The party of torture, mutilation and murder

You wanted a political vote, Republicans? You got one. Tuesday, the day after the mutilated, tortured bodies of two American soldiers were discovered, Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson offered a nonbinding resolution condemning the notion that an Iraqi government would ever grant amnesty to those who have "attacked, killed, or wounded" our military men and women.

Sounds good, right? You would think that Nelson's "sense of the Senate" resolution would have passed unanimously, with senators from both sides of the aisle coming together to oppose granting amnesty to those who have wounded or killed our brave soldiers. Wrong. While the measure passed by a 79-19 margin, it's important to note who voted against our troops, in favor of those who would torture and kill them. Nineteen senators. Nineteen Republicans.

Nineteen Republicans that support granting freedom to those who mutilated and murdered Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker. Nineteen Republicans that support giving a free pass to anyone who attacks our troops. Nineteen Republicans that support Iraq's thriving insurgency more than they support our soldiers. The commercials ought to write themselves.

The list of pro-torture, pro-mutilation, pro-murder Republicans reads like a who's who of right-wing hypocrites. You've got Tom Coburn, who once said, "I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life." You've got John Cornyn, another terror advocate who recently justified violence against judges. You've got Lindsey Graham, who considers it against U.S. interests to discuss the mistakes we've made in the war, but apparently in the U.S. interest to pardon war criminals. You've got Trent Lott, who's "not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld" but apparently is a fan of those who torture Americans.

And you've got John McCain. Former prisoner of war John McCain. The same John McCain whose amendment setting limits on detainee interrogation the White House vowed to ignore. And now, the same John McCain who opposes degrading treatment of our detainees but would support granting freedom to those who not only degrade American detainees, but also kill them. McCain should know better. So, too, should the remainder of the 11 Republicans with military service who, in effect, voted in favor of those who would have done them grievous harm. Granting freedom to war criminals who tortured and killed American troops represents a dereliction of duty. Not only that, but it's also un-American.

I suppose this type of anti-American behavior by Republicans shouldn't surprise me. After all, we're talking about the same Republican Party whose senators couldn't even unanimously agree that it was a mistake for Congress not to do more about lynching. Don't be fooled by the "unanimous" vote. Bill Frist forced a voice vote, a vote at which only six members were present. Why? So his caucus didn't have to go on the record as being objectively pro-lynching. Fully 15 Republican senators, accordingly, didn't cosponsor the measure, despite the fact they could have done so after the fact. At least Sens. Thad Cochran, Cornyn, Michael Enzi, Lott and Craig Thomas had the moral consistency to not only support lynching in the South, but also support torture and murder in Iraq.

On a personal note, I'm glad Ohio's senators aren't among the un-American 19. That said, if you live in Arizona, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina or Wyoming, you can be proud that your senators - both of your state's senators - support the torture, mutilation and murder of American soldiers. Some point of pride for five states that each voted for President Bush in 2000 and 2004. Some comfort for those calling each state's military installations home. Congratulations, your senators support amnesty for war criminals. Doesn't that fact just warm your hearts?

Nelson's resolution couldn't have come at a better time for America. With the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and an impromptu presidential visit to Iraq behind them, the Republican Party seemingly had the momentum on its side. With the fall's elections in mind, House Republicans tried their hand at their own nonbinding resolution, this one rejecting a timetable for pulling out of Iraq as not being in the national interest. The House measure was a partisan ploy intended to help the Republicans paint Democrats as being more on the side of al Qaeda than America this fall.

While the House resolution was little more than right-wing rhetoric, the same can't be said for Nelson's Senate resolution. Those voting with America's interests in mind were from both sides of the aisle. Those voting against America's interests, however, were from only one side of the aisle. The Republican side. Make no mistake, the next time you hear your Republican friends, relatives, pundits or politicians boast of how much they support the troops, kindly remind them that more than a third of their party's senators more accurately support their torture, mutilation and murder. Terrible crimes against Americans in Iraq? Republicans own it.

:dem:
Why does John Cornyn hate the troops? Guess he's too busy lusting over box turtles.

