|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:43 am Post subject: American President supports torture; but not the Senate |
 |
|
Edit: Wash Post
Not even the President could not succeed in vetoing an amendment passed by 90-9 Senators.
| Quote: |
Senate Approves More War Funding
By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 7, 2005; 12:06 PM
The Senate today passed a defense spending bill that provides an extra $50 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and includes an amendment -- opposed by the White House -- that prohibits the mistreatment of detainees in U.S. custody.
Rushing to complete the bill before leaving for a 10-day recess, senators voted 97-0 to approve the $440 billion measure, which funds military operations for the 2006 fiscal year that began Oct. 1.
In a separate vote, the Senate approved a $31.9 billion budget for the Department of Homeland Security. The measure gives the department a 5 percent increase, with some of the new funding earmarked to help pay for additional Border Patrol agents.
The Senate defense bill must now be reconciled with a separate House version, and negotiators are expected to convene in the coming weeks to work out differences. The House bill, which was passed in July, provides more than $30 billion less in military spending than the Senate version.
Both bills include a 3.1 percent military pay increase and additional benefits for military personnel.
If the final bill includes the full $50 billion in extra war funding, it would push spending in Iraq and Afghanistan since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to more than $360 billion.
The Bush administration did not request more money for war operations, but military officers informed senators that the additional funding will be needed by the middle of next month.
The White House has threatened a presidential veto of the bill because senators included the ban on mistreatment of detainees and trimmed up to $7 billion from the administration's requested appropriation. The trims, which apply to budget areas apart from those covered by the extra $50 billion, would cut Air Force space programs and eliminate one of four ships requested by the Navy.
The Senate voted 90-9 Wednesday in favor of an amendment sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that would prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in U.S. military custody. McCain, a former Navy pilot who was shot down over Hanoi during the Vietnam war and spent more than five years as a POW, introduced the amendment over White House objections in an effort to repair damage from the abuse of detainees in Iraq and elsewhere and to give U.S. military interrogators clear guidelines. The bill would restrict interrogation techniques to those authorized in a U.S. Army field manual.
The White House opposed the amendment on grounds that it would constrain the executive branch's options and duplicate restrictions that are already in place.
In a statement repeating the veto threat, the White House said Wednesday that the provision would "restrict the president's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack" and would reduce America's ability to bring terrorists to justice. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The White House opposed the amendment on grounds that it would constrain the executive branch's options and duplicate restrictions that are already in place.
|
These two arguments would seem to cancel each other out. If the bill duplicates existing restrictions, then aren't the executive's options already limited by those restrictions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
From Andrew Sullivan's blog:
| Quote: |
THE PRO-TORTURE NINE: Worth reminding people who their names are:
Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)
Keep this list. And tell your children and grandchildren. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior
By TERESA HAMPTON
Editor
Capitol Hill Blue
President George W. Bush is taking powerful anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned.
The prescription drugs, administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician, can impair the President's mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis, administration aides admit privately.
"It's a double-edged sword," says one aide. "We can't have him flying off the handle at the slightest provocation but we also need a President who is alert mentally."
Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly upset Bush stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay.
"Keep those motherfuckers away from me," he screamed at an aide backstage. "If you can't, I'll find someone who can."
Bush's mental stability has become the topic of Washington whispers in recent months. Capitol Hill Blue first reported on June 4 about increasing concern among White House aides over the President's wide mood swings and obscene outbursts.
Although GOP loyalists dismissed the reports an anti-Bush propaganda, the reports were later confirmed by prominent George Washington University psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank in his book Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as a "paranoid meglomaniac" and "untreated alcoholic" whose "lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions and pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad" showcase Bush's instabilities.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=33&num=5141
http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web/bush%2Bchildhood%2Bhistory%2Bsadism/1/20/1/-/1/0/1/1/1/off/1/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/0/111/URL&splash=unfiltered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
The White House opposed the amendment on grounds that it would constrain the executive branch's options and duplicate restrictions that are already in place.
|
These two arguments would seem to cancel each other out. If the bill duplicates existing restrictions, then aren't the executive's options already limited by those restrictions? |
I agree with the bill and I particularly agree with McCain that this kind of redundancy is always a good thing.
As you already know, and all partisan issues and Igotthisguitar's post aside, the President (whichever president) is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Congress (controlled by whichever majority party) declares war and controls the purse. When Congress issues direct instructions to the military, the president will jealously resist this, no matter the issue. Bush's argument was a predictable one.
The moral correctness of the bill notwithstanding, I side with Congress on this. Congress must ratify or reject treaties that the President signs, including international agreements such as the Geneva Convention or the International Declaration of Human Rights (not ratified in the U.S., by the way). Congress is, in effect, a party to these agreements.
It seems appropriate, then, that Congress should clarify what it expects of the military's behavior when issues like these arise.
On the other issue this raises: is it accurate to refer to those who voted against this bill as advocates of torture? Was the vote so sharply defined as that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| On the other issue this raises: is it accurate to refer to those who voted against this bill as advocates of torture? Was the vote so sharply defined as that? |
No, I don't think the men named here are cheerleaders for pain, but the fact that only 9 out of a hundred, in a Senate controlled by his party, could be mustered to support the president means that his base is being eroded massively, and daily. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Just 1,197 days left to eradicate that base. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wangja wrote: |
| Just 1,197 days left to eradicate that base. |
Actually, you might want to count down to the Senate elections in 2006. That could change things drastically.
