Bush will veto anti-torture law after Senate revolt
By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 07/10/2005)

The Bush administration pledged yesterday to veto legislation banning the torture of prisoners by US troops after an overwhelming and almost unprecedented revolt by loyalist congressmen.

The mutiny was the latest setback for an administration facing an increasingly independent and bloody-minded legislature. But it also marked a key moment in Congress's campaign to curtail the huge powers it has granted the White House since 2001 in its war against terrorism.

The late-night Senate vote saw the measure forbidding torture passed by 90 to nine, with most Republicans backing the measure. Most senators said the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal and similar allegations at the Guantanamo Bay prison rendered the result a foregone conclusion.

The administration's extraordinary isolation was underlined when the Senate Republican majority leader, Bill Frist, supported the amendment.

The man behind the legislation, Republican Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner in Vietnam, said the move was backed by American soldiers. His amendment would prohibit the "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of prisoners in the custody of America's defence department.


snip


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/07/wus207.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/07/ixworld.html

If they decide to stay with their spines...

That's what I got out of the nearly impossible to read Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon. If you can stomach it, it defends your point quite clearly.

bush would one day be sorry he gets such a hard for the USA to do torture..and throw the Geneva Convention rules out the window.

As in .."What goes around comes Around".

in more danger if Bush vetos this bill. When or when will the military have their coup? How much more are they willing to die for this corrupt corporate neocon administration?

Bush isn't up for re-election and neither are the nine senators that voted against the anti-torture legisilation. So unfortunately we can't use this against the likes of Rick Santorum, , Michael DeWine, Jim Talent or the other repukes up for re-election.

However, it sounds like we'll have more votes from the House and they are all up for re-election. So I would suggest any democrat trying to unseat a repuke should use this against any Repuke that votes in favor of torture


This is NOT a picture you want to be seen in a commericial being run against you!

Fine.

Will the 90 stand and override the evil fuk?

Or will they shrivel?

Ummmmmmm Like two years late.

2/3rds to override a veto

I'm glad he chose to veto it! Shows how evil he really is.

and consistent on his support for torture, instead of being inconsistent on it.

A defeat in either house defeats the bill.

Both houses need 2/3 majority.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Leading House Republicans signaled Friday that they will try to weaken a Senate effort to limit interrogation techniques that U.S. service members can use on terrorism suspects. <snip>

"We're not going to be delivering a bill to the president's desk that is veto bait," said Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. <snip>

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-07-house-torture_x.htm

What is he, some kind of comedian?

Being anti-torture is only "veto bait" for a monster.

All doubt has been removed. Long ago, but there is no doubt.

:beer:

Or pro-Shrub?

Whoever they feel that ultimately will help corporate feudal lords the most in the end, Shrubco or the defecting Rethuglicans!

BUSH DOESN'T SUPPORT OUR TROOPS; BUSH SUPPORTS TORTURE WHICH PUTS OUR TROOPS' AND ALL AMERICANS' LIVES IN GREATER JEOPARDY.

Pass the truth on.

This guy is the most disgusting man in the U.S.

Now we know where the limit is.

:puke:

Tom DeLay = "the most disgusting man in the U.S."

and disgusting. Not even fucking Alabama or Missisissippi can match that!

I just wrote to him, which is useless because he has a Bush brain implant:

Dear Senator Cornyn,
When I heard that the Senate voted for John McCain's anti-torture bill 90-9, I guessed that you would be one of the nine. How did I know? Because you have proven time and again that you are merely a rubber stamp for the administration. Now the once-great state of Texas will not only be known as the state that executes the most innocent people, it will be known as a pro-torture state. Congratulations. This is your legacy.
Sincerely,

saying "at least it's not as bad as Mississippi." But how freaking embarassing is it that the resident of the US doesn't want to give up his imagined right to torture people? But if you actually had the grapes to compare him to Hitler the fundies would go bat shit crazy.

...They already are bat shit crazy. The comparison IS valid:

http://www.karlandkinggeorge.com/Sweepings.html

and who'd have thought that WE are on our way to becoming a majority? (Fingers crossed.) Post Katrina the US is waking up to what the rest of the world has known all along -- the Chimperor is a developmentally disabled, booze-addled, fascist, religious wacko.

ALL THE CRAP THAT HAS CROSSED HIS DESK AND HE'S GOING TO VETO THIS ONE?

:puke::puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

Veto is a tool used by a president from one party who's up against a batshit crazy Congress controlled by the other party.

In this case, we have a...well, whatever you want to call Shrub...who has a batshit crazy Republican-controlled Congress. Bush gets bills he'll sign.

And frankly, I hope the thing gets a veto-proof majority in the House and Shrub vetoes it anyway. It will do him good to get slapped down in public.

Another war crime to be added to Bush's rap sheet!

:toast: :beer: :yourock:

He doesn't want to dis his "quaint Geneva convention" Attorney General. The troops in Iraq are the ones who will suffer the consequences most severely, and then of course we will all eventually reap what bush is sowing.

bush's agenda is clearly to get as many Muslims pi**ed off at America so as to keep his so-called war on terror in perpetual motion.

that this is a war against Islam and generating future terrorists at a rate he could only have dreamed earlier. bush has been the greatest recruiting tool (and WHAT a tool) Al Qaeda ever had.
Oh, and that "top secret" memo the U.S. "intercepted" (made up), that Al Qaeda is broke, their communications are completely destroyed, most all have been captured or killed......pleaae, do they expect anyone (of intelligence) to believe that horse-shit? :eyes: I'm sure the freeps believe it, but that just proves my point.

How we must be seen by the rest of the world; I am ashamed of my own country. :(

* wouldn't have a leg left to stand on.

That is great!

Not trying to hijack this thread but that is too cool!

because, apparently, "He was a fighter pilot in Vietnam".

:spray:

:thumbsup:

seem like they're deliberately and methodically setting out to destroy the established government and parties...

? :tinfoilhat: ?

Without governments, the rich would be monarchs again.

I think they want to keep the appearance of democracy in a de facto monarchy.

It is class war and we are UNDER ATTACK !

government and parties". Yes, you have hit the nail on the head. They subscribe to the Norquist theory of gov't, get it so small that you could "Drown it in a bathtub". They have done this through underfunding, they can continue the process by shaking our faith in the system. Now all we need is a few reported cases of avian flu and we can declare martial law.

On edit: America uber alles :sarcasm:

and on the extreme far right we have the far RW saying we should shrink government until it just about disappears...

...and suddenly you realize, they are saying the SAME THING.

Clearly for different reasons, with the hope of radically different outcomes, but the SAME THING nevertheless. It's weird.

...think of politics as a big circle. If you far enough to the right or left you end up at the same place, a totalitarian dictatorship.

