Bush to veto amendment on cruel treatment of US Military prisoners

[SmokingTarpan]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/...ees/index.html

Originally Posted by CNN

The measure, sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, would require American troops to follow interrogation standards set in the Army Field Manual and bar "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of prisoners in U.S. custody.

Originally Posted by CNN

McClellan said existing law already prohibits the mistreatment of prisoners in American custody, and the amendment "would limit the president's ability as commander-in-chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism."

So, apparently Bush needs the option to treat military prisoners inhumanely? I suppose that, "We are against the torturing of prisoners, but we need the option to be able to just in case," isn't hypocritical at all.

I understand that the amendment may seem duplicative, but the whole "limiting the president's power" reasoning seems pretty out of line to me.

[leejo]

Bush doesn't want the Senate running a war. That is a recipe for disaster.

[warcriminal2]

Who cares?

Don't get me wrong here, besides torture being inhumane and wrong, it doesn't result in gaining useful information from the prisoner. A Prisoner who is tortured will eventually tell his captors anything to make the abuse stop, remember U2 pilot Gary Powers when he was shot down over the Soviet Union? Regardless of what ever statements they coerced out of him he was still treated like a hero upon his safe arrival back in the US.

Besides that, do you really think history has shown us that our enemies abide by any such standards in the treatment of captured US soldiers and airmen? This enemy has no regard in differentiating between civilian and military, Muslim or non-Muslim, women and children....they simply don't care and will kill anyone who gets in the way of their ridiculous cause. Remember Nick Burg? Did the enemy demonstrate a willingness refrain from "cruel treatment" with this journalist? I don't think so!


No as far as I’m concerned this President can do whatever he deems necessary so long as its accomplishes our original objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan and we can get the majority of our troops the hell out of there.

Thanks for the post though

[USN_Squid]

First off, it's ridiculous to say torture never produces any valuable information. It's not ON or OFF. There are many proven effective methods.

That aside, the only reason to pass a new law is to prosecute those who break it. We have the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions. What will this law provide that those do not besides removing "ambiguity". Those involved with Abu Graib have had their careers ended and/or prison time.

John McCain should switch parties already, sheesh. I do agree with his quote here however:

"The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy," he said. "But this isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies."

[Wulfyn]

Just because other people don't uphold a set of principals doesn't mean they are acceptable.

++edit - clearly Tarpan doesn't agree with me.

[SmokingTarpan]

Originally Posted by warcriminal2

Besides that, do you really think history has shown us that our enemies abide by any such standards in the treatment of captured US soldiers and airmen?

Of course not. Frankly, my personal belief is that anything goes in war, since war is ultimately about 1) killing those that don't think the way that you do, 2) killing those that have what you want or 3) killing those that want to take what you have. The Geneva Convention and all the rules of war are nothing more than an attempt at making mass murder look civilized, and I laugh at the very idea. I'm also of the belief that any military that decides to abide by "rules of war" is destined to lose sooner or later against an enemy that doesn't follow suit. But that's not the problem I have with this issue.

What I don't agree with here is the leadership saying "We don't abide by torture techniques", then turning around and saying "We don't want a law saying we can't torture people because it limits our power" (essentially: we may need to torture in the future). A litte follow-through one way or the other would be nice.

[Pokerface]

Originally Posted by leejo

Bush doesn't want the Senate running a war. That is a recipe for disaster.

How is a measure stating "Follow your own rulebook" running a war?

Redundant, I'll give you, but given the captain's letter to McCain and Abu Ghraib, driving a point like "We won't torture prisoners" seems to be more worthy of repeating than any given talking point I've heard lately.

[rs_al]

Originally Posted by Pokerface

How is a measure stating "Follow your own rulebook" running a war?

He's rewriting the rulebook with a highlighter! Someone has to stop him!

Originally Posted by warcriminal2

Did the enemy demonstrate a willingness refrain from "cruel treatment" with this journalist? I don't think so!

Ahh, using terrorists as role models for how we should act. Good call. If Islamic millitants jumped off a bridge (possibly while strapped with explosives), would you jump too?

[leejo]

Originally Posted by Pokerface

How is a measure stating "Follow your own rulebook" running a war?

Redundant, I'll give you, but given the captain's letter to McCain and Abu Ghraib, driving a point like "We won't torture prisoners" seems to be more worthy of repeating than any given talking point I've heard lately.

