Another impeachable offense to add to the list. Article VI of the US Constitution states that:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"
International and U.S. law prohibits torture and other ill-treatment of any person in custody in all circumstances. The prohibition applies to the United States during times of peace, armed conflict, or a state of emergency. Any person, whether a U.S. national or a non-citizen, is protected. It is irrelevant whether the detainee is determined to be a prisoner-of-war, a protected person, or a so-called “security detainee” or “unlawful combatant.” And the prohibition is in effect within the territory of the United States or any place anywhere U.S. authorities have control over a person. In short, the prohibition against torture and ill-treatment is absoluteWhy does Bush want to veto legislation that would ban waterboarding?
Waterboarding has only been used a few times for a total of something like 5 minutes. It has worked in gathering information necessary to protect this country. In my opinion Ted Kennedy's opinions on *ANYTHING* is less than worthless so dragging him into the discussion is pointless. Some people would rather grant terrorist that gleefully saw peoples heads off with a dull knife the same rights as citizens of this country. I fail to understand why Democrats are willing to sell out this country just to be in power. It is sad, truly sad.Why does Bush want to veto legislation that would ban waterboarding?I can only sum it up thus:
Bush is an idiot, always has been, always will be. That's what happens when you put an alcoholic, coke head in the white house.
Ask the woman that had her husband beheaded if water boarding was too tough on the terrorist that did it. Ask the mother of the young men and women that were mutilated by terrorist what those that abused their loved ones are entitled to. I for one support doing whatever is necessary to protect this country. Those radicals do not give a rats about what is right and wrong they only want the shock value of their actions. Wake up before it is too late and support your country. Terrorist have no rights and are lower than snails.
The liberals in congress forget that we are at war and need to win not surrender as they seem to want done.Why does Bush want to veto legislation that would ban waterboarding?Its not George Bushs fault that he plans to veto any legislation that would ban water boarding. Its just that he thinks water boarding is an attraction at Disney World and he does not want to impede any free market decisions about popular rides in any american amusement parks.Why does Bush want to veto legislation that would ban waterboarding?
It's hard to say. It would be easier to guess if he could get his story straight. The reason Bush gave has 5 components:
1. The US does not use torture.
2. The US has never used torture except for those couple of times we got caught.
3. We need to be able to use torture because the Bad Guys do.
4. We are not the Bad Guys, even if we do act just like them, or worse.
5. The Army says torture produces unreliable information. But what do they know? Their job is to protect Iraq not the US.
Maybe that makes sense to you, but it sounds like BS to me. I think Bush has people tortured to prove that he is above the Law. It's what dictators do and Bush is has said and shown many times that he's a wannabe dictator.
I totally agree as well. That Lord guy who answered that waterboarding is really not that serious and that it only takes about 5 minutes should probably let someone do it to him to see how it feels.Why does Bush want to veto legislation that would ban waterboarding?
Cos he's from the fun police, it's probably against his evangelicalist views. The most shameful thing is the american people actually gave him a second term in office.
i think what Ted Kennedy, did to Mary Jo, was far worse then water-boarding,.....
Well, according to the article (did you even read it, or just react based on the link?), the bill addresses moer than waterboarding. He thinks it goes too far in restricting the CIA.
Since we can only speculate here, the question becomes, what is the intent of the legislation and will it be effective. Is it a superficial act to try and fool someone that America is the good guy by banning one form of torture? The overall effect might be that a new tool is put into place with which to bring charges against our own troops, whether they be actual soldiers or part of the CIA or part of a contract group hired by the government. Such a measure probably isn't needed.
On the other hand, is it really necessary to spell out that one particular form of torture is not to be used? I'm not really sure that our leaders want to necessarily put our protective forces in a position of tying their hands to certain techniques when the rules of warfare are once again changing. To me, it would appear that the options would still have to evaluated and considered on their individual merits depending on the type of enemy and their methods that we are dealing with.
And again, with respect to the legislation, is it merely a ploy during election time to dupe the public into thinking that one party over another tried to do something "good' at the expense of the other party. As one responder put it, Mr. Kennedy has little or no credibility and his motives are always suspect. I wouldn't be so quick to blast President Bush on the basis of a strong party affiliation. Regardless of who wins the Presidency, new warfare tactics will still be issues that have to be addressed and there will be no quick overnight solutions. I believe it was during President Clinton's term that the resources and tactics available to the CIA were greatly diminished and it ended up hurting this country's ability to deal with terrorists. I don't think the WH should be so quick to repeat that mistake. That might be whats behind this. But it's all a guess.
Edit: I haven't read the article.
No comments:
Post a Comment