Breaking: Senate committee thwarts Bush on military tribunals
posted at 5:01 pm on September 14, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The House Armed Services Committee ratified Bush’s proposal for tribunals yesterday, 52-8, putting the ball squarely in the court of its Senate counterpart. Would Warner, McCain, and Lindsey Graham cave? Or would they hold the line, thereby striking a blow for America’s soul?
The issue was decided this afternoon when our nation’s moral leader finally entered the fray:
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell joined top Republican senators to oppose President Bush’s request to reinterpret a Geneva Convention rule in order to allow tougher interrogations of terror suspects…
“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” Powell, a retired Army four-star general, wrote in his letter to McCain, whose amendment last year opposed the use of torture.
“To redefine Common Article III would add to those doubts,” Powell said. “Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”
You can read the full letter (replete with a grammatical error in the third paragraph) here. A few hours later, the committee voted to support Warner’s plan, not Bush’s. Details:
Four of the 13 Republicans on the panel joined the 11 Democrats to pass their version of the measure, rejecting Bush’s proposal to bar defendants from seeing classified evidence prosecutors may want to use in court…
Today’s Armed Services Committee vote would let suspected terrorists see evidence used against them and would bar statements obtained through torture or inhumane treatment. It also would authorize military judges to fashion declassified summaries of evidence and to dismiss charges if the prosecutors don’t consent to the disclosures.
Frist says he might run an end-around and put Bush’s plan to a vote of the full Senate. McCain vows to demand amendments if he does.
I offer this as a serious compromise: I’ll pledge my support for the Warner/McCain/Graham legislation if proponents of their plan will stop being so incredibly goddamned naive and disingenuous about the “root causes” of anti-Americanism. Tony Blair sees the field clearly. If Powell thinks our moral superiority to medieval savages hangs by the thread of which standard of proof we use at Gitmo, let him say that. If he personally has a problem with Khaled Sheikh Mohammed being belly-slapped, let him say that. Putting it off on “the world” or, preposterously, on the danger it poses to the troops — as though Zarqawi would have eased off a bit if not for Abu Ghraib — is patronizing and actually quite stupid. Knowing that Colin Powell objects to our interrogations policies will give me pause; knowing that Europeans hungry for pretexts to justify their visceral hatred of America also object to them only makes me support those policies more.
So now the chambers will compromise, assuming Frist doesn’t ram Bush’s plan through the Senate. It’ll be interesting to cross-check the final roll in the House with this list once all’s said and done.
Update: I’m re-reading Powell’s letter and I’ve got to ask — just what the hell is he implying here?
To redefine Common Article III would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.
Is he actually suggesting that the head-chopping animals in Iraq are acting out of a sense of legitimate grievance? If we redefine Article III and a U.S. soldier is subsequently captured and beheaded — just like Pfc. Tucker was, let us not forget — would Powell actually point back to this legislation and say, “Well, that’s what we get”??
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
They will continue to disapprove of us. They will continue to hate us. They will continue to seek our deaths by any means necessary.
As if our radical bearded enemy will pause and reconsider before lopping off the next head and exclaim, “Oh wait, by Allah, the American Senate pigs thwarted the president’s desire for tougher interrogations. I will now lay down my arms against the infidel swine.”
These dumbasses will get us killed by trying to placate these Islamic bastards.
BirdEye on September 14, 2006 at 5:21 PM
I’m having a terrible time trying to understand where Powell is coming from these days. Did all the “uncle tom” comments by the liberals finally get to him?
We can’t negotiate with these people. They will use whatever legal BS they can find in our laws to further their attacks on us. Paging Jack Bauer!
NTWR on September 14, 2006 at 5:23 PM
Jeeez …. Warner is one of my Senators. I am so flabbergasted by the extent these people will go to ensure the United States is left toothless to defend itself. Are these idiots under the spell or control of another? I don’t even want to think about this anymore. Think drink ….. think drink ….. think drink
darwin on September 14, 2006 at 5:23 PM
OK, I thought that in 2008, his health holding, and the conservatives deferring to rank/age, bla, bla, that it would be Mr. McCain’s last chance. I believe he has just crapped on it. Can’t find a more subtle way to say it. Sorry!
Mr. Powell should go back to his venture capitalism and compassionate endeavours.
Entelechy on September 14, 2006 at 5:24 PM
Yes, that is exactly what he’s saying. My brother served in Somalia and when Colin Powell came over and spoke to the troops at Christmas, he instantly didn’t like or trust him.
