JREGrassroots > House Defies Bush and Backs McCain on Detainee Torture

ncMindy

Dec 15 2005, 03:04 AM

QUOTE

House Defies Bush and Backs McCain on Detainee Torture

By ERIC SCHMITT
Published: December 15, 2005

WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 - In an unusual bipartisan rebuke to the Bush administration, the House on Wednesday overwhelmingly endorsed Senator John McCain's measure to bar cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners in American custody anywhere in the world.

Although the vote was nonbinding, it put the Republican-controlled House on record in support of Mr. McCain's provision for the first time, at the very moment when the senator, a Republican, is at a crucial stage of tense negotiations with the White House, which strongly opposes his measure.

The vote also likely represents the lone opportunity that House members will have to express their sentiments on Mr. McCain's legislation. The Senate approved the measure in October, 90 to 9, as part of a military spending bill. But until Wednesday, the House Republican leadership had sought to avoid a direct vote on the measure to avoid embarrassing the White House.

.........

Mr. Murtha, a former Marine colonel who is the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, said Mr. McCain's legislation was essential to standardizing American interrogation methods and sending a clear signal to the world that the United States condemned the abusive treatment of detainees.

"If we allow torture in any form," Mr. Murtha said, "we abandon our honor."

LINK

suswah

Dec 15 2005, 10:37 AM

It looks like Congress is waking up about this issue. I wonder how many of the Congress people have seen or heard about the torture scene depicted in the George Clooney film "Syriana." It's a very difficult scene to watch...and I've rarely seen a more vivid portrayal of it in a mainstream film.

It's hard to imagine anyone believing that America should have policies that back torture in any way, shape or form.

Benny

Dec 15 2005, 02:16 PM

McCain's Detainee Plan Is Accepted by Bush

The White House, after weeks of resistance, agreed today to Senator John McCain's call for a law specifically banning cruel or inhuman treatment of terror suspects anywhere in the world.

Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/?8na

judykratochvil

Dec 15 2005, 08:04 PM

House Armed Services Committee Chair Duncan Hunter is crying about this. He is threatening to hold up the vote on the bill because he does not agree that this is ok. Mr. Hunter was in Vietnam, but he wasn't tortured like McCain was.

PWRinNY

Dec 15 2005, 08:54 PM

What is wrong with these people? It's like they want to have their cake and eat it too. They say that the U.S. needs to lead the world in freedom and democracy, set the standards for the best way of life. Yet they want to condone torture and inhumane treatment. They can't have it both ways. If America is to be seen in the world as the leader and authority on democracy and freedom, what's to stop our enemies from torturing Americans, if our government has said torture is OK? The hypocrisy is nauseating.

suswah

Dec 15 2005, 10:39 PM

QUOTE(PWRinNY @ Dec 15 2005, 08:54 PM) [snapback]87320[/snapback]

They can't have it both ways. If America is to be seen in the world as the leader and authority on democracy and freedom, what's to stop our enemies from torturing Americans, if our government has said torture is OK? The hypocrisy is nauseating.

It IS hypocrisy! Our democratic leadership needs to be saying it just like you have, Patty!

ncMindy

Jan 5 2006, 02:27 AM

QUOTE

Bush could bypass new torture ban

Waiver right is reserved

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 4, 2006 - Boston.com

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.

LINK

judykratochvil

Jan 6 2006, 07:13 PM

This statement makes it clear that he intends to break the law and claim the protection of the Commander in Chief Power. This is shredding Article II of the Constituion and telling Congress, which passed the law with overwhelming majorities to go to hell. He clearly intends to listen to noone. Worse Alberto Gonzales, Crony General, is unlikely and do his job if a soldier breaks the law on the President's order or wink, wink, looking the other way.

Hmmm. Impeachment anyone?

PWRinNY

Jan 6 2006, 09:56 PM

By Ron Hutcheson and James Kuhnhenn
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - President Bush agreed with great fanfare last month to accept a ban on torture, but he later quietly reserved the right to ignore it, even as he signed it into law.

Acting from the seclusion of his Texas ranch at the start of New Year's weekend, Bush said he would interpret the new law in keeping with his expansive view of presidential power. He did it by issuing a bill-signing statement - a little-noticed device that has become a favorite tool of presidential power in the Bush White House.

