Bush Signs Terror Interrogation Law

Page 2 of 4 First 1234 Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by jomi822
    that isnt torture bobo? again, i hope they are doing worse than that. i really dont know how you can read that article and not interpret it as a go ahead for torture on terrorist detainees.

    "The legislation says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts"

    It really doesnt get any clearer than that. where in this article does it say this legislation is preventing torture? I just cant see it. read the above quote and seriously consider my point of view, i have considered yours and i just can see it at all anywhere in this article. it really says the exact opposite

    its not really a matter of if i support the war or bush, we shouldnt pass inflammatory legislation that will make america look like the bad guy.

    You do understand this legislations is nothing that any other coutnry has done and we have more leniency than any other country out there?

    You keep saying this is bad but this is the same thing that has been going on since the Geneva Convention was enacted, only now its law so CIA officers can't be prosecuted by a country that doesn't recognize the Geneva Convention. You are so fast to criticize this administration (and I do too because their PR sucks) but this law hasn't approved anything that hasn't gone on for 50 years now and has been legal under the Geneva Convention.

    You can't see where this legislation prohibits torture? Did you actually read it?

    • The bill outlines specific war crimes. These include torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, murder, mutilation or maiming, rape and biological experiments. The law provides extensive definitions of each crime.


    • The bill does not include a provision President Bush wanted interpreting U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions, the 1949 treaty that sets international standards on prisoner treatment. Also, the president would not be allowed to authorize any interrogation technique that amounted to a war crime.

    Since torture is a war crime, and the Presidents interpretation is guided by the Geneva Convestion he CAN'T commit torture.

    as stated here..."But he can "interpret the meaning and application" of Geneva Convention standards applied to less severe interrogation procedures. Such a provision is intended to allow him to authorize methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts.

    International courts that sometimes do NOT recognize the Geneva Convention or have laws such as the mandatory wearing of veil by Muslim women. You automatiaclly assume since its against the law its torture and this is why is says "LESS SEVERE INTEROGATION PROCEDURE"
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
    That's frustrating and I agree. I'm not blaming anyone though. I'm just seeing certain things that has caused me to raise an eyebrow over and get some better answers on. Nothing more.
    Problem is people complain and blame before they get answers or even read the legislation.

    It amazes me to think people would believe John McCain would allow a bill to go through that could possible have torture. I guess when it coems to politics and some "agendas", common sense goes out the window for paranoia.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo

    "Pacifists emphasize the ideal while igoring the real"

    Ben Franklin
    Yes, and hegemony is maintained through a duality of force and consent, both of which this Administration has convinced the mainstream population are necessary.

    The actual details of the bill do not bother me as much as it signals, in a sense, the final push of the mainstream to a political right which is conflated with a dangerously nationalistic identity. I cannot say its institution surprises me that much either in so far as state-endorsed torture by the United States has a storied history, not only perpetrated by the states, but in terms of 'education in interrogation' in such places as the School of the Americas. And essentially, I am neither appualed nor disgusted at its actual details, I simply recognize the danger in the premise of such a bill

    Most right-wing pundants I imagine will attack me saying such things, or any opposition to this bill as 'anti-american' sentiments, or 'left wing socialism'. However, I do not support extremism in any sense whether it be radical or reactionary, both have an operational premise of the incringement on civil liberties, which, is what this bill is about on a base level. The specifics, can no doubt be argued as just another measure to instill another degree of security, safety, and justice. But the key issue, so aptly put, is pacification. In the West we seem all too tolerant, and moreover encouraging to the incringement of the civil liberties of those whose skin tones differs from ours. How can we be so sure that the current path we are on does not signal the same measures could be put into place domestically?

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    Yes, and hegemony is maintained through a duality of force and consent, both of which this Administration has convinced the mainstream population are necessary.