The media always treats Powell as some kind of sage akin to John McCain because they are ex-military officers who speak against Bush.
Colin Powells service as SecState was a disaster on many levels.
sswenviron on September 14, 2006 at 5:24 PM
Anyone have the actual legislation???
From a couple of sources I heard (don’t know if its true, but if so, its a problem) that Bush wanted a two tier approach, one for the Military, and a DIFFERENT set of standards for the CIA…. if this is so, then this would allow other countries to do the same, with much harsher techniques, and point to our example.
This, from what I understand, is what Powell and others have a problem with…
Romeo13 on September 14, 2006 at 5:31 PM
Annie get your gun, unless you live in NYC. It is our responsibility to pursue happiness, earn a living, educate our children, and defend ourselves. The founders knew any government would be corrupt and impotent. Thus the Second Amendment with checks and balances in the goverment. As a Southerner, you can bet the terrorists will die once they cross my property line.
Valiant on September 14, 2006 at 5:42 PM
“As a Southerner, you can bet the terrorists will die once they cross my property line.”
Valiant
As a Southerner myself, I’d like to see them die crossing the state line.
darwin on September 14, 2006 at 5:46 PM
As a fellow Southerner, I’d like to see them not even cross the frikkin border!
BirdEye on September 14, 2006 at 5:51 PM
The lack of will to secure our borders just reinforces my argument.
Valiant on September 14, 2006 at 5:55 PM
All of this says simply one thing; we catch them, we make sure the local governments parbroils all the info out of them first, then put the remains against a wall and shoot it. No trial, no jury, no military tribunal. This is a fight for civilization and being uncivilized on very rare instances is absolutely necessry to defeat the perpetually uncivilized thugs we fight.
This won’t aid ‘due process’ from now on; we’ll just use others and the prisoners will suffer a great deal more because of it. Powell, who I used to respect, is an idiot.
Mike O on September 14, 2006 at 6:00 PM
Yes, this is one silver lining – in his efforts to feed his overwhelming vanity, John McVain is digging himself into a hole with conservatives from which he will never be able to climb out. I am going to enjoy watching him get crushed in primary after primary, particularly considering he probably still thinks he’s the frontrunner.
That backstabbing POS Powell should shut his f—ing yapper after the way he let Libby, Cheney, Bush, and many others twist in the wind while he protected Armitage.
thirteen28 on September 14, 2006 at 6:15 PM
well, looks like the ACLU & the liberal movement gave a victory to their friends the terrorists
Starblazer on September 14, 2006 at 6:18 PM
This is exactly what most aggravates me too–there’s literally, absolutely no real debate here without the honesty about our enemies and “allies” that the Geneva junkies refuse to demonstrate.
By the way, Allah, just saw on C-SPAN–McCain announces, “We have considered the compromise proposed by pseudonymous blogger ‘Allahpundit’ and agree to his terms. We welcome his support.”
Alex K on September 14, 2006 at 6:26 PM
Put our own troops at risk? Is he f&^%ing kidding me? Does he think for even a second that the Islamist fanatics give a tinker’s toss about the Geneva Conventions? I think ‘beheading’ or ‘dismembering, dragging through the streets and burning the body’ would probably not pass GC muster.
Jesus. We are losing the plot. Strike that, have lost the plot.
Martin on September 14, 2006 at 6:38 PM
Yeah, France backed down, and now Muslims are generally agreeing that France is no longer a terrorist target. Right? Isn’t that true? Or maybe…
JamesVersusEveryone on September 14, 2006 at 6:39 PM
As I said elsewhere today,taking the high moral ground while vermin are eating your legs will allow you to die with a feeling of superiority,but you will still die.
I’m with Mike O, for us to win we will have to do things that we would not, could not imagine as we sit here in what is still the safe and secure USA, but if I were standing with my 10 year old child and I saw a 10 year old jihadist with a bomb vest approaching, I would not hesitate to shoot to kill ASAP.This is what THEY are making us face,they use our decency and love of life as a tool to kill us.
bbz123 on September 14, 2006 at 6:41 PM
“Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”
If I even had a twinkling of a thought that our treatment of terrorists would bear some result on the treatment of our men and women I would agree. To my knowledge, no linkage exists.
