Waterboarding veto
roisto
879 Posts
Though it was expected of him, but still: shameful, disgusting and Reuters: President George W. Bush on Saturday vetoed legislation passed by Congress that would have banned the CIA from using waterboarding and other controversial interrogation techniques.Lawmakers included the anti-torture measure in a broader bill authorizing U.S. intelligence activities."Because the danger remains, we need to ensure our intelligence officials have all the tools they need to stop the terrorists," Bush said in his weekly radio address. He added that the vetoed legislation "would diminish these vital tools."
Comments
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
What the fuck? Are you serious?
Maybe The Problem Is That George W. Bush Is Trying To Make An Omelette Instead Of Running A Country We Could Have Been Proud Of For The Last Seven-And-A-Half Years (Yes, That Must Be It).
b/w
But 90,000+ Iraquis ARE Dead (Tod Ist Tod).
Well done! Here's your "Worst Apples and Oranges Comparison Ever Made" award!
"Also, the detainee states that he made up stories during the torture in order to get [it] to stop."
Shit, just look at Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that guy confessed to everything but the assassination of Abraham Lincoln...what good is that? The US military understands this, apparently our dimwitted president does not.
Oh and let's not oversimplify this, Bush also refuses to rule out the following:
-hooding prisoners or putting duct tape across their eyes
-stripping prisoners naked
-forcing prisoners to perform or mimic sexual acts
-beating
-burning or physically hurting prisoners in other ways
-subjecting them to hypothermia or mock executions
-withholding food, water and medical treatment
-the use of dogs in any aspect of interrogation
So basically Abu Ghraib type scenarios are A-OK, as long as it's the CIA doing it.
I thought we were supposed to be the good guys...
You forgot
-subjecting them to "Tales of Torture: An iPod Mix"
I don't think there are any good guys in war, on any side. "Good" is a relative judgement that people apply to the theater of war. This reminds me of a line from Brando in "Apocalypse Now": "You have no right to call me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that... But you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means." The monuments, films, and books made to honor Soliders, heroism, patriotism, etc.. have decievied people into thinking that there can be justice, valor or honor in war, that there is a good side or a bad side, when, in the end, all that's really there is self-interest, tribalism & the will to survive at any cost.
Well that's convenient, because this "war on terror" is never going to end.
P.S.- If we're talking about "war", and the guys at Guantanamo are our prisoners, how are they not "prisoners of war"?
It's just semantics.
I don't think law has any place in war. You're given an gun & told to take a life. Imagine how insane a proposition that is for a person with morals, family, values? Here's a gun, go kill another man. How do you legislate an experience like that? How can you say, this is within the rules of killing, but this is forbidden? The words "prisoner of war" have meaning in a court of law, but what meaning can they possibly have in war, which is essentially a lawless state of being where you have to suspend all notions of civility and respect for human life & commit an act of murder. "Prisoner of war" is as empty and false a phrase as "Collateral Damage" or "Friendly Fire".
Failed States - The Abuse of Power and The Assault on Democracy
I just don't understand how ANYONE can truly believe that the United States are looking out for the interest other countries. The Imperialism that exists today under that guise of spreading democracy and global trade is the same imperialism that has been at the root of the US since it has been sovereign.
The US simply does not live up to it's own rules/standards. It is hypocritical beyond belief when it comes to international law and policy.
So how does your theory hold up for say, WWII. Were there no Nazi war crimes because they were at war, and thus there are no rules about whats acceptable, including horrific scientific testing on prisoners?
Or should the US have stood by and not intervened, so we could avoid, at all costs, this "lawless state of being where you have to suspend all notions of civility and respect for human life & commit an act of murder."
How about this: Is there a time when killing is morally justified? Or a time when choosing not to fight is morally wrong? If there is a time when intervention is necessary and justified, can a country which chooses to ignore established rules of war maintain the moral high ground?
I think you're the one playing semantics; no one likes war, but to label all military action as wrong is hopelessly naive; this country exists because people decided to fight for what was right. I think Iraq is a preposterously unnecessary disaster and tragedy, but Afghanistan was probably justified.
[/rant]
you keep saying the same vague shit...this "war on terror" has no bounds and has no end...so the US can't be held accountable for its own actions from here until eternity because we've declared war on "terror", whatever the hell the Bush administration decides that is? Give me a break.
And to say that people kill each other during war, therefore all rules are thrown on the window, is laughable. I guess you think those guys that raped that girl in Iraq and killed her entire family are above judgment? They should just come home and walk free? I mean hey, they were in a war, so it's all good! WTF...
[dolo]collateral damage[/dolo]
If I wished to besmirch Lee Dorsey, this would be my current location.
We're reading All Quiet on the Western Front in class, and all of us agreed that soldiers commit homicide but not murder.
Well the US military would disagree with you, but hey good for you.
I'd like to also make clear this specific issue is dealing with CIA interrogators, these are hardly soldiers that are "in the shit" as it were. But I realize this has become a broader debate.
Well, yeah, that's why I said some of them are.