    The actual details of the bill do not bother me as much as it signals, in a sense, the final push of the mainstream to a political right which is conflated with a dangerously nationalistic identity. I cannot say its institution surprises me that much either in so far as state-endorsed torture by the United States has a storied history, not only perpetrated by the states, but in terms of 'education in interrogation' in such places as the School of the Americas. And essentially, I am neither appualed nor disgusted at its actual details, I simply recognize the danger in the premise of such a bill

    Most right-wing pundants I imagine will attack me saying such things, or any opposition to this bill as 'anti-american' sentiments, or 'left wing socialism'. However, I do not support extremism in any sense whether it be radical or reactionary, both have an operational premise of the incringement on civil liberties, which, is what this bill is about on a base level. The specifics, can no doubt be argued as just another measure to instill another degree of security, safety, and justice. But the key issue, so aptly put, is pacification. In the West we seem all too tolerant, and moreover encouraging to the incringement of the civil liberties of those whose skin tones differs from ours. How can we be so sure that the current path we are on does not signal the same measures could be put into place domestically?

    Tell me what is "radical" about this bill?


    And I don't think you've seen the polls recenetly but the administration hasn't convinced anything to anyone.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    How can we be so sure that the current path we are on does not signal the same measures could be put into place domestically?
    The Constitution.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Tell me what is "radical" about this bill?


    And I don't think you've seen the polls recenetly but the administration hasn't convinced anything to anyone.
    I said the practical implications of the current bill are not what necessarily bother me, but the greater push of the mainstream towards a radical right.

    I have seen George Dubya's approval polls, but I have also seen extremely disturbing polls from the United States where over 40% of the population are still under the impression Iraq had something to do with the attacks of Sep.11. Like I said, the duality of force and consent can be dangerous things to the civil liberties of all people

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    The Constitution.
    And? This administration has shown the willingness and, maybe more appropriately put, the anxious desire to 'interpret' the Geneva Convention. Why not the Constitution in the interests of 'national security' at a certain point?

    I am only saying that the larger trend of which this bill is a part of is what fundamentally stikes me as dangerous. It does not bother me if the actual perpetrators of the Sep.11 are lit on fire and left to rot, what does bother me is the attitude of consent which would allow such causing the same activities to be imposed on completely innocent people.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    I said the practical implications of the current bill are not what necessarily bother me, but the greater push of the mainstream towards a radical right.

    I have seen George Dubya's approval polls, but I have also seen extremely disturbing polls from the United States where over 40% of the population are still under the impression Iraq had something to do with the attacks of Sep.11. Like I said, the duality of force and consent can be dangerous things to the civil liberties of all people
    Those polls ask if they were "involved" which is open to so many interpretations its the reason why the poll exists. Most poll questions that are put forth are generalized for a reason, to use against the other party for political points. They are rarely specific.

    I don't see this mainstream right movement at all. The Republicans are going to swept out of office November 8th unless some sort of miracle happens. Current polls today show people trust Democrats with national securtity over Republicans now which frankly confuses the hell out of me. The media is predominantly liberal so I don't see this mainstream push at all.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  9. I don't think this is an issue of political partisan but dominant cultural ideals. Even the allowance of such a bill to pass without resistance shows two things: widespread and recognized ignorance of the masses, and a well documented push towards a trend of nationalism which has many prejudices inherent. Beginning with Sep.11, and I think you would agree, the moral fundamentalist movement in the United States has never been stronger. Right wing politics and right-wing religion are on the verge of being synonymous. In fact, George W. even initially called the attack on Afghanistan "Operation Infinite Justice" along with his call for a 'crusade'. When I say right I refer to neither Democrats or Republicans, quite frankly they both disgust me, but more the culture of 'right'.

  10. *partisan politics, sorry in that first sentence

  11. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    And? This administration has shown the willingness and, maybe more appropriately put, the anxious desire to 'interpret' the Geneva Convention. Why not the Constitution in the interests of 'national security' at a certain point?

    I am only saying that the larger trend of which this bill is a part of is what fundamentally stikes me as dangerous. It does not bother me if the actual perpetrators of the Sep.11 are lit on fire and left to rot, what does bother me is the attitude of consent which would allow such causing the same activities to be imposed on completely innocent people.
    The Consitution is interpretted everyday. Its the reaosn The Supreme Court exists. There is a reason there are Amendments. You could have made the same arguement about gun control.

    Why the Geneva Convention? Because its vague and this is the first time in history we have dealt with so many enemy combatants that are not associated to a government run state and it really wasn't set up for that purpose.

    I understand what you are stating but in terms of american history these bills don't support the fears you are expressing.

    Everyone is so quick to hop on the "rights" arguement when none of your right within this bill are in question.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    The Consitution is interpretted everyday. Its the reaosn The Supreme Court exists. There is a reason there are Amendments. You could have made the same arguement about gun control.