Yeah, the President is facing mutiny. But look at the issue! I mean, c'mon! Who supports torture? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Actually, you might want to count down to the Senate elections in 2006. That could change things drastically. |
Good point: things could start to get more interesting then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:48 am Post subject: Are the 9 advocates of torture? |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
On the other issue this raises: is it accurate to refer to those who voted against this bill as advocates of torture? Was the vote so sharply defined as that? |
If they are not advocates of torture, they certainly are apologists or at the very least condoners of it.
Here you can find some accounts of the issue the 90 Senator majority wants to correct.
As for the nine Senators who countered the amendment that OTOH has listed above, here you can find their reasons for why they at least condone torture.
I'll quote two here; one of which I think is the best of the nine, and one of which I think is the worst. See if you can guess which excuse I abhor the least!
| Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) wrote: |
| Am I against torture? Of course I am. I know as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee that the information we get from interrogating terrorists is some of the most valuable information we get. It saves lives, period. We have learned that one of the most effective tools we have in getting this information is the terrorists' fear of the unknown. Passing a law that effectively telegraphs to the entire terrorist world what they can expect if they are caught is not only counterproductive, but could be downright dangerous. |
| Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.) wrote: |
| Supporters claim that this amendment was necessary to send a message that the abuse at Abu Ghraib is inconsistent with our laws and values. But those guilty of abuses already knew their conduct violated our laws and our values. . . . As such, they would not have been deterred even if this amendment were in effect at the time. Finally, the amendment gives the false impression that torture and abuse of detainees was the official policy of the United States government. That is also false. The policy was, and continues to be, one that requires humane treatment of all detainees. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| But look at the issue! I mean, c'mon! Who supports torture? |
Oh, I've seen at least poster around here say it's "fine if it's done to the right people" ...
Thanks for the article, Kuros, and thanks for the links as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think torture is OK as long as you kill anyone that you torture after they give you the information, kill anyone that doesn't agree with the torture, and you kill anyone who might let the secret out.
If the secret is let out, you must kill everyone that knows.
In that case, I think torture is OK. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
You're not the guy I was talkin' about, but I don't think you're serious anyway ...
Back to Kuros, I'm surprised any debate was needed about an amendment about something like affirming into law that the US does not torture people.
How about an amendment about third country renditions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Bush's mental stability has become the topic of Washington whispers in recent months. Capitol Hill Blue first reported on June 4 about increasing concern among White House aides over the President's wide mood swings and obscene outbursts.
|
Bush hasn't been able to function normally even way before they put him in the presidency and he was putting coke up his nose. Not the sharpest tack in the box, his business bankruptcy and "military" track record says it all. Always people around him to to clean up his mess.
He never wanted to be president, he wanted to be the commissioner of baseball. I'm not sure he could have even handled that. Bud Selig didn't think so.
This guy can't stand the heat and needs to get out of the kitchen--probably take off on a vacation again (the most vacation days of any US president)
I'm not surprised he's publicly coming apart at the seams--there's only so much spinmeister Karl Rove et al can keep under wraps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:09 am Post subject: Lawrence Wilkerson |
|
|
This is from www.andrewsullivan.com (scroll down to Friday, Oct 21, 2005 and it'll be right above the date). It's not the original source for this, but you can get it from that site. It's Lawrence Wilkerson, the chief of staff to Colin Powell sharing his thoughts about the entire torture mess that our President has allowed our country to get into. I no longer have any doubts that President Bush is worse than Nixon...at least the latter did not condone direct torture by American armed forces.
| Quote: |
And I'll finish just by bringing it down screechingly to the ground and tell you that the detainee abuse issue is just such a concrete example of what I've just described to you, that 10 years from now or so when it's really, really put to the acid test, ironed out and people have looked at it from every angle, we are going to be ashamed of what we allowed to happen. I don't know how many people saw the "Frontline" documentary last night - very well done, I thought, but didn't get anywhere near the specifics that need to be shown, that need to come out, that need to say to the American people, this is not us, this is not the way we do business in the world. Of course we have criminals, of course we have people who violate the law of war, of course we had My Lai, of course we had problems in the Korean War and in World War II. My father-in-law was involved in the Malmedy massacre and the retaliation of U.S. troops in Belgium. He told me some stories before he died that made my blood curdle about American troops killing Germans.
But these are not -- I won't say isolated incidents; these are incidents that are understandable and that ultimately, at one time or another, we came to deal with. I don't think, in our history, we've ever had a presidential involvement, a secretarial involvement, a vice-presidential involvement, an attorney general involvement in telling our troops essentially carte blanche is the way you should feel. You should not have any qualms because this is a different kind of conflict. Well, I'll admit that. I'll admit that. I don't want to see any of these people ever released from prison if they're truly terrorists. I don't want to see them released because I know what they'll do. I'm a former military man, 31 years in the Army. They will go out and they will try to kill me and my buddies, again and again, and some of you people, too.
So I understand the radical change in the nature of our enemy, but that doesn't mean we make a radical change in the nature of America. But that's what we did, and we did it in private. We did it in such privacy that the secretary of State had to open the door into my office one day - we had adjoining offices and he liked to do that, and I never objected - he came through the door and he said, Larry, Larry, get everything, get all the paperwork, get the ICRC reports, get everything; I think this is going to be a real mess. And Will Taft, his lawyer, got the same instruction from a legal point of view. And Will and I worked together for almost a year as the ICRC reports began to build and come in, and Kellenberger even came in and visited with the secretary of State. And we knew that things weren't the way they should be, and as former soldiers, we knew that you don't have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you've condoned it - unless you've condoned it. And whether you did it explicitly or not is irrelevant. If you did it at all, indirectly, implicitly, tacitly - you pick the word - you're in trouble because that slippery slope is truly slippery, and it will take years to reverse the situation, and we'll probably have to grow a new military. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
