torture bill is... fucking extreme.


Baron Max,

Have you ever been tortured?
You talk about our elected representatives? What about the overwhelming majority of 90 to 9 in the senate? What the fuck does that say to you?

Bush seems to be banking on republican solidarity. That they'll pull the anti-torture part of the bill rather than have to go against their president.

Some small part of me wonders if this is an issue of the actual anti-torture legislation or if it isn't something more subtle. A power play. Bush trying to assert his dominance over the Republican party once more. I can picture him hiking his leg and pissing all over everyone in the senate. Marking his territory.

But, despite all that, this is an issue of torture. And we now have Bush affirming his pro-torture stance. There is no defense of this.

The administration said Congress was attempting to tie its hands in the war against terrorism.

Maybe Congress should tie his hands and apply electrodes to his testicles. Let's see what he has to say about torture after experiencing some. The only torture that our beloved president has ever felt is that horrible feeling of despair while waiting for your drug dealer to bring you your next eight-ball of cocaine.

The USA and the US military, just as most all of the western nations of the world, follows the rules set forth in the Geneva Convention. Just because a few ignorant soldiers were involved in "possible torture" events does NOT make anything different. There is no need for the new amendment, it's all covered quite adequately in the Geneva Conventions.

Because a few errant cops beat a suspect, is that cause to consider the entire nation as errant like those few cops??? ...and thus change every and all laws of that nation?

Baron Max

Yes, I agree with you Baron Max. We are discussing greivances caused by a few in the executive branch, be them cops or soldiers. So, you do not see something scary about the head of the executive branch wanting to affirm a position in which the members of the executive branch are placed above the law? The president's claim that instituting an amendment in which torture is illegal is "binding his hands" shows that the executive branch utilizes these methods. The war on terror already gives the executive branch the power/ right to infringe upon the rights garanteed us by the Constitution. The war on drugs already gives the executive branch any other powers it may deam necessary. Now that this law is in question, if we do not stand against the executive branch, they will view our silence as consent to their right to use this force. If they can use it in war then they can use it in their numerous wars against the American people.

- KitNyx

The president's claim that instituting an amendment in which torture is illegal is "binding his hands" shows that the executive branch utilizes these methods.

Exactly.
Baron Max has made an about face in here now that he's realized exactly what it is that Bush is objecting to. He's now steering himself away from his man in the White House's objections and throwing up his own.

"Look." says Max, "There's no need for this law as it's already covered in the Geneva Convention. That's my objection. And nothing else."

But, even though that may be our lovely Max's objection, it's not the objection of our beloved Commander-in-Chief. His objection is quite different. His objection is clearly stating that if the permission to torture is removed from his discretion then his 'hands will be tied.'


Also, Maxie-pooh, consider the double-talk you're subjecting us to. You know as well as all of us that these prisoners under discussion are not being held under the terms of the Geneva Convention. That's the neat thing about this whole "War on Terror" bullshit. There's no clearly defined enemy and therefore they don't have to be held to the statutes regarding prisoners of war. These are civilians. Not soldiers. They're not prisoners of war. Therefore they're not subject to the Geneva Convention.

So, Max. Seeing as how the Geneva Convention doesn't apply, do you now wish to change your stance? Or do you wish to change your plea to "torture is a necessary tool in this beautiful war on terror of ours?" Hmm?

Spit it out, Maxie boy.

Tell us what you really think.

Don't you just love shell games?

Tell us what you really think.

I think ye're all being lead around by the nose by sensationalist news media whose objective is ONLY to sell advertising and newspapers! The more sensationalist bullshit that they can "create", the more money they make ...and ya'll are buying it up with hysteria and by the armful.

Congratulations ....for those who claim to think for themselves, it seems that the news media is leading you by the nose! Whenever some news media prints something, it appears on this forum in some form of hysteria.

Baron Max

Spit it out, Maxie boy.
Tell us what you really think.

Whenever some news media prints something, it appears on this forum in some form of hysteria.

So now Max retreats to the false-claim line of defense, where a few bad apples in the military knock around some bad guys who deserved it anyway and the big bad liberal media blows it out of proportion. That's a separate issue, and he knows it. The central question is the motive for Bush's threatened veto, and it is undeniably his determination to carry out this war by any means necessary. A related motive is that if torture is specifially prohibited in this law, then such conduct can be more easily investigated and prosecuted by Congress.

Max obviously believes that torture is acceptable, and that any attempt to restrain or even provide oversight on the administration's prosecution of this war is unacceptable.

Perhaps Max would care to rebut.

Max obviously believes that torture is acceptable, ...

I don't believe that they're using torture at Quantanamo. There could be isolated instances of abuse by a few isolated individuals, but it's not condoned by the administration or by the senior officers or by most of the enlisted men.

Y'all are just succumbing to the sensationalism of the news media and helping them make lots of money from advertising and the sale of newspapers.

Baron Max

...it's not condoned by the administration or by the senior officers or by most of the enlisted men.

Not condoned? Not condemned, either. Nor have they provided a complete accounting of who is being held, where they are being held and under what authority, nor will they open the prisons to independent verification by the IRC, Amnesty International or other human rights groups.

The Bush administration's extremely weak (and late) response to these accusations is tantamount to approval of the abuse of prisoners.

...Y'all are just succumbing to the sensationalism of the news media and helping them make lots of money from advertising and the sale of newspapers.

On the contrary - in the recent matter of the additional images and video fron Abu Ghraib that are being held back (apparently images of rape, sodomy, beatings, etc, etc) I don't think they should be released. I agree with you that the media tends to whore these things around in the interest of sales. It's evidence in a criminal investigation that ought to be presented to the International Criminal Court but ought not to be released - after all, it would further humiliate prisoners and ensure the perpetrators could not get a fair trial. It would also enrage the public so much as to result in the death of many more people.

Let's not excuse the crime, though.

This is not just another attack on the Bush administation, either, Max. You (assuming you are an American) and I are just as guilty as the guy who trussed up the prisoner and beat the shit out of him.

I don't believe that they're using torture at Quantanamo.

What you believe is irrelevant to the facts of the maater, Baron old man.
You're now attempting to divert the matter again to a side issue. If you want to discuss what you believe is going on at Guantanamo then why don't you start a thread about it. This isn't Guantanamo. This isnt about Abu Ghraib. Not directly.

This isn't about a sensationalist media.

This isn't about the Geneva Convention.

This is about a simple statement. A very simple and undeniable statment. A statement made by your boy Bush.

When asked why he objects to anti-torture legislation, he answered with a very no-nonsense and difficult to misinterpret line.

If this anti-torture bill were passed, then the administration's hands would be tied in its ability to fight the 'war on terror'.

In other words, Maxie boy, torture is a vital element in the administration's method of fighting the war on terror.

This is the issue.

The issue that you constantly are trying to divert to side issues.

I don't give a shit what you think about any of these side issues.

What do you think of torture.
What do you think of the necessity to use torture to fight the war on terror?
Should America use torture to fight the war on terror?

What say you?
Any more red herrings in that basket of yours?


This is not just another attack on the Bush administation, either, Max.

No. That's the beauty of this and the unavoidable aspect that has Max all up in tethers trying to twist and turn away from it.

This is completely self-referential. A self-accusation from its core.

The legislation simply makes torture a no-no (something which was unstated before. Something which should have just been common sense.) But, Bush is pissing all over himself because of it.

It's like a law being passed saying "Stealing is a crime" and then the thieves in the crowd jump up and scream "No! I depend on stealing for my livelihood. You're tying my hands! What am I supposed to do? Be an honest person for a change? What?!"

This is just so... funny.

I still suspect that it might be a power issue at heart, but even if it is, that doesn't change the fact that he decided to make a stand on the subject of torture.

You are right on, Invert.

Even if it was just a sensationalist news story, why not establish some guidelines so prison guards won't have to worry about any future prosecution?

Anyone who thinks that torture is even helpful is too stupid to be allowed to run the show. I think he just likes to hurt people.

Stress positions are torture. I read an online US government declassified paper from the 1950s calling stress positions torture and advocating their use. I think it was a CIA document, I can't remember.

I went to a class in the 1980s where the "New Age" "teachers" had us doing something they called "Bioenergetics" that was by some theory good for us. Bioenergetics had us place ourselves in stress positions; it was torture. Hold a position, (any position other than sitting or lying down and do not shift your weight or move) for a half hour and you will discover the torture of stress positions.





From http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brooks8oct08,0,579902.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions :
The Bush administration fought tooth and nail against the amendment, claiming that it would tie its hands in the war on terror. Naturally, no administration spokesperson would say that they intended to treat terror suspects in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way, but that's what they mean. The administration has walked a fine line, claiming that techniques such as "waterboarding," forced nudity, "stress positions" and mock executions are legally permitted because they're not technically "torture" (a conclusion shared by few experts) and because they're still "humane" (a conclusion shared by practically no one).

