[OreoCookie]

Bush threatens to veto a bill which limits detainee treatment which was accepted by the Senate in a clear 90 to 9 vote (46 R, 43 D, 1 I), saying it limits executive privileges needed to carry out war on terrorism and is unnecessary to begin with.

It would be Bush's first veto in five years of office … what is he thinking? It would make current rules on how detainees are treated less ambiguous and thus would protect both soldiers and detainees. It is clearly a bipartisan bill with equal support on both sides … so what reason is there to object to it, even threaten to veto it? What good reasons do you see to oppose this bill?

This just another incident that shows the gap between Congress (here: the Senate) and the White House, irrespective of party affiliations.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Bush threatens to veto a [url=http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/06/senate.detainees/index.html]...It would be Bush's first veto in five years of office … what is he thinking? It would make current rules on how detainees are treated less ambiguous and thus would protect both soldiers and detainees. It is clearly a bipartisan bill with equal support on both sides … so what reason is there to object to it, even threaten to veto it? What good reasons do you see to oppose this bill?

Well, there are some folks who say he acted on information he knew DIDN'T exist about Iraq's WMD's.

Here, could it be he's acting on information he knows DOES exist but he's not letting us in on?

I think ONE interpretation of this is CERTAINLY possible.

If we DON'T get the information we need from these terrorist types before time runs out there may be no need to consider what MIGHT happen down the road. Methinks there be a calamity
ahead and he MAY be paddling like hell under the water but on the surface he's placid to keep us from panicking. There's not much sense in issuing an evacuation on the seven cities mentioned for nuclear terrorist attack if we don't know FOR SURE that there will be any detonations.

And even if the level of certainty were higher we'd have the kinds of nightmares we saw with Rita's evacuations.

He probably doesn't know for sure the exact dates times or places or even IF there will be any attacks.

But sometimes you have to throw caution out the door when the greater risk is to play 'nice.'

[OreoCookie]

But then somebody in the senate, at least Bush's allies, would know about it. Also, you can't just wait for such a case to happen, but risking both the detainees' and the soldiers' lives and well-being for something inmates won't have an idea about. What do the inmates of Gitmo know about today's Al Quaida?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

But then somebody in the senate, at least Bush's allies, would know about it. Also, you can't just wait for such a case to happen, but risking both the detainees' and the soldiers' lives and well-being for something inmates won't have an idea about. What do the inmates of Gitmo know about today's Al Quaida?

I didn't read any mention of the bill being only for Gitmo detainees. In fact I don't recall seeing Gitmo mentioned at all. Why would you bring up Gitmo?

Yet, on the other hand there may be new detainees being sent to Gitmo every week, for all we know. So yes, Gitmo's detainees MIGHT have information of value.

And yes, if the suspected nuclear infiltrators HAVE entered the USA they would have done so waaaay before now and new detainees might have NO knowledge of that. But the OLD detainees just MIGHT. So you go back to the 'mine' and dig some more to see what treasures still lie there waiting to be loosened up and unearthed.

So, for Gitmo or not, if the Pres. wasn't worried about tomorrow but wanted to help see that there was a tomorrow, he might want this bill passed.

In the article, McCain talks about how ambiguity doesn't serve the American POW well. Well, the Muslims seem very comfortable with ambiguity. A cultural thing? I wonder.

Oh, and I forgot to address this point: How do you know a detainee WON'T have information of value until and unless you interrogate them? And they won't give up their wealth of knowledge easily, or just by asking politely. So you use various means to make them want to talk.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I didn't read any mention of the bill being only for Gitmo detainees. In fact I don't recall seeing Gitmo mentioned at all. Why would you bring up Gitmo?

Because the bill applies to all detainees in American custody, including those held abroad. Hence it also applies to all inmates in Gitmo.

Originally Posted by mojo2

Yet, on the other hand there may be new detainees being sent to Gitmo every week, for all we know. So yes, Gitmo's detainees MIGHT have information of value.

Are you guessing? AFAIK there haven't been any new arrivals to Gitmo.

Originally Posted by mojo2

In the article, McCain talks about how ambiguity doesn't serve the American POW well. Well, the Muslims seem very comfortable with ambiguity. A cultural thing? I wonder.

So do some Americans. A cultural thing? At least the Senate said, `no, it's not.' It'll be interesting to hear what the President has to say about this.

[Gee-Man]

I'm very glad Congress is finally starting to wake up to the fact that torture by Americans is simply unacceptable. I find it unbelievable that in 2005 there is any debate or controversy about whether we should be torturing people.

Torture is morally wrong, most egregiously so when we can't even establish the guilt or innocence of most of the people we were torturing, as happened at Abu Ghraib - and to top it off, it simply doesn't work. It's been proven time and time again that the person being tortured typically responds by telling their torturers exactly what they want to hear in order to get the torture to stop. There are far more effective interrogation techniques that don't require us to engage in the same evil as the terrorists we are supposed to be different from.

John McCain, who I usually don't agree with but have great deal of respect for, made a great speech about this (pulled from AndrewSullivan.com):

Mr. President, war is an awful business. I know that. I don’t think I’m naïve about how severe are the wages of war, and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it successfully. It is a grim, dark business, and no matter how noble the cause for which it is fought, no matter how valiant the service, many veterans spend much of their subsequent lives trying to forget not only what was done to them and their comrades, but some of what had to be done by their hand to prevail.

I don’t mourn the loss of any terrorist’s life nor do I care if in the course of serving their ignoble cause they suffer great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next.

What I do regret, what I do mourn, and what I do care very much about is what we lose, what we -- the American serviceman and woman and the great nation they defend at the risk of their lives – what we lose when by official policy or by official negligence – we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of ourselves, our greatest strength – that we are different and better than our enemies; that we fight for an idea – not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion – but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.

I have been asked before where did the brave men I was privileged to serve with in Vietnam draw the strength to resist to the best of their ability the cruelties inflicted on them by our enemies. Well, we drew strength from our faith in each other, from our faith in God, and from our faith in our country. Our enemies didn’t adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But everyone of us knew, every single one of us knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them. That faith was indispensable not only to our survival, but to our attempts to return home with honor. Many of the men I served with would have preferred death to such dishonor.

The enemies we fight today hold such liberal notions in contempt, as they hold the international conventions that enshrine them such as the Geneva Conventions and the treaty on torture in contempt. I know that. But we’re better than them, and we are the stronger for our faith. And we will prevail. I submit to my colleagues that it is indispensable to our success in this war that our servicemen and women know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans, the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others – even our enemies.

Those who return to us and those who give their lives for us are entitled to that honor. And those of us who have given them this onerous duty are obliged by our history, and by the sacrifices – the many terrible sacrifices -- that have been made in our defense – we are obliged to make clear to them that they need not risk their or their country’s honor to prevail; that they are always, always – through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss – they are always, always Americans, and different, better, and stronger than those who would destroy us.

God bless them as he has blessed us with their service.

Try to remember these words whenever there's an urge to come up with Hollywood movie scenarios to justify why we should be in the business of torture.