Prosperity Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 McCain vows to add torture ban to all major Senate legislation http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1105mccain-torture05.html John Hendren Los Angeles Times Nov. 5, 2005 12:00 AM WASHINGTON - Girding for a potential fight with the Bush administration, supporters of a ban on torturing prisoners of war by U.S. interrogators threatened Friday to include the prohibition in nearly every bill the Senate considers until it becomes law. The no-torture wording, which proponents say is supported by majorities in both houses of Congress, was included last month in the Senate's version of a defense spending bill. The measure's final form is being negotiated with the House, and the White House is pushing for either a rewording or deletion of the torture ban. On Friday, at the urging of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, the Senate by a voice vote added the ban to a related defense bill as a backup. advertisement Speaking from the Senate floor, McCain said, "If necessary - and I sincerely hope it is not - I and the co-sponsors of this amendment will seek to add it to every piece of important legislation voted on in the Senate until the will of a substantial bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress prevails. Let no one doubt our determination." The ban would establish the Army Field Manual as the guiding authority in interrogations and prohibit "cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment" of prisoners. The Bush administration has sought to exempt the CIA from the ban. McCain's stature in the fight is enhanced because he was tortured while he was a prisoner during the Vietnam War. When the Senate voted to include the ban in the defense spending bill last month, it was approved 90-9. The House's version of the spending bill does not contain the torture ban. But Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the ranking Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, earlier this week urged his colleagues to accept the Senate provision. The provision would reverse the Bush administration's contention that conditions placed on the treatment of prisoners of war in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international treaties signed by the United States do not apply to foreigners held overseas. The prisoners "can, apparently, be treated inhumanely," McCain said. "This means that America is the only country in the world that asserts a legal right to engage in cruel and inhumane treatment." Bush initially threatened to veto the "must-pass" spending bill for the Pentagon if it contained the Senate provision. Later, he sought simply to exempt the CIA from the ban. McCain called that proposal "totally unacceptable." Opponents of the McCain language contend that setting no-torture ground rules would signal to prisoners that they have little to fear during interrogations, discouraging them from providing information. Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita had said Thursday that prisoners captured during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq "know what we do by virtue of interrogation manuals and procedures, And they are trained to resist." "So there's a perception that the kind of rigidity that comes with these kinds of amendments could restrict the president's flexibility in the global war on terror," DiRita said. "And anything that restricts our ability to engage this highly agile adversary is not desirable." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 Maybe splitting hairs here. The majority of the debate in the other thread is not addressing those classified as "enemy prisoners of war". There is a very specific set of guidelines that determines how detainees are classified. Few if any of these people under our control are classified as "Prisoners of War" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 Ahh the grandstanding by McCain to remain the renegade republican the media darling. Conservatives wont vote for you in 08 and the media and liberals will smear you with old scandals like Keating if you are going against Hillary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 Ahh the grandstanding by McCain to remain the renegade republican the media darling.Conservatives wont vote for you in 08 and the media and liberals will smear you with old scandals like Keating if you are going against Hillary. Is approving torture a GOP platform now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 McCain should've jumped ship, when Kerry asked him to be his VP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 The problem I have with McCain is, just when you think he isn't going to be a company man, he breaks down and gives in at the last second to appease the party over what his personal opinion/issues may be. I hope he is being sincere this time and will not back down from this. Torture is flat out not acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUNSTONE Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 I'm all for a little torture in the right situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 I'm all for a little torture in the right situations. where do you go for that? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 Excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyhorse1 Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 Hey Sarge, are you reading this thread. Do you think McCain is a left wing LSD using leftover hippy from the sixties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 Too bad they dont put that much effort into illegal immigration.. That would show some real guts... We already have a law on torture, what does this one do different other than let thier names get shouted out to the highest mountains.