Torture- yes or no?

[welsh]

Looks like there is to be a show down between the Senate and the President about how prisoners should be treated.

Apparently the Senate is a bit tired of hearing about all the prisoner abuses, while the President can't seem to get enough.

Senate ignores veto threat in limiting detainee treatment
Measure added to Pentagon spending bill.

Thursday, October 6, 2005; Posted: 3:17 a.m. EDT (07:17 GMT)

SP
Manage Alerts | What Is This? WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Setting up a possible veto showdown with the White House, the Senate voted overwhelmingly for an amendment to a Pentagon spending bill that sets standards for the treatment of prisoners in U.S. military custody.

The measure, sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, would require American troops to follow interrogation standards set in the Army Field Manual and bar "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of prisoners in U.S. custody.

How about that- the Army Field Manual and not the Lindy England guide to Electricity.

On Wednesday night, senators voted 90-9 to include the provision to the $440 billion Defense Department spending bill now wending its way through Congress.

Earlier, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said President Bush would likely veto the defense spending bill if McCain's language were included, calling the amendment "unnecessary and duplicative."

Because non-Christians don't deserve Christian treatment?

"If it's presented, then there would be a recommendation of a veto, I believe," McClellan said.

McClellan said existing law already prohibits the mistreatment of prisoners in American custody, and the amendment "would limit the president's ability as commander-in-chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism."

And torture is a necessary evil for that war on terrorism?

If Bush does veto the bill, it would be his first veto during nearly five years in office.

A veto against international human rights.
North Korea would be impressed.

Arguing for his amendment, McCain, a former Navy pilot who spent more than five years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, said "our troops are not served by ambiguity."

"We demanded intelligence without ever clearly telling our troops what was permitted and what was forbidden. And then, when things went wrong, we blamed them and we punished them. We have to do better than that," he said.

Because at the end of the day, the responsibility lies in those who gave the orders?

McCain said an officer in the 82nd Airborne Division, Capt. Ian Fishback, urged his office to push for clear guidelines for the treatment of prisoners after unsuccessfully attempting to get answers from his superiors for 17 months.

McCain, a former GOP presidential contender, said he was willing to consider "technical changes" in the amendment -- "as long as those changes are technical, truly." He warned that his proposal could be removed when senators and House members try to reconcile their versions of the defense bill, and urged supporters to keep up the pressure on lawmakers.

"The image of the United States was very badly harmed by the pictures of prisoner abuse. We have to send a message to the world that we will not ever allow such kind of treatment to be repeated," he said.

It's hard to appear as a white knight when you've got your electrodes on some guys schlong and mocking them in pictures.

In a letter to McCain, published last week in The Washington Post, Fishback stated that he and troops under his command witnessed "death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment" of prisoners in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Allegations that Americans have tortured prisoners have dogged the Bush administration since April 2004, when graphic photographs of Army reservists mistreating prisoners at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad became public. Nine low-ranking soldiers were convicted or pleaded guilty in the Abu Ghraib scandal and their commander was demoted, but Pentagon investigators cleared higher-ranking officers of any wrongdoing.

McCain said Wednesday that intelligence is needed to fight terrorism, but "the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all our fighting men and women." Torturing prisoners not only yields unreliable answers, but also endangers captured U.S. troops and allows "the cruel actions of a few to darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions," he said.

Does torture lead to unreliable evidence?

Does the costs of torture to our troops outweight the value of intelligence gained?

"The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy," he said. "But this isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies."

He bristled at remarks by his Republican colleague, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, questioning Fishback's account. Sessions also called it "sort of odd" that Fishback refused to disclose the names of sergeants in his unit who reported similar conduct.

"Captain Fishback is a noble, brave young American," McCain said. "He does not deserve to be disparaged on the floor of this Senate by any senator, and the senator from Alabama owes him an abject and deep apology."

Sessions said the McCain amendment was unnecessary, since those responsible for the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib "are being held to account." He said he did not believe he questioned Fishback's integrity, and he said senators who questioned whether abuses were sanctioned by top officers or the Pentagon should consider an apology.

"To suggest to the world that we have as systemic pattern of abuse in the military is not true," he said.

OK, so what are your thoughts?

 

[c0ldst33ltrs4u]

Army S&M ... Sounds like a movie in the making! Come one, come all to see the horrors of war on DVD recorded especially for you. They could make a killing on the snuff market!

 

[The Commissar]

I've gone on record as being pro torture, but I also admit to being a cruel and possibly evil person.