Babs on September 14, 2006 at 7:14 PM
My take on 2008 – ARBM … Any Republican But McCain
gash on September 14, 2006 at 7:52 PM
4? Graham, John Warner, John McCain. Where is the missing RINO?
DannoJyd on September 14, 2006 at 7:54 PM
The president should veto any bill that unduly restricts or puts our intelligence operatives at risk. As for the “three amigos” (Warner, Graham and McCain), they need to start a new political party for themselves because they are not Republicans and they certainly are not conservatives. In fact, if Graham is so enthralled with military law perhaps the JAG corps could call him to active duty. At least we wouldn’t have put up with his nonsense in the senate. As for Collins . . . oh well what’s the use.
rplat on September 14, 2006 at 7:57 PM
NY Gun Laws and The Granny
Can anyone see the parallels in this article and the fight between Bush and the RINOS/Democrats. Bush sees this as a war. The RINOS/Democrats see this as a Law Enforcement issue.
BTW, just because Powell is a Republican doesn’t mean he’s conservative.
.
GT on September 14, 2006 at 8:01 PM
Unreal. The Republicans in the Senate are a disgrace.
SisterToldjah on September 14, 2006 at 8:24 PM
I will have to study this further as it develops. I am perplexed by Colin Powell’s assertion that we’d “put our own troops at risk”. Is he saying that those blood-thirsty savages still living in the 14th century even recognize, much less abide by, the Geneva Convention? And, if we reinterpret an Article of the convention in order to “add meaningful definitions and clarification to vague terms in the treaties”, that the savages will suddenly start treating any of our captured troops badly… like the savages were once compassionate foes who will suddenly go on a beheading-while-they’re-conscious-and-breathing spree because of the proposed bill if it passes? Because if he is saying that, Colin Powell’s done lost it and is now on board the short bus to Looneyville, and that just doesn’t jibe with the Powell I’ve come to know and respect over the years.
Moreover, Powell’s assertion that a “moral basis” is the context of America’s actions (or inactions) confuses me greatly. We’re in a fight for our lives, our childrens lives, our entire future and the future of the free world. It’s not about “morals”, it’s about survival for our very being. It’s about preventing wholesale catastrophic mass murder, AGAIN & AGAIN, and not just in America either.
Now, if he wants to spout off about treating persons in custody “morally”, and stick to that, I can get behind that. But then again, my version of moral treatment of captured Terrorist’s is; don’t outright murder them, don’t amputate their limbs, and don’t leave them too handicapped. Otherwise, f*** em!
SilverStar830 on September 14, 2006 at 8:34 PM
George “McClellan” Bush has yet to identify the enemy as radical Islam. The one time he got close and said “Islamofacist,” he responded to the clubbing like a baby seal. Bush is allowing the libs to continue to prosecute this “war” as a law enforcement issue comparable with the 1990s. As Commander in Chief, he is rolling over on rules of engagement and interrogation techniques that could reap valuable intelligence. All the while hanging the Medal of Freedom around George Tenet’s neck.
Valiant on September 14, 2006 at 9:19 PM
Amen!
Valiant, as the President tries to fight this war the liberals are trying to impeach him for fighting this war. I’m not real happy with Bush today, but I’ll put the blame where it belongs, and on this topic our commander-in-chief is doing his best. Just look at the title of this topic if you need to find out who is responsible for weakening our defence. Senate committee thwarts Bush on military tribunals.
DannoJyd on September 14, 2006 at 9:38 PM
After 9-11, a Senate committee should not be able to thwart Bush in wartime- unless Bush is really not at war.
Valiant on September 14, 2006 at 9:52 PM
Ummm…not true.
If true, then why is the Senate resisting him and refusing to support military tribunals, wiretapping of international calls and such?
Odd considering what Matt Lauer was having to say to Bush in a recent interview (as linked here at HotAir). I take it you missed Bush’s response.
Armchair quarterbacking is fun isn’t it.
.
GT on September 14, 2006 at 9:54 PM
Ridiculus.
GT on September 14, 2006 at 9:56 PM
If we are not going to fight to win than lets get the heck out of there before my son and others like him have to go back to Iraq only to be subverted by our own governments policies.
Between this BS and the reported leaders of the taliban in the cementery all together and we did not strike I think we have to figure out what we are trying to accomplish..
robo on September 14, 2006 at 10:16 PM
GT, this is from the article you cite from last October:
Asked if Muslims worship the same Almighty as Jews and Christians, President George W. Bush replied, “I believe we worship the same God.”