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 We already have a law on torture, what does this one do different other than let thier names get shouted out to the highest mountains.. Bear, Bush has threatened to VETO the other bill because of the specific language on torture in it. McCain is calling his bluff and he is attaching the torture language to EVERY BILL until it gets passed. The senate will go along with it as well, as they voted 10/1 to eliminate the allowance of torture the Bushies argued for. Great move by McCain. . . Only Navy Dave could call this pandering, especially seeing how McCain himself was a victim of torture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 Bear, Bush has threatened to VETO the other bill because of the specific language on torture in it. McCain is calling his bluff and he is attaching the torture language to EVERY BILL until it gets passed. The senate will go along with it as well, as they voted 10/1 to eliminate the allowance of torture the Bushies argued for.Great move by McCain. . . Only Navy Dave could call this pandering, especially seeing how McCain himself was a victim of torture. So your quoted me because there is no law on torture now? Or its not explained right? It really doesnt bother me because the only time you should hear about it is when things go wrong.. When things are going right and were sleeping well.. The CIA is doing it "right" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 Hey Sarge, are you reading this thread. Do you think McCain is a left wing LSD using leftover hippy from the sixties? McCain isn't endorsing fraging our own troops as you have either so I wouldn't try to compare myself to him if I were you. You aren't worthy of licking his boots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 So your quoted me because there is no law on torture now? Correct, Bush had Gonzalez write the legal defense for condoning torture, we've gone over this before Bear. Remember the "torture memo" which defined the enemy as "non-combatants"? Or its not explained right? THe new bill would outlaw ALL forms of torture and define exactly what is and is not prohibited. Bush wants to torture people so he opposes this. McCain threatened to put it into every bill that passes through the senate UNTIL Bush signs the document. He is FORCING Bush's hand in the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 Yet another good example for the need of the line item veto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Sounds like it may be a good idea, but probably unncessary, considering the sheer amount of votes for the ban in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Correct, Bush had Gonzalez write the legal defense for condoning torture, we've gone over this before Bear. Remember the "torture memo" which defined the enemy as "non-combatants"? THe new bill would outlaw ALL forms of torture and define exactly what is and is not prohibited. Bush wants to torture people so he opposes this. McCain threatened to put it into every bill that passes through the senate UNTIL Bush signs the document. He is FORCING Bush's hand in the matter. But by definition arent the enemy non-combatants? So what we are really doing is redefining the Geneva Convention to fit anyone? I want to torture people also.. I like the way the CIA does it. Their 2 level method works apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 But by definition arent the enemy non-combatants? So what we are really doing is redefining the Geneva Convention to fit anyone? I want to torture people also.. I like the way the CIA does it. Their 2 level method works apparently. No Bear, by definition we are a nation that DOES NOT TORTURE PEOPLE!!!!! If you want to torture people, then go to Saudi Arabia, Rawanda, Bosnia, Iran or any other evil country, this is not a "value" of our society, and it never has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Yet another good example for the need of the line item veto. So you agreed with Clinton when he wanted the line item veto? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 So you agreed with Clinton when he wanted the line item veto? I did...not that he would use it well though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 No Bear, by definition we are a nation that DOES NOT TORTURE PEOPLE!!!!!If you want to torture people, then go to Saudi Arabia, Rawanda, Bosnia, Iran or any other evil country, this is not a "value" of our society, and it never has been. You research is quite lacking when it needs to be "aint it"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 You research is quite lacking when it needs to be "aint it"! Show me what you are talking about and discuss it, rather then throw out garbage like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 I did...not that he would use it well though. An area we agree, because I am for it. It can show exactly a politicians platform, and they should be able to veto. I also think all bills should be line items, but that's another argument entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Yet another good example for the need of the line item veto. 1) The line-item veto, when we had it, allowed a President to veto individual spending items. (Hence the term "line item".) It would've had no effect on the "torture rule". 2) Unfortunately, the GOP, after claiming for a decade that this law was vital to our nation (because they thought it would be used by a Republican President to veto Deomcrat pork) decided that it was an unconstitutional violation of all that is good. (Because it was being used by a Democrat President to veto Republican pork.) 3) However, it sure would've been nice to have, say, when that highway bill got passed. 4) Who am I kidding. Bush, veto something? Republican spending? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.