However I do think the US should judge itself by the standards it has always claimed to have.

 

[Tayl]

So Bush says it is 'duplicative', meaning the rules are unnecessary since they already exist...and they they say that it would 'limit the president's ability as commander-in-chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism'?

Which is it? If these rules already exist then how will including this new amendment limit anything? Talk about BS, sheesh.

 

[Jarno Mikkola]

A veto against international human rights.
North Korea would be impressed.

Ough, yes in deed :!:

'limit the president's ability as commander-in-chief to effectively carry out the war terrorism'?

I forgot something(on), or did I :

 

[brandons1313]

Hey welsh. Are you anti-american or just anti-bush administration?

 

[Suicide Candidate]

Hey welsh. Are you anti-american or just anti-bush administration?

WELSH Y DO U HATE FREEDOM???!1

 

[Jarno Mikkola]

"Are you anti-american or just anti-bush administration?" At least I am anti-bush administration, 'cause it's anti-american 'movement'. If it's let lose in this world, it will cause so great american hatred, that can only be eased, by the collapse of USA. That's not a good thing, haven't yet decided, would that be a great thing, or not so. Just that it's not a good thing. :!:

 

[SkynetV4]

Pretty much I don't think torture serves the ends that its being used for. Down here, when Noriega was in power, he caught his biggest detractor (Hugo Spadafora) while he was leaving to Costa Rica to meddle in the Contras affair. His corpse was found in CR in a US postal office mail bag sans his head. There were traces of sperm in his rectum and evidence that quite a few of Noriegas goons had a good time with him. Result = riots and vandalism from Panamanian society (yeah, even some of the wealthy took part in the riots). IMHO, if you are going to torture someone, you are doing it to either coerce him/her into doing what you want or you want to scare people. But you can't torture and put on a happy facade and pretend you are a saint. Either you are a bastard and be true about it (like Trujillo) who was loved/feared or you abstain from that shit. Besides torture/interrogation (the main difference being what they put in your ass at the time of the questioning) isn't that reliable. Eventually you'll crack and agree to do what they tell you or confess. Think about that joke about the FBI, CIA and LAPD and the rabbits.

 

[welsh]

I've gone on record as being pro torture, but I also admit to being a cruel and possibly evil person.

I could think of a few people I would like to see tortured.

However I do think the US should judge itself by the standards it has always claimed to have.

Yes, because no one like a hypocrite.

So Bush says it is 'duplicative', meaning the rules are unnecessary since they already exist...and they they say that it would 'limit the president's ability as commander-in-chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism'?

Which is it? If these rules already exist then how will including this new amendment limit anything? Talk about BS, sheesh.

Or another question is- does this mean that Bush actually endorsed the prison abuses? An admission of guilt?

Hey welsh. Are you anti-american or just anti-bush administration?

Well I am very anti-Bush, because he’s a cocaine-adled, religious extremist who is flushing the United States down the toilet. This was a much cooler country before Bush than since.

Think about it- the guy is totally anti-government, yet spends more than any president, and is pushing for more military powers domestically. His foreign policy is neo-mercantilism. He is filling the administration with his cronies, he packs the court with ideologues of his stripe, he builds a base out of the top 1/10 of the top 1% of America, plus religious fundamentalists, and uses smear tactics against his rivals. Kids- corporatism is a bad thing. It’s what screwed up Latin America and let’s not forget what it leads to in Italians.

Anti-American? I didn’t think so. But I am becoming increasingly anti-Christian for the same reasons I am anti-hypocrisy. But I am honestly not sure. I mean, let’s be fair, W the dipshit did win a majority in the last election. Can one hate the sin (stupid conservatism) and love the sinner (White Americans)?

Hey welsh. Are you anti-american or just anti-bush administration?

WELSH Y DO U HATE FREEDOM???!1

Because too much freedom leads to bad spelling.

 

[The Commissar]

Yes, because no one like a hypocrite.

I do, but in the "Lets just be friends" kind of way, not the "Be the Leader of my Free World" sort of way they probably want.

 

[brandons1313]

Ok welsh that is good to know. I have to agree with you 100% on Bush. I don't know what the deal is with the southern population of this country.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Ok welsh that is good to know. I have to agree with you 100% on Bush. I don't know what the deal is with the southern population of this country.

Here's a clue

 

[c0ldst33ltrs4u]

Ad a huge dose of stupidity to that and you have the answer.