Point two:
I we were really serious, Bush would be doing this anyway. All the Senate can do is attempt to block funding.
Point three:
I liked Bush with Lauer.
Point four:
I take this that you agree with me. If Bush didn’t know on Dec. 14, 2004 when he decorate the Tenet that it was the slob’s many failures instrumental in 9-11, then he should have done some armchair quarterbacking.
I’ll say it again- Bush is really not at war
Valiant on September 14, 2006 at 10:19 PM
No one should question the wisdom of President Bush when he gave Colin Powell the boot and substituted Condi Rice in the SOS slot. Lackey replaced by Loyalty.
After many years of dodging the question, Powell has never officially declared his party affiliation. Gee, I wonder why?
Powell, McCain, Graham, Warner, these pathetic Jihadist tories make me puke. Time to head to the nearest firearms distributor. They’re leaving it up to us to defend ourselves.
fogw on September 14, 2006 at 10:28 PM
Valiant,
I disagree with you when you say that Bush is really not at war. I think there are a few dead Taliban and Saddamites who might disagree. The Senate can do far more than just cut funding. Just because some spineless politicians aren’t resisting Bush doesn’t mean he isn’t making the effort.
As for the link I provided, you didn’t read far enough. Bush has on more than one occasion used the term “Islamic Militants” and “Radical Islam“.
As for Tenent, I really don’t care about Bush giving him a medal. I suspect that Tenent had a far more difficult job and did it better than we know. A friend of mine re-retired from the CIA recently. He had been activated from retirement when 9-11 happened. He was a Democrat and voted for Gore in 2000. In 2004, he switched parties and voted for Bush in 2004. He told me that Bush was doing everything that Clinton should have been doing and was doing everything he could to give the military and intelligence services every tool at his disposal. He also said that there is a great deal more going on behind the scenes than we are being told by the MSM. So, I will listen to someone who is closer to the battle than I and I will give Bush the benefit of a doubt. Armchair quarterbacking doesn’t do much to further our cause, IMHO.
GT on September 14, 2006 at 11:15 PM
Watch out GT – honora will come by and send you looking for the strawberries…
Entelechy on September 15, 2006 at 1:15 AM
To late. My wife does that to me already.
.
GT on September 15, 2006 at 7:00 AM
GT,
I pray you are right and support our president when he fights.
Valiant on September 15, 2006 at 7:45 AM
Imagine Powell and Vessey and McCain daring to speak out on a military issue. There is a lot of literature out there on torture, 99% of it concludes it doesn’t work. When you have someone to interogate, they fall into one of 3 categories:
1) know something, will succumb to torture
2) know something, trained to withstand torture and therefore will not succumb and may give wrong info
3) don’t know, may give wrong info to end torture or if trained to withstand torture will deliberately give wrong info
The problem is, you don’t know who is who, so the quality of the info is always in question.
This notion that the prisoners in questions are always in possession of the specific intel we are looking for when we are looking for it (the “if we had someone who knew where the nuke was” red herring) is crazy. This is not how it works, particularly with an enemy like Al Q et al. These guys operate in discrete cells, information is deliberately compartmentalized.
So the practical reason for not torturing is clear. Then there is that moral reason. I don’t know about you, but I don’t particularly want to pattern myself after the enemy, especially one this noxious. This idea that the enemy lops off heads so we should do the same is insane–that’s revenge, not a cogent military and political strategy. Sure it might feel good, but we learn as children–well most of us–that what feels good isn’t always the wisest choice.
Retired general John Vessey, a former chair of the joints chiefs of staff and a man with 46 years’ military experience, said the enemy in the war on terror may be a “different enemy,” but no more inhumane or cruel than the North Koreans of 1950-53, the North Vietnamese, the Japanese overseeing the prison camps of World War II or the Nazi Holocaust. “Through those years, we held to our own values,” Vessey wrote. “We should continue to do so.”
honora on September 15, 2006 at 10:14 AM
Guess it’s time to stop tracking pedophiles?
Afterall, they’ve served their time and are entitled to the same rights as other “rehabilitated” former criminals.
/argumentum ad absurdum
Terp Mole on September 15, 2006 at 10:23 AM
… and how do we really “know” that someone’s a soldier anyway? Shouldn’t our Supremes rule that the President start treating all regular “combatants” as civilians, read them their Miranda rights on the “battlefield” and get them lawyers– at least until we can prove they’re actually soldiers.
