Quote :

"The House approved legislation yesterday that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, drawing an immediate veto threat from the White House and setting up another political showdown over what constitutes torture. The measure, approved by a largely party-line vote of 222 to 199, would require U.S. intelligence agencies to follow Army rules adopted last year that explicitly forbid waterboarding. It also would require interrogators to adhere to a strict interpretation of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. The rules, required by Congress for all Defense Department personnel, also ban sexual humiliation, "mock" executions and the use of attack dogs, and prohibit the withholding of food and medical care. The passage of the bill, which must still win Senate approval, fulfills a promise by House Democratic leaders to seek a ban on interrogation practices that have prompted the condemnation of human rights groups and many governments around the world. It comes amid a furor over the CIA's announcement a week ago that it destroyed in 2005 videotapes showing the use of harsh interrogation tactics on two terrorism suspects. The White House vowed to veto the measure. Limiting the CIA to interrogation techniques authorized by the Army Field Manual "would prevent the United States from conducting lawful interrogations of senior al Qaeda terrorists to obtain intelligence needed to protect Americans from attack," the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement. Key Republicans also opposed the measure. Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), the House intelligence committee's ranking GOP member, said applying the unclassified Army Field Manual to all interrogations would give terrorist groups full knowledge of U.S. interrogation techniques. "Too many details on the counterterrorism programs that have kept America safe since 9/11 have already been illegally leaked," Hoekstra said. "Congress should not be in the business of voluntarily giving al-Qaeda or any of our adversaries our playbook." "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121301288.html?hpid=topnews

How is this anything close to excusable? Even after their efforts to effectively redefine what "torture" means using circular logic and semantics (i.e. "torture is illegal, therefore anything we do is clearly not torture"), the president still plans to go against the will of the public, the will of the elected officials, and the will of the world to send us further downward in the hearts and minds of the international community.

12/14/2007 3:23:30 PM

Quote :

""torture is illegal, therefore anything we do is clearly not torture" "

thats the best argument ever

12/14/2007 3:25:25 PM

Quote :

"the president still plans to go against the will of the public, the will of the elected officials,"

well...he is the president...should the president just do whatever congress tells him to?? I think you forgot that he was elected too to do things the way he sees fit. If "the people" and the elected leaders want to, they can override...thats how it works

[Edited on December 14, 2007 at 3:33 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/14/2007 3:30:51 PM

if they have a 2/3 majority

12/14/2007 3:33:16 PM

our administration would NEVER do anything to break or bend the laws or the powers granted to the executive branch through the constitution

12/14/2007 3:33:39 PM

Quote :

"if they have a 2/3 majority"

exactly..

12/14/2007 3:34:07 PM

Quote :

"I think you forgot that he was elected "

that in itself isn't totally clear.

12/14/2007 3:35:35 PM

Shit...the president was elected? I had no idea.

12/14/2007 3:36:51 PM

Quote :

"that in itself isn't totally clear."

uh huh..

like i said...if "the people" dont like it...they can override some of the other peoples veto...

[Edited on December 14, 2007 at 3:38 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/14/2007 3:37:24 PM

the US should not be allowed to torture people as a matter of official policy

just let them pass the bill

AND FUCKING TORTURE ANYWAYS

god it's like these people are children or something

grow the fuck up

[Edited on December 14, 2007 at 3:40 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2007 3:40:16 PM

^^strictly by definition, yes.

also with the help of a debacle in florida, where amazingly his brother was gov, and the electoral college in defiance of the majority of voters.

[Edited on December 14, 2007 at 3:40 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2007 3:40:24 PM

^you are pathetic if you still use that to bush bash or policy bash at all..

he was elected by thepeople...he is "the people" too...get over it

12/14/2007 3:41:51 PM

I'm almost over it.....by about november next year i think i'll be there.

and for the record, I was 2 months to young to vote in the 2000 election, but I would have voted for bush, and i would have been wrong.

[Edited on December 14, 2007 at 3:45 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 14, 2007 at 3:45 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2007 3:44:13 PM

^ha...fair enough...

But seriously...is that flawed thinking? The president is elected just like congress. They are both "the people". "the people" disagree alot. They duke it out and one of them wins....no??

12/14/2007 3:45:22 PM

Quote :

"Shit...the president was elected? I had no idea."

not by the people the first time.