Folks, we are almost as far to the right of that circle as you can go without being a fascist, one party state.

Or maybe we are there already and I just haven't had the heart to notice.

KL

I just hope the GOP senators stand up for once and overturn the veto. Take a moral stand on something? Hell may freeze over, but don't hold your breath.....

Either way, the white house is going to lose on this issue....

in there for his cronies and he won't veto

bush doesn't support our troops!

(what an asshole!)

(go ahead bushie--veto it--just try it....bring it on! moron!)

if Shrub won't follow the laws already on the books, he won't follow any news ones either

and if those very same Americans who call torture "frat pranks" didn't give a damn that Shrub was violating federal law before, they won't care about Shrub violating a new torture law either

the problem isn't the lack of a law, the problem is the lack of enforcing existing law.



in addition to the Geneva Convention - The United States also has the below laws regarding torture

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html

The War Crimes Act of 1996
18 U.S.C. § 2441



The War Crimes Act provides federal jurisdiction over prosecutions for "war crimes," which the law defines as "grave breaches" of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, violations of Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, and certain other offenses. These so-called "grave breaches" can include offenses against noncombatants, or surrendered or injured combatants, involving "willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment . . . willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health."

The Act applies whether the crimes are committed "inside or outside the United States," and whether the "person committing such war crime...is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States." (It does not apply to non-citizens or nationals of the United States.) The statute also applies if the victim is in one of these categories. War crimes committed in the course of declared or undeclared armed conflicts, or during military occupation, are covered by the Act.

The Torture Act of 2000
18 U.S.C. §§ 2340, 2340A, and 2340B

The Torture Act makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national (or anyone later found present in the United States) to commit torture or conspire or attempt to commit torture outside the United States. Crimes under the Torture Act are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment up to 20 years; or, if the victim dies, by life imprisonment or death.

Although the Torture Act is intended to implement the United States' treaty obligations under the Convention Against Torture (which the United States ratified with certain reservations in 1994), there are some important differences between the definition of "torture" under U.S. law and the concept of torture in the Convention, particularly with regard to "mental pain or suffering," which is more narrowly defined in the Torture Act.

The Torture Act defines "'torture' 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." The law then limits the scope of "severe mental pain or suffering" to mean "prolonged mental harm" resulting from (i) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction upon the victim or a third person of "severe physical pain or suffering"; (ii) the administration or threatened administration upon the victim or a third person of "mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality"; or (iii) the "threat of imminent death" of the victim or a third person. Unlike the U.S. law, the Torture Convention does not require that mental harm be "prolonged," nor does the Convention limit the types of causes for mental harm.

Most non-U.S. nationals fall outside the jurisdiction of the Torture Act, since it only applies to suspected torturers who are U.S. nationals, or who are later found physically present in the United States. Conduct prosecuted under the Torture Act need not, however, be linked to armed conflict, nor must the accused have any connection to the military. As with MEJA and the War Crimes Act, there have been no completed trials under the Torture Act


The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (MEJA)
18 U.S.C. §§ 3261 - 3267

MEJA provides for federal jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad by civilians who are "accompanying or employed by" the U.S. military. The statute covers all civilian employees of the military, as well as civilian contractors (and subcontractors), employees of contractors (and subcontractors), and dependents residing with these workers. MEJA covers both citizens and non-citizens, except for those who are nationals of, or ordinarily resident in the host country. MEJA also covers discharged and, in some cases, active duty members of the armed services.

MEJA creates no new substantive offenses, but incorporates a range of existing federal criminal offenses that may be used to prosecute defense contractors and others who commit crimes outside U.S. territory. Federal crimes subject to MEJA prosecution include murder, manslaughter, assault, sexual abuse, and the criminal statute prohibiting "deprivation of rights under color of law." Federal law sanctions not just those directly responsible for committing such acts, but all those who assist, abet, or order such crimes, as well as those who help conceal them. (These laws can be found at 18 U.S.C. ?? 2-4.)

To date, there have been almost no cases in court that rely on MEJA powers. Proposed regulations under the statute were issued for comment in February 2004, but have not yet become final. As of June 2004, one MEJA case had been filed, but not yet gone to trial, in federal court in Los Angeles. That case involves charges of murder against the spouse of an Air Force officer stationed abroad.

One possible problem with application of MEJA to crimes committed in Abu Ghraib and other U.S. detention centers in Iraq or elsewhere is that it does not extend to members of, or contractors to, non-military agencies such as the CIA. Only those working with or accompanying the U.S. military are covered by MEJA.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/detainees/us_torture_laws.htm

documents...the very fine lines they were drawing, pushing how far they could go without being charged by "overzealous" prosecutors.

It was long and disgusting...and a while ago so I don't have great recall but they searched for every loop hole in all applicable laws. Much was about the "intent to inflict...". You can do whatever as long as you can show that the injury was not your intent. They took that very far.

They even addressed the possible consequences to our captured soldiers. It was something insane such as since the world knows prisoners under bush are treated so fairly our soldiers wouldn't be endangered.

On and on. It should have been titled "How we can pretend torture is not torture and is also legal and just when we do it"

And then Gonzales was confirmed???

My bad. I thought Janet Reno was AG then. Who knew?

The war crime act is from 1996 - almost 10 years ago. It prohibits torture.

That's right, the CLENIS made me do it :)

but I'm not sure the clenis was thinking about the law...

aah, you misunderestimate the power of the CLENIS. It is so powerful that it can contemplate matters of State even while being fellated. It is all knowing, all seeing, all powerful. Tremble before the fury of the CLENIS.

on edit: thought "misunderestimate" was a better fitting word. After all, a president used this word, it must be good. Just here to disassemble the truth and catapult the propoganda :)

I've heard told the Clenis created the heavens and the earth...

and though they may pass away, the Clenis will remain.

never, ever laugh when thinking of the power of the CLENIS. The CLENIS is vile, cunning, and a Rhodes scholar for Jeebus' sake. My dear lord above, the CLENIS is so powerful that Mary Cheney became a lesbian because of her fear of it. Hell, even Rick Santorum became GAY because of it. Tremble in Its presence.

Your answer puzzles me. I'm not talking about the 96 act, I am talking about the attempts to override it a few years ago.

I was wrong to call it an era...but I am talking about 2002, prior to Gonzales being named AG. Gonzales and the Justice Department claimed bush's wartime powers superseded anti-torture laws and treaties.

The released memos are easy to find. It is not that there aren't laws...it's that this group wrote legalese to claim that the rules did not apply and skews what qualifies as torture.

This amendment will say that they DO apply.

and how Gonzales wrote the now infamous "memo" - in fact, I've posted links discussing the memo. Gonzales stated plainly in that infamous memo that the 1996 War Crimes Act could be applied to the Bush Regimes actions - and that that could be a problem for them...Bush claims certain people are not covered by Geneva...even though they are...