/argumentum ad absurdum II
Terp Mole on September 15, 2006 at 10:28 AM
DannoJyd,
I believe the Butt-Boy #4 that you are seeking is none other than Southern Sissy JAG Lindsey Graham.
As for the larger understanding of how pathetic our political-military leadership is on the whole war on terror, you simply must read this.
Jaibones on September 15, 2006 at 11:12 AM
Former NYPD Detective opines in American Thinker today;
“I know what you’re thinking: ‘Did he fire six shots or only five?’ Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I’ve kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya, punk?”
Terp Mole on September 15, 2006 at 11:39 AM
Therein lies the problem. We are facing grave issues here and most people have developed their ideas on law enforcement–and inexplicitly transfer those ideas to military situations–based on Dirty Harry movies. Dear God.
honora on September 15, 2006 at 12:07 PM
Imagine Powell and Vessey and McCain daring to speak out on a military issue. There is a lot of literature out there on torture, 99% of it concludes it doesn’t work. Could you please cite your references, 99% seems a bit pessimistic. Were stats compiled or is your number ballpark based on your opinion? When you have someone to interogate, they fall into one of 3 categories:
1) know something, will succumb to torture
2) know something, trained to withstand torture and therefore will not succumb and may give wrong info
3) don’t know, may give wrong info to end torture or if trained to withstand torture will deliberately give wrong info
The problem is, you don’t know who is who, so the quality of the info is always in question. This is true, whether interrogation is applied under the rules of the GC or if torture is used to gain information. I guess we should just throw in the towel.
This notion that the prisoners in questions are always in possession of the specific intel we are looking for when we are looking for it (the “if we had someone who knew where the nuke was” red herring) is crazy. This is not how it works, particularly with an enemy like Al Q et al. These guys operate in discrete cells, information is deliberately compartmentalized. So if we capture Al Qaeda within an operating cell, can’t we reasonably expect to find out what is going on within that cell through interrogation techniques? Wouldn’t that be helpful?
So the practical reason for not torturing is clear. To you. Then there is that moral reason. I don’t know about you, but I don’t particularly want to pattern myself after the enemy, especially one this noxious. This idea that the enemy lops off heads so we should do the same is insane–that’s revenge, not a cogent military and political strategy. Sure it might feel good, but we learn as children–well most of us–that what feels good isn’t always the wisest choice. First of all, no one in western civilization would get a good feeling from lopping off someone’s head. Where do you get off making that assertion? Secondly, no one is, or ever has suggested lopping off heads should be considered as a means of torturing prisoners. It’s difficult to tell your interrogator anything when your head is detached from your body.
Retired general John Vessey, a former chair of the joints chiefs of staff and a man with 46 years’ military experience, said the enemy in the war on terror may be a “different enemy,” but no more inhumane or cruel than the North Koreans of 1950-53, the North Vietnamese, the Japanese overseeing the prison camps of World War II or the Nazi Holocaust. “Through those years, we held to our own values,” Vessey wrote. “We should continue to do so.” We knew where to find the N. Koreans, N. Vietnamese, Japanese and Germans. Perhaps General Vessey overlooked that criteria in his “different enemy” characterization. Harsh interrogation techniques, and yes torture, can play a crucial role in finding out who the enemy is, where he is hiding and how he might secretly infiltrate us on our own soil. During WWII, we would know a Jap or German battleship in NYC’s harbor when we saw one. This enemy hides among us, disguised as an everyday American citizen.
Why not fight ‘em in everyway possible rather than throw in the towel or cower in the face of international thumbsuckers who hate America no matter how we fight this WOT?