It's none of the Senate's business. They may authorize and fund wars, but they have no executive control and anything they do that even looks like an effort to tell the Chief Executive or Generals how to fight should rightly be vetoed. I'm not saying I disagree with their intent or the measure itself, but it's not their decision to make and it's a terrible precedent.

I agree with Tarpin here. One side is fighting this war based on a theory of warfare that is charming but unenforcable and which few sides in war have ever honored. We and our allies have probably done as well as anyone at honoring the Geneva Convention's "rules" but 1) the Geneva Convention applies to uniformed soldiers, not rag-tag college dropouts doing everything possible to conceal their identity as soldiers; 2) the other side in this conflict has pretty clearly said to us "we don't care about your rules of war."

It is important to capture the moral high ground in a war fought in the media, but other than making folks feel warm and fuzzy, none of this has any value where the rubber meets the road. I'm very sorry that Senator McCain got beat up during Vietnam, but we shouldn't set national policy based on his 30 year old gripe with the Vietnamese.

[Pokerface]

Originally Posted by leejo

It's none of the Senate's business. They may authorize and fund wars, but they have no executive control and anything they do that even looks like an effort to tell the Chief Executive or Generals how to fight should rightly be vetoed. I'm not saying I disagree with their intent or the measure itself, but it's not their decision to make and it's a terrible precedent.

It is important to capture the moral high ground in a war fought in the media, but other than making folks feel warm and fuzzy, none of this has any value where the rubber meets the road. I'm very sorry that Senator McCain got beat up during Vietnam, but we shouldn't set national policy based on his 30 year old gripe with the Vietnamese.

What's the precedent being set? Like Al pointed out, it's rewriting the rules with a highlighter at best.

If it's important to capure the moral high ground, and doesn't have any impact otherwise, why NOT pass this measure?

[leejo]

Why not eliminate the Executive branch and put Congress in charge? That's the precedent. Congress likes to pass measures when the wind blows.

One consistent theme in Bush's presidency is the restoration of Presidential power after Clinton's impeachment. This is consistent with that theme.

[Pokerface]

Originally Posted by leejo

Why not eliminate the Executive branch and put Congress in charge? That's the precedent. Congress likes to pass measures when the wind blows.

One consistent theme in Bush's presidency is the restoration of Presidential power after Clinton's impeachment. This is consistent with that theme.

What "in charge"? The measure tells them to follow their own rules! It doesn't change them or suggest new ones, does it? The executive branch can still change that Army rulebook, right?

Again, there's zero in this situation that has Congress doing anything but trying to put a good foot forward for America in the eyes of its people and the world (the opposite of which seems to be another consistent theme of Bush's presidency).

[Rahn]

I can't see why the government can't hide the use of torture? Pass this amendment, blah blah blah, don't use retarded Reserve and active duty soldiers to "torture" prisoners and use some hidden CIA black ops delta force kickass rambo's to torture the people we have to torture. Keep it hidden.

I'm not one for torture, there are better means of getting information out of people but in some cases with these religious fanatics, the only thing they understand and give way to is violence.

Or we can just ship all our prisoners to Pakistan and let them do the torturing.

[CingularDuality]

Originally Posted by Rahn

I can't see why the government can't hide the use of torture? Pass this amendment, blah blah blah, don't use retarded Reserve and active duty soldiers to "torture" prisoners and use some hidden CIA black ops delta force kickass rambo's to torture the people we have to torture. Keep it hidden.

I'm not one for torture, there are better means of getting information out of people but in some cases with these religious fanatics, the only thing they understand and give way to is violence.

Or we can just ship all our prisoners to Pakistan and let them do the torturing.

I agree with the sentiment of Senator McCain's amendment, but Leejo's argument is pretty compelling. If I were the President, I wouldn't allow Congress to enact a law that is redundant and covers the Executive Branch specifically. It has no legislative value and is meant only to "send a message". What message that is, depends on your perspective, I suppose.

And I quoted Rahn because he's right on the money. Soldiers shouldn't be torturing prisoners of war, but you'll never get me to agree that torture is never necessary. It still exists because it is effective. And I think that there are times when obtaining information at the cost of someone's health and happiness is well justified.

[Wulfyn]

Ahh yes, so because "the other side" breaks the rules of common human decency then it should become a free-for-all.

That's a truly truly pathetic attitude to take.


The moral highground is not about doing what looks good; it is about doing what you know to be right.