12/14/2007 3:46:23 PM

my problem lies in Bush/Cheney having blatant disregard for the constitution and taking power for the legislative branch that doesn't belong there, not necessarily with this issue.

12/14/2007 3:48:10 PM

Quote :

"he was elected by thepeople...he is "the people" too...get over it"

I didn't vote for him along with 51% of the my fellow americans in the 2000.

the Presidential election is like the BCS system of politics.

[Edited on December 14, 2007 at 4:04 PM. Reason : a]

12/14/2007 4:03:20 PM

I'm not even having that argument....

I cant believe yall are still talking about that...

12/14/2007 4:24:30 PM

Bush and his cronies have long since stopped hiding the fact that they're shitting all over the Constitution and the people who elected them, but now they're openly and loudly bragging about it.

12/14/2007 4:25:31 PM

cronies...haha

12/14/2007 4:30:13 PM

Did I spell it wrong?

12/14/2007 4:30:53 PM

I mean, I couldn't torture anyone. Even if my life or other people's lives depended on it. I guess I'm just a wuss.

But, to play devils advocate, what if there came a day where a policy of anti-torture backfires on us and we all... die? Wouldn't that be sad and regrettable? Tough call for me. Keeping my hands washed of this one.

12/14/2007 4:48:01 PM

What if torture backfires and we all die?

12/14/2007 5:01:26 PM

it doesn't matter, even if bush signs it, he'll issue a signing statement negating it

he's done it NUMEROUS times, he even did it for the mccain bill (the thing barring torture like 3 years ago)

12/14/2007 5:06:23 PM

Quote :

"But, to play devils advocate, what if there came a day where a policy of anti-torture backfires on us and we all... die?"

the general idea is that allowing torture likely causes more damage than good. The "ticking time bomb" Jack Bauer situation is mostly a figment of Hollywood's imagination. it will rarely if ever actually happen.
Furthermore, torture has been shown time and time again to produce bad data. People being tortured will say anything to stop the torture.

Then the issue that is dangerous for and to American soldiers is that we lose the moral high-ground by allowing torture of foreigners (or americans). If our own government tortures, then they have no leg to stand on in demanding that other countries don't do it to each other or to our soldiers.

[Edited on December 14, 2007 at 5:12 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2007 5:12:10 PM

It was vetoed today.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/08/bush.torture.ap/index.html

Quote :

"The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror," Bush said in his weekly radio address taped for broadcast Saturday. "So today I vetoed it," "

[Edited on March 8, 2008 at 10:49 AM. Reason : .]

3/8/2008 10:47:59 AM

what the american public doesnt know wont hurt them

3/8/2008 10:53:41 AM

didn't the CIA say that it officially stopped doing it in like 2003 and will never do it again? I don't know why the government and the media have to constantly open the torture book over and over again.

3/8/2008 11:26:38 AM

prolly cause of that abu grave(sp?) place plus that guantanimo bay place

3/8/2008 11:29:46 AM

the perpetrators from abu grave were court martialed. The CIA said they used waterboarding soon after 9/11 on this one guy, and they got the information and haven't used it since.

I just don't understand. I don't think there is any call from the intelligence agencies to have this option. Why go out of the way to give tools to agencies that work for you that they don't want or need, all the while completely tarnishing the reputation of the nation?

I swear to God, the entire issue makes no sense to me.

3/8/2008 1:08:11 PM

abu ghraib


and it doesn't make any sense to me either. he just a jerk, seems to be what it comes down to. vetoing a ille because it won't allow him to torture? fucking jackass.....

3/8/2008 1:18:24 PM

Quote :

"The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror"

C'mon Mr. President, there are plenty of other tools in the war on terrorism... you for one.

3/8/2008 11:34:59 PM

Quote :

"C'mon Mr. President, there are plenty of other tools in the war on terrorism... you for one."

well played, sir

3/9/2008 2:05:02 AM

3/9/2008 10:33:38 AM

lol

3/9/2008 10:51:10 AM

good.

3/9/2008 4:13:45 PM

lol..w-t-f..

[Edited on March 9, 2008 at 5:26 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2008 5:24:42 PM

It is not torture it is "Enhanced Interrogation"

lolcano

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques

4/17/2008 2:23:53 PM