We abhor the treatment our soldiers suffered because we abhor the treatment; expect only the affectation of concern from the sociopath.
Torture is an accepted practice by the Bush administration, although they use the attorneys Gonzales and Yoo’s redefinition of torture, so that when they torture they don’t call it torture. It is the same tactic as calling human beings “Enemy Combatants”, thereby allowing for the abuse of those human beings, allowing for the denial of their human rights, rights the United States has agreed to in the Geneva Conventions. Hell, I’m no Psychologist, but there seems to be something pathological about individuals who can so easily excuse themselves from conventions, taboos, or even, reality
Torture is an accepted practice by the Bush administration, all the consternation; the revulsion and disgust that our traditional society may display over the torture and murder of our soldiers means nothing to them. In “Crime and Punishment”, Dostoevsky explored the effect on the consciousness of an murderer who acted in a fit of desperation, the effects of guilt, and fear of being seen as a murderer. But I doubt the serial killer suffers any such remorse and disassociation, until it is prevented by external forces the criminal activity methodically continues. The diabolical agenda of the Bush administration has death and destruction built into its implementation; it is part of the agenda. To them torture is not merely inconsequential, it is essential.
To regain the ethical balance that allows us to walk upright with dignity, we must purge ourselves of the poisonous effect of such practices. As a society we cannot always count on every individual to adhere even to our most basic standards, like our understanding of our inherent right to life and liberty. Those miscreant individuals must be ostracized and isolated from society, we must protect ourselves from them. If we must try them for crimes committed, then we must. If we must incarcerate them to prevent further crimes, then we must. We must do what we must to right ourselves.

well thought & well written. . .

I really appreciate it, believe me.

We must be missing something here... some tacked on amendment saying the US will not torture combatents. I just can't believe 19 senators (granted they are republiCON scum) voted for that issue alone.

But for hte rest I bet they want to allow our contractors and the like to continuing torturing....

This resolution depends on what one considers a person who kills an American soldier.

If the resolution concerned those that capture a soldier or a civilian and subsequently tortures and kills, then yes, I am 100% behind the resolution. This is clearly a violation of the Geneva conventions and any interpretation of civilizaed warfare.

But if it applies to any insurgent who targets American soldiers in the general sense (planting an IED, letting insurgents who do so live in your home, shotting at US convoys, etc.), then this resolution is stupid because it closes the doors for peace. We are talking a ragtag group of 99% Iraqis (tens of thousands) who want the occupation to leave. If the insurgents lose the "war on Iraq", they can expect no quarter? That is not a civilized way to conduct war, either. Once the enemy surrenders, they should be given some route for reconciliation unless they are directly involved with specific "war crimes". If this resolution means "any insurgent", then I am afraid we have just forced the enemy to fight until death. Stupid.

So which definition is it? Insurgents or "beheaders and power-drill employers" that will be given no amnesty?

I wonder why we did not include a condemnation of any group that captures, tortures, and kill Iraqi civilians? There certainly is enough of that going on there.

SEC. 1209. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE GRANTING OF AMNESTY TO PERSONS KNOWN TO HAVE KILLED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The Armed Forces of the United States and coalition military forces are serving heroically in Iraq to provide all the people of Iraq a better future.

(2) The Armed Forces of the United States and coalition military forces have served bravely in Iraq since the beginning of military operations in March of 2003.

(3) More than 2,500 members of the Armed Forces of the United States and members of coalition military forces have been killed and more than 18,000 injured in operations to bring peace and stability to all the people of Iraq.

(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States; and

(2) the President should immediately notify the Government of Iraq that the Government of the United States strongly opposes granting amnesty to persons who have attacked members of the Armed Forces of the United States.

the bill is broadly-worded to include the entire insurgency. No quarter given. How stupid.

I suspect this was a political move to embarrass the Republicans who voted against it (like McCain, because we can try to use this against him if he gets the GOP nomination in 2008). The Republican's have used tactics like this against the Democrats in the past and they've been pretty effective. Though I don't like this kind of "gotcha" politics, I'm glad the Democrats are beginning to turn the tables on the GOP for a change.

I do not like it, either.

Nazis used to punish people for attacking their soldiers in occupied territories; as did the Imperial Romans. We aren't there yet, but the idea behind this resolution sure does take a step in that direction.

I am glad it is non-binding.

"I wonder why we did not include a condemnation of any group that captures, tortures, and kill Iraqi civilians? There certainly is enough of that going on there."

I suspect the reason is because some of the "group" that capture, torture, and kill Iraqi civilians are U.S. forces.

If nothing else, it'll drive a stake through the heart of Conrad Burns' campaign in Montana. The rest of these senators are in pretty safe states.

should campaign on this year. And in 2008.

Amazing.

