GOP senator criticizes White House torture stance

Status
Not open for further replies.

rick_reno

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,027
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/06/congress.detainees.ap/index.html

If they're going to torture them, I wish they'd put it on Pay per View.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A leading Republican senator said Sunday that the Bush administration is making "a terrible mistake" in opposing a congressional ban on torture and other inhuman treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, considered a potential presidential candidate in 2008, said many Republican senators support the ban proposed by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War.

The ban was approved by a 90-9 vote last month in the Senate and added to a defense spending bill. The White House has threatened a veto, but the fate of the proposal depends on House-Senate negotiations that will reconcile different versions of the spending measure. The House's does not include the ban.

Vice President Dick Cheney has lobbied Republican senators to allow an exemption for prisoners held by the CIA if preventing an attack is at stake.

"I think the administration is making a terrible mistake in opposing John McCain's amendment on detainees and torture," Hagel, R-Nebraska, said on "This Week" on ABC. "Why in the world they're doing that, I don't know."

McCain, citing the Senate vote as well as support from the public and from former Secretary of State Colin Powell and others with military service, said he will push the issue with the White House "as far as necessary."

"We need to get this issue behind us," McCain said on "Fox News Sunday." "Our image in the world is suffering very badly, and one of the reasons for it is the perception that we abuse people that we take captive."

Mistreatment of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and allegations of mistreatment at the U.S.-run camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have drawn withering criticism from around the world. Human rights organizations also contend that the United States sends detainees to countries that it knows will use torture to try to extract intelligence information.

When the White House failed to kill the anti-torture provision while it was pending in the Senate, it began arguing for an exemption in cases of "clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States."

The president would have to approve the exemption, according to the administration proposal, and any activity would have to be consistent with the Constitution, federal law and U.S. treaty obligations.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said he supports the vice president's efforts to gain a CIA exemption. While contending that the administration opposes torture, Hatch said, "They're going to everything in their power to make sure that our citizens in the United States of America are protected."

Appearing with Hatch on CBS's "Face the Nation," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, said cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners "is not what America is all about. Those aren't the values that we're fighting for."

Sen. Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said his vote against the ban doesn't mean he favors torture. He rejected Durbin's comments as "not really relevant to what we are trying to do to detain and interrogate the worst of the worst so that we can save American lives."

Roberts said that success with detention and interrogation depends on the detainee's fear of the unknown. He suggested that passing a law and putting U.S. policies into a manual would tell detainees too much about what to expect.

"As long as you're following the Constitution and there's no torture and no inhumane treatment, I see nothing wrong with saying here is the worst of the worst. We know they have specific information to save American lives in terrorist attacks around the world. That's what we're talking about," Roberts said.
 
I would agree with Hagel if they were considered POW's. but everybody calls them terrorists or insurgents so that eliminates their care under under the Geneva Convention. so in my opinion as long as it saves or could save our people just make sure you have the polarity's set correct on the battery charger
 
steveno said:
but everybody calls them terrorists or insurgents so that eliminates their care under under the Geneva Convention.

Isn't that merely a technicality and should it preclude people from receiving basic decent treatment, like say, not being tortured?
 
Torture the terrorists or save troops' lives? Hmmm.... torture terrorists or prevent a nuke attack on US soil. Hmmm....

Unfortunately, the islamofascists are dictating terms to a large degree in this war. This is a war unlike any other we've been involved in previously. They target civilian populations and other "soft" vulnerable targets.

I've said it all along, if we truly intend to "win" this confrontation, we have to be utterly RUTHLESS.

Otherwise we may as well turn out the lights now.
 
Umm, I'm kind of partial to freedom and liberty and them things, myself. I feel that the price for living free is taking your chances. We COULD all get id chips an bar codes installed on us at birth, that would cut down crime.

But we choose to live with the imperfection, and keep our freedom.

And we could torture prisoners, to try to find out about stuff, even though torture in general is not effective.

Or you could take your chances and realize that you are going to die from french fries and fast driving, not a terrorist with a bomb-belt.


So, if you're going to radically alter our society to a state where torturing people is OK, then I say start torturing people who eat hamburgers. Look at the numbers! People are dieing beause of heart disease and speeding in their cars!

We need to start torturing people who eat bad food and speed! Furthermore, after we torture your mother, to find out if you eat bad food, then we will torture you to find out other people who eat bad food.

And then we'll torture you a bit more, just a a disincentive to eat bad food again in the future.



In all seriousness, the government which tortures people is, by definition, the bad guy. They are the enemy.

You have a gov't that has a history of abusing any power it receives, back to the turn of the century.

You have absolute freaking proof that the intelligence agencies are NOT capable, or not willing to stop terror attacks. And because of their treason, or incompetance, you want to reward them with more power? You want to reward them with powers that are unconstitutional, powers which are so fundamentally against the nature of the country that asking for them should be a capital crime?!
 
I agree with Joe.

The Pledge of Allegiance includes the words “…with liberty and justice for all.” By any conception, can torture of suspects be considered justice? I suspect that the hard cases talked about here are so rare as to be non-existent. How often is a terrorist caught that we can be sure has information which, if revealed, would save X number of people? More likely is that we round up a bunch of people and torture them hoping to gain something of use.

Torturing “terrorists” has already backfired on us. What respect can the US Government have among nations when it resorts to torture? Why would Iraqis want “Democracy” given the US Government example?

The Declaration of Independence talks about governments existing to secure rights of the people. Torture won’t secure rights. More likely that torture, once established in the hard cases, will come to be applied in domestic law, first with hard cases, then more widely (How about secret extraordinary rendition for citizens).

