Is the Pres throwing a temper tantrum????

[Neil D]

‘The enemy will attack again’ says Bush

FACING a Republican revolt in the Senate, US President George W Bush yesterday urged Congress to join in backing legislation to spell out strategies for interrogating and trying terror suspects, saying “the enemy wants to attack us again.”

“Time is running out,” Mr Bush said in a White House news conference. “Congress needs to act wisely and promptly.”

Mr Bush denied that the US might lose the high ground in the eyes of world opinion, as former Secretary of State Colin Powell suggested.

“It’s unacceptable to think there’s any kind of comparison between the behaviour of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective,” said Mr Bush, growing animated as he spoke.

The president’s comments came a day after Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee broke with the administration and approved a bill for detention and trial of foreign terrorism suspects.

Mr Bush claims the measure would compromise the war on terrorism.

He is urging the Senate to pass a bill more like a House-passed one that would allow his administration to continue holding and trying terror suspects before military tribunals.

Four Republicans, led by Senator John McCain joined Democrats on Thursday on the Armed Services Committee and voted 15-9 for the measure that Mr Bush opposes.

The dissident group led by Mr McCain — and backed by Mr Powell — said Mr Bush’s approach would jeopardise the safety of US troops.

Mr Powell said Mr Bush’s proposal to redefine the Geneva Conventions would encourage the world to “doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism” and “put our troops at risk.”

Mr Bush said he would work with Congress to resolve the disputed language, but stood by his demands.

“If not for this programme, our intelligence community believes al-Qaida and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland,” he said.

“Unfortunately the recent Supreme Court decision put the future of this program in question.... We need this legislation to save it.”

The high court earlier this year struck down Mr Bush’s current arrangement for trying detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Meanwhile, foreign ministers of the EU yesterday called on the US to respect international law in its handling of terror suspects after Mr Bush acknowledged his country had run secret prisons abroad.

“We reiterate that in combating terrorism, human rights and human standards have to be maintained,” said Finnish foreign minister Erkki Tuomioja, speaking for the 25 EU ministers.

[Neil D]

Quote:

WASHINGTON: President George W Bush continued his tirade on Friday against the US Congress over a controversial law that would allow his administration to set up military commissions to try terror suspects detained by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defence at Guantanamo Bay and other recently-admitted CIA prisons around the world.

“Perhaps Congress thinks it (the Detainee Treatment Act) is not vital,” he said at a specially convened White House news conference, “but I believe it is important that we interpret the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention to help our security professionals to their job on the frontline.”

Bush said that the Geneva Convention (which defines how countries should treat prisoners of war) was “vague” about the very issue it is trying to solve. “Article 3 sets a vague standard and is open to interpretation,” he said. “We need to clarify the law so that we do not have to ask our security professionals break the law.”

On Thursday, in a setback to the White House, the Senate’s Armed Services Committee refused to endorse Bush’s plans of trying scores of terror suspects, using special military commissions. The Senate has proposed its own legislation which Bush has opposed tooth and nail.

Earlier in the year, the US Supreme Court had ruled that the Bush administration cannot set up military commissions without the express approval of Congress. It was thought the Republican-majority Congress would pass the law as Bush had desired. The latest war of words is a direct result of the Bush-Senate disagreement led by his Republican colleague Senator John McCain who is leading an open rebellion against the president.

It is not just Senator McCain alone. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has urged the Congress to reject the Bush legislation.

Bush, meanwhile, said that he thinks the Congress has to act wisely. He also gave it a sort of an ultimatum: “The Congress needs to know that I am interested in providing clarity to help professionals on the frontline. These guys don’t want to be tried as war criminals. I need to ask the Congress: You want the (detainee) program to go forward or not.”

[Bravus]

Basically, we have the US President lobbying hard for torture. It's as simple, as hard to imagine a few years ago, and as horrible as that.

[Dr. Shane]

It seems to be he is trying to cover his rearend. He knows things we don't know. He knows how many attacks have been avoided. He knows a lot more about what the terrorists have been doing and trying to do than we do.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the conference committee. A lot of these politicians may be doing and saying one thing on the record and than flip flop in conference committee where the transcripts are not available to the public. That often is the case. They actually vote for one thing (so it is on their voting record) with full intention of reversing it in conference committee.

In this discussion I don't think it is fair to use the word torture in connection to the US. The word abuse is more appropriate. Torture is what the radical muslims do. The US is not cutting people tounges out with a razor blade. We are not jerking fingernails out with pliars. We are not taking a blow torch to anyone's face. Making someone sleep in their own urine or listen to load rock music and deprive them of sleep is not torture in my view of things.

[Bravus]

Try standing in one spot for 40 hours, then tell me it's not torture.

[Neil D]

It seems to be he is trying to cover his rearend. He knows things we don't know. He knows how many attacks have been avoided. He knows a lot more about what the terrorists have been doing and trying to do than we do.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Try standing in one spot for 40 hours, then tell me it's not torture.

In the present context we have a war on terror. This is not a war between two nation states. It is a war between several civilized nations and various terrorist groups made up by fundamental Muslems.

Words have meaning. In the context of this war on terror when the word torture is used, many think of what the fundamental Muslem terrorists do. They cut out tounges, they cut off heads, they pull fingernails out with pliars, they deny prisoners medical treatment. I think we all agree that is torture.

Standing in one spot for 40 hours is not to the same extreame. That is not to say we should condone it and practice it. But let's not use the same word to describe it as we use to describe what the terrorists do. Let's call it abuse because it is something that is not allowed by the Geneva Convention but is not nearly to the extreame of the tactics used by the Muslem terrorists.

Now if we are trying to get to the point where we will not offend radical Muslems, we may as well give up. We see that a cartoonist offends them with a joke and the Pope offends them by quoting an ancient emporer. These folks are just a bunch of hate-filled, cry babies.

I don't believe we, in the public, know enough to decide if this abuse is warrented. I don't trust the Democrats to handle the issue becuase their lust for power causes them to play politics with everything - including our national security. However since the Democrats don't control Congress at this time, I trust Congress to do the right thing.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Does this mean that this Christian man is allowed to lead this country to forgo it's moral heritage?

Is the moral heritage that stole land from the Indians? Or the moral heritage that gave blankets contaminated with small pox to the Indians? Or the moral heritage that practiced the slave trade? Or the moral heritage that used Chinese immergrants to build the railroad and then deported them back to China? Or the moral heritage that locked up Japanesse-Americans in internment camps during WW2?

Please clarify what moral heritage the country is having to forgo.

Quote:

this guy has taken our ecomomic surplus at the begining of his presidency, and turned our debt into an 8 trillion dollar debt.

SPIN ALERT! SPIN ALERT!

The economic surplus was lost due to a recession caused by a correction in the stock market which happened before President Bush was elected. The first quarter of the recession was the first quarter of 2001. There is no way President Bush could have cuased it. He was governor of Texas - which by the way- never went into recession (although the economy did slow significantly).

The recession was deepened by the terrorist attacks. Now some wacko, fringe-left groups believe President Bush was behind 9/11 but unless that is true, he can hardly be held responsible for its impact on the economy. The war on terror that followed increased spending dramatically.

Quote:

Clinton may have failed personally, but our country had a surplus of moneys

President Clinton had a few things going for him that we cannot honestly ignore. 1.He had Alan Greenspan as the chairman of the Federal Reserve and Greenspan did an excellent job with the economy. We can't give all the credit to Clinton when Greenspan deserves his share.2. Clinton also had a high-tech boom occur during his presidency. Milliions were made in the stock market that were not anticipated by the government. As a result the money actually came into the national treasurey faster than the government could spend it. 3. The Republicans under Newt Gingrich controlled Congress and held down spending.

...but not to be partisan, Clinton did do a good job with the economy. He just didn't do it alone.

[Neil D]

Quote:

In the present context we have a war on terror. This is not a war between two nation states. It is a war between several civilized nations and various terrorist groups made up by fundamental Muslems.

I would look at it as more of a culture war.

It is a war of cultures, that transends the nations that allow Islam and it's fundementalism to flurish. It is the same fundementalistic spirit that is spuring the religious right to take power in the US.

Otherwise, you have, in your words, "several civilized nations and various terrorist groups" allowed to make war on the US. Not very civilized in my opinion.

Quote:

Let's call it abuse because it is something that is not allowed by the Geneva Convention but is not nearly to the extreame of the tactics used by the Muslem terrorists.

Ummmmm....Let's pretend that we have several 8 oz cups of white paint, and we are adding drops of yellow to them and stiring the solution. The first cup has no drops added to it, and the second cup has 1 drop of yellow, and the third has 2 drops and the fourth has 3 drops of yellow and we continue in like mannor, increasing the amount of yellow paint into each white cup, until we have achieved a cup of yellow paint that is clearly yellow. ..At what point does one call the cup of paint "yellow"? At what point does the cup of paint, while it has yellow in it, still retain the name 'white paint'? While this experiment might be easier to distinguish with a darker paint [ie blue or black], the object lesson is still the same....As long as you have NO yellow paint, the first cup will always be your standard of white, while the second cup may not be as white as the first cup, but can still be called 'white'.

The same is true of torture and abuse. In the context of war, you can always make that distinction between torture and abuse...But without the context, those distinctions tend to blur....40 hours standing is nothing compared to the intense pulling of a fingernail....or is it?

Quote:

I don't believe we, in the public, know enough to decide if this abuse is warrented.

But the public knows what reputation it is willing to have...and the public does not want the reputation of sanctioning torture in any form. [ <-I love this gremlin, btw]

Quote:

I don't trust the Democrats to handle the issue becuase their lust for power causes them to play politics with everything - including our national security. However since the Democrats don't control Congress at this time, I trust Congress to do the right thing.

I remind you of this amended quote by a well respected poster [!!] here on ClubAdventist....

Quote:

With all the scandels and corruption issues like Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney, Majority Leader Bill Frist [remember the Insider Trading issues], Rick Santorum [google "the K Street project"], Duke Cunningham and many others from the republican party, it's no wonder journalists have labeled this way of politicing as part of the "republican culture". Shoot, our country is up for sale to the highest bidder.

[Nicodema]

Making someone sleep in their own urine or listen to load rock music and deprive them of sleep is not torture in my view of things.

Obviously, no one has ever forced YOU to sleep in your own urine or kept you awake to all hours by means of loud raucous intrusive music. I would suggest you experiment with doing these things to yourself first before you decide they are "not torture."

[Nicodema]

I don't believe we, in the public, know enough to decide if this abuse is warrented.

[Dr. Shane]

We know that confessions made as a result of interrigations have prevented terrorist attacks. We don't know the details.

If it was discovered that interrigation techniques that made people shiver in cold tempentures for hours and later made them sweat in hot tempentures revealed and confirmed a terrorist plot to drive a truck into a football stadium and blow up thousands of fans would that change anyone's mind? It would certainly make me stop and think.

In the academic world it is easy to talk about taking the moral highground. But in real life, when lives are saved, it isn't so easy. Who would like to visit the widow or orphan of a terrorist victem and explain to them why the terrorists that killed their loved ones were not interrigated while in custody? More than once, terrorists have been released from custody to go back to their organizations and carry out terrorist plots.

Comparing these terrorists to soldiers captured during a war between nation states is erroring. A better comparison is members of the mofia that are apprehended by police or drug runners captured by the Border Patrol. The Geneva Convention does not apply to drug runners or members of the mofia.

We simply don't know the details of the terrorist plots that have been discovered due to interigation. The Congressmen and women dealing with this in Congress do know those details. That is why I am will to trust them.

[Nicodema]

Torture is still wrong and a violation of human rights.

No one is suggesting we do not interrogate potential sources of critical information, simply that we devise methods of doing so that do not involve torture. It has been done before and it is possible.

[Dr. Shane]

Actually, if we comply with the Geneva Convention, we would only be able to ask name, rank and seriel number. That itself kind of shows how it doesn't apply. Many terrorist groups don't have ranks like an organized military and they don't have seriel numbers.

Police are allowed to interrigate criminals but the criminals have a right for a lawyer to be present. Drug runners do not have that right. Border Patrol can interrigate drug runners without a lawyer being present.

[Bravus]

Semantic dances around the definition of words were derided when Clinton used them about sex, so using them about the far more extreme situation of torture seems disingenuous. We can play with definitions forever, but the fact remains that America has always claimed to be a beacon of freedom in the world. If instead it becomes a beacon of opression, that is bad for everyone in the world.

[Dr. Shane]

So when someone loses their children due to child abuse it is ok to say they were torturing their children?

In some people's eyes, America rounding up bad guys and putting them behind bars makes America a beacon of freedom. Some believe America liberated the world during WW2. Yet America still has troops in Germany, Japan and the Phillipians. Liberator or oppressor?

[Neil D]

So when someone loses their children due to child abuse it is ok to say they were torturing their children?

[Dr. Shane]

I am against torture in all cercumstances. That is my position. However I recognize that torture is extreame abuse and do not confuse less forms of abuse with cutting out tounges, electrical shock, pulling out teeth with pliars, etc.

I trust that those in Congress will serve as a check on the executive branch. I trust the system of checks and balances.

[Nicodema]

Semantic dances around the definition of words were derided when Clinton used them about sex, so using them about the far more extreme situation of torture seems disingenuous. We can play with definitions forever, but the fact remains that America has always claimed to be a beacon of freedom in the world. If instead it becomes a beacon of opression, that is bad for everyone in the world.

What he said.