The Gonzales memo was pure bullshit. It in no way gave any legal protection from prosecution for torture. NOTHING Gonzales wrote changed the law. Nothing he wrote protected Bush from the law. Yet he is still not following the law, nor has Bush been charged for war crimes.


Your post confused me as well. As I could not see how the crap Gonzales wrote changed that there are existing laws against torture.


My point is real simple - there are laws already prohibiting torture. Those laws state quite plainly who is covered by those laws...and Bush still does not follow the law.

Bush won't follow a new law either.

So how do we enforce a new law, when we can't get Bush to abide by existing law (and treaty)? That's been my whole point the entire time...and nothing but my point.

We can prosecute soldiers until the sun goes nova (and we should prosecute soldiers who engage in war crimes) BUT - unless we can enforce those laws against the Bush government - which does support, promote, and defend torture ...it won't matter how many laws are on the books.

Unless we stop the Bush Regime, the torture will continue.

So how do we enforce another law, when we can't even enforce the existing laws?

MCCAIN AMENDMENT SA 1977

TEXT OF AMENDMENT

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 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.






Durbin Amendment
http://www.moveon.org/images/DurbinTortureAmd.pdf

it's based on the same laws as the 1996 War Crimes Act - both rely on Geneva and other international laws.

S.L.C.
AMENDMENT NO. __ Calendar No. __
Purpose: To affirm that the United States may not engage
in torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
or punishment.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—108th Cong., 2d Sess.
S. 2400
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department
of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for
such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other
purposes.
Referred to the Committee on _____________
and ordered to be printed
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
AMENDMENT intended to be proposed by Mr. DURBIN
Viz:

At the end of subtitle F of title X, insert the fol- 1
lowing: 2

SEC. 1055. HUMANE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES. 3
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following find- 4
ings: 5
(1) After World War II, the United States and 6
its allies created a new international legal order 7
O:\EAS\EAS04381.LC
2
S.L.C.
based on respect for human rights. One of its funda- 1
mental tenets was a universal prohibition on torture 2
and ill treatment. 3


(2) On June 26, 2003, the International Day in 4
Support of Victims of Torture, President George W. 5
Bush stated, ‘‘The United States is committed to 6
the world-wide elimination of torture and we are 7
leading this fight by example. I call on all govern- 8
ments to join with the United States and the com- 9
munity of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, inves- 10
tigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in 11
undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual pun- 12
ishment.’’. 13

(3) The United States is a party to the Geneva 14
Conventions, which prohibit torture, cruel treatment, 15
or outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, 16
humiliating and degrading treatment, during armed 17
conflict. 18


(4) The United States is a party to 2 treaties 19
that prohibit torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrad- 20
ing treatment or punishment, as follows: 21
(A) The International Covenant on Civil 22
and Political Rights, done at New York Decem- 23
ber 16, 1966. 24
O:\EAS\EAS04381.LC
3

S.L.C.
(B) The Convention against Torture and 1
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment 2
or Punishment, done at New York December 3
10, 1984. 4
(5) The United States filed reservations to the 5
treaties described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 6
paragraph (4) stating that the United States con- 7
siders itself bound to prevent ‘‘cruel, inhuman or de- 8
grading treatment or punishment’’ to the extent that 9
phrase means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane 10
treatment or punishment prohibited by the 5th 11
amendment, 8th amendment, or 14th amendment to 12
the Constitution. 13


(6) Army Regulation 190-8 entitled ‘‘Enemy 14
Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian In- 15
ternees and Other Detainees’’ provides that ‘‘Inhu- 16
mane treatment is a serious and punishable violation 17
under international law and the Uniform Code of 18
Military Justice (UCMJ). . . . All prisoners will re- 19
ceive humane treatment without regard to race, na- 20
tionality, religion, political opinion, sex, or other cri- 21
teria. The following acts are prohibited: murder, tor- 22
ture, corporal punishment, mutilation, the taking of 23
hostages, sensory deprivation, collective punish- 24
ments, execution without trial by proper authority, 25
O:\EAS\EAS04381.LC
4

S.L.C.
and all cruel and degrading treatment. . . . All per- 1
sons will be respected as human beings. They will be 2
protected against all acts of violence to include rape, 3
forced prostitution, assault and theft, insults, public 4
curiosity, bodily injury, and reprisals of any kind. . . . 5
This list is not exclusive.’’. 6


(7) The Field Manual on Intelligence Interroga- 7
tion of the Department of the Army states that 8
‘‘acts of violence or intimidation, including physical 9
or mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to in- 10
humane treatment as a means of or an aid to inter- 11
rogation’’ are ‘‘illegal’’. Such Manual defines ‘‘inflic- 12
tion of pain through . . . bondage (other than legiti- 13
mate use of restraints to prevent escape)’’, ‘‘forcing 14
an individual to stand, sit, or kneel in abnormal po- 15
sitions for prolonged periods of time’’, ‘‘food depriva- 16
tion’’, and ‘‘any form of beating’’ as ‘‘physical tor- 17
ture’’, defines ‘‘abnormal sleep deprivation’’ as 18
‘‘mental torture’’, and prohibits the use of such tac- 19
tics under any circumstances. 20
(8) The Field Manual on Intelligence Interroga- 21
tion of the Department of the Army states that 22
‘‘Use of torture and other illegal methods is a poor 23
technique that yields unreliable results, may damage 24
subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the 25
O:\EAS\EAS04381.LC
5
S.L.C.
source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants 1
to hear. Revelation of use of torture by U.S. per- 2
sonnel will bring discredit upon the U.S. and its 3
armed forces while undermining domestic and inter- 4
national support for the war effort. It may also place 5
U.S. and allied personnel in enemy hands at a great- 6
er risk of abuse by their captors.’’. 7
(b) PROHIBITION ON TORTURE OR CRUEL, INHU- 8
MAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT.—(1) 9
No person in the custody or under the physical control 10
of the United States shall be subject to torture or cruel, 11
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment that is 12
prohibited by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 13
United States. 14
(2) Nothing in this section shall affect the status of 15
any person under the Geneva Conventions or whether any 16
person is entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conven- 17
tions. 18
(c) RULES, REGULATIONS, AND GUIDELINES.—(1) 19
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 20
this Act, the Secretary shall prescribe the rules, regula- 21
tions, or guidelines necessary to ensure compliance with 22
the prohibition in subsection (b)(1) by the members of the 23
United States Armed Forces and by any person providing 24
services to the Department of Defense on a contract basis. 25
O:\EAS\EAS04381.LC
6
S.L.C.
(2) The Secretary shall submit to the congressional 1
defense committees the rules, regulations, or guidelines 2
prescribed under paragraph (1), and any modifications to 3
such rules, regulations, or guidelines— 4
(A) not later than 30 days after the effective 5
date of such rules, regulations, guidelines, or modi- 6
fications; and 7
(B) in a manner and form that will protect the 8
national security interests of the United States. 9
(d) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—(1) The Secretary shall 10
submit, on a timely basis and not less than twice each 11
year, a report to Congress on the circumstances sur- 12
rounding any investigation of a possible violation of the 13
prohibition in subsection (b)(1) by a member of the Armed 14
Forces or by a person providing services to the Depart- 15
ment of Defense on a contract basis. 16
(2) A report required under paragraph (1) shall be 17
submitted in a manner and form that— 18
(A) will protect the national security interests 19
of the United States; and 20
(B) will not prejudice any prosecution of an in- 21
dividual involved in, or responsible for, a violation of 22
the prohibition in subsection (b)(1). 23
(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 24
O:\EAS\EAS04381.LC
7
S.L.C.
(1) The term ‘‘cruel, inhuman, or degrading 1
treatment or punishment’’ means the cruel, unusual, 2
and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited 3
by the 5th amendment, 8th amendment, or 14th 4
amendment to the Constitution. 5
(2) The term ‘‘Geneva Conventions’’ means— 6
(A) the Convention for the Amelioration of 7
the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in 8
Armed Forces in the Field, done at Geneva Au- 9
gust 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114); 10
(B) the Convention for the Amelioration of 11
the Condition of the Wounded, Sick, and Ship- 12
wrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 13
done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 14
3217); 15
(C) the Convention Relative to the Treat- 16
ment of Prisoners of War, done at Geneva Au- 17
gust 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and 18
(D) the Convention Relative to the Protec- 19
tion of Civilian Persons in Time of War, done 20
at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516). 21
(3) The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary 22
of Defense. 23
O:\EAS\EAS04381.LC
8
S.L.C.
(4) The term ‘‘torture’’ has the meaning given 1
that term in section 2340 of title 18, United States 2
Code. 3
O:\EAS\EAS04381.LC

