NationStates Jolt Archive

Even the dirtiest of rats apparently know when it's time to abandon ship:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday voted 15-9 to recommend a bill -- over the objections of the Bush administration -- that would authorize tribunals for terror suspects in a way that it says would protect suspects' rights.

The bill was backed by Republican Sens. John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

It differs from the administration's proposal in two major ways: It would permit terror suspects to view classified evidence against them and does not include a proposal that critics say reinterprets a Geneva Conventions rule that prohibits cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees.

In a decision earlier this summer, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration must meet Article III standards in its treatment of detainees.

Article III prohibits nations engaged in combat not of "an international character" from, among other things, "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment."



http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/14/congress.tribunals/index.html

w00t!

Only because the rats on board the SS Bushtanic can see the iceberg with the words "November Elections" looking ahead on the horizon.

'Bout time we started playing by the international rules, and don't give me that "But the terrorists don't play by geneva!" crap. Thats exactly what makes us different from terrorists, when you become a Super-power you have to shoulder the responsibility that comes along with it.

Only because the rats on board the SS Bushtanic can see the iceberg with the words "November Elections" looking ahead on the horizon.

That iceberg is so small it can be melted and used as potable water. However, it was not "jumping ship": I also agree with the bill, but I do agree with the Bush administration in general.

'Bout time we started playing by the international rules, and don't give me that "But the terrorists don't play by geneva!" crap. Thats exactly what makes us different from terrorists, when you become a Super-power you have to shoulder the responsibility that comes along with it.

I think, for the Republicans on that committee, it's less about responsibility and more about setting distance between themselves and Bush.

I kinda see why McCain voted like he did. He has first hand knowledge about being "an unlawful enemy combatant" ...or some other euphemism like that.

I think, for the Republicans on that committee, it's less about responsibility and more about setting distance between themselves and Bush.

The end justifies the means

as much as I often disagree with this statement, here it rings true. If he republican's self preservation tactics inadvertently cause the US to start acting like a dignified super-power, so be it

Make no mistake about it--this bill is craptastic too. It's just not as craptastic as the one Bush wanted.

Machiavelli
The end justifies the means
as much as I often disagree with this statement, here it rings true. If he republican's self preservation tactics inadvertently cause the US to start acting like a dignified super-power, so be it

Too bad Machiavelli never said "the ends justify the means. The original wording that is usually translated as such is "si guarda al fine". A better translation would be "one must consider the final result" or "one must think of the final result".

Peter Bondanella and Musa make it abundantly clear that this is a misleading translation

The simplistic formula used to summarize Machiavelli's complex view of politics and ethics ('the end justifies the means') is actually a gross mistranslation that has erected an almost insurmountable barrier to an understanding of Machiavelli's thought. The mere mention of this phrase conjures up a vision of power-mad rulers pursuing immoral ends by even more immoral means, but Machiavelli never spoke of justification here and merely remarked that 'in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, where there is no impartial arbiter, one must consider the final result' (si guarda al fine). Even in its correct form, the concept is of moral interest.

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=97573377
</scholastic interruption>

Make no mistake about it--this bill is craptastic too. It's just not as craptastic as the one Bush wanted.

Keep in mind that unless I'm mistaken, the bill doesn't limit the appeals process, which is something that the Administration also wanted. In that, I am very grateful because it gives higher courts, including the SUpreme Court the last word on the constitutionality of these tribunals' decisions.

Begoner21;11682837']but I do agree with the Bush administration in general.

On what basis? How can you justify a reply like this?

I would love to hear it though. ?

Senator McCain has gone out of his way to earn my respect it seems like.

Is the author of the McCain anti-torture amendment, and now he's challenging the Bush admin on something that I really don't like.

It's going to be a tough choice between him and Giuliani...

On what basis? How can you justify a reply like this?

I would love to hear it though. ?Whoah! What are you doing back here? :eek:
Great to see you again. :)

Whoah! What are you doing back here? :eek:
Great to see you again. :)

NS General is like Hotel California...


...yeah. I'm stealing a quote from a sig, what of it?

NS General is like Hotel California...


...yeah. I'm stealing a quote from a sig, what of it?Sigs make baby Ghandi cry :(
-that about it. ;)

Begoner21;11682837']That iceberg is so small it can be melted and used as potable water.

It certainly will melt, like most glaciers and icebergs are doing in the face of Bush's inaction on climate change. But we could use the water ... especially when the Oglalla acquifier starts to run out in about 20 odd years.

I kinda see why McCain voted like he did. He has first hand knowledge about being "an unlawful enemy combatant" ...or some other euphemism like that.

Was it McCain who was tortured in vietnam?(correct me if Im wrong)
The truth is, at some point the republican party had to sieze the moral highground and follow international law.If america want to be 'world policeman' then they have to follow the law themselves.(for once)the republican party are right, trials at guantanimo bay would be unfair, especially if the defendant hasnt seen (or isnt allow to see)the evidence held against them.If american wants the rest of the world to be humaine and follow the geneva convention(especially when holding american citizens)then they have to also.I mean imagine if Iran captured american soldiers, put them in a mini concentration camp with no trial for year(and when the trials come the americans arent allowed to see the evidence)calling them 'terrorists' then all hell would break loose-American would go ape shit and start spouting off about human rights, innocent untill proven guilty, habeus corpus,international law and the right to a fair trial.
Tho I am sceptical as to wthe integrity of the republicans saying no to bush, it may be a cynical plot to diatance themselve from bush(who is steadily becoming more unpopular).Either this or these republicans really are taking the moral high ground-and about time too!

Was it McCain who was tortured in vietnam?(correct me if Im wrong)

Yep, thats' him. He spent several years "enjoying" the Vietcongs' idea of hospitality at the Hanoi Hilton.

The elections will see Bush being used as a scapegoat, and probably even demonize him.

Already we are seeing proactive moves from his own party, to distance themselves from a man who just may be the worst president of the 20th century.

Trust me, the next prominent Republican candidate from any elected office above Secretaty of Toilet Water, might as well change thier slogans to :

"(Insert name here), Im not Bush!"

The key for the Democratic Party is to present the best candidate they can.
One who above all, will not seem "Weak on Defense",(ie..pussy) nor one that will constantly turn the other cheek when election mud is slung.
John Kerry lost the election last year, becuase he didnt address such accusations like "Flip-Flopper", as rediculous as it may be.

He chose some imaginary moral high ground, and did not agressively sling the same mud back at his opponent.

Why?

We all know Bush's dirty secrets.

The coke.
The drinking
The whoring
The running of several companies into the ground..
The drunk drving arrest
The draft dodging.
The AWOL from his national guard post, after being grounded due to boozing.

All of this prime material for the attacking, and Kerry went after none of it.

In other words, he wsnt willing to play dirty.
and becuase of this, he lost.

Honesty is always the best policy, unless your dealing with liars, and cheats.

I think operation "Get these tribunals through Congress before it closes in two weeks and give these alleged terrorists a few rough nights and confess to anything before November to make me look good" has gone just a little tits up.

Bush may be that stupid, but Congress isn't.

worried about America losing it's moral authority.. That makes me laugh..

Trilby63;11683900']worried about America losing it's moral authority.. That makes me laugh..

So, its moral authority given at gunpoint, its all we have.