    Why the Geneva Convention? Because its vague and this is the first time in history we have dealt with so many enemy combatants that are not associated to a government run state and it really wasn't set up for that purpose.

    I understand what you are stating but in terms of american history these bills don't support the fears you are expressing.

    Everyone is so quick to hop on the "rights" arguement when none of your right within this bill are in question.
    I will concede that the policies and historical construction of the Geneva Convention are outdated and are in need of interpretation. I however, do not feel that they should be fundamentally altered, or the ability therein, should be given to any individual for the purpose of achieving political goals.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    I don't think this is an issue of political partisan but dominant cultural ideals. Even the allowance of such a bill to pass without resistance shows two things: widespread and recognized ignorance of the masses, and a well documented push towards a trend of nationalism which has many prejudices inherent. Beginning with Sep.11, and I think you would agree, the moral fundamentalist movement in the United States has never been stronger. Right wing politics and right-wing religion are on the verge of being synonymous. In fact, George W. even initially called the attack on Afghanistan "Operation Infinite Justice" along with his call for a 'crusade'. When I say right I refer to neither Democrats or Republicans, quite frankly they both disgust me, but more the culture of 'right'.
    Serisouly Mullet, many of these points are just flat out wrong which in your case would be welcomed.

    The trend of nationlism is bascially over in terms of what is was in 2001-2002. The Republicans are getting voted OUT. You still have the traditional base but the 80% that supported the war is almost completely gone.

    The religious right are at odds with traditional conservatives. They are more in line with neo-cons which the polar opposite of secualr progressives and/or liberal. Its almost 3 seperate entities in the Rebublican party and the same goes for Democrats.

    I don't see some mainsteam right wing push at all, in fact its quite the opposite.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    I will concede that the policies and historical construction of the Geneva Convention are outdated and are in need of interpretation. I however, do not feel that they should be fundamentally altered, or the ability therein, should be given to any individual for the purpose of achieving political goals.
    It wasn't. In fact, the bill is reinforced by them but when a certain guideline prohibits "embarrassment or humiliation" the interpratation has be there because different cultures have very different meanings on what is considered embarrasing or humiliating.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  15. Terrorism is defined as the use of violence to achieve political ends, which essentially the 'interpretation' of the Geneva by this Administration would do. So, when the United States is the target of such activities there exists a huge retalitory outcry, which this bill is fundamentally part of, but these retalitory activities are justified under the name of 'national security interests'. I am not trying to be trendy by consigning to a 'rights argument', I think I am being a human being who refuses to be convinced of state endorsed torture and terrorism. As I said, the trend of Nationalistic propaganda and policy was almost instant after the attacks and the effects of this trend are still, obviously, manifesting themselves. As I have already stated I do not think the bill in and of itself is the necessary danger to civil liberties, though it does impede them to an extent, it is the movement it is apart of.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    Terrorism is defined as the use of violence to achieve political ends, which essentially the 'interpretation' of the Geneva by this Administration would do. So, when the United States is the target of such activities there exists a huge retalitory outcry, which this bill is fundamentally part of, but these retalitory activities are justified under the name of 'national security interests'. I am not trying to be trendy by consigning to a 'rights argument', I think I am being a human being who refuses to be convinced of state endorsed torture and terrorism. As I said, the trend of Nationalistic propaganda and policy was almost instant after the attacks and the effects of this trend are still, obviously, manifesting themselves. As I have already stated I do not think the bill in and of itself is the necessary danger to civil liberties, though it does impede them to an extent, it is the movement it is apart of.

    And your movement is almost nonexistant and will be voted out November 8th which then you can welcome in the secualr progressives and liberals who influence the Democratic party.

    Your definitions are extremely distorted. Harsh interrogation doens't influence a political agenda.


    This is not a retaliatory outcry, it is putting into law that which alsready happened in the last 50 years. In fact, its LESS HARSH than what we have done in the past.

    Your thinking is backwards here.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Serisouly Mullet, many of these points are just flat out wrong which in your case would be welcomed.

    The trend of nationlism is bascially over in terms of what is was in 2001-2002. The Republicans are getting voted OUT. You still have the traditional base but the 80% that supported the war is almost completely gone.

