Reply With Quote
Here's a link for your thread spurster.
http://us.oneworld.net/external/?url...USA20051005002
In case you missed it. My info is from the Sunday Express-News, but I don't have a link.
The US senate voted 90-9 to require the US military to adhere to the United Nations Convention Against Torture prohibition against 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,' and to follow Army Field Manual rules for humane treatment of prisoners. The amendment was added to HR 2083. A yes vote backed the ban on torture by the US military.
Both Cornyn and Hutchison voted no.
Here's a link for your thread spurster.
http://us.oneworld.net/external/?url...USA20051005002
ing unreal
So when one votes against banning abortion are they for abortion?
huh?
Ok, so Cornyn and Hutchinson voted to keep torture legal to remain loyal to our pro-torture president.
Latest in the PRO- line of T-shirts (PRO-BONFIRE, PRO-HAZING), it's the PRO-TORTURE shirt!
Maybe they oppose torture but also oppose the method through which torture would be prevented.
I know what you meant, but it's the kind of argument you get from the pro-choice crowd.
Which is my point.
In nearly five years in office, President Bush has not vetoed a single piece of legislation his Republican-led Congress has supported.
But the White House is threatening to veto the Senate's $440.5 billion 2006 Defense spending bill because it includes an amendment that would mandate uniform standards for the treatment of military detainees. The provision, which passed 90-9, was authored by John McCain (R-AZ).
A Seattle Times editorial wrote that the amendment "to ban 'cruel, inhuman or degrading' treatment of prisoners by the military found a clarity of purpose and voice that eludes the Bush administration."
The Boston Globe, in its editorial, wrote: "Instead of threatening to veto the measure, as his staff has done, President Bush should embrace it as evidence that the military will correct abuses and hold itself to a high standard."
A veto by Bush would almost certainly be symbolic, because the Senate has the votes to override it.
And what a symbol it would be.
God forbid, we should live up to human rights standards.
(sighs)
It kind of makes us hypocrites to wag our fingers at brutal dictators and say "due process" and "human rights" and then turn around and deny that to those we deem "enemy combatants".
Tell me again why we invaded Iraq...?
Texans against Bush...
Always On NetworkAndrewSullivan.com
BlogWatcher | POSTED: 10.11.05 @03:15
From the Houston Chronicle:o president should have the authority or flexibility to order the torture or abuse of prisoners. It doesn't produce usable intelligence, it endangers the safety of captured U.S. troops and it's wrong on its face. The similarity of the alleged mistreatment at Guantanamo Bay to the do ented prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan suggests a pattern of official encouragement or indifference.
The San Antonio Express-News: The White House has threatened a presidential veto. During nearly five years in the Oval Office, Bush has yet to veto a bill. This is not the place to start.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram: What the president and others who might oppose this legislation must understand is that this country can never own the moral high ground -- in war or peace -- if it is willing to do what it condemns others for doing.
And the Austin American-Statesman: This is, of course, a no-brainer - as long as you assume that this president isn't committed to torture and abuse as a policy. But he is and long has been. Moreover, reversing what has been going on completely strips him of his defense that none of it happened, or that only a few incidents occurred, or that no one higher up knew, or whatever his latest spin is. He may have to veto to maintain the fallacious facade of the last three years. With any luck, the House will vote by a non-vetoable margin, just as the Senate has. But if Bush is forced to veto, so be it. Let him be forced to embrace publicly what he has enforced privately: the corruption of the moral integrity of the armed services of the United States. And let him finally be held to account.
i'd seriously like to know how torture does not work. I wonder how these anti torture apologist get to that conclusion.
This just in, The Austin American-Statesman editorial page has come out in opposition to Bush. Wow.
remember when the Crawford paper endorsed Kerry?
liberal bas s...
Except that paper was not printed in Crawford but in a diff town.
still no evidence that torture doesnt work.
good one
You can Google "does torture work" just as well as I can and not come to any clear answer.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