honora on September 15, 2006 at 10:14 AM
fogw on September 15, 2006 at 12:26 PM
Imagine Powell and Vessey and McCain daring to speak out on a military issue. There is a lot of literature out there on torture, 99% of it concludes it doesn’t work. Could you please cite your references, 99% seems a bit pessimistic. Were stats compiled or is your number ballpark based on your opinion? It is my estimation, probably overstated, but by far the majority of work supports my contention–my husband was in MI and I developed an interest in this topic.When you have someone to interogate, they fall into one of 3 categories:
1) know something, will succumb to torture
2) know something, trained to withstand torture and therefore will not succumb and may give wrong info
3) don’t know, may give wrong info to end torture or if trained to withstand torture will deliberately give wrong info
The problem is, you don’t know who is who, so the quality of the info is always in question. This is true, whether interrogation is applied under the rules of the GC or if torture is used to gain information. I guess we should just throw in the towel. Well if that’s the best you can come with, I am surprised. There are lots of interrogation techniques, ones more effective than torture.This notion that the prisoners in questions are always in possession of the specific intel we are looking for when we are looking for it (the “if we had someone who knew where the nuke was” red herring) is crazy. This is not how it works, particularly with an enemy like Al Q et al. These guys operate in discrete cells, information is deliberately compartmentalized. So if we capture Al Qaeda within an operating cell, can’t we reasonably expect to find out what is going on within that cell through interrogation techniques? Wouldn’t that be helpful? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But the discussion here is on the means.
So the practical reason for not torturing is clear. To you. Then there is that moral reason. I don’t know about you, but I don’t particularly want to pattern myself after the enemy, especially one this noxious. This idea that the enemy lops off heads so we should do the same is insane–that’s revenge, not a cogent military and political strategy. Sure it might feel good, but we learn as children–well most of us–that what feels good isn’t always the wisest choice. First of all, no one in western civilization would get a good feeling from lopping off someone’s head. Excuse me, do you read this blog???? Where do you get off making that assertion? Secondly, no one is, or ever has suggested lopping off heads should be considered as a means of torturing prisoners. It’s difficult to tell your interrogator anything when your head is detached from your body. The last refuge of a bad debater is nit-picking. Of course I realize lopping off heads is not a torture technique–I was making a point that the tit for tat argument is invalid.
Retired general John Vessey, a former chair of the joints chiefs of staff and a man with 46 years’ military experience, said the enemy in the war on terror may be a “different enemy,” but no more inhumane or cruel than the North Koreans of 1950-53, the North Vietnamese, the Japanese overseeing the prison camps of World War II or the Nazi Holocaust. “Through those years, we held to our own values,” Vessey wrote. “We should continue to do so.” We knew where to find the N. Koreans, N. Vietnamese, Japanese and Germans. Perhaps General Vessey overlooked that criteria in his “different enemy” characterization. Harsh interrogation techniques, and yes torture, can play a crucial role in finding out who the enemy is, where he is hiding and how he might secretly infiltrate us on our own soil. During WWII, we would know a Jap or German battleship in NYC’s harbor when we saw one. This enemy hides among us, disguised as an everyday American citizen. Really? So we knew where all the U boats were? We knew where/when the enemy was going to attack us? We knew where landmines were? We knew where all the submarines were in the south Pacific? We knew where Rommel was going to attack? We knew the strength of the Germans at Monte Casino? We knew troop strength anywhere? We know all about Tet? Well I’ll be damned.
Why not fight ‘em in everyway possible rather than throw in the towel or cower in the face of international thumbsuckers who hate America no matter how we fight this WOT? The next to last refuge of a bad debater–creating a fault choice.
honora on September 15, 2006 at 10:14 AM
fogw on September 15, 2006 at 12:26 PM
honora on September 15, 2006 at 12:56 PM
45 DEMOCRATS AND 6 REPUBLICANS – Selling out your children. I’m sick of hearing the, “What will they do to our soldiers?” crap. No American serviceman has been treated according to the GC since the early days of WWII. Do you think the Jihadis care what the U.S.Senate does? Did the Japanese at Bataan or the Germans at Malmady? How about the N. Koreans or the N. Vietnamese? How about the Iraqis in the first Gulf war?
The President has asked for definitions of the obtuse langauge in the Article 3 of the GC. Not a new article, not a mandate for torture but, rather, clear language that will allow our military to question these unlawful combatants without being hauled in front of some 9th Circus Court or the Hauge.
But, instead of that we get posturing by “our betters” in the U.S. Senate. They place their relationship with the NYT and their liberal allies before the safety of the country and the lives of those serving. Have they no shame?
MCPO Airdale on September 15, 2006 at 1:15 PM
My statement “We knew where to find the N. Koreans, N. Vietnamese, Japanese and Germans” did not mean we knew where each and everyone of them were and what they were up to. Thought you were smart enough to figure that one out.
It meant we knew the N. Koreans could be found in N. Korea, the N. Vietnamese in N. Vietnam, the Japanese in Japan and the South Pacific and the Germans in most of Europe and North Africa. That is where we could find them and that is where we took the fight. If you can’t comprehend that we fought a different war back then, against a defined enemy with an entrenched war machine, then you are as delusional as General Vessey.