With the amendment, the Senate made it clear that such hairsplitting wasn't fooling anyone. As McCain put it, his emotion and authority contrasting sharply with the president's recent shallow rhetoric: "Mr. President … I don't think I'm naive about how severe are the wages of war, and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it successfully…. [But] what I do mourn … is what we lose … when by official policy or by official negligence we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of ourselves, our greatest strength: that we are different and better than our enemies; that we fight for an idea … that all men are created equal and endowed by
their Creator with inalienable rights."

This is pretty revealing of the president. He refuses to sign an anit-torture bill, on which the senate voted 90-9 in favor of. Hmm, I wonder if this will help or hurt America's image as a 'good and moral country'....

DUH. This is downright foolishness. We preach about freedom and being a force of good in the world, yet the president openly plans to veto an amendment to a defense appropriation bill that prohibits torture to anyone in US custody.

They're panicking up there. I don't know why most of you beat around the Bush so. The cabinet is terrified of what will soon be in Congressional discovery over this issue, no matter what they do. The veto talk is panicky stall tactics, because as I said in my forst post in this thread

Well, isn't this obvious to everyone???

"admission of the United States' improper practises in the detainment of prisoners."

I guess we should just strap some explosives to them and blow them up. I mean they were going to do it anyways right?? Wouldnt that be proper? That way they can go to heaven and everything.....

How quickly people here hold the U.S. to a certain standard of rules- yet the enemies we fight do not follow these same rules. Which is why the Geneva convention does not apply. Im sure if they were holding U.S. troops and feeding them instead of chopping their heads off things would be a bit different.

I tell you what, if you can show me some document stating that the terrorists will not torture or harm their captives then im sure we can do the same. Until then too bad.

Yes, crazy, we were founded as a nation of law, and must hold ourselves to a higher standard than do the terrorists, lest our society implode faster than did the Soviet Union. Without adherence to the rule of law, we will fast go the way of the Taliban: Attacked from without or not, you can't run the trains on time amidst the chaos of lawless exceptionalism dressed in self-righteousness, running berserk in the streets of the global village. Why not, you ask? It's because they're coming to take us away (ho ho heee heee ha ha (http://it.stlawu.edu/~x0tsing/takeaway.htm)) to a farm that will be much more animal (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/animalfarm/) than funny.

"I tell you what, if you can show me some document stating that the terrorists will not torture or harm their captives then im sure we can do the same. Until then too bad."

Can you grasp the point you are missing? Reach up and feel it: That is the tip of our American sword of damocles (http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/ciceroworkslatin/f/DamoclesSword.htm)- sharp, heavy, and ready to drop.

Without adherence to the rule of law, ...

Sure, but which law? Laws are made and enforced by the society, they aren't made and enforced by ....god or something!! So, if we don't create a particular law, then we won't have to adhere to it!

The terrorists don't have any laws and they don't adhere to any, either. Why are you coming down so hard on America and NOT on the terrorists?

Baron Max

We do have laws against torture. How can you be so sure that the people we have detained are guilty? In fact, you can't. Many have already been set free. It's not like the marines can be perfect judges of who they find in the area of a battlefield, especially with emotions running high after a fight.

The United States has decided that the Geneva conventions do apply in Afghanistan, but not Iraq, that's the official position.

I for one do not want our soldiers to come back to the U.S. after having gotten used to practicing torture wherever. We might think that they won't do it to us. I would agree, maybe, reluctantly, if they had only done it once or twice. They're turning it into an industry over their and getting official sanctions. I don't trust the people who have done this as a job. I don't trust people who have spend years torturing others, playing mind games, automatically hurting them badly if they say or do the "wrong" thing according to them. Bring them back to the U.S. and they will be willing to trip old men for the fun of it and pretend it's an accident, or gather in small groups and ambush people they don't like on the streets at night, or kidnap and torture them and rape their wives.

We do have laws against torture.

Well, there you go ...if we have those laws now, why do we need news ones?

How can you be so sure that the people we have detained are guilty?

We're trying to determine the issue of guilt now ...we're just holding them longer than usual, that's all. The fact that we've set some free is indicative of that effort, is it not?

The United States has decided that the Geneva conventions do apply in Afghanistan, but not Iraq, that's the official position.

Okay, good, it's settled. But what ye're saying/implying is that some people don't like that, right? But is that any different to many other things in life; some like something, others don't. Who's right? ....and who determines that "right n' wrong"?

Baron Max

I for one do not want our soldiers to come back to the U.S. after having gotten used to practicing torture wherever.

Oooooh, yeah, that's something to be sooooooo fearful of, ain't it??? Ooooh, I'm scared outta' my wits! :)

I mean, after all, look at history before the Geneva Conventions ....the American soldiers came home after the war and raped, pillaged, burned and murdered millions of citizens just 'cause they were used to it, huh? Oooooh, I'm so fuckin' scared I can't even type!!! :)

Baron Max

what a mutt
reasoning skills of child

The Geneva convention is just one set of laws forbidding torture. There is also the Uniform Code of Military Justice. We want to make sure that laws like this are in effect, but Bush puts the prisoners in Cuba specifically in order to work around this law.

The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. War crimes under the act include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. It also includes violations of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

A federal anti-torture statute (http://www.capdefnet.org/fdprc/contents/fed_cap_off/18_usc_2340A.htm) (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture. Torture is defined as an “act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.” A person found guilty under the act can be incarcerated for up to 20 years or receive the death penalty if the torture results in the victim’s death.

Military contractors working for the Department of Defense might also be prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-778), known as MEJA. MEJA permits the prosecution in federal court of U.S. civilians who, while employed by or accompanying U.S. forces abroad, commit certain crimes. Generally, the crimes covered are any federal criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. The MEJA remains untested because the Defense Department has yet to issue necessary implementing regulations required by the law.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm

Well, there you go ...if we have those laws now, why do we need news ones?


Because, Max, the prisoners are being held in areas where they're not subject to the law. Cuba ring any bells? How many years have they been there now, Max? Will they have a trial soon?

The terrorists don't have any laws and they don't adhere to any, either. Why are you coming down so hard on America and NOT on the terrorists?

Another distraction.
"They do it to us, so why can't we do it to them?"

Spit it out, Max. Do you agree with torture or not? Why won't you answer? It's obvious that you do but for some reason you just won't say it. Why?

Here. Let me start.
I can understand the use of torture and don't necessarily condemn it even though I do find it distasteful.

What I find most distasteful about it is purely selfish. What's to stop an administration that grows accustomed to using torture to get its way from bringing that method home? Whats to stop them from labeling me and/or my loved ones terrorists and dragging me into the torture factory?
That's what gives me pause, Maxie old boy.

Does this bit of common sense not even affect you at all? Not worried at all about you chickens coming home to roost?

The United States has decided that the Geneva conventions do apply in Afghanistan, but not Iraq, that's the official position.

Okay, good, it's settled. But what ye're saying/implying is that some people don't like that, right? But is that any different to many other things in life; some like something, others don't. Who's right? ....and who determines that "right n' wrong"?

Yeah, Max. "Some people." Some people like Congress.

90 to 9, Max.
90 to 9.

We want to make sure that laws like this are in effect, but Bush puts the prisoners in Cuba specifically in order to work around this law.

To work around this law?? If that's so, why are soldiers who are accused of "torture" being arrested and tried in military courts???

Baron Max

To work around this law?? If that's so, why are soldiers who are accused of "torture" being arrested and tried in military courts???

Why aren't the people who ordered them to to "torture" in the first place?

Once again, you've completely sidestepped the simple fact that this is an issue about Bush stating very clearly that to remove torture from its list of acceptable methods that the adminstration's hands will be tied in this 'war on terror'.

Stop fucking sidestepping you cowardly fucking puke.
Answer the fucking question!
You're really showing your cowardice here, Max. You're a fucking little rabbit. Scared little fucking rabbit.

Oooooh, yeah, that's something to be sooooooo fearful of, ain't it??? Ooooh, I'm scared outta' my wits! :)

I mean, after all, look at history before the Geneva Conventions ....the American soldiers came home after the war and raped, pillaged, burned and murdered millions of citizens just 'cause they were used to it, huh? Oooooh, I'm so fuckin' scared I can't even type!!! :)

Baron Max

Yes, it's something to be fearful of. Not very many of them actually kill people, but their attitude, the bullying they have learned, the way they shove people around degrades life wherever they go. They come back and they want to control what people think, feel, and say. This is why we shouldn't allow ourselves to go to war ever if we can keep from it, and keep a strong enough military to prevent fights from happening in the first place. This is why peace efforts should be given every chance to work, instead of being choked off when someone gets a bug up his ass.