This is a case of “the end justifies the means”. Torture is never justified. If we claim any morality as a nation, we cannot use torture.
 
I agree with Joe & X -- a government which uses torture is, by definition, the bad guy.

My mama never let me get away with "he did it too" when I'd done something wrong, and I find no reason to excuse my gov't on the same grounds.

Most tellingly depressing of all the quotes in the original news story above:
The White House has threatened a veto...
Appalling! If Bush vetoes this, it will be the first and so far only veto of his time in the White House.

pax

The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience. -- Albert Camus
 
For those advocating torture to save lives:

I think it was an anectdote in "On Killing", by Grossman, in which a WWII german soldir was told by his WWI veteran father something on the order of, "At your first opportunity, surrender to the Americans. Don't surrender to the Russians. The Americans will treat you fairly."


Now, assuming that's true, doesn't that save lives, too? If that soldir is looking to surrender, he's not looking to kill us. He's looking to give himself up to us. And if that happens on any kind of a large scale, does that not save lives?

If we torture our enemies, they won't surrender to us.
 
steveno said:
I would agree with Hagel if they were considered POW's. but everybody calls them terrorists or insurgents so that eliminates their care under under the Geneva Convention. so in my opinion as long as it saves or could save our people just make sure you have the polarity's set correct on the battery charger
The Geneva convention includes provisions dealing with civilians and non-combatants.

However, the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to the CIA or NSA. Human decency and common sense should apply, though. Given the abysmal performance of our intelligence services in recent years, how can they claim with a straight face that they "know" detainee XXX YYY possesses specific information that would save American lives? They don't know. They're sweeping up people off the streets. "But we're only interrogating terrorists," they claim. But the only thing that makes some of the prisoners "terrorists" is that somebody pointed a finger at them and said "You're a terrorist." Was it Mark Twain or Abe Lincoln who said you can call a dog's tail a leg all you want, but in the end you still have a dog with only four legs, and a tail. Calling someone a terrorist doesn't make it fact.

It doesn't work for me. I agree with the pol who said "This is not what we are about."
 
Actually, if it's a really worthy cause, and the torture is necessary, let them.

But the torturer shall be charged with criminal offenses, and eveyone involved accomplice.

So if it's really really worth it, then they won't mind going to jail for 20 years after they get through with the prisoner. And if they die during or shortly after, then it's a capital offence.

Oh, wait, they don't want to be accountable to any man or law or god themselves, no, they just want the authority to play god to other people. My mistake.


And if any of you still have doubts - think about this:

Suppose your nephew goes on a research trip as part of his graduate program, say archeaology or something. And he is in Iran or China or something.

Based on the precedents that the CIA, the USA is setting, your relative could be hauled off and have his gonads electrocuted, in a secret jail. For 10 or 20 or 30 years. Or he's killed. And there is absolutely no complaint that can be filed, because whatever country he's in is simply following the US's lead in relations to prisoners. In fact, he's not a prisoner, he's a detainee, so he has less rights than a prisoner.

And if the thought of every country in the world doing this to US tourists, think about what happens when the gov't starts doing it to US citizens. It's NOT just crazy tin-foil speculation anymore. The headline of this thread is enough to make anyone cry, it's so freaking tragic.
 
ThreadKiller said:
Torture the terrorists or save troops' lives? Hmmm.... torture terrorists or prevent a nuke attack on US soil. Hmmm....

Unfortunately, the islamofascists are dictating terms to a large degree in this war. This is a war unlike any other we've been involved in previously. They target civilian populations and other "soft" vulnerable targets.

I've said it all along, if we truly intend to "win" this confrontation, we have to be utterly RUTHLESS.

Otherwise we may as well turn out the lights now.
I pretty much agree with Threadkiller. The only thing these "insurgents" understand is brute force. Worrying about them hating us? Hell they already do. These people are animals pure and simple. If we don't fight them on their own level we might as well give up now. This may be distasteful to some but war and especially terrorism calls for drastic measures. And how much of the torture we hear about is actually torture. At Al Gharib were those prisoners tortured? Humiliated maybe but hardly tortured. Do you people actually believe the media and some headline seeking Senators??
 
Standing Wolf said:
Republicans are real good at criticizing, real poor at taking action.

[insert party of choice] are real good at criticizing, real poor at taking action.
 
That's true Real Gun, but the Republicans control the House, Senate, Presidency and now the Judicial branch as well.

I lived for 30 yrs thinking that if the Republicans ever got complete control like that, some real changes would occur. Well real changes did occur on some things, I guess, but they are leaving us worse off than when they started.
 
I have to agree, we dont need to torture folks after all we are the good guys.;)


I vote we handle it the way we did in WWII. Do a little historic research Look up the Bombing of Dresden, or the fire bombing of Tokyo :)

Thats the Fair Geneva convention way of handling enemies.

So I suggest we fire bomb with B-52s of course, all of the arab capitals and major cities Just like we did to Dresden and Tokyo in WWII.

Much better to kill a couple million or so civilians while they are asleep in their beds.:neener:

We are much to civilized to make people lie naked in a dog pile, or watch while we piss on a Koran.

Yes sir we were much more humane in WWII.:evil:

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • japburnedchild.JPG
    japburnedchild.JPG
    247 KB · Views: 42
Nothing should preclude winning in a just cause. The question is what is necessary. Abuse is abuse. Doing what is necessary should not be grounds for impeachment. Let the executives execute. Wars aren't won by committee and certainly are not politically correct unless a losing effort.

Deference to John McCain's experience should be approached with caution. The guy is capable of some pretty Draconian stuff. He presents things as black or white. Watch out for the fine print.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top