In fact, Bush has used signing statements to reject, revise or put his spin on more than 500 legislative provisions. Experts say he has been far more aggressive than any previous president in using the statements to claim sweeping executive power - and not just on national security issues.

Full article
Kind of long, but definitely must-read!

suswah

Jan 6 2006, 10:45 PM

QUOTE

''The whole point of the McCain Amendment was to close every loophole," said Marty Lederman, a Georgetown University law professor who served in the Justice Department from 1997 to 2002. ''The president has re-opened the loophole by asserting the constitutional authority to act in violation of the statute where it would assist in the war on terrorism."

Elisa Massimino, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, called Bush's signing statement an ''in-your-face affront" to both McCain and to Congress.

LINK

Our spoiled brat president.

suswah

Jan 6 2006, 11:04 PM

QUOTE(PWRinNY @ Jan 6 2006, 09:56 PM) [snapback]88004[/snapback]

By Ron Hutcheson and James Kuhnhenn
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - President Bush agreed with great fanfare last month to accept a ban on torture, but he later quietly reserved the right to ignore it, even as he signed it into law.

Acting from the seclusion of his Texas ranch at the start of New Year's weekend, Bush said he would interpret the new law in keeping with his expansive view of presidential power. He did it by issuing a bill-signing statement - a little-noticed device that has become a favorite tool of presidential power in the Bush White House.

In fact, Bush has used signing statements to reject, revise or put his spin on more than 500 legislative provisions. Experts say he has been far more aggressive than any previous president in using the statements to claim sweeping executive power - and not just on national security issues.

Full article
Kind of long, but definitely must-read!

It's all just a game for him apparently.

andrew6565

Jan 7 2006, 09:19 AM

Heres something plain and simple....I have never liked the idea of any former president's son or other family member being allowed to obtain the same postion of office.....and if anyone wants to know why....look at the last five years and what this man has done while president.

suswah

Jan 7 2006, 09:40 AM

QUOTE(andrew6565 @ Jan 7 2006, 09:19 AM) [snapback]88016[/snapback]

Heres something plain and simple....I have never liked the idea of any former president's son or other family member being allowed to obtain the same postion of office.....and if anyone wants to know why....look at the last five years and what this man has done while president.

Maybe the two-term limit should include immediate family members, too.

After this "president," it looks like dynasties should be banned as well.

judykratochvil

Jan 7 2006, 11:22 AM

QUOTE(suswah @ Jan 7 2006, 11:40 AM) [snapback]88018[/snapback]

Maybe the two-term limit should include immediate family members, too.

After this "president," it looks like dynasties should be banned as well.

That's unconstituional. This president would have been this way weather his father had preceeded him in offie or not.

suswah

Jan 7 2006, 12:03 PM

QUOTE(judykratochvil @ Jan 7 2006, 11:22 AM) [snapback]88023[/snapback]

That's unconstituional. This president would have been this way weather his father had preceeded him in offie or not.

I realize what I stated is unconstitutional. It was just an idea to float.

But this man would never have made it into "office" without his father's name and legacy. This is a "legacy" presidency. And he is a very big mistake.

judykratochvil

Jan 7 2006, 02:14 PM

QUOTE(suswah @ Jan 7 2006, 02:03 PM) [snapback]88028[/snapback]

I realize what I stated is unconstitutional. It was just an idea to float.

But this man would never have made it into "office" without his father's name and legacy. This is a "legacy" presidency. And he is a very big mistake.

He is a plain mistake, legacy or not. I bet pappa wishes this wasn't the legacy.

BTW, suswah, I know you knew that your suggestion was unconstituional. forgive me because of current events I am a little too touchy about things like this.

suswah

Jan 7 2006, 02:45 PM

QUOTE(judykratochvil @ Jan 7 2006, 02:14 PM) [snapback]88032[/snapback]

BTW, suswah, I know you knew that your suggestion was unconstituional. forgive me because of current events I am a little too touchy about things like this.

I understand, Judy.

And this is just the beginning...and where it stops nobody knows.

judykratochvil

Jan 7 2006, 03:37 PM

QUOTE(suswah @ Jan 7 2006, 04:45 PM) [snapback]88034[/snapback]

I understand, Judy.

And this is just the beginning...and where it stops nobody knows.

I know this is just the beginning. I wish it were a nightmare and I could wake up in peace.