I hereby challenge Baron Max to not sidestep the issues at hand here. And, for once, to anwser our questions, and not keep asking more. Thats all he does. Asks more questions. How about some answers?

I know, anyone in their right mind sees this for what it is: Bush indirectly supporting torture. A very troubling fact. But it just bugs me that Max can't seem to own up and admit it. Just say you support torture. Stop stalling, say what you believe, you have the right to do so.

I hereby challenge Baron Max to not sidestep the issues at hand here. And, for once, to anwser our questions, and not keep asking more. Thats all he does. Asks more questions. How about some answers?

Can't .....I don't have any answers! I only have questions ...and lots of them, too. I'm only 62 years old ...I ain't lived long enough to have all of the answers like y'all have - but give me a little more time, who knows, I might learn a bit more.

Y'all are the ones who seem to have all of the answers, I'm just trying to learn from y'all, that's all. And so, when I ask a question, why can't you answer me and help me learn?

Bush indirectly supporting torture. A very troubling fact.

Well, I don't believe that. But notice that YOU say that it's a "fact" ...can you prove it? If so, please do. And remember, proof is not the same as personal opinion or conjecture or accusation.

But it just bugs me that Max can't seem to own up and admit it. Just say you support torture. Stop stalling, say what you believe, you have the right to do so.

Oh, I don't believe in torture! But I also don't believe that torture is being used in the military except in isolated, unauthorized cases. Y'all see/read about one or two isolated instances, then jump to the conclusion that it's the norm in all cases and at all times. I just don't believe that ...and it's also never been shown to be the case, even with all of the negative publicity about it. I.e., kicking a Koran is not, in my opinion, torture!

Baron Max

I thought as much.

Baron Max once more sidesteps the entire issue.

Baron Max once more has posted an identical sentiment ("You kids have all the answers. I'm only 62 years old and haven't lived long enough to know anything. That's why I'm here to learn from all of you.") in multiple threads.

Baron Max has refused to accept the 90 to 9 vote in the senate.

Baron Max has refused to answer any of the rebuttals to his previous asinine statements.

Baron Max has refused to discuss the meaning of the administration's statement about the necessity of torture in its "war on terror".

The closest Max has come to addressing any of this is stating that 'kicking the Koran' is not torture. He makes no mention of other forms of torture.

Baron Max has nothing to say.

Baron Max is a scared little bunny rabbit.

Texan? Right.

Baron Max doesn't deserve to be called a Texan.

Baron Max has no opinions whatsoever. This is why Baron Max is the ultimate puppet. But, not to the 'sensationalist media'. Only to his buttbuddy Bush.

Bend over, Max. Bush is coming to dinner.

Done with you. You're empty.

...LOL! What the hell are you ranting about, Invert?

In that last post, I thought I answered all/most of the questions posed. What did I miss? Maybe you should read my post again and delve into what I said. I think I did answer it.

Baron Max

Fine. I'll repeat myself for the final time.

The administration, when queried about the reasons for wanting to veto anti-torture legislation, replied that it would be tying their hands in the war on terror.

In other words, they've stated that torture (or what is defined as torture in the bill) is a necessary method in the war on terror.

The administration has made a pro-torture statement. The only way they could wriggle about on this issue is something similar to your 'Koran kicking' comment. Saying that they don't feel like what they are doing to the prisoners in their charge is 'torture'.

The bill was passed with a 90 to 9 majority in the Senate.
90 to 9. This is amazing. This is overwhelming. This is a bill that is well supported. Why? Because it's anti-torture... imagine that.
And yet, Bush's adminstration threatens veto.
Why?
Because they feel torture is crucial to the war on terror and to deny them the right to torture is 'tying their hands'.

The logic behind the statement is unescapable.

You've stated that you don't agree with torture.
So why do you disagree with anti-torture legislation?

It's already been stated that the Geneva convention doesn't cover the circumstances.

So. What's wrong with the bill?
How can you deny that the statement from the administration admits the necessity of torture?

These are the questions.

I've already stated that I'm not exactly anti-torture myself. I think torture has its place. I'm only anti-torture in that I don't like the idea that the chickens will come home to roost. I don't want to be tortured. So I don't want my government becoming accustomed to using torture as an acceptable practice.

Very simple.

Has your sanity left you yet? Fighting intractable conflicts with hard core lefties is not worth the time. Ask yourself, have I ever made an argument with most lefties that was not riposte with invective hatred? Very few reply without using such tactics, why bother? So you can have the last word? Because you think one might actually have the light turn on suddenly?

Save yourself the time and effort, you will find much laughter in reading most of the drivel lefties write. Seriously, have you just read what is being posted lately? Keep yourself out of fight, and read the silliness with delight.

Of course, you do what you want. But banging my head against the wall is not my idea of having an honest, fair debate!!!

Just think about?

Nader!

Torture being partly defined by mental pain, as though one could gauge what that could mean?

Neonazism?

Sheeple?

Seriously, do these terms and phrases (to name only a minute list of them) not strike you as hilarious?

I know you are a vet on this forum, but other than the philosophy and some science threads none of the threads are seriously worth replying.


...LOL! What the hell are you ranting about, Invert?

In that last post, I thought I answered all/most of the questions posed. What did I miss? Maybe you should read my post again and delve into what I said. I think I did answer it.

Baron Max

Has your sanity left you yet? Fighting intractable conflicts with hard core lefties is not worth the time.

this absolutely pleases me
sciforums lives up to its reputation as a place where rational thought reigns

let this be a warning to all
keep your wits about you and a firm grip on your sanity when venturing in here with.....

bullshit!

Radicand,

I'm sure you're not interested, but I'm not a 'hard-core leftie'. I'm not of any political persuasion whatsoever. I find politics boring for the most part and I generally don't post in this section, however the sheer... idiocy of Bush threatening to veto a 90-9 vote for an anti-torture bill is just too tempting.

I find it incredibly hilarious. And then to see all the 'hard-core right-wingers' completely overlooking the significance of the statement is just fucking... insane. (Ok. It's just the Baron here, and he's more of a kook than a hard-core anything. But even so.)

Also, I've already stated that I don't particularly disagree with the use of torture. My objections to torture are far more pragmatic. I don't want to be tortured therefore I would prefer to keep torture out of the repertoire of acceptable actions of my government.

What about you? What's your stance on torture? I take it that you're of the stance that the definition of torture in the bill is incorrect?

Gustav, you're into these kind of things, why don't you go digging for an exact list of what the bill calls torture. Let's see what it is that Bush is objecting to, exactly.

Anyway, have you ever been tortured Randicand? Are you prepared to go through these various tortures to prove that they're not so bad? I doubt it.


Even if you don't agree with the legislation per se, what of the overwhelming majority involved? Don't you think that it's sheer idiocy for Bush to use a veto on a 90-9 vote?

I still suspect that power play has a lot to do with all this.


Edit: Lastly. What you take to be 'hate' is mere frustration. The Baron is notorious for his red herring techniques and this debate is no exception. Few actually have the will to debate him because he's seen as more of a troll than a serious poster and when one goes against one's own better judgement and is then shown that one was right to begin with... well. It does get frustrating.

It's interesting to watch rabbits bob and weave, except when one is hunting rabbits. And then it gets annoying.

The administration, when queried about the reasons for wanting to veto anti-torture legislation, replied that it would be tying their hands in the war on terror. .... In other words, they've stated that torture (or what is defined as torture in the bill) is a necessary method in the war on terror.

"...in other words...."??? You've made that determination? That is NOT what the administration is saying, nor is it "other words".

The administration doesn't like the wording of the new law and, if so, they shouldn't accept it ..they should veto it. That, sir, is what the veto is intended to be for.

As to a 90-to-9 vote ....who gives a shit? If it's a shitty law, that just means that 90 senators can see it for what it is.

The administration has made a pro-torture statement.

That's bullshit and you know it! Ye're just trying to interpret things as YOU want to see them ....try reality for a change!

Baron Max

As to a 90-to-9 vote ....who gives a shit? If it's a shitty law, that just means that 90 senators can see it for what it is.

It's a shitty law? Says who? Bush? 90-9 says its not a shitty law.

"...in other words...."??? You've made that determination? That is NOT what the administration is saying, nor is it "other words".

An anti-torture bill would be tying the adminstrations hands in the war on terror. What else could that mean, Baron?

(Thanks for finally answering the actual topic though. Took long enough.)

The administration doesn't like the wording of the new law and, if so, they shouldn't accept it ..they should veto it. That, sir, is what the veto is intended to be for.

How so? They don't like the definitions of torture supplied in the bill? Because some of those definitions are in their repertoire of acceptable tactics? Which? Will the president work through the bell with the congress to remove certain aspects of torture from the list? And then we'll know at least some of the types of torture that the administration has a liking of. I wonder which is their favorite? I know they like stripping their victims naked and degrading them sexually. Do you think that waterboarding will be taken off the list? What's your favorite form of torture, Baron? (Of course, I mean non-torture.. *wink wink*) I think electrodes on the testicles should be allowable. What do you think? And hell, the rack is good for posture...

