This week has been an interesting one in politics. A number of prominent Republicans have let it be known that they disagree with the Bush administration's attempts to justify and allow for rough treatment of terrorists that has already taken place.
A quote from the Washington post:
Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell said yesterday that he decided to publicly oppose the Bush administration's proposed rules for the treatment of terrorism suspects in part because the plan would add to growing doubts about whether the United States adheres to its own moral code.
Powell has reserved his strongest opposition for administration efforts to preserve controversial methods for interrogating terrorism suspects, techniques that others have defined as torture. While it is not clear exactly what techniques the White House wishes to keep, sources have said those previously used include nakedness, prolonged sensory assault and deprivation, the imposition of "stress" positions, and water submersion to the verge of drowning. Bush has said none of those amounts to torture.
The part that should disturb America the most is that we have already gone down this road of no return. These practices violate our own rule of law which our country bases it moral authority on. In the minds of many here in this country and around the world we have already sunk to the level of the Islamic terrorists. The President's lukewarm reception at the U.N.today notwithstanding our country has lost much of its' integrity in the world.
We are no longer the America that is described in our constitution. We have been attacked by terrorists so now we are allowed to do whatever it takes. Invade a country that was on our hit list for other reasons(it was next door to the country we wanted to hit). Torture and detain people without charges or any kind of legal process. In other words we are no longer a Democratic civillized country. We are a country in a perpetual war on terror and our congress needs to pass exactly the law the president wants exactly the way that the president wants it passed. If you dissent like Colin Powell you will be considered in the category of people who are doing the unacceptable. Quoting the President out of context : thinking is no longer acceptable.
see the videos of the way the President talked to the press in this linkhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ you can view what Olberman had to say and on this same linked page you can hear what the President said.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 31
nec tamen consumebatur (Latin) - 'Yet it was not consumed',
As far as I know, we have a Geneva convention rules, and our CIA experts in the field need those rules defined after the Supreme Court judge threw the Hamdan case out. The terrorists don't abide by any rules, they just slit your throat.
We have got to be so stupid as not to detain them and get more information from them? Do I sound so stupid, I'm not even American born?
After all, during the Waco David Coresh slaughter, Janet Reno used the loud music to "flush" the residents of the building out. When they didn't come out, the Justice dept burned them. Do you think the other countries you so worry about would care so much regarding about those actions?
I am an Olberman fan, saw that show, and felt a bit of discomfort (embarassment) for his stretch on that "unacceptable to think" schtick. It came off more like a Rush Limbaugh tactic.
But what Bush is seeking is what every police department of any size provides to its interrogators - a set of rules and policies they can use when interrogating suspected felons. To even hint that CIA interrogators do not need anything but the one sentence of only general guidance contained in the Geneva Convention is ludicrous and grossly irresponsible.
Aren't political footballs marvelous. John McCain is proving that he doesn't have the judgment a presidential candidate should have.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
You wrote two comments arguing with Ben's reasoning for supporting Bush, without discrediting his points of argument. Ben might be a Bush fan and follower but his arguement that Bush is "seeking (for the CIA) what every police department of any size provides to its interrogators" still stands. I would like to hear your opinion on that arguement he made. Because if you can't dispute that arguement, I will have to believe that Ben follows Bush for his reasonning and not his public speaking ability.
Police do not waterboard, starve, strip naked and expose to cold for 48 hours, rape, or murder their suspects.
Bear in mind, while you're so anxiously awaiting Bush's opportunity to torture yet again, the most of those that we have in custody are guilty of NOTHING except being brown and in the wrong place at the wrong time. You people seem to be thinking under the assumption that ONLY known terrorists would be treated this way. You are quite wrong about that.
You should also be aware that this process not only does not provide useful intelligence, but it also causes great harm to our nation, and puts our soldiers at great risk. There is simply no positive side to it, and far too many negatives. It's stupid and patently unAmerican at its core.
Burning splints? NO
Stretching on the rack? YES
Spraying with water? Well no and yes, do they stink?
It is not a list it is a descriptive paragraph that seams to rule out anything but saying please and thank you.
GCIII covers the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs) in an international armed conflict. In particular article 17 states that "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.". POW status under GCIII has far fewer exemptions than "Protected Person" status under GCIV. If a person is an enemy combatant in an international armed conflict, then they will automatically have the protection of GCIII and be entitled to be regarded as POWs under GCIII unless they are an unlawful combatant
About your article.
You open by saying.
A quote from the Washington post:
Is the entire article extracted from the Washington post?
If not you need to tell us where the quote begins and ends. ""
If it is I for one will be writing the Washington post and telling them my views on them.
Whom ever is responsible for the following phrase is guilty of the lowest form of garbage spewing I have heard to date.
" These practices violate our own rule of law which our country bases it moral authority on. In the minds of many here in this country and around the world we have already sunk to the level of the Islamic terrorists"
There is no similarity between making a prisoner cold or a little uncomfortable, and slamming airplanes full of civilians into buildings full if innocent civilians.
There is no similarity between strapping a bomb to a person's chest and convincing them they are committing murder in the name of a deity, and giving a prisoner the impression they may drown.
Do you not get it? The terrorists achieve their goals by murdering innocent people without declaring war. I don't care if the goal is only to make us afraid they still murder to for their cause.
Our cause is to prevent us from being murdered any more.
How would you define "outrages to human dignity"? I bet it is different from my definition.
To All: I find it very curious that a majority of those speaking out from the left have never posted a profile on Gather (R. E. in particular). Gee, how can one assess the legitimacy of anothers argument without knowing what lens they may be looking through. Oh, I know, it must be the fear that the NSA is monitoring the debate.
I would love to continue this debate, but the other side has not presented anything on which to comment. R. E. et al seem not to know that the GC had never been held to apply to terrorists except for just recently by the Supreme Court. In order to do so the Court had to ignore U.S. law. Once again the Supreme Court is legislating.
It does amaze me that the President only wants to use McCain's previously passed rules as the lawful interpretation of the GC and yet McCain is against any such interpretation. McCain has gone daft. Powell is another case. He never understood warfare and in the Plame affair proved that he was disloyal to his boss. Fortunately, Swartzkopf (sp?) kept him from fouling up the Gulf War.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Bush wanting to use McCain's rules of treatment as a definition of the GC very general statement is termed "torture". To call what McCain caused to be passed into law torture is in reality absurd, but it is also an attempt to evade the real issue while appealing to the leftists among us.
What amazes me is that leftists here on Gather believe that the tactic constitutes a reasonable approach to discussion and actively support it. I don't hear any leftists rejecting such unworthy actions.
Now that we have all had a chance to hear Chavez and Ahmadinejad speak at the UN, isn't it amazing that they use almost the same words to describe Bush that I hear every day here on Gather and from leading Democrats and their spokespeople. It certainly does all add up. Al-Qaeda also uses much the same words about Bush.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"