    The religious right are at odds with traditional conservatives. They are more in line with neo-cons which the polar opposite of secualr progressives and/or liberal. Its almost 3 seperate entities in the Rebublican party and the same goes for Democrats.

    I don't see some mainsteam right wing push at all, in fact its quite the opposite.
    Flat out wrong why? Because you do not agree with the ideology behind them?

    You are invariably reconciling politics and ideologies where in this case they do not need to be. As a citizen of the States your epistemology is fundamentally different than mine in so far as what you consider to be "right wing". Really, in the States there is only the right and the far-right, exhibited by your statement that the Democrats exemplify the left. Nationalism is not necessarily conflated with either one of the United States' partisan political parties, the point is the dominant cultural ideals of the citizens of the United States began to, and still are shifting to further and further to the right irregardless of what dumbass is piloting the ship.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    Flat out wrong why? Because you do not agree with the ideology behind them?

    You are invariably reconciling politics and ideologies where in this case they do not need to be. As a citizen of the States your epistemology is fundamentally different than mine in so far as what you consider to be "right wing". Really, in the States there is only the right and the far-right, exhibited by your statement that the Democrats exemplify the left. Nationalism is not necessarily conflated with either one of the United States' partisan political parties, the point is the dominant cultural ideals of the citizens of the United States began to, and still are shifting to further and further to the right irregardless of what dumbass is piloting the ship.
    Becuase you don't seem to grasp the point the the religious right and the traditional conservative party are NOT ONE. In fact, it will be the lowest turnout from the religious right in protest of the way traditional conservatives run Congress.

    Your whole arguement is based on the idea that this is some sort of movement and its NOT and the polls favor Deomcrats in almost every category down the line.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    And your movement is almost nonexistant and will be voted out November 8th which then you can welcome in the secualr progressives and liberals who influence the Democratic party.
    Your definitions are extremely distorted. Harsh interrogation doens't influence a political agenda.


    This is not a retaliatory outcry, it is putting into law that which alsready happened in the last 50 years. In fact, its LESS HARSH than what we have done in the past.

    Your thinking is backwards here.
    As I said in the above post, if you consider the Democratic party of the United States to be 'liberally influenced' than it is your thinking, not mine which is backwards in this case. The fact that the Democrats will be voted in November has more to do with this mismanagement, fully and completely, of a socio-economic crisis than dominant ideals. They will be voted out because they were misinformed, disorganized, and mismanaged, not because the public has in any way reversed their trend towards moral fundamentalism and Nationalism.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    Really, in the States there is only the right and the far-right, exhibited by your statement that the Democrats exemplify the left.
    Umm..there is the base, liberal left merged with secular progreessives which all make up the Democratic party. I said the Republican partt was almost 3 different entities as well AS WERE THE DEMOCRATS.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    As I said in the above post, if you consider the Democratic party of the United States to be 'liberally influenced' than it is your thinking, not mine which is backwards in this case. The fact that the Democrats will be voted in November has more to do with this mismanagement, fully and completely, of a socio-economic crisis than dominant ideals. They will be voted out because they were misinformed, disorganized, and mismanaged, not because the public has in any way reversed their trend towards moral fundamentalism and Nationalism.
    Are you kidding me?

    The House speaker will be San Frans own Nancy Pelosi and you are going to sit there and tell me its not liberal influenced?

    George Soros fund anything lately?
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  22. And if we want to get on the topic of 'traditional conservatism' than I could argue, quite rightfully, that this current administration does not embody traditional political conservatism. Morally, yes they do in so far as their tendency to appeal to the religiosity of their supporters, and in the mannerisms through which they operate. But politically? Far from it. This admin's dominant imperative has been gov. intervention.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Are you kidding me?

    The House speaker will be San Frans own Nancy Pelosi and you are going to sit there and tell me its not liberal influenced?

    George Soros fund anything lately?
    Dead serious.

    If the trend is reversing as you contend it to be then give some evidence, anecdotal or quoted I don't care, but show me somewhere in the cultural framework where the United States public is endorsing any kind of shift away from the far right and towards the left.

    As I said, the elimination of the Rep. party is NOT about IDEOLOGY but POLICY, you of all people should know that.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    And if we want to get on the topic of 'traditional conservatism' than I could argue, quite rightfully, that this current administration does not embody traditional political conservatism. Morally, yes they do in so far as