It's a shitty law? Says who?

The current, elected administration and the officials of the Department of Defense AND the administration's legal advisors AND Baron Max.

An anti-torture bill would be tying the adminstrations hands in the war on terror. What else could that mean, Baron?

I don't know ....why don't you ask the person who said it? Or do you prefer to interpret things in your own way regardless of what the speaker might have said or meant?

Torture, as you well know, has different meanings for different people. The term "torture" alone is no longer adequate to define anything ....except in the eyes of bleeding-heart liberals. We've already witnessed that many of them consider kicking the Koran as "torture" ...now, please, don't tell me that you agree with that?!

Baron Max

The current, elected administration and the officials of the Department of Defense AND the administration's legal advisors AND Baron Max.

Ah. "Some people..."

Okay, good, it's settled. But what ye're saying/implying is that some people don't like that, right? But is that any different to many other things in life; some like something, others don't. Who's right? ....and who determines that "right n' wrong"?

You might be interested to know that Congress makes the laws, Max. Not the executive branch. Not the Department of Defense. And not Baron Max.

A vote of 90-9 is untouchable. And for Bush to think he has the power to turn over such an overwhelming majority is sheer stupidity.

I don't know ....why don't you ask the person who said it? Or do you prefer to interpret things in your own way regardless of what the speaker might have said or meant?

How else can you interpret it?

Torture, as you well know, has different meanings for different people. The term "torture" alone is no longer adequate to define anything ....except in the eyes of bleeding-heart liberals. We've already witnessed that many of them consider kicking the Koran as "torture" ...now, please, don't tell me that you agree with that?!

No. Kicking the Koran is not torture.
Is waterboarding torture?
Is stripping the prisoners naked and putting them in a big gay doggie pile torture?
Is holding them prisoner with no possibility to have your case tried for years on end torture?

You're right. "Torture" alone isn't enough to make the definition.
However, I can't see how taking away Bush's right to kick a Koran would be 'tying his hands'. Do you? Do you think that kicking Koran's is a vital element in the war on terror?

A vote of 90-9 is untouchable.

Well, then he won't be able to veto it and you'll be as happy as a little pig in the mud on a hot Texas day, huh? And in fact, if what you say is true, then we shouldn't even be having this discussion ....you have nothing to worry about at all.

Baron Max

Randicand,

Ok, bright boy.
Rather than going through the whole bill. Why not just read the amendment that is the issue. It's surprisingly short.

SA 1977. Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. SMITH, and Ms. COLLINS) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2863, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) IN GENERAL.--No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.

(b) APPLICABILITY.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to with respect to any person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense pursuant to a criminal law or immigration law of the United States.

(c) CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the rights under the United States Constitution of any person in the custody or under the physical jurisdiction of the United States.

SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

(a) In General.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the

[Page: S10909]

United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section.

(c) Limitation on Supersedure.--The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section.

(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.--In this section, the term ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r109:./temp/~r109AvJjap
(Your link didn't work, by the way, so mine might no either. So. If it doesn't work. Go here: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm
Then find the 1977 amendment. Click the link to it. Find this on that page: "TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S10908-10909" Click that link. Then select printer-friendly version and search for 1977 on that page. It's near the bottom. A pain in the ass, I know. But they have their whole system fucked up...)

That's what's being objected to. Not the whole bill. I'm trying to find something factual from the white house on this, but at the moment all I've got is snippets from news sources. Those snippets are pretty damn telling.

Read this exerpt from a yahoo news article for instance:

"We have put out a statement of administration policy saying that his advisors would recommend that he vetoes it if it contains such language," McClellan told reporters.

Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita said at as press conference Thursday that the administration is concerned that the amendment could tie its hands.

"We've expressed our opposition to such amendments, anything that would interfere with the president's ability to protect Americans from terrorism and divert resources from war to focus on a lot of administrative requirements," he said.

"We've had to apply ... careful, but nonetheless innovative and aggressive types of approaches to interrogating in some cases, and it's been done with due respect for the principles that the president established at the very beginning of this conflict," Di Rita said.

The administration appeared to be holding out hope of getting the anti-torture language watered down -- or removed outright -- during negotiations between the Senate and the House of Representatives to iron out differences between their separate versions of the bill.

Similar legisation passed by the House of Representatives did not contain the anti-torture language, and negotiators from the House and Senate now must hammer out a compromise version of the bill to send to the White House for the president's signature.

"The House legislation doesn't include that language. It will now go to a conference committee. We will continue working with Congress to address this issue," McClellan said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051006/pl_afp/usattacksguantanamo;_ylt=Ak9tdF38NcbG9dOHEyMxXN6yF z4D;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

So. Now. Tell me again why it is that Bush is objecting? And what is he objecting to? Look at the fucking amendment for Christ's sake and tell me what 'language' is in that amendment that should be vetoed.

I.Fucking.Dare.You.

Or.
Tell me that you agree with the use of torture.
I've already admitted several times that torture has its uses.
Why are you too fucking scared to admit it?


Baron,

Well, then he won't be able to veto it and you'll be as happy as a little pig in the mud on a hot Texas day, huh? And in fact, if what you say is true, then we shouldn't even be having this discussion ....you have nothing to worry about at all.

The problem is, of course, that he's trying to wring them into changing the language. He's banking on Republican solidarity.

So. Now that you've read the text of the amendment and you've read that it is this amendment that he's objecting to in particular.
What do you have to say, Baron?

Are you going to now say you're pro-torture?
Are you going to admit that the Bush administration is pro-torture?
What do you have to say?
Let's hear it.

Hey. What happened to bright boy's post? He erased it?!
Right after I posted?
Por que?
Don't like egg on your face, Randicand?
God damnit. I can't retrieve it either or I would and I'd post it in a quote just to show how fucking stupid you are. It had been here for several hours. Plenty of people saw it, I'm sure.
Tool.

Hee hee.
Actually. I can retrieve it.

The articles only presume Bush will veto because of the anti-torture portion of the bill. But the fact is that Bush did not specify this in the articles. I will not say that he did not say he would veto because of the anti-torture portion, but I do not think it can be claimed that he did.

It seems the reigning rational thinkers on the sciforums board has once again fallen prey to the media's agenda. Please before you begin spewing off with venomous hate, read or at least scan the bill. It contains(Amendments_For_H.R.2863)&./temp/~bdHhvI]160 amendments. It could be, and I can think of a few amendments, that Bush's pending veto is due to other portions than the anti-torture amendment.

It is just possible, but then I am full of b.s., right!!!

It is a good thing that I do not think for myself!!!!!! Otherwise, I would simply read the mainstream media and regurgitate everything it says.

Points off. For illegal hitting! I'll take it.

Points off for illegal hitting? How about points off for talking out your ass? Or points off for cowardly deletion? Most definitely points off for the bright yellow font you chose.

" Yes, crazy, we were founded as a nation of law, and must hold ourselves to a higher standard than do the terrorists"

Not if that 'higher standard' leads us to failure. Rules and Laws go out the window when you are fighting an enemy that plays by a different set of rules. Didnt we learn this in Vietnam?? Rules and Laws doomed us in that war.

Why must we impose restrictions on ourselves? It gives the enemy an advantage.

We didnt exactly hold ourselves to a higher standard when we fought the British now did we?? Can you honestly call Guerrilla warfare High Class? Noble?? Its a means to an end. They will do whatever it takes to win and so should we.

Not if that 'higher standard' leads us to failure. Rules and Laws go out the window when you are fighting an enemy that plays by a different set of rules. Didnt we learn this in Vietnam?? Rules and Laws doomed us in that war.

Why must we impose restrictions on ourselves? It gives the enemy an advantage.

Heh, we were the ones to go in and invade Iraq on a basis of morality. If that weren't the reason, then sure, go ahead and not act civil or have anti-torture laws. However, one of the so-called reasons was to get rid of the "evil dictator" Saddam Hussein who "tortured and killed" his own people. It's pretty, uh, stupid and makes our whole reason of being there pure bullshit if we're going in to save people from Saddam only to do those exact same things against them. :rolleyes:

THAT's the difference. Hy-po-crits.

- N

Torture is not necessarily as effective as people might think anyway. People will say anything to stop being tortured. Remember the Salem witch trials? Puritans admitted to being witches because of torture. What makes everyone so sure the same radical who is willing to die for his cause will tell us where his friends with the car bombs are because his nuts have been zapped? A quick Google search brought up a Washington Post (I know, save it) article in which several experienced US interrogators say that they believe torture is an ineffective means of interrogation.