the stuff you posted have loopholes, like if we get iraqis to torture other iraqi prisoners while we sit there and watch. i believe this bill will close that loophole, which is why the prez is sweatin' it.

Bush will now be held accountable to the 2005 torture ban and not the 1996 Clinton Era war crimes act?

to hold the admin. to a federal law than an international one. by closing the loophole, it makes federal law more like the genevas, making it harder for the admin. to get away with it.

and Bush isn't being held accountable for it is he?

War Crimes ACt of 1996
http://www2.uakron.edu/low/War%20Crimes%20Act%20of%201996.doc
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441 <~~ FEDERAL law

§ 2441. War crimes


Release date: 2005-08-03

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or


(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/

The concern about possible future prosecution for war crimes—and that it might even apply to Bush adminstration officials themselves— is contained in a crucial portion of an internal January 25, 2002, memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by NEWSWEEK. It urges President George Bush declare the war in Afghanistan, including the detention of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from committing war crimes—defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions—such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners—was "undefined."

this federal law recites international law as its basis, and there still seem to be loopholes for sitting by and watching non-americans torture people who are in our care. this bill aims to unambiguously close that loophole from what i can tell.

bush isn't being held accountable for the abuses performed by us troops at abu ghraib, to be sure. but he also isn't being held accountable for shipping people off to syria to get tortured, or having people tortured by non-americans in us army-run prisons. even people exempted from the conventions or in the gray-area of 'combatants' will be covered by this bill, as it doesn't exempt them.

the genevas unfortunately cloud the issue of who they apply to, and the federal law on the books only wants to apply like the genevas, or only to torture committed by US troops. the new bill looks like it aims to make it tougher to 'gonzalez out' by outsourcing the torture to non-americans.

since the law states quite clearly that the Geneva Convention (1949) explain the "what qualifies as " (torture) A quick reading of the actual law states this - it even uses the phrase "Geneva 1949"

So they are both using international law as it's basis. Not just the 2005 proposal. Since McCain's backing of the bill ( his backing Durbin's bill) is supposed to force the military to live up to the Geneva Convention - but let's remember that it's not just the military engaging in torture - it's also America's executive office.

"Washington -- Sen. John McCain, decrying new reports of Iraqi prisoner abuse by U.S. soldiers, backed a bill Sunday to force the U.S. military to live up to its international obligations under the Geneva Convention and not torture detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/26/MNGK4EU1811.DTL

Read it (1996 law) - you'll see how it bases it's definitions on the Geneva Convention- and the Geneva Convention is "international law", no? I'll just repost the part that makes it clear the 1996 War Crimes Act is based on international law as well.

(c) Definition.--As used in this section the term ‘war crime’ means any conduct--

(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;

(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;

(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non- international armed conflict; or

(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.



You're right about the non-American part - and that is a good thing

It's called extraordinary rendition - shipping people off to be tortured elsewhere. And it's true Bush isn't being held accountable for it - though he sanctions it.

(here's a link about the bill Senator Leahy introduced against extraordinary rendition http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200503/031705a.html)

"the genevas unfortunately cloud the issue of who they apply to, and the federal law on the books only wants to apply like the genevas, or only to torture committed by US troops."

a couple of things to that:

The Geneva isn't cloudy about who it applies to: the Bush Regime have clouded the issue - effectively it would seem.

Well, OK. - to be fair... having read the GC myself, it's not cloudy to me.

The 1996 War Crimes Act DOES apply to US Nationals - that means the contractors (and anyone else there -Iraq/Afghanistan - and here) , who are nationals (citizens)..since nationals means citizens.

"b) Circumstances.--The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such breach or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act)."

That's the law above - see how it states it applies to US Nationals?

However, Shrub gave them immunity via XO, and XO can neuter a law made by Congress.

Now, I understand the amendment does go into interrogation techniques used by the US (military/CIA/contractors/foreign workers), but the bottomline is torture. Since interrogation methods being used include torture, and "is meant to overturn an administration position that the convention does not apply to foreigners outside the United States." BUT it still won't apply to those being held by the CIA in non-military facilities.

"It would further require that all foreign nationals in the custody or effective control of the U.S. military must be registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross -- a provision specifically meant to block the holding of "ghost detainees" in Iraq, in Afghanistan or elsewhere. The provision would not apply to detainees in CIA custody at nonmilitary facilities.
-snip-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201727.html



My point is, again - Bush doesn't follow existing law or treaties to begin with...what makes anyone think a new law will be effective at stopping the government sanctioned torture now?


Simply prosecuting some soldiers will not stop the torture until the government that sanctions it is held accountable.

