"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/mai...s207.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?
Like what, exactly?? How would that be an "admission" of anything? 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: 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.
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, 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
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
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.
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". 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
heh lets eyeball the nazi's debating skills lets apply this to some of nazi's posts 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, what do you want? ...a reason that YOU are comfortable with? Why should anyone give a fuck whether YOU are comfortable or not? 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.
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 *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 *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. 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