While living in a country in which the authorities have the power, even in theory, to grab me from my house, send me away without telling me why, lock me up for years and years, and torture and humiliate me does trouble me, I would have no problem with somebody in Iraq torturing a terrorist to get information that could save our soldiers' lives. But these people think that blowing themselves up to kill you is the greatest thing in the world to do. They want to be martyrs. Is the cost in enemy morale boost and generally pissing everyone in the world off at us greater than the gain in useful information? At least some experts (as well as consideration) say no.

" Yes, crazy, we were founded as a nation of law, and must hold ourselves to a higher standard than do the terrorists"

Not if that 'higher standard' leads us to failure. Rules and Laws go out the window when you are fighting an enemy that plays by a different set of rules. Didnt we learn this in Vietnam?? Rules and Laws doomed us in that war.


It is a myth that Rules and Laws doomed us in the vietnam war.

We (the USA) killed vast numbers of noncombatants in Vietnam. We could have won that war the same way that we defeated the native americans if we were willing to kill several million Vietnamese civilians. But nobody on our side wanted that kind of victory. We did not want the Vietnamese dead. We wanted them transformed into anticommunist allies. An American created genocide in Vietnam would have destroyed the American propaganda effort all over the world. We would have had to rely strictly on the fear of us to gain the cooperation of other nations in our global war against the Soviets had we gone the genocide route.

We did not loose Vietnam because we were not allowed to be more lethal. We were plenty lethal. We lost Vietnam when we allied with sectors Vietnamese Catholic community who had been helping France against the majority of the Vietnamese people. We did not make enough of an effort to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese in the early 1960s before they decided that we were also their enemy. By the time we realized we needed to spend a lot of money to try to make American backed capitalism more attractive than communist backed revenge on everybody who got rich working with the French at the expnese of Vietnam as a whole, it was too late and the money spent trying to win friends was wasted.

In 1962 we should have made Saigon the most prosperous Asian city not in Japan. This would have won the war and would have been less expensive than the war was but our leaders wanted to do Vietnam on the cheap. I don't blame them because many other countries had been sucessfully guided into the hands of friendly dictators on the cheap. Maybe it could have been done in Vietnam too but we had to get rid of the established force that wanted to be our allies and replace them with untainted leaders. Some leftest like acts like land redistribution had to be done or we would loose the Vietnam war.

How do you think "Rules and Laws doomed us in the Vietnam war"? Tell me what I am missing. What rule? What Law?


Why must we impose restrictions on ourselves? It gives the enemy an advantage.


If you are not willing to use genocide as a weapon then propaganda persuasion, negotiation will need to be part of the war if you ever hope to win. Imposing restrictions on ourselves can be very usefull in propaganda.




We didnt exactly hold ourselves to a higher standard when we fought the British now did we?? Can you honestly call Guerrilla warfare High Class? Noble?? Its a means to an end. They will do whatever it takes to win and so should we.

Is war ever noble? Is dropping bombs from the sky more noble than hiding behind women and children while you shoot?

Hey. What happened to bright boy's post? He erased it?!
Right after I posted?
Por que?
Don't like egg on your face, Randicand[sic]?

Actually, after thinking on it I thought some of my comments were out of line. So I decided to erase it and later repost with more appropriate comments. Suffice as to say, I still stand by what I said regarding the legislation.

I have read nothing that supports what you are saying. Some of the amendments in fact do handcuff the war. I seriously doubt that Bush would have objections to anti-torture laws. Think about it.

I think if the objection is accurate and Bush is legitimately against that specific part of the bill, then most likely the language is too broad and basically eliminates any effective interrogations.

And, be honest with yourself, all I am doing is expressing what I think about the situation. This is exactly what the original links did with the first post to this thread.

I dare you to find other portions of the legislation that might seem to handcuff the war.

Why are you too fucking scared to admit it?

Exactly, what am I afraid to admit? That I think that in the case of tracking down terrorist that torture might be effective? That I have been tortured myself? That I like torture? That I am afraid of torture?

Exactly, what am I suppose to admit? Irrespective of which way I answer, I have already been condemned by a mortal being whose only delight is calling other names or making dishonest accusations.

I guess the greater question is why "admit" anything?

I thought you said you were not a lefty? Your response to me suggests otherwise.

You asked, "have I ever been tortured?" I will ask, "did you personally hear Bush say he will veto the bill because of the torture portion, and that, furthermore, it is this administration's policy to condone any torture as a means of extracting information regarding terrorists, or terrorist plots"?

Well did you?

Be honest with yourself. Irrespective of what media it is, they will turn any quote on either side of the political isle and make it what they want to make it. So again I ask, did you personally hear Bush say this?

BTW-It was dark orange, not yellow!!!!

and invade Iraq on a basis of morality
- N

On the basis of what morality? Please define what morality you mean? Or don't. I really do not care it just strikes me that the morality claim (if made) might mean something other than the context you are using it now.

I will ask, "did you personally hear Bush say he will veto the bill because of the torture portion, and that, furthermore, it is this administration's policy to condone any torture as a means of extracting information regarding terrorists, or terrorist plots"?

Well did you?


Why should I answer you when it's fairly obvious that you haven't read my post (the important one.)

Go back to the post you're responding to.
Go up one post.
You'll see in this post the actual text of the amendment.
And you'll also see quotes from both the White House and the Pentagon on why they disagree with the anti-torture amendment.

They object to not some vague bullshit. They object to the anti-torture legislation made in the the amendment and nothing else.


Now. As to what I want you to admit. Yes. I want you to admit that torture is good. I've already done so. Why can't you?

So again I ask, did you personally hear Bush say this?

Ah. So. Now we can only trust what our own ears hear. Quotes are no longer any good. Press conferences are useless gossip mills.

Did you read the quotes? If not, then do. Then come back and respond.

Edit: Hmm. The 'too fucking scared to admit it' line is from the post in question. So you did read it.

Funny how you just ignore it though.

Ignore both the actual amendment. And the quotes from the adminstration.

There's not even any point in talking to you, is there? Obviously not.

On the basis of what morality? Please define what morality you mean? Or don't. I really do not care it just strikes me that the morality claim (if made) might mean something other than the context you are using it now.

I thought I kinda made it clear in my previous post.

What's the main and only real reason left that all the Republicans cling to make the war in Iraq "worth it" despite no WMDs being found? Saddam Hussein was a horrible and brutal dictator that tortured and killed many of his populace. There's no other real legitimate reason for us waging war yet they continue to bring up that reason to make it all sound better as if our efforts were worth it.

If you don't understand the morality in that, well, I'm at a loss for words. And with that reason for the war being justified in their eyes by removing Saddam, does it not strike you as hypocritical that we're doing the exact same things we've accused him of doing that made him such an "evil" person?

- N

Here. Misinterpret this:

Q Larry, Senator McCain, as you know, has been proposing this legislation that would formalize the Army's field manual on interrogation.



MR. DIRITA: Mm-hmm.



Q The administration's position seems to be -- and correct me if I misunderstand it -- that doing that would tie your hands, would limit to too much of a degree the capability of interrogators to be able to extract information out of people. Is that a correct description of what the administration's position is?



MR. DIRITA: The administration has issued a statement of policy with respect to amendments like this in which we've expressed our opposition to such amendments, anything that would interfere with the president's ability to protect Americans from terrorism and divert resources from the war to focus on a lot of administrative requirements. For example, one of the things we wonder about is if field manuals started being imposed in statute, how does one address changes to the field manual? And I know that the members think that there may be an easy way to do that. But they're complicated questions, and we don't want to -- it's difficult to envision how you would go about conducting -- discharging the responsibilities of the department when regulations start becoming statutory.



But nonetheless, the administration has issued a statement of policy that the president's advisers would recommend a veto if there are any of these kind of amendments that would restrict the president's flexibility in defending the United States against terrorism. This has turned out to be an extraordinarily clever adversary, one which is trained in the use of our doctrine and field manuals, one which is trained in the -- in how to make astounding allegations that get a lot of media attention. And we've had to apply the same kind of careful but nonetheless innovative and aggressive types of approaches to interrogating, in some cases. And it's been done with due respect for the principles that the president established at the very beginning of this conflict. So the administration's position remains what it is, which is that the president's advisors would recommend a veto.



Q Larry --



Q Can you put -- hang on. I wanted to actually get to the question there. The -- can you tell me what flexibility? Like can you give me an example of something that if this were law tomorrow, that you wouldn't be able to do tomorrow that you can do today? Like if this were -- what --



MR. DIRITA: I don't want to get into hypotheticals, but what we do know is that we are facing a ruthless adversary that is trained in our techniques, knows what our techniques are. The field manuals are posted on the Internet. And they've gone to school on that kind of stuff.