If we can't hold him accountable to existing law, how are we going to enforce a new law?

after all, who has the power to say "turn him over to us for trial". Would america be able to handle the thought that one of their presidents or ex-presidents was being put on trial for war crimes? No, i don't think so, because to admit that our president is guilty of war crimes shines a bad light on us all. We might think that he needs punishment, but on our terms. Worst thing that will ever to shrub is removal from office- then we are faced with the possibility of a Pres. Cheney.

Thank you! For addressing what I asked. :)

I think America would survive admitting their President is a war criminal. It's an ugly truth but it's the truth. Many people would suffer an even bigger disconnect though. (if that's even possible)

I'm living with the shame of having a war criminal in office already...I'm living with what that says about my country and her citizens already...so actually holding the thug accountable would be a bit of a relief.

Cheney doesn't scare me....because he'd have to be removed as well...he is a willing participant in the executive office's policy on torture.
(well, if the world worked by actual justice, that is)

lol

I liked that they managed to sneak in that there is "no geographic limitation" to this law. This means that all prisoners in Iraq & Guantanamo will also be covered. Bush might be sweating this because they put prisoners in Guantanamo so they could argue that US laws didn't apply. They couldn't say that anymore.

The one that said torture doesn't involve mental anguish but only physical pain severe enough to equal that of organ failure or loss of limb?

and that the memo was written to try and get around existing law - to inlude Geneva

The concern about possible future prosecution for war crimes—and that it might even apply to Bush adminstration officials themselves— is contained in a crucial portion of an internal January 25, 2002, memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by NEWSWEEK. It urges President George Bush declare the war in Afghanistan, including the detention of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

In the memo, the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from committing war crimes—defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S. officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told Bush that "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions—such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners—was "undefined."

I can't believe this ass clown!

He's ready to lobby for "torture"?

I'm sorry, but did someone blow a pilot light in their cerebral cortex?

How frickin dumb can these evil mongers be?

He's ACTUALLY going to fight for the principal of "torture"?

He's going to veto any legislation that does not allow him to "torture"?

Can these evil, vile pieces of trash be any more blatant about how sick they are????

My God--they're not even hiding their evil anymore!!

Religious right fundie freaks--are you paying attention? You see Mr. Bush--he's like a ROMAN...a bad man. Those who do not want humans to be tortured are more similar to JESUS. Can you see it now? Any bells ringing? Anything? Anyone home? Bueller? Bueller?

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WAKE THE FUCK UP, YOU BOTTOM-OF-THE-BARREL 37 PERCENTERS--WHO STILL SUPPORT THIS FASCIST, SICK, TWISTED, PATHOLOGICAL PIECE OF INHUMANE DEBRIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/rant off (sorry)

How true. And what does this tell us about the complete invincibility they must feel? What does this suggest for the things they must have in store for us? Not encouraging.

What will happen there?

<snip from same article>
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.
</snip>
What the heck does that mean? Is that standard language? It sounds like it says that Bush will be told by his advisers what to do. I guess that makes sense, but to admit it?

going on....
<snip>
The administration said Congress was attempting to tie its hands in the war against terrorism. </snip> Yeah, well, it's about time, duh.
<snip>
For now the amendment's fate depends on negotiations between the Senate and the lower chamber, the House of Representatives, which is more loyal to the administration. But senators said they were confident that most of the language would survive and that the issue could pose an extremely awkward dilemma for the president.
The amendment was attached to the $440 billion (£247 billion) defence spending bill and if Mr Bush vetoes the amendment, he would have to veto the entire bill.
</snip>
heh heh heh

b_b

The House GOP will have it stricken.

Count on it....

Chimpy will go down in history as the first U.S. President to ever have the chance to sign an anti-torture law...and to veto it instead.

What a record!

:puke:

:puke:
:puke:

Who's he gonna blame for this one?

His contributions to history will be a big lesson that starts with, "Now children, the next chapter is a list of things to never do . . ."

Anyway, adding to it that his only veto was overridden, and it was to veto a law barring torture is going to be yet one more thing that he stands out for, all of them negative.

I would rather Bush, Cheney et al be tried in the US, where they can get the death penalty if convicted of war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, torture, etc.

Bush opposed the International Crimes Court, so it follows that he should get the sort of frontier justice he so much defended as Governor of Texas.

he's 'threatened' to veto a number of bills and iirc, has yet to do so. his 'political capital' is about spent, even with his own party. THEY have hopes of re-election to worry about. and if he is so bold as to veto a 'no torture bill' god help him. who's gonna jump up to support such an indefensible position? his core group of supporters have troubles of their own to worry about.

Is it really just some feint to hard core supporters of torture?

About time John Warner.

I can only think that he's really gone 'round the bend - AND on a bender. Not that I care - but he's slitting his own throat.

Anti torture bill, passed 90-9 (who were the 9 evil fucks?). The vast majority of American people would support such a bill.

And fucknuts is going to VETO it? What does THAT say?

Some words just are hot words: Torture, Arsenic, Cyanide.

...If it's calculated, perhaps the message is: "People, you're essentially powerless. You can't hurt us, you can't get rid of us. We're unassailable. Believe it, get used to it. We're running things, NOT you."

It would be Karl's way to purposefully create such an impression. Fear and intimidation are time tested effective means of controlling the masses.

http://www.karlandkinggeorge.com/Ask_Not_for_Whom.html

...did to Jesus. So if they support Bush, they can't really be Christians can they...

...can fundies think that logically or are they really that disconnected from reality ???

...This is the question fundies need to ponder. The problem is, I believe, that as a rule, fundies don't ponder, question,or challenge what they are spoon fed in church. They're the 37% who would follow Dubya right off a cliff and sing his praises on the way down.

...and you are probably right. However even the lemmings have to have a few brain cells working to survive in capitalist America.

Of course they may just be working on auto-pilot and letting their pastors do the thinking...

But 37% brain dead? Is that much of humanity really that dumb???

...staggering percentage. As for how to understand them, I'm at a loss. I do happen to know a few Bushies who aren't particularly wealthy, but have decent jobs and seem intelligent. There seems to be a certain gullibility built into some people who otherwise seem pretty normal. I wish I understood it.

...the Alpha male, regardless how suited he is to the task?

It would be easier to believe in a biological reason for this intellectual disconnect than to believe that anyone can still believe this bunch of lying thieves.

With all the disasters this mis-administration has caused, I can not believe that they do not know in their heart of hearts that these bastards are selling the country down the river to the highest bidder.

Oh boy, it must be late, that is WAY too many cliches....

...I seem to have used the word "seem" four times in three lines of text in #184. It seems I should seem to go to seem bed seem now.
Good seem night.

If he is ready to put his ass on the line to maintain his right to torture, even risking his war mongering budget, well then he will forever be remembered throughout history as

The Torture pResident.

Have you ever witnessed anyone so evil and foolish?

To call him pResident legitimzes him too much, IMO.

You'd think bushco would let it pass but still support the torture with fewer cameras in the room. It isn't like they haven't been BREAKING THE LAW THE WHOLE DAMN TIME with this shit.

"...an administration facing an increasingly independent and bloody-minded legislature"

God forbid the legislature is INDEPENDENT from the executive branch, we might actually have SEPERATION OF POWERS and CHECKS AND BALANCES if that were the case. But no, King George will veto this bill that overwhelmingly passed, so fuck it anyway.

What a thing to wake up to! :puke:

H ereally IS stupid! Not that he cares about his political future anyway.

The provision won't survive the conference committee, and the repugs voting in favor of it knew that going in, and so did bush. It's theater, folks.

Gives the repugs cover - they can say they voted for it.

Gives bush a chance to play tough - he gets to bluster about a veto that will never reach that point.

Gives the country a FALSE sense that the provision is actually law - but when it's stripped out THAT story will slip below the radar.

Gotta get the House on board as well, of course.

I'm so looking forward to seeing Bush get put in his place!

Vetoing a bill that 90 senators have voted for is so amazingly stupid.

They will override it. Bush will be percieved as really dumb in wasting time with a veto.


Clearly he is doing now simply out of spite.

Wake up, you're in denial.

What an ugly little creature that is

".... tie its hands in the war against terrorism."


But they wouldn't go so far as sleep deprivation.

Neocon playbook commandments are still driving the civil war in Iraq without brakes.

Good thing I happen not to believe in these bad bedtime scares for little rascals, because if I was a believer, I'd truly begin to frighten this idiot criminal is the AC for real.

Great... Hope I'm not wrong (wondering now if I am!) x( :scared:

Anyhow (in case a few might "pass" over here):

(37%)FUNDIES:
WHO WOULD JESUS TORTURE??
CHILDREN??!!

Frist is tainted. He's looking at DeLay and getting nervous. If I was a ReTHUG Senator (I'd kill myself first) I'd tell him to go fuck himself.

I doubt even the reddest Senator wants to go home and explain how he voted to give the greenlight to their sons and brothers to be tortured if they're captured.

LEgacy building is hard work.

That is the question, now, isn't it?

pffft

Torture R Us.

and his true character finally shows...

then his base is nothing more than a bunch of ghouls.

Scary times we're living in.

My God, what kind of monsters are these people?

Bush threatened to veto the bill and there may not be enoguh votes for a n overide. It would force Dems in opposition to the spending to vote for the override.

Actually it may be more important to pass the torture piece.

The bill also pays for new nukes I believe....bunker busters.

So there is some opposition....anyone have more info on the bill?

up thinking Bush will look bad over this. It passed by such a wide margin I was worried that something was fishy. Either it dies in Conference Committee when the House votes on it as one poster on this thread said, or it's so attached to the Defense Appropriations Bill that some other funny business can go on. The people will think "anti-torture Bill passed" when in fact it was an Amendment that was conveniently left out at the last minute.

We won't know until Bush signs it that it's been left out. :shrug:

I'm so sick of their damned games I don't even want to check it out further...:-(

Wouldn't this be his first veto? Or did I miss one?

I think our resident idiot will have much stronger support in the House, and the amendment that allows torture will probably be removed in committee? Am I wrong? Someone please tell me I'm wrong.

and still lose the vote by a 4-1 ratio--more than enough for an override.

I'm not saying this will happen, but it might.

This sick twisted freak would probably be one of the first people in the crowd that volunteered to nail jesus to the cross in the first place. You sick sick man. Hey is it just me or does anyone else remember chimpy saying that America does not engage in torture?

Isn't that a veto-proof majority? Or did Congress manage to outlaw THAT in the Patriot Act too?

Nice to see Mr. Bush showing more of his true colors every day. I mean, did anyone here think they'd EVER IN THEIR LIFETIME see a U.S. President that SUPPORTED torture...???

:shrug:

ON EDIT: I guess this means Mr. McCain will definitely be a candidate for the White House in '08. Too bad he boonked over and let Mr. Bush do him up the butt with little-to-no protest. He was one Republican I would actually have considered voting for...

in a special "veto override" vote.

The repukes must have been really tired and wanted to go to bed.

This should be used against them in their next elections. Proof that they support torture!

And a Bush veto will be absolute PROOF that the US government supports TORTURE!

This is Senate Amendment 1977 to H.R.2863. Link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP01977:
(You have to add the : at the end of the URL in your browser's address window for the link to work.)

Sponsor: Sen McCain, John (submitted 10/3/2005) (proposed 10/5/2005)

Co-sponsors:
Sen Graham, Lindsey - 10/3/2005
Sen Hagel, Chuck - 10/3/2005
Sen Smith, Gordon H. - 10/3/2005
Sen Collins, Susan M. - 10/3/2005
Sen Alexander, Lamar - 10/5/2005
Sen Durbin, Richard - 10/5/2005
Sen Levin, Carl - 10/5/2005
Sen Warner, John - 10/5/2005
Sen Chafee, Lincoln - 10/5/2005
Sen Sununu, John E. - 10/5/2005
Sen Salazar, Ken - 10/5/2005

NAYs ---9
Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)

Not Voting - 1
Corzine (D-NJ)

I agree that the 9 should be the focus of extra campaign opposition when they're up for re-election. And what's Corzine's excuse for abstaining?

It's nice to know the 'Torture Nine' are all pukes.

Just wondering why Corzine missed such an important vote when everybody else was there. Maybe he has a good reason.

knew they didn't need his vote.

SO I figure he needs to shore up the cracks as his Rovian opponent has ran a smear attack ad blitz over the past month. Corzine is hitting back now with his own ad blitz. He's a good man, this bill was a no brainer and it Will be quite difficult for his opponent Forrester to use it against him since he had KKKarl's dick up his *** while he gave that evil speech about NY, NJ liberals being weak offering therapy to the 911 terrorists. So to say it lightly, we need to beat the living shit out of this Forrester fucker.

The Bush Era Ends: Only Nine Senators Vote to Torture More Prisoners
Liberal Politics: U.S. Blog
« Let Conservatives Tear Miers Apart: Republican Pundit Compares Miers to First Dog Barney | Main | Are You Listening, Mr. Bush? Nobel Prize Given to Nuclear Peace Agency »

From Deborah White,
Your Guide to Liberal Politics: U.S..
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!

October 06, 2005
The Bush Era Ends: Only Nine Senators Vote to Torture More Prisoners
Over petulant objections and prolonged personal lobbying by President Bush and Vice-President Cheney, the Republican-dominated Senate delivered a painful rebuke to the White House by overwhelmingly voting, 90 to 9, yesterday to ban the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against anyone in US government custody, and would require all American troops to use only interrogation techniques authorized in a new Army field manual.

The legislation was introduced by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), a US Navy Captain who was a Vietnam War prisoner for over five years, including one year of torture and two years of solitary confinement. The amendment was co-sponsored by eleven senators, including Senators John Warner (R-VA) and Carl Levin (D-MI), the ranking Republican and Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Lindsay Graham (R-SC), a former longtime military lawyer.

According to the New York Times, "More than two dozen retired senior military officers, including Colin L. Powell and John M. Shalikashvili, two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, endorsed the amendment."


snip


For your information......the names of the nine Republican senators who still desire to allow the Bush Administration to torture, degrade and humiliate prisoners as they see fit are: Wayne Allard of Colorado; Kit Bond of Missouri; Tom Coburn of Oklahoma; Thad Cochran of Mississippi; John Cornyn of Texas; James Inhofe of Oklahoma; Pat Roberts of Kansas; Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Ted Stevens of Alaska.


snip


http://usliberals.about.com/b/a/208331.htm

it was delcared unconstitutional

Please George, DO IT!!! :bounce:

This will really polarize the Republicans. :dilemma:

You get a beast that large (as the GOP is now)... it must be divided to be conquered.

Pretty much the same thing considering President "Never met a bill he could veto no matter how wasteful or stupidly conceived".

The Senate and House both passing a bill, which gets vetoed, then has the veto overridden by both chambers.

Show the world that YOU want to torture in our name. My guess is that the little voices in your head (God) told you to veto anti-torture legislation.

G.W. Bush - the w is for owwwwww!

action in the worst-case scenario -- a captured terrorist who knows where a WMD is planted in an American city, which is imminently due to go off.

Now, really, in the extremely unlikely chance that such a scenario would ever arise does anyone think that the most extreme methods will not be used against the terrorist, law or no law? Or that anyone would ever be charged with anything, whether they reached the WMD in time or not?

The only reason to veto this bill would be to keep torture as an option in far less drastic circumstances. This isn't about worst case scenarios. It is about random sweeps of suspect communities, trying to find anyone who 'might' be a threat. It's about the invalidation of the 4th and 5th amendments.

It's about the coming police state.

n/t

From the AP:

In a 97-0 vote, the GOP-controlled Senate signed off on the money as part of a $445 billion military spending bill for the budget year that began Oct. 1. The measure would also put restrictions on the treatment of detainees who are suspected terrorists — a provision that has drawn a White House veto threat and demonstrated a willingness by Republican lawmakers to challenge Bush.




Is it possible that the 9 (or 7 of the 9) senators that voted against the amendment are covering their asses by voting for the overall bill? Are they saying that the amendment is not important enough to hold up the entire spending bill?


Let me get one thing straight, it is okay to torture detainees, but it is not alright for the insurgents/terrorists (w administration terms not mine) to fight to keep a torturous enemy from occupying their country? I'm not sure that the majority of Americans have the ability to think in logical terms.

in us getting to this point. What a nightmare.

What is Bush on? IT looks like he wants to shoot himself in the foot? Nero?

to everyone. He knows his numbers are going and past the point of no return. He doesn't give a fuck anymore. At least it seems this way. He had to have known that, in the light of the Brownie-Katrina controversy, the Miers appointment would be criticized for being "cronyism." He just didn't care. The Cheney administration's no longer care that their true colors are showing; they don't seem to be concerned with keeping a moderate face with the PR wing (Bush) of the administration.

n/t

This happened this morning tacked onto the Defense Spending Bill. If Bushie Boy wants his cash, he has to sign the bill and not veto it as promised. There was no mention in the CNN article about whether or not Mary Landrieu got the money she wanted for NOLA and of course no mention of the Dems walking out on the vote last night. They finally get a spine and no one will report it. Good ole' corpomedia!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/07/congress.defense.ap/index.html

What the status is, etc.?

If the House passes it with similar numbers, the resulting override is going to make the Bush Administration look VERY weak.

A veto overridden by their own party, who controls BOTH houses of Congress.

that had $5B less in spending. This anti-torture legislation was something that McCain tacked on as an amendment after the House sent it to the Senate. It passed the Senate 97-0. Shrubbie has promised to veto, meaning he won't get his beloved cash. His veto will certainly not hold up in the Senate, but the House might not vote to overrule since 1) they didn't put the amendment in there and 2) they like Shrub better than the Senate does.

Remains to be seen what will happen.

This makes Bush look even worse, if that's even possible. But he doesn't care. He's gotta have his TORTURE.

What a fucking evil asshole.

If so... well done, Mr. President! Make yourself look even worse - not just your average sociopath but a torture-supporting sociopath to boot!

This should do wonders for his reputation...

I am flabbergasted yet somehow not surprised. What a fucking asshole. And that is being too nice. Did God tell him to torture people? I highly doubt it. I was reading an article on Antiwar.com about who the author thinks is really talking to Bush: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7546


Bush's Satanic Verses
He hears God – or does he?
by Justin Raimondo

<snip>

"God, it seems to me, is the strong, silent type; it's the Other Guy who's a bit of a chatterbox, always whispering in people's ears, trying to get them to do cool-but-forbidden stuff, tempting and flattering them at the same time. If Bush is hearing voices in his head, then I fear we ought to be very worried, because it's either the delusions of a dry alcoholic, or something far more sinister."

<snip>

Even though Frist voted in favor, I would surmise that it was more tactical than realistic. The House version of this bill does not contain this amendment, so when the two sides get together to iron it all otu, it will go out the window.

The Senate will certainly override the veto. House remains to be seen as they have more Bush boot-lickers than the Senate does.

I meant the joint House-Senate one that must get together to reconcile the differences in the bill's language.

The House Republicans have already signaled that this is their intent;

to link this to his speech on that "war on humanity" shit he spit up during his speech? It's not that hard....

talk about a hypocrite :eyes:

Senators - Feinstein, Boxer, Reid, McCain, and Kerry.
Congresspersons - Joe Baca and Nancy Pelosi.
Press anchors - Leslie "Wolf" Blitzer and Keith Olbermann
White House correspondents - Helen Thomas and David Gregory
Democratic Party Chairman - Howard Dean

The White House position is that the anti-torture provisions "would
limit the president's authority and flexibility". This begs two questions:

1. Why does this President require the authority to authorize torture?

2. In light of this position, and since there have been numerous documented incidents of torture on this administration's watch, when and where has this President exercised that authority in the past five years?

on edit: clarification and simplification.

I am ultra pissed off about this. These two important questions *must* be asked of this administration. I mean to see to it that they are asked.

torture. I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being."

You might recall in the wake of the first release of Abu Ghraib photos there was a big scramble to give the sheeple the impression that "interrogation techniques" in the so-called war on terror did not include torture.

This article from the Washington Times, June 6, 2004 (date inferred from the URL) is quite contrary to what little lord shitleroy is saying today:


http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040623-124644-1098r.htm

'Values' guided Bush torture ban

By James G. Lakely
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Bush decided shortly after the September 11 attacks that terrorism detainees would be treated in accord with the Geneva Conventions, despite legal advice that this was not required, to adhere to "our values as a nation," according to a memo he wrote himself.
The White House yesterday released a 2-inch-high stack of memos that outline the administration's thoughts on dealing with an enemy that declares no country its home, wears no uniforms, and concentrates its attacks on civilians.
After months of deliberations, the administration decided to adhere strictly to the Geneva Conventions, despite their being optional in this case.
In a memo titled "Humane Treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban Detainees," Mr. Bush says he accepts "the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time."
"Of course our values as a nation ... call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment," he concluded in the Feb. 7, 2002, memo. . . .

------------

of course he does make sure to point out that "some" prisoners "are not legally entitled" to humane treatment.

please god/goddess, give us a sign that this disgusting shit-filled pustule is going to get his just rewards . . .

U.S. Constitution they would have charged Rumsfailed and Tenet for violating it.

Rumsfailed Admitted to Violating Geneva Convention

Rumsfailed admitted in public on TV that when CIA Director Tenet requested that an Iraqi prisoner be sent to a secret Afghan/US Prison that Rumsfailed did so. After four months a DOD Attorney stated that this was an illegal act. Rumsfailed then ordered that this prisoner be sent back to Abu Graihib but the prisoner was purposefully not listed at that location, also an illegal act. Rumsfeld also admitted to signing orders for tougher interogation methods which violated the Geneva Conventions.

Rumfailed has commited at least three violations of the Geneva Convention thereby also violations of The Constitution of the USA. Recently it has been found out that even more detainees were "ghost detainees". The fact that Rumsfailed and Tenet have not been charged speaks volumes. If Congress wishes to garner any respect they should move forward with Rep. Rangle's Impeachment Declaration of Rumsfailed and also proscecute Ex. CIA Tenet.


The US, Govt., Congress, and the Justice Dept no longer abide by the Geneva Convention or the Constitution of the USA.

Germans in general, and German soldiers in particular, do not take revenge on defenseless opponents, or even torture them. The opposite is the case. The danger is that German generosity will too quickly lead us to forget our victorious position, and presume our own decent attitudes and behavior on the part of the enemy, whether soldier or civilian.

That is why news of atrocities that our enemies commit against Germans or the civilians under their rule are often greeted with a certain skepticism. One doesn't not believe others can do what one is oneself incapable of doing. We remember that reports of the bestial brutalities committed by Poles against ethnic Germans, especially in Bromberg, were thought to be exaggerated. Meanwhile, the German people have learned the truth.


snip


http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/feldpost.htm

Things like this keep happening... but it never totally hits the fan for the administration. Odds are, under threat of a veto override, he backs down and approves the bill... but we can hope he looks like the cruel SOB he is before the Senate shows backbone and takes a step towards restoring our country's image.

How can any of america trust a man that is for Torture.

to negotiate the $5 billion difference between the two versions and come up with a final bill to send to Bush. The amendment may well be "negotiated out" at this point, by a Republican majority House/Senate conference vote.


Senate Appropriations Committee members, including subcommittee member listings, are here:

http://appropriations.senate.gov/members/members.htm#subcomm

End of sarcasm.

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:
:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:
:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:
:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

yeah it pisses me off. ;)

The other nine must not be. I'm off to check. :evilgrin:

"Torture is okay." That's what he's telling everyone.

:)

I'm starting to wonder, 'cause why would he do something so against what his own party is voting for. I just don't think he reads these bills. I think he waits on someone to tell him what's in them:crazy:

The key word in this is "read" which, he doesnt do much of as I remember. :)

You can't defy the emperor

I was pleased to see Senator McCain tell the Senate that one of the things that kept POWs in Vietnam sane, including himself, during their darkest hours was a belief that our country would never treat POWs that way. A belief that we were better than that.

McCain's choice of words echoed my own when the Abu Ghraib photos became public. I was so stunned it was about all I could think of: "I thought we were better than this."

I've been wondering what it would take for him to make that connection explicit. And I'm so glad 89 Senators joined him. At long last, has the tide turned?

Hekate

Almost made me forget what he has done the last couple years.

of this makes him look evil. pure evil. it's totally senseless.

It's Bush (In more ways than one...). With a 90-9 vote, Bush is the one who isn't in line here. And doesn't vetoing an anti-torture law make him PRO-torture? *cocks head quizically*

What an absolute prick.

What an absolute fucking embarrassment.

:wtf:

Duh....it was an AMENDMENT attached to a APPROPRIATION BILL. It does not become a LAW until signed by the executive.

These headline writers need a course in civics!

Democrats should talk about this when they go on the news shows. This is the second time Bush has threatened to veto a military spending bill because it has something in it that does not like. He is putting the military at risk because he does not want to end torture, a practice that might not get the United States any real usable information. About a year ago Bush threatened to veto another military spending bill because he did not want to end the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. On that ocassion that would have meant soldier going without body armor. Now that Bush is threatening to veto this bill they Democrats should fight back and point out that the President is putting soldiers at risk. They should point out that this is the guy who says we should support the troops. While now it is time for him to support the troops.

It is amazing that Bush hadn't vetoed anything in his first term, compared to Reagan veto pen being whipped out over a dozen times in his first two years.

Gasp.

He finds the pen when McCain inserts language that is reasonable. Is anyone really surprised?

Veto?

So there you have it .... Bushie wants to torture more people. So Convict him already. The torture orders come from the top. He should resign today.

KL

This must be the first time any President has decided to veto any legislation that was passed by a 90-9 majority. All it takes is a 67-33 vote to overide his veto.

More evidence that chimpy is clinically insane.

"...legislation banning torture provided the President's first veto opportunity..."

Doesn't bode well for the next three years, eh? :scared:

Out of control spending? Nah.
Pork driving up a record deficit? Nah.
A bill outlawing torture?! What the hell? I can't stand for this!

to mainstream Christian America. Not sure why, but they can. But torture is harder to sell. Torture isn't Christian, isn't acceptable to reasonable people, and isn't even effective. The Bush torture policy puts our troops in additional danger. Torture is clearly a tool of the evil. The Bush Admin is obviously in favor of torture. They have done nothing to stop it. Gonzales even put it in writing that torture was acceptable, and he was rewarded by getting appointed to AG. They hope the chain of command will keep them from responsibility. But they have established the policy of "extraordinary rendition". This policy is clearly to get around scrutiny and have the enemy tortured in foreign lands. We need to keep this issue alive. "Bush supports torture, are you for him or against him?".