I earlier posted this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1475643&mesg_id=1475643

and had to leave. I came back, saw no one was able to help, found your
post and was able to cut and paste enough information to hopefully shut up this rw asshole that pollutes the airwaves of Phx.

Excellent, excellent post. Thank you:yourock:

Let us know if anything comes of it!

This is what many people from DU and other places have been trying to talk about. Republicans pretend to care about soldiers, but when it really comes to showing your support for the soldiers they turn their backs on the soldiers. On the other hand it is the Democrats that actually help our soldiers.

I'm not talking about what reason they gave for voting for it.

There must be some reason behind this.

this is the type of bill the republicans would draft and use effectively against the dems.. this is a wise move by nelson!

could ANYONE please tell me why anyone would vote against this and have a leg to stand on??? it's so bizarre to see perhaps the 19 most vitriol and dirty repub senators vote no


ARE THEY JUST JEALOUS THEY DIDN'T THINK OF IT FIRST AND ARE WANTING TO DRAFT A MORE ANTI-FOREIGNER AMENDMENT OF THEIR OWN?



www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <--- Top Anti-Bush, Pro-Dem 06 08 stickers & shirts!

Being a Virginian, I was surprised to see the Confederate-flag loving (despite not being from the South) George Allen voting Yea, while the military vet John Warner voted Nay.

The chickenhawk voted Yea, and the Vet voted Nay. WTF is going on?

Not that I have any right to say what the families of tortured soldiers should say, but I would think that Manchaca's family is probably very disappointed in their Senator Cornyn.

I give Hutchison some credit for with Democrats on this...

I heard about it last night - can't remember if it was Thom Hartman or Mike Malloy. I don't think it was mentioned on C-span WJ this morning. Perhaps KO will cover it, but I doubt you'll hear about it anywhere else.

The "forgive and move on" spin is their way of justifying supporting that lying bastard in the WH and the corruption in the Congress.

I am having a hard time thinking that even he would vote against this. But then, he rarely makes much sense to me anyway. Was there something tacked onto this that they were voting against?

Iraq needs to do what it needs to do to have peace within its borders. If that means a 'peace and reconciliation' process where known criminals are given amnesty, so be it. Haven't we screwed up the country enough? Now we are going to tell them how to run their justice system. But I guess any Americam life is worth thousands of Iraqui lives. Our troops get off scot-free for killing Iraqis but Iraqis are never to be forgiven for shooting back.

as anything I've ever read.

C'mon dems, lets be the party of policy and governance, not cheap theatrical politics.

Some day, it would be nice for people on all sides of the situation in Iraq to stop killing and torturing each other. Personally, I'm for sooner rather than later on that issue, call me crazy if you must.

Oh wait, sorry. I forgot about Haditha. My bad.

will continue for the Congressional GOP. They could drop a solid two to three points just based on this. Is no one in charge of the RNC?

Hope someone at MSNBC notices and publicizes this. Doesnt matter who, though Joe Scarborough would be nice, since it would really tick off the GOP base.

This is excellent letter to the editor material for those who want to write. Should be the kind of topic that local editors will like to print since it is not obviously left or right wing, just very pro-soldier and American.

This one is real easy to write. Everyone should pen one.

The popularity of the Iraqi War should go down 5 points with the combo of the amnesty and the torture-murder, because it shows just how much the Iraqis love having us there.

"Anti-American." "A free pass to anyone who attacks our troops." "Important to note who voted against our troops, in favor of those who would torture and kill them." "Both of your state's senators support the torture, mutilation and murder of American soldiers."

Wow.

Do you realize how much you sound like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly?

I rather suspect you do. You know, Bob, the baiting techniques of McCarthyism for questioning national loyalty are widely reviled for a good reason. While wisdom and utility may often be in doubt in politics, rarely ever is loyalty to country. We properly denounce those on the right who stoop to such low tactics. They poison our discourse, they shock our conscience.

Immersing your discourse in the right wing sewer won't defeat our enemies, but it does legitimize their tools. Dwell on that next time before merrily jumping in with them.

first of all, it is factually incorrect. our troops, whether they know it or not, are not fighting for peace and freedom for the iraqis. they are fighting for oil and for imperialist/corporatist geo-political intrigue.

second, the war is illegal and immoral. the iraqis have every right to counter-attack against the invaders. period.

nelson is full of shit, as is any democrat who voted for this obscurantist jingoist tripe.

you should rethink your position.