So to say that we can impose, with our wisdom, in the laws of the United States the answer to how an individual interrogator's going to have to, with an enormous amount of supervision and professional training -- is going to have to develop a procedure to interrogate, for example, the 20th hijacker, and that in all the wisdom of the -- of Washington, D.C., we're going to be able to encode in statute the way to handle that -- it strikes me as wishful thinking.



So that's the position that we have.
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Transcripts/051007.htm

I'm still looking for Mclellan's exact words, but what has been quoted speaks for itself.

There is no vast misrepresentation of administration policy taking place.

It is the anti-torture legislation that is the object of disagreement with the administration.

Now.
What were you saying?

Why should I answer you when it's fairly obvious that you haven't read my post (the important one.)

Go back to the post you're responding to.
Go up one post.
You'll see in this post the actual text of the amendment.
And you'll also see quotes from both the White House and the Pentagon on why they disagree with the anti-torture amendment.

They object to not some vague bullshit. They object to the anti-torture legislation made in the the amendment and nothing else.


Now. As to what I want you to admit. Yes. I want you to admit that torture is good. I've already done so. Why can't you?



Ah. So. Now we can only trust what our own ears hear. Quotes are no longer any good. Press conferences are useless gossip mills.

Did you read the quotes? If not, then do. Then come back and respond.

Edit: Hmm. The 'too fucking scared to admit it' line is from the post in question. So you did read it.

Funny how you just ignore it though.

Ignore both the actual amendment. And the quotes from the adminstration.

There's not even any point in talking to you, is there? Obviously not.


Wrong, the scared statement was in reference to me admitting that I agreed or disagreed with torture. Thus, I am not ignoring anything. If you did not mean this, then you seriously need to reread the post because I "admitted" everything I needed to.

I have already read the legislation and quotes.

The bottom line is that the quotes did not come directly from Bush, nor do they suggest the culpability that the thread is implying. And BTW, other amendments in the bill handcuff the war as well.

Finally, if you are not against torture what is your problem? Would you hold the same opinion if a democrat were president and the same quotes were being said? Of course, that is the point a democrat would not think America is worth defending.

There's not even any point in talking to you, is there? Obviously not

Seriously, who truly benefits from this? I will take your absence refreshingly!!

Thanks!!!

I have already read the legislation and quotes.

I realize that. You simply have nothing to say about them.

The bottom line is that the quotes did not come directly from Bush

No. They don't come directly from Bush. So what? They come from the Bush adminstration.

Where does the buck stop, Randicand? Somewhere around Uranus?

nor do they suggest the culpability that the thread is implying.

Then show it. The amendment is simple. The objections to it are simple. What are they saying then?

It's a self-accusation from the core.

The torturer stands up and says that he needs flexibility in his ability to torture. Nobody is calling Bush or his adminstration a torturer. They claim the title themselves.

And BTW, other amendments in the bill handcuff the war as well.

Then show me a quote that suggests that the reccomendation of veto is based on any of these 'other amendments'?

Finally, if you are not against torture what is your problem?

My problem, if you'd bothered to read my posts, is of a pragmatic nature. I prefer my government not be given permission to use torture. Chickens come home to roost, you know.

Would you hold the same opinion if a democrat were president and the same quotes were being said?

Yes.
You think that this is an 'anti-Republican' issue?
You fucking partisan shmuck.
That's seriously stupid.

Of course, that is the point a democrat would not think America is worth defending.

Baseless opinion and has nothing to do with the conversation. Merely shows your right-wing bias. You'd fuck your mother if your party asked you to, wouldn't you?
Motherfucker.

Seriously, who truly benefits from this? I will take your absence refreshingly!!

I'm sure you would seeing as how you then wouldn't have to continue to ignore the truth.

Suck it.


Edit: By the way. You're not too bright or observant, so I'll let you know that I've posted just prior to your post. I've posted the exact quotes from the press conference from the pentagon spokesman. I'm eager to hear your response.

Tell me again how this has nothing to do with torture.

Come on.

I realize that. You simply have nothing to say about them.

Your refusal to recognize that I have responded to them is not my problem.

Where does the buck stop, Randicand[sic]?

By the mere fact that you cannot address me properly I take the argument is breaking down for you. The buck stops with the president, naturally. The problem is you are arguing from a false premise. That being that we should not be in Iraq, everything we do is perverse, and that the administration condone any and all forms of torture at any time. I will stick to the last point. Again, it is the culpability that you and the rest of the lefties are assigning Bush. Simply because Bush says he will veto the bill due to the anti-torture amendment does not mean he is pro-torture. He is viewing it in the context of what it does to the effort in defending our country. But then this philosophy is consistent with the left, if you disagree with a black man you are a racist, if you work in a big corporation you are greedy, if you believe in Christ you are delusional. Therefore it does not surprise me that the leftist argument is that because Bush would veto this, then clearly is pro-torture.

What was that about pragmatism?

Then show me a quote that suggests that the reccomendation of veto is based on any of these 'other amendments'?

There are none that you have provided. That being said it does not mean none exist anywhere. Furthermore and for the final time, the legislation beyond anything to do with the anti-torture amendment does handcuff the execution of the present fight. That is simply the truth. All you have to do is read it.

I prefer my government not be given permission to use torture.

I definitely agree with this. The problem, again, is the false premise of your statement. Its fallacy is two-fold. First, it presumes that the United States has made the practice of torture in its domestic and foreign policies. That is not true. The second fallacy is that it says that we have not an enemy to protect ourselves from.

It's a self-accusation from the core.

Again. false premise.

You fucking partisan shmuck.

I took a post off because I felt that what I said was inappropriate. I had the balls to admit it. So what does this say of you?

Merely shows your right-wing bias. You'd fuck your mother if your party asked you to, wouldn't you?
Motherfucker.

Highly inappropriate on many fronts, this type of stuff is what should be reported. However, I happened to believe in free speech. Even if it is of the unintelligent kind, it does not mean I have to listen.

And again, what does this say about you?

By the way. You're not too bright or observant, so I'll let you know that I've posted just prior to your post. I've posted the exact quotes from the press conference from the pentagon spokesman. I'm eager to hear your response.

Again, I have already responded. You may want to reconsider that second sentence.

Here. Misinterpret this:

I don't have to. You already have.

Straight from your response: "MR. DIRITA: The administration has issued a statement of policy with respect to amendments like this in which we've expressed our opposition to such amendments, anything that would interfere with the president's ability to protect Americans from terrorism and divert resources from the war to focus on a lot of administrative requirements. For example, one of the things we wonder about is if field manuals started being imposed in statute, how does one address changes to the field manual? And I know that the members think that there may be an easy way to do that. But they're complicated questions, and we don't want to -- it's difficult to envision how you would go about conducting -- discharging the responsibilities of the department when regulations start becoming statutory."

Do you still want to maintain that this is soley an anti-torture issue? Last I knew an amendment refers to one. Dirita speaks of amendments, plural. Also, "anything that would interfere" is not limited to anti-torture.

More from Dirita: "But nonetheless, the administration has issued a statement of policy that the president's advisers would recommend a veto if there are any of these kind of amendments that would restrict the president's flexibility in defending the United States against terrorism."

The words "these kind of amendments" is not limited to only what you think. Please read the 160 amendments, there are several things that restrict flexibility.

Analogy:

amendments: several; amendment: one

I'm still looking for Mclellan's exact words, but what has been quoted speaks for itself.

Yes, it does.

Now on to my daily reading of Boortz!!

Your refusal to recognize that I have responded to them is not my problem.

Oh?
You've responded to the text of the amendment that I've posted other than to say that you've read it?
Really?

And you've responded to the quotes other than to say that they didn't come straight from Bush's mouth?
What did you say? Was it in code or something?

By the mere fact that you cannot address me properly I take the argument is breaking down for you.

Ha!
Right.
My 'failure to address you properly' is purely in your own mind.

The buck stops with the president, naturally.

Are you then retracting your earlier statement about these quotes not being meaningful since they didn't come right from the president's lips to my ears then?

The problem is you are arguing from a false premise. That being that we should not be in Iraq, everything we do is perverse, and that the administration condone any and all forms of torture at any time.

Wow. Way to put words in my mouth. When have I said any of these things?
I've not mentioned whether we should be in Iraq at all.
I've certainly never mentioned any perversity inherent in 'us'.
And I've also never made any comments on the adminstration condoning any and all forms of torture at any time.

Hey. I know who you are. The strawman from the Wizard of Oz, right? Yeah. Ever get that brain?

I will stick to the last point.

What last point?

Again, it is the culpability that you and the rest of the lefties are assigning Bush. Simply because Bush says he will veto the bill due to the anti-torture amendment does not mean he is pro-torture. He is viewing it in the context of what it does to the effort in defending our country.

Nah. I wouldn't really say that Bush is pro-torture. You're right. He's anti-terrorist. And all's fair in anti-terrorism.

Look. The statements clearly state that the adminstration wants no oversight over the methods of their interrogators. McCain's amendment is a simple one that says that the interrogation of prisoners should follow the Army Field Manual and the definitions in United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Do you think that this is unreasonable?

The latter, by the way, was once considered to be the rule until the Bush adminstration decided to reinterpret the law to mean that it only refers to prisoners being held on American land. This is why Guantanamo was made a prison, to get around those definitions.

What's wrong with following the guidelines? Do you believe the excuse of "uh. err. well. If the field manual changed, we don't really see how we could get those changes out in the field... blah blah blah." That's utter bullshit. Do you really think the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines change that often?

Bullshit.

Therefore it does not surprise me that the leftist argument is that because Bush would veto this, then clearly is pro-torture.

Yeah. Those damned leftists. How could they possibly misinterpret these quotes so that they seem to be pro-torture. Those bastards!! We should ship them all down to Guantanomo and show them who's boss!

What was that about pragmatism?

You're being purposefully obtuse, of course. But I'll answer anyway.

I'd prefer not to be tortured. I really don't want to be tortured. Therefore, towards that end, I think it would be in my own best interests to deny my government the right to use torture.

That's about as pragmatic as it gets.

There are none that you have provided.

Jesus fucking christ!
I asked you to show me a quote. I didn't ask you to go over the quotes and transcript that I've provided looking for it.
Are you fucking serious?
No. You're not.
You're being purposefully blind and obtuse.
You love your party, don't you?

That being said it does not mean none exist anywhere.

Then find them. I've gone out and looked for quotes to back up what I've been saying because you've been saying "think for yourselves. Don't believe the media. Blah blah blah." But you've offered nothing but your own pathetic rhetoric.

What have you brought to the table?
Not a god damned thing but your right-wing bias.
Nothing!

Furthermore and for the final time, the legislation beyond anything to do with the anti-torture amendment does handcuff the execution of the present fight. That is simply the truth. All you have to do is read it.

What legislation?!
Amendment 1977? The amendment I've quoted? The amendment that has been pointed to by the adminstration as its reason for vetoing the bill?
Where are you gathering this shit from?
Candyland?

Put up or shut up.

First, it presumes that the United States has made the practice of torture in its domestic and foreign policies. That is not true.

Then this amendment wouldn't harm the 'war on terror' then. Would it?
This bill only addresses torture. If there's no torture going on then there's no problem. This amendment won't change anything. The only way that this amendment would change anything is if the adminstration deems torture to be crucial in its implementation of the 'war on terror'.

The second fallacy is that it says that we have not an enemy to protect ourselves from.

Where the fuck are you getting all these strawmen from? I've never mentioned an 'enemy' at all. The truth or falsehood of an 'enemy' is wholly secondary to the point of this thread.

What are you saying? That all's fair in love and war? (At least war.) Huh?
If so, then you're saying that because we have an enemy to defend ourselves from then its perfectly legitimate to torture them in order to defend ourselves.

Again. false premise.

How so? You've not proved anything? You've shown nothing but your own loyalty to your party. Nothing else.

I took a post off because I felt that what I said was inappropriate. I had the balls to admit it. So what does this say of you?

What does it say about me? That I'm an asshole?
What does it say about you? That you're a coward?
You came into this debate playing the asshole. I have no qualms about dealing with you as I am. And not because of your arrogance, but because of your failure to address anything substantially. I hold you in contempt because you constantly try to throw in strawman arguments and red herrings and are now trying to take the moral high ground. Meanwhile you've addressed nothing of the simple statements made by the Bush administration on its policies of vetoing bills that contain language which would place its interrogators under any kind of oversight.

Highly inappropriate on many fronts, this type of stuff is what should be reported. However, I happened to believe in free speech. Even if it is of the unintelligent kind, it does not mean I have to listen.

And again, what does this say about you?

It says that I'm sick to fucking death of listening to you try to bring this to a left-wing vs right-wing debate.
I don't give a shit about the democrats. I don't give a shit about the republicans. I don't give a shit about politics in general. I do give a shit about being tortured and that's why I'm here.

I take offense to you trying to foist off my arguments, not by debating them, but by shuffling them off to 'just some left-wing bullshit'. I find your right-wing rhetoric to be far more offensive than the thought of you sticking that diseased proboscis of yours up your blessed mother's rectum and fucking her until your semen is oozing out of her every pore.

Now. I will admit that I'm being harsh. And I do apologize. But I won't stop as long as you continue your marginalization of my argument.

I sure as hell wouldn't mind if you actually debated me. But you have done nothing of the sort.

Again, I have already responded. You may want to reconsider that second sentence.

No, you haven't. You've only brushed everything aside as some left-wing conspiracy out to butcher anything said. A sensationalist media just out for money. You've not responded to the transcript I've given of the pentagon spokesman stating that interrogation methods need to be flexible and that hampering them by making them conform to any statutory guidelines would be tieing the hands of the adminstration in its ability to wage an effective war. You've continually tried to sidestep the whole issue and say that Bush is planning on vetoing the bill for reasons other than the anti-torture amendment yet you've brought nothing to the table that shows this.

You've done nothing but spout rhetoric and I find you to be an offensive right-wing patsy for it.

Put up or shut the fuck up.

Torturing our prisoners doesn't keep us safe from terrorism, it makes it worse. Why did we overthrow Saddam again? Oh yeah, he's a bad person that mistreated Iraqi citizens. Maybe he was just fighting terrorism?

The issue is that Bush thinks he can avoid US law by going to Cuba. He shouldn't be able to.

Read what a chicago detective has to say about interrogation: (From Craig'sList)
This is my first time posting, so please be gentle. I am a homicide detective who works in Chicago. I've doing it for several years. I can think of roughly a dozen cases in the last three years that wrapped up in a nice tidy package. Until this year, the unit I work in averaged about 170 murders a year. I usually have knowledge directly or indirectly of about 50 of those murders, so the numbers of nice tidy packages are probably greater.

Believe it or not, people do confess. Unlike the nonsense you read in the papers, physical abuse is not used and is not effective. Physical coersion will only "lose" the offender. Creating a bond between the detective and offender is what is needed to gain a confession. Hours are spent at the start trying to establish this bond. You just have to read the guy and go with what works. You might become his dad, or his priest, or his "homey". Like anything else, some detectives are masters at getting confessions and some suck. Most are someplace in the middle. The offender usually confesses in stages. It usually starts with "I don't know nothing". After several hours of denials and bullshit that becomes, "I heard about it". That eventually becomes, "I was out there(witnessed it)". And finally the confession process begins. This can take just as long as the rest put together. The offender will try to seek out what you know and only admit to that. You're trying to get new info out of him and don't want to let him know what you know. Holding back what you know is how you verify the rest of his story. I don't think people ever confess 100%. They always try to hold back the little things that will make them look really bad. At some point you have to go with the story he gives you. If you push him too hard, you might lose him. Before he is done, he will have confessed several times to different people. He is usually trying to work his own angle. Trying to make the co-offenders or victim look bad. During rape-murder or kidnap-murder (kidnapping is much more common than you think) confessions it can be difficult to keep your focus. These are usually your only truly innocent victims. When someone describes in detail for you how he raped and murdered some girl it makes you feel some kind of primal fear inside. Not the kind that makes you want to run away. You're sitting next to some monster eating hamburgers with him. And you have to say crazy shit that revolts you like,"did the bitch like it?". Its all about keeping him talking. But you feel dirty, jaded, and afraid for people you love afterwards.

amendments: several; amendment: one

Bring me a specific. He said amendments because this is a policy that was in place before the amendment was even brought up. It's a policy that is directed to a certain class of amendments. Amendment 1977 fits into this class.

The rest of his statements very clearly state that the issue is the definition of torture and the implementation of guidelines in torture.

So. If he's talking about amendments plural then he's talking about other anti-torture amendments. Are there more anti-torture amendments that the president is planning on vetoing?

Bring them to the table.
Or bring the 'other amendments' that don't fit under this category to the table.

You've done nothing here but spout rhetoric.

anything that would interfere with the president's ability to protect Americans from terrorism and divert resources from the war to focus on a lot of administrative requirements.

In other words. No oversight. We don't need no stinking rules.

For example, one of the things we wonder about is if field manuals started being imposed in statute, how does one address changes to the field manual? And I know that the members think that there may be an easy way to do that. But they're complicated questions, and we don't want to -- it's difficult to envision how you would go about conducting -- discharging the responsibilities of the department when regulations start becoming statutory."

That's about the Army Field Manual's interrogation guidelines. It's so unimaginable to attempt to actually say that interrogators should follow rules and guidelines, isn't it? Yup. They should be able to do anything they want. After all they're trained....


Put up or shut up, Herr Randicand [sic].

I have already made my point. There is nothing else I can say. I respect your rights to believe as you wish (and that is not a right/left thing). That is more than I can say for you.

I have already made my point.

No. You haven't made any point. The whole of your argument comes down to you saying peremptorily that Bush isn't objecting to this amendment but rather to other amendments. But, you've brought nothing to the table to demonstrate this in any fashion or form.

All you've provided is your own opinion. You've devoted no time or attention to attempting to back up your assertions with anything.

What was your point?

You've also made a lot of anti-left-wing comments. That is what I really come away with as being your main point. That left-wing whackos are trying to snowjob the country into hating Bush and the republican party by misrepresenting the facts.

You've attempted to sidestep my argument by marginalizing me as one of the left-wingers. You've attempted to marginalize my argument by saying that I am, at base, objecting to the war in Iraq, to the republican nature of the administration. And also by some weird argument that I think that the US is perverse in their every action (I actually assume that you're thinking that I apply this to the right as you see me as from the left.)

You've brought this to a partisan discussion from your very first emergence into the thread.

You deleted one post you felt was uncalled for, but I say that your first post in this thread was just as bad as your deleted post.

So. What point have you tried to make?

I respect your rights to believe as you wish (and that is not a right/left thing).

Oh? Well. I guess there's a first for everything. I think this is the first statement I've seen you make that doesn't boil down to a left/right issue.

That is more than I can say for you.

Liar.
I absolutely do respect your right to believe as you wish. What I don't respect is your shoddy debating tactics that you've demonstrated in this thread. You've demonstrated logical fallacy after logical fallacy. And then you claim the moral high ground because I called you a motherfucker.

I called you a motherfucker as a specific response to your attempt to marginalize me as a left-winger. I think the offensiveness of the insults are complementary.

Now.
If you wish to actually discuss the issue rather than simply liberal-bashing, then come back and we can have a civil conversation. I would like it if you actually did some homework though. I've gone out and gathered references to further my argument. I'd appreciate the same from you.

Is that too much to ask?

The thing is simple.
Deny it as you will, the statements clearly state that the veto is being threatened because of 1977.

Let me entertain your unconfirmed conjecture a moment and consider that perhaps some other amendments are involved which would also bring about a veto.
Ok?
What does that mean to the fact that the administration has openly admitted to objecting to amendment 1977?
Do you object to amendment 1977?
Do you feel that 1977 is objectionable and harmful to the war effort?
Do you agree that it is unreasonable to expect soldiers in the field to conform to the standards put forth in the Army Field Manual and the other book referenced on definitions of cruel and inhuman treatment?

These are simple questions.
And yet no one who is arguing 'your side' of the debate is willing to address them.
Why is that?

Because this is a chickenhawk administration supported by chickenshit. Which is why they are going down soon and hard. Good riddance to this short but disgusting American political virus. Wasteful, reckless, irresponsible killers and despoilers who prefer the erosion of human rights to include torture and mass-murder over an admission of error. Go back into your closets where you belong forever, fascists.

"We hates it forever, Precious."

Okay, I see where there is a communication gap. I also see some of your objections. I will address them sometime within the next two days.

But I do want to end one part of this discussion right now. I never made this a partisan issue. The whole purpose of the thread was based on partisanship from the start. Why else would it have been posted?

The primary reason no one else is arguing with you or the others that have placed a culpability on the president that is not there, is because the culpability is not there.

Before I go I will say one other thing. Anything brought forth by McCain has an ulterior motive.


No. You haven't made any point. The whole of your argument comes down to you saying peremptorily that Bush isn't objecting to this amendment but rather to other amendments. But, you've brought nothing to the table to demonstrate this in any fashion or form.

All you've provided is your own opinion. You've devoted no time or attention to attempting to back up your assertions with anything.

What was your point?

You've also made a lot of anti-left-wing comments. That is what I really come away with as being your main point. That left-wing whackos are trying to snowjob the country into hating Bush and the republican party by misrepresenting the facts.

You've attempted to sidestep my argument by marginalizing me as one of the left-wingers. You've attempted to marginalize my argument by saying that I am, at base, objecting to the war in Iraq, to the republican nature of the administration. And also by some weird argument that I think that the US is perverse in their every action (I actually assume that you're thinking that I apply this to the right as you see me as from the left.)

You've brought this to a partisan discussion from your very first emergence into the thread.

You deleted one post you felt was uncalled for, but I say that your first post in this thread was just as bad as your deleted post.

So. What point have you tried to make?



Oh? Well. I guess there's a first for everything. I think this is the first statement I've seen you make that doesn't boil down to a left/right issue.



Liar.
I absolutely do respect your right to believe as you wish. What I don't respect is your shoddy debating tactics that you've demonstrated in this thread. You've demonstrated logical fallacy after logical fallacy. And then you claim the moral high ground because I called you a motherfucker.

I called you a motherfucker as a specific response to your attempt to marginalize me as a left-winger. I think the offensiveness of the insults are complementary.

Now.
If you wish to actually discuss the issue rather than simply liberal-bashing, then come back and we can have a civil conversation. I would like it if you actually did some homework though. I've gone out and gathered references to further my argument. I'd appreciate the same from you.

Is that too much to ask?

The thing is simple.
Deny it as you will, the statements clearly state that the veto is being threatened because of 1977.

Let me entertain your unconfirmed conjecture a moment and consider that perhaps some other amendments are involved which would also bring about a veto.
Ok?
What does that mean to the fact that the administration has openly admitted to objecting to amendment 1977?
Do you object to amendment 1977?
Do you feel that 1977 is objectionable and harmful to the war effort?
Do you agree that it is unreasonable to expect soldiers in the field to conform to the standards put forth in the Army Field Manual and the other book referenced on definitions of cruel and inhuman treatment?

These are simple questions.
And yet no one who is arguing 'your side' of the debate is willing to address them.
Why is that?

But I do want to end one part of this discussion right now. I never made this a partisan issue. The whole purpose of the thread was based on partisanship from the start. Why else would it have been posted?

So everyone is either a lefty or righty in your eyes? If one questions a leader, they're automatically labelled the opposite party? One isn't allowed to question the president all because he happens to be the one in charge?

Wrong is wrong. It doesn't matter if the president happens to be a democrat, republican, communist, green, or whomever; if they veto an anti-torture amendment, that's wrong and there will be outcries from ALL groups.

Hell, this is one of the reasons why I hate both democrats and republicans because their whiney asses always turn things into partison issues rather than simply arguing the case. If this was Bush, Clinton, Nader, or even God himself, I'd raise some questions on the issue.

Stupid ass lefty and righty extremists defend your sides whether right or wrong. Oh no, people are questioning a bad move by our president who happens to be part of our party, let's defend him and use the excuse of partisanship to make it all okay and allow the president to get away with his decision by changing and focusing the subject to this partisanship rather than the issue itself so people quickly forget and the veto easily passes over our heads! Your guys' bitching is how most dirty politicians get away with their shady deals. Right.. in front.. of your faces.. without question due to arguing with one another. Morons.:rolleyes:

- N

The political motivations of neocon apologists often go far beyond not only reason, but also beyond the realm of the worn-out old dem/rep lib/conservative partisanship. As Neildo so plainly stated, Busheviks squirm away from real issues in a quest for the Master they are drawn to.

We are in this sense reliving the unpredictable early American days of royalists vs. patriots. People like Radicand clearly pine for a king. These closet royalists are so passionate in their veiled agenda, that they will squirm away from the clear linearity of reason whenever a confrontation purturbs their devotion to the concept of a strong and unquestionable Great Leader.

We must humiliate these antipatriots among us for our own sakes, because the USA is now destined for a crisis of identity and economics in the near future. Given a widespread nationalist despair, a childish but nonetheless popular infatuation with an American Caesar could rapidly produce political changes fatal for our democracy. Just because the Bush Group was not capable of playing the role well does not mean that they have not made huge inroads into American checks and balances, clearing the way for a new Boss. We can't quite make Him out today, but we had better start fighting now anyway, because democracy and reason are losing much ground to fascism and rationalization.

The fight for our futures begins right now, when these fascist American ambitions are first revealed, and we who oppose them take pains to expose them for what they are.

The fight for our futures begins right now, when these fascist American ambitions are first revealed, and we who oppose them take pains to expose them for what they are.

And thus are spoken the words of every revolutionary in all of human history. And don't you know ....those exact same words were used by BOTH sides of every civil war that humans ever fought?

Those are the words of radicals who are NOT willing to compromise with those whose opinions and thoughts are different. Yeah, let's not compromise, let's wipe out those other bastards ...for the good of the country! ....LOL! And thus begins civil war.

Baron Max

Incorrect, the thread is partisan because it is not being intellectually honest as to why the administration would veto the amendment. It has nothing to do with seeking torture as a blanket interrogation practice. Even those who voted for the amendment made the statement that Bush has repeatedly sought not use torture as primary practice in interrogations. Lindsey Graham and John