This new enemy calls for new strategies to protect us from a foe without a homeland. Duh.
fogw on September 15, 2006 at 1:30 PM
Recall John al-Qerry pledged that if he became president he’d treat terrorist acts against the U.S. as a law enforcement problem rather than as acts of war – the approach favored by President Clinton throughout the 1990s as Osama bin Laden repeatedly struck U.S. targets with impunity.
Terp Mole on September 15, 2006 at 2:02 PM
Danno, the 4th one is Sen. Susan Collins.
Entelechy on September 15, 2006 at 2:21 PM
OK, so let’s say we go to war with Iran and are fighting the Iranian army. You agree that torture is not ok then?
honora on September 15, 2006 at 2:25 PM
Terp Mole: dis-honora. Oh, I get it, you’re clever.
Your comment is senseless. You want to read the whole thing and respond, fine. This parsing to pounce on something totally out of context is inane.
honora on September 15, 2006 at 2:31 PM
If it ever comes to going to war with Iran it is likely nukes will enter the picture, given Ahmadinajab’s obsession with acquiring this equalizing weaponry. The conflict will conclude in a matter of hours. No torture necessary. Lousy hypothetical.
So maybe we should crank up the interrogation techniques now to avoid the slaughter of millions once our friendly neighborhood terrorist gets his hands on one of Iran’s nukes.
My guess is your opinion on the use of torture will change the minute one of these fascists straps a bomb to his chest and marches into your local elementary school.
Then it will be too late.
I say if torture prevents one terrorist from killing one child here in our homeland it is a just and worthwhile cause. I think the Israelis have taken that path, but then again they have had school buses, restaurants and nightclubs blown to smithereens for decades.
We are next and America, it’s people, politicians and judges had better wake up damn soon.
fogw on September 15, 2006 at 3:23 PM
fogw: Israel outlawed torture in 1999. One of the arguments was that it was very ineffective. But heck, what would they know about torture compared to you, or Dubya?
I noticed you didn’t answer the question re Iran. Guess it didn’t fit into your neat, if bizarre, theory of torture rationale based on enemy actually having a national anthem.
Also, not to be picky, but it’s illogical to call a stateless terrorist a “fascist”–what is the defining characteristic of a fascist after all? Exaggerated nationalism. Small point, but sloppy thinking leads to, well, your nonsense.
honora on September 15, 2006 at 3:30 PM
Whose leg do we have to hump to get common sense laws passed so we can be safe? This is getting insane.
Who we I need to start calling and swearing at in order to get movement in the Senate? I swear I am going to buy them all large doses of ex-lax to remove the blockage.
E L Frederick on September 15, 2006 at 3:43 PM
Note to fogw – do a good deed today – go to this link and e-mail the dude on the bottom, with four more tips for “intellectually-dishonest debate tactics”:
21. The last refuge of a bad debater is nit-picking.
22. The next to last refuge of a bad debater–creating a fault choice.
23. Sloppy thinking leads to, well, your nonsense.
24. Never engage in ra, ra, bla, bla, ka, ka, du, du.
Entelechy on September 15, 2006 at 3:56 PM
In 1999 Israel rejected applying the 4th Geneva Convention to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, stating that those territories were captured in 1967 as a result of a defensive war against countries which had illegally occupied them since 1948.
I answered the question on Iran, you just didn’t like the answer. Bizarre theory on torture rationale? Now you’re flat out making things up. You should pay a little more attention to my response, then you might get a grasp on how I feel about torture … re Iran or any other terrorist supporting country.
Not all terrorists are stateless, now are they?
fogw on September 15, 2006 at 4:19 PM
Yeh, you’re right Entelechy, got your point.
Thanks.
fogw on September 15, 2006 at 4:31 PM
My understanding is that think tanks have predicted that there is a high probability one of our cities will be nuked by terrorists within ten years.
So to support the doubtful proposition that aggresive interrogation might “put our own troops at risk,” which, incidently, they already seem to be,Warner & his friends, Powell, and the Democrats have instead chosen to put our entire country at risk.
Or, to put it in other words, to possibly benefit a handful, they have chosen to threaten at least a hundred thousand. What kind of crazy cost-benefit analysis is that?
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on September 16, 2006 at 2:38 PM
Comment pages: