NationStates Jolt Archive

Yesterday, in case you missed it, John McCain got his anti-torture amendment passed in the Senate, attached to a Defense Appropriations bill. Now, assuming it makes it through conference committee, Bush will have the option of signing a bill he has already made it clear he detests, or he'll get to use his veto for the very first time on a Defense Appropriations bill. The amendment passed 90-9. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20051006/ap_on_go_co/congress_detainees_10)
Defying the White House, senators voted 90-9 to approve an amendment that would prohibit the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held.

The amendment was added to a $440 billion military spending bill for the budget year that began Oct. 1.

The proposal, sponsored by Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), also requires all service members to follow procedures in the Army Field Manual when they detain and interrogate terrorism suspects.
So who were the nine Senators who voted to support torture? You didn't think I'd leave you hanging, did you?
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)

I'd like to thank the other 46 Republican Senators and the lone independent who joined with the 43 Democrats in supporting this legislation, and especially Senator John McCain for pushing this the way they have.

See? I can be nice to Republicans on occasion--the ones that deserve it, that is. :D

It still has to pass the House - where the differences in the bills are worked out in conference committee.

It's entirely possible that it gets stripped out there, with no fanfare.

That your parliament even has to do this is a sad state of affairs, indeed.

That your parliament even has to do this is a sad state of affairs, indeed.

As Clinton pointed out in his statement, "I have done nothing illegal." we may note that in the US, nothing is wrong as long as what you are doing can be construed to be legal under US law.

Even other countries have to adopt provisions of international law - either by executive authority or by legislative act. If they don't adopt the provisions, the provisions have no strength of law in that nation.

Strength of law is everything. A fact that appears lost of more than half the posters in NS General.

No matter what you do you never get any love from the Swedes. :(

It still has to pass the House - where the differences in the bills are worked out in conference committee.

It's entirely possible that it gets stripped out there, with no fanfare.
It's possible, but if I were on the DCCC, I'd tell every Republican in the House that if they get rid of the amendment, they can expect a barrage of commercials next year in their re-election campaigns saying that they voted to allow torture. I'd be merciless on this, quite frankly, and I'd say the same thing to any Democrat who was going to do the same.

As Clinton pointed out in his statement, "I have done nothing illegal." we may note that in the US, nothing is wrong as long as what you are doing can be construed to be legal under US law.

Even other countries have to adopt provisions of international law - either by executive authority or by legislative act. If they don't adopt the provisions, the provisions have no strength of law in that nation.

Strength of law is everything. A fact that appears lost of more than half the posters in NS General.

Thank you for stating the obvious, and the irrelevant. As a first world nation, you shouldn't need international law or parliamentary add-ons to other bills to have banned the use of torture by now, IMHO.

Thank you for stating the obvious, and the irrelevant. As a first world nation, you shouldn't need international law or parliamentary add-ons to other bills to have banned the use of torture by now, IMHO.

As I recall, places like the UK and France were using torture right up to the point where they signed the UNCAT. Which required parliamentary action to approve.

Rumor has it the French still torture people. And I know from first hand experience that the German police beat people for fun - not technically torture, since they didn't ask me any questions. But the intent was intimidation.

Ever try bringing a complaint of beating against German police? It doesn't even make it to court.

So get off your high horse about "first world nations". Maybe your own has been doing well since the Thirty Years War, but the rest of the world is still clandestinely killing and torturing people while prancing about in New York, the Hague, and Geneva saying the world is a rosy tortureless place.

Thank you for stating the obvious, and the irrelevant. As a first world nation, you shouldn't need international law or parliamentary add-ons to other bills to have banned the use of torture by now, IMHO.

Just curious as to what in your opinion constitutes a first world nation?

In My Opinion:
The reason that this is different is simply because it is military law, not civil. Torture is banned most famously in the present incarnation of the American government's first official legal document, the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

There it is defined as cruel and unusual punishment, and does not apply to martial matters. Most first world nations in the world, do not have written statute against enemy combatants, outside of those signed at International Conventions. The reason it is necessary in America is simply that other countries are not arresting "terrorists" from abroad.

By the current definitions terrorists are not POW, they are something different entirely, and the reason they are not being tried as criminals is because they are being arrested outside of the United States. If they were domestic terrorists, like the unabomber they would tried and protected under the United States Constitution. Further more they are not being arrested and extradited by foreign powers, which is a case in which non-domestic terrorists are tried in criminal court.

As I recall, places like the UK and France were using torture right up to the point where they signed the UNCAT. Which required parliamentary action to approve.

Rumor has it the French still torture people. And I know from first hand experience that the German police beat people for fun - not technically torture, since they didn't ask me any questions. But the intent was intimidation.

Ever try bringing a complaint of beating against German police? It doesn't even make it to court.

So get off your high horse about "first world nations". Maybe your own has been doing well since the Thirty Years War, but the rest of the world is still clandestinely killing and torturing people while prancing about in New York, the Hague, and Geneva saying the world is a rosy tortureless place.

Well, sorry for expecting something as basic as this. Start a thread on France's and Germany's alledged torture, and I will express the same opinion.

Well, sorry for expecting something as basic as this. Start a thread on France's and Germany's alledged torture, and I will express the same opinion.

Even that would not be an adequate comparision.

The Military Justice System only has an obligation (through international conventions) to protect the rights of PoWs. These terrorists are not being considered PoWs. Since they are not part of the normal U.S. Justice System the constitution does not apply to them either. It is a really interesting loop hole, that can be exploited by any nation. The only place in the world that you can compare this to is Israel, as they have arrested "enemy combatants" through military means in foreign countries without extradiction.

Even that would not be an adequate comparision.

The Military Justice System only has an obligation (through international conventions) to protect the rights of PoWs. These terrorists are not being considered PoWs. Since they are not part of the normal U.S. Justice System the constitution does not apply to them either. It is a really interesting loop hole, that can be exploited by any nation. The only place in the world that you can compare this to is Israel, as they have arrested "enemy combatants" through military means in foreign countries without extradiction.

The UCMJ is not of interest to me here, as I am not arguing the legal matter - it is apparent that your law is inadequate if this is allowed to continue legally. I was commenting on the sad state of affairs that it is.

The UCMJ is not of interest to me here, as I am not arguing the legal matter - it is apparent that your law is inadequate if this is allowed to continue legally. I was commenting on the sad state of affairs that it is.

Fass, your outrage and surprise is about as fake and silly as if I walked into a gay bathouse and expressed "shock and dismay" that anal sex was going on in there.

Fass, your outrage and surprise is about as fake and silly as if I walked into a gay bathouse and expressed "shock and dismay" that anal sex was going on in there.

I wasn't aware I was expressing surprise at all, and outrage is the incorrect word. Disappointment would be more proper.

I wasn't aware I was expressing surprise at all, and outrage is the incorrect word. Disappointment would be more proper.

Well, wrap a towel around yourself, and be a good guy and pour some more water on the rocks. Once the steam gets built up, you won't see any more bad things like torture going on.

Well, wrap a towel around yourself, and be a good guy and pour some more water on the rocks. Once the steam gets built up, you won't see any more bad things like torture going on.

Was that a reference to Finland? Because, it really is non-sensical otherwise.

Was that a reference to Finland? Because, it really is non-sensical otherwise.
No, it's a reference to being in the steam room in a gay bathhouse.

I just wanted to say that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution gives the power specifically to congress to pass laws that govern how the US handles anyone detained in combat. Congress's actions are perfectly legitimate and legal, and the only way the president can really do anything about it is to veto it.

No, it's a reference to being in the steam room in a gay bathhouse.

Oh. Nope, still remains enigmatic to me.

Thanks for the note Nazz, shot off a leter to my senator Bond to tell him what a dick he is. (In more eloquent terms of course, its actually quite good ;) )

In no order:

Patrick Leahy
Ted Kennedy
Charles Schumer
Joe Biden
Frank Lautenberg
Barbara Boxer
Dick Durbin
Robert Byrd
Byron Dorgan

The UCMJ is not of interest to me here, as I am not arguing the legal matter - it is apparent that your law is inadequate if this is allowed to continue legally. I was commenting on the sad state of affairs that it is.

You are missing the point of my comments then. No nation has laws regarding this. The only reason it is an issue in America alone is because America is the only country arresting foreign terrorists without extradition through the use of the Military.

In fact the only nation that has ever been in a similar situation would be Israel, whose Mossad has [publicly] snuck into foreign countries without their permission in order to capture HVTs.

I've always thought that Arlen Specter was the biggest idiot in the Senate.

Anyone who would buy the "magic bullet" theory and push it as hard as he did on the Warren Commission has to be completely stupid. Or paid under the table.

You are missing the point of my comments then. No nation has laws regarding this.

Art. 5. Every citizen shall be protected against corporal punishment. He shall likewise be protected against any torture or medical influence aimed at extorting or suppressing statements.
[...]
Art. 22. A foreign national within the Realm is equated with a Swedish citizen in respect of
[...]
3. protection against capital punishment, corporal punishment and torture, and against medical influence aimed at extorting or suppressing statements (Articles 4 and 5);
[...]
Art. 23. No act of law or other provision may be adopted which contravenes Sweden’s undertakings under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

I guess there are nations who do.

So who were the nine Senators who voted to support torture? You didn't think I'd leave you hanging, did you?

With the exception of Sen. Inhofe, who is a certified weirdo, I've never heard of any of them.

I guess there are nations who do.
And that supports my point, that you have an actual law that was actually passed - to support another treaty that your nation approved. Through your legislature.

If those laws were not on the books, then it WOULD be legal to torture people there.

With the exception of Sen. Inhofe, who is a certified weirdo, I've never heard of any of them.
I have, but I'm a junkie. These guys generally find themselves as the wingnuttiest of the wingnutty.

I have no question that a lot of the Republicans who voted for this did so because they know there's a problem with the US military torturing captives of any sort. McCain introduced it, Warner co-sponsored it and both engaged in some chicanery in order to get it attached, which apparently the leadership, under pressure from the White House, didn't want to have happen. There have been others who spoke out against this conduct--Lindsey Graham, who will never be mistaken for a liberal, for instance, has been a fierce critic of the administration on this.

But in a couple of cases, and I'm not going to name names here, I think some people looked at their presidential ambitions in 2008 and didn't want this vote coming up in a commercial, especially the way Bush's numbers have tanked in the last few months.

I guess there are nations who do.

Close, but:
They are not being held in within the "Realm" or the United States equivilent of the realm. In fact they have never stood foot on sovereign America soil outside of Gitmo.

I could be wrong, because of course I am not as well versed in the laws of some nations as I would like. It is my understanding that all "first world nations" have never been in a situation like this, and that even those with foresight have the same type of loop hole as the United States Justice System, which requires some sort of parliamentary or in this case congressional ammending.

See? I can be nice to Republicans on occasion--the ones that deserve it, that is. :D
And of course, the fact that only Republican Senators are listed had nothing whatsoever to do with your posting this. Riiiiight. :rolleyes:

They are not being held in within the "realm" or the United States equivilent of the realm. In fact they have never stood foot on sovereign America soil outside of Gitmo.

Oh, we have precedents and rulings that clearly establish the "realm" to be in Swedish custody. Do you seriously think we'd leave such a huge loop-hole in our Constitution that would make torture committed by the Swedish government OK as long as it didn't happen on our soil? That would be ridiculous, and make our constitution and claims at being a state with democratic values a sham.

It still has to pass the House - where the differences in the bills are worked out in conference committee.

It's entirely possible that it gets stripped out there, with no fanfare.
My understanding is that the military spending bill in question has passed the House already and the only thing between here and the President's desk is the conference committee. The bill passed the House without the anti-torture language.

Oh, we have precedents and rulings that clearly establish the "realm" to be in Swedish custody. Do you seriously think we'd leave such a huge loop-hole in our Constitution that would make torture committed by the Swedish government OK as long as it didn't happen on our soil? That would be ridiculous, and make our constitution and claims at being a state with democratic values a sham.

Now, I've been trying to read through the Instrument of Government, but I am sure having been educated in it, you certainly know it far better than I ever will. Therefore I will yield certain elements of my argument in light of new testimony, however it remains for me to ask a few more questions regarding Swedish law before I completely retract my previous statements.

Is there a seperation of Military and Civil Law in Sweden? - that is, does the Swedish government make a distinction between those arrested for committing a crime, such as armed robbery and Prisoners of War?

Even that would not be an adequate comparision.

The Military Justice System only has an obligation (through international conventions) to protect the rights of PoWs. These terrorists are not being considered PoWs. Since they are not part of the normal U.S. Justice System the constitution does not apply to them either. I fail to see how someone could be neither part of the normal U.S. justice system nor a POW. I'd think that by definition, one would have to be one or the other.


I've always thought that Arlen Specter was the biggest idiot in the Senate.I wish. As it stands, he's the better of our two PA Senators. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Santorum gets defeated next year.

I fail to see how someone could be neither part of the normal U.S. justice system nor a POW. I'd think that by definition, one would have to be one or the other.

They are not mutually exclusive. Just because you are one, does not mean you have to be in the other. Similar to how Refugees have status as neither Citizens nor Foreign Nationals, they just are.

They are not mutually exclusive. Just because you are one, does not mean you have to be in the other. Similar to how Refugees have status as neither Citizens nor Foreign Nationals, they just are.That doesn't make sense to me, either. Seems you'd have to be either a citizen or a foreign national, by definition.

That doesn't make sense to me, either. Seems you'd have to be either a citizen or a foreign national, by definition.

You can be a permanent resident, without being a citizen. By being a permanent resident you are no longer a foreign national, because you do not consider another nation your home. However you do not have status as citizen yet either.

Definition of Foreign National: any person who is not a citizen or permanent resident alien of the US

You can be a permanent resident, without being a citizen. By being a permanent resident you are no longer a foreign national, because you do not consider another nation your home. However you do not have status as citizen yet either.I'd think in that instance you'd be a foreign national with some type of visa or other temporary agreement to be here - and that attaining citizenship would make it a permanent agreement.

I'd think in that instance you'd be a foreign national with some type of visa or other temporary agreement to be here - and that attaining citizenship would make it a permanent agreement.

I spent a very short time as an intern at the Brooklyn District Courts, and the clerk I worked under handled many immigration cases. You are not considered a foreign national anymore, according to U.S. Law.

Is there a seperation of Military and Civil Law in Sweden?

Basically, no. Civilian laws govern the actions of the military. We, for instance, lack anything equivalent to the "UCMJ" and "courts martial*".

*These can be instituted in time of war, though, if the regular penal system is not functional, but their rulings can still be appealed to the regular court system afterwards.

that is, does the Swedish government make a distinction between those arrested for committing a crime, such as armed robbery and Prisoners of War?

That distinction is made through civilian law. A POW is accorded the rights due him under Swedish as well as International Law, so, for instance, where the death penalty may be used under International Law, it is precluded by Swedish law, so the government may not make use of it, be we at peace or at war.

No matter what you do you never get any love from the Swedes. :(

Really? I thought they were quite promiscuous.

That your parliament even has to do this is a sad state of affairs, indeed.

Actually, we don't have a parliament. We have a congress.

Basically, no. Civilian laws govern the actions of the military. We, for instance, lack anything equivalent to the "UCMJ" and "courts martial*".

*These can be instituted in time of war, though, if the regular penal system is not functional, but their rulings can still be appealed to the regular court system afterwards.



That distinction is made through civilian law. A POW is accorded the rights due him under Swedish as well as International Law, so, for instance, where the death penalty may be used under International Law, it is precluded by Swedish law, so the government may not make use of it, be we at peace or at war.

Very interesting. I knew I would be sorry for making such a blanket and blind generalization.

I restate however that most countries (first world and otherwise) suffer from a similar weakness to gray areas as the United States Justice system. Furthermore it is my hope that this legislation is passed, and after it is passed other nations, such as Italy (which I know with a fair amount of certainty to suffer the same as the U.S.) shall pass similar laws.

Actually, we don't have a parliament. We have a congress.

Which acts as your parliament. That you call it "Congress" affects that as much as us calling our parliament "Riksdag."

I'd think in that instance you'd be a foreign national with some type of visa or other temporary agreement to be here - and that attaining citizenship would make it a permanent agreement.

A Permanent Resident Visas makes you a permanent resident, once you have this visa you are no longer considered a foreign national, but you do not have citizenship.

I spent a very short time as an intern at the Brooklyn District Courts, and the clerk I worked under handled many immigration cases. You are not considered a foreign national anymore, according to U.S. Law.Well, that's bizarre to me, too. :D

A Permanent Resident Visas makes you a permanent resident, once you have this visa you are no longer considered a foreign national, but you do not have citizenship.
Would you not still be a citizen of whichever country you came from?

Would you not still be a citizen of whichever country you came from?

That would be up to the laws of that country, I should think.

Would you not still be a citizen of whichever country you came from?

That is irrelevant because a foreign national does not have to be a citizen of a foreign country.

For example: I am a citizen of Italy, but I am also a citizen of the United States. When my parents were naturalized they first had permanent residence visas and then they received their citizenship. During that process they never lost their citizenship to the Madrepatria.

That would be up to the laws of that country, I should think.
Ah, I see. Well, it seems that the U.S. should have either citizen status, or noncitizen status. And likewise, the U.S. should have laws that apply to U.S. citizens, and laws that apply to everyone else. (Ideally, of course, all U.S. laws would apply to everyone that the U.S. deals with in criminal court, but that's not going to happen.)

Which acts as your parliament. That you call it "Congress" affects that as much as us calling our parliament "Riksdag."

No, it's not the same thing, really. In a parliament, the ministers are responsible to the parliament, and need parliament's support to stay in power. In our country, the legislative branch (Congress) and the chief executive (the president) are separate. Bush doesn't need a majority of Congressmen to support him in order to stay in office. He's in office until his term expires (barring an impeachment), regardless of whether or not his party has a majority in Congress.

No matter what you do you never get any love from the Swedes. :(

Aww. I can give you some love.

:fluffle:

There!

No, it's not the same thing, really. In a parliament, the ministers are responsible to the parliament, and need parliament's support to stay in power. In our country, the legislative branch (Congress) and the chief executive (the president) are separate. Bush doesn't need a majority of Congressmen to support him in order to stay in office. He's in office until his term expires (barring an impeachment), regardless of whether or not his party has a majority in Congress.

We don't have to argue about semantics, we all knew what he was talking about.

That is irrelevant because a foreign national does not have to be a citizen of a foreign country.

For example: I am a citizen of Italy, but I am also a citizen of the United States. When my parents were naturalized they first had permanent residence visas and then they received their citizenship. During that process they never lost their citizenship to the Madrepatria.
Your example given was that of foreign nationals who were citizens of another country.

We don't have to argue about semantics, we all knew what he was talking about.

I know. I'm just a nitpicker. ;)

No, it's not the same thing, really. In a parliament, the ministers are responsible to the parliament, and need parliament's support to stay in power. In our country, the legislative branch (Congress) and the chief executive (the president) are separate. Bush doesn't need a majority of Congressmen to support him in order to stay in office. He's in office until his term expires (barring an impeachment), regardless of whether or not his party has a majority in Congress.

I think you're confusing "parliamentarianism" with "parliament." You can have a parliament (a legislature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislature)) and not have parliamentarianism. Your "congress" acts as your parliament, even though your system is not parliamentarian.

It still has to pass the House - where the differences in the bills are worked out in conference committee.

It's entirely possible that it gets stripped out there, with no fanfare.


If this happens, or if it is vetoed by bush, America deserves a hundred more "9/11s."

If this happens, or if it is vetoed by bush, America deserves a hundred more "9/11s."

I think that statement is more than a bit over the top. So much so, in fact, that I just reported it to the moderators, the first time I have ever done so to a poster on these forums.

I think that statement is more than a bit over the top. So much so, in fact, that I just reported it to the moderators, the first time I have ever done so to a poster on these forums.

Ah, the faint sound of a cherry popped.

Your example given was that of foreign nationals who were citizens of another country.

Yes, it was. They ceased being foreign nationals when they received their permanent residence. I don't know what else to tell you. You don't have to be a citizen or a foreign national, there are lots of gray areas, they may be mutually exclusive, but they are not generally inclusive.

I think that statement is more than a bit over the top. So much so, in fact, that I just reported it to the moderators, the first time I have ever done so to a poster on these forums.


You shouldnt waste their time with that kind of report.

Any country that legalizes torture, even implicitly, more than deserves whatever ills befall it.

Yes, it was. They ceased being foreign nationals when they received their permanent residence. I don't know what else to tell you. You don't have to be a citizen or a foreign national, there are lots of gray areas, they may be mutually exclusive, but they are not generally inclusive.Oh, I believe you, it just seems silly to me, that's all.

And of course, the fact that only Republican Senators are listed had nothing whatsoever to do with your posting this. Riiiiight. :rolleyes:
Not my fault. On this subject--and you know this to be a fact, Eutrusca--I blast everyone, regardless of party. I gave credit where it was due. An overwhelming majority of the Republican Senators voted in favor of this amendment, and it was authored by a Republican Senator, and I praise them for that.

You shouldnt waste their time with that kind of report.

Any country that legalizes torture, even implicitly, more than deserves whatever ills befall it.
Erm...are you really that naive?

Don't kid yourself. Torture is legal in every country in the world. Not, of course, in regular cirumstances. But any country is willing to suspend torture laws if an exigent emergency demands the use of torture. The Administration just seems to think we are in an immediate crisis. I disagree that it is immediate enough to demand torture, but that's neither here nor there.

And can you really blame them? If you thought there was a nuclear bomb under New York city, and torturing a known terrorist could prevent that bomb from going off, would you hesistate to apply the electrodes? This policy certainly doesn't warrant your reply. There are logical (and true) reasons why this current bill is a terrible idea. That's probably the more persuasive argument than "innocent Americans deserve to die because some of their leaders might have fucked up."

Erm...are you really that naive?

Don't kid yourself. Torture is legal in every country in the world. Not, of course, in regular cirumstances. But any country is willing to suspend torture laws if an exigent emergency demands the use of torture. The Administration just seems to think we are in an immediate crisis. I disagree that it is immediate enough to demand torture, but that's neither here nor there.

And can you really blame them? If you thought there was a nuclear bomb under New York city, and torturing a known terrorist could prevent that bomb from going off, would you hesistate to apply the electrodes? This policy certainly doesn't warrant your reply. There are logical (and true) reasons why this current bill is a terrible idea. That's probably the more persuasive argument than "innocent Americans deserve to die because some of their leaders might have fucked up."

Are you seriously advocating torture, as that is what it sounds like?

Regardless of the fact that is inhumane etc etc.... how do you expect to set an example of how a democracy should behave to non-democratic states and emerging democracies around the world, if your democracy practices and does not forbid torture?

Are you seriously advocating torture, as that is what it sounds like?

Regardless of the fact that is inhumane etc etc.... how do you expect to set an example of how a democracy should behave to non-democratic states and emerging democracies around the world, if your democracy practices and does not forbid torture?
I don't advocate the routine practice of torture, which is what your post seems to assume. Rather, in extreme cases, torture can easily be justified. If I had the choice between torturing someone or allowing one million people to die, I'd easily choose to torture, particularly if that person were a known criminal/terrorist. The OMFG TORTURE reaction is a gut emotional one which, I think, countermands reason on this particular score, unless torture is ineffective, which is a whole nother discussion irrelevant to the discussion of moral philosophy (this is the classic deontology/utilitarianism debate) we're having here.

Damn, now we'll just have to subcontract out the torture. As an aside, this is a really really bad idea because of the degrading part of the amendment. Waaaaaaayyyyyyy too loose of a term to be using in something like this. A whole bunch of lawsuits are gonna erupt from this since degrgading is purely a subjective term and can refer to to something as small as a multiple count rapist being shoved into his cell. Technically an act of degredation.

Yesterday, in case you missed it, John McCain got his anti-torture amendment passed in the Senate, attached to a Defense Appropriations bill. Now, assuming it makes it through conference committee, Bush will have the option of signing a bill he has already made it clear he detests, or he'll get to use his veto for the very first time on a Defense Appropriations bill. The amendment passed 90-9. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20051006/ap_on_go_co/congress_detainees_10)

So who were the nine Senators who voted to support torture? You didn't think I'd leave you hanging, did you?


I'd like to thank the other 46 Republican Senators and the lone independent who joined with the 43 Democrats in supporting this legislation, and especially Senator John McCain for pushing this the way they have.

See? I can be nice to Republicans on occasion--the ones that deserve it, that is. :D

Other idiots to add to your list.

Tom Delay (in the house, but still a massive corrupt s.o.b.)
Ted Kennedy
Dennis Hasert
Frist

Other idiots to add to your list.

Tom Delay (in the house, but still a massive corrupt s.o.b.)
Ted Kennedy
Dennis Hasert
Frist
I'm not going after idiots. I'm going after the nine fuckwits who voted in opposition of that amendment, and by extension, in favor of the US military torturing people in its custody.

Yesterday, in case you missed it, John McCain got his anti-torture amendment passed in the Senate, attached to a Defense Appropriations bill. Now, assuming it makes it through conference committee, Bush will have the option of signing a bill he has already made it clear he detests, or he'll get to use his veto for the very first time on a Defense Appropriations bill. The amendment passed 90-9. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20051006/ap_on_go_co/congress_detainees_10)

So who were the nine Senators who voted to support torture? You didn't think I'd leave you hanging, did you?


I'd like to thank the other 46 Republican Senators and the lone independent who joined with the 43 Democrats in supporting this legislation, and especially Senator John McCain for pushing this the way they have.

See? I can be nice to Republicans on occasion--the ones that deserve it, that is. :D


Actually, this is somewhat humorous... While I'm suprised Warner (R-VA) is not on that list, I am actually shocked that Bush's butt-boy in Virginia, Allen (R-VA) isn't on that list :))

Actually, this is somewhat humorous... While I'm suprised Warner (R-VA) is not on that list, I am actually shocked that Bush's butt-boy in Virginia, Allen (R-VA) isn't on that list :))

Allen is looking to his future -- he can't let this drag him down to Bush's lowest popularity levels and possibly damage any future plans.

I don't like Allen much, but I do gotta say he's a damn good politician.

--snip--Torture is legal in every country in the world
--snip--
But any country is willing to suspend torture laws if an exigent emergency demands the use of torture. --snip--"

You realize those two sentences completely contradict each other, don't you?

You shouldnt waste their time with that kind of report.

Any country that legalizes torture, even implicitly, more than deserves whatever ills befall it.

So you're saying that I, and perhaps thousands of other people who have nothing to do with government policy, deserve to die because of the actions of my government? Perhaps I don't like what your country's (wherever it is) government does. Does that give me the right to kill you?

What you are doing is publicly advocating my murder just because you don't happen to like my country's president, and, yes, I'm going to take personal offence at that.

The report to the moderators has already been filed.

Well, wrap a towel around yourself, and be a good guy and pour some more water on the rocks. Once the steam gets built up, you won't see any more bad things like torture going on.
So you're saying that there is no point in outlawing it, because it will happen anyway?

No, it's not the same thing, really. In a parliament, the ministers are responsible to the parliament, and need parliament's support to stay in power. In our country, the legislative branch (Congress) and the chief executive (the president) are separate. Bush doesn't need a majority of Congressmen to support him in order to stay in office. He's in office until his term expires (barring an impeachment), regardless of whether or not his party has a majority in Congress.
Nor does the president of France or Ireland require the parliament to support them. You're confusing the offices of president and prime minister. The PM is in power until his party loses their majority in parliament. THe presidential office is separate. Most modern republics have a PM and a president, such as Ireland and France. America is odd in that it lacks a PM.

If this happens, or if it is vetoed by bush, America deserves a hundred more "9/11s."
Hold on there, that's flamebait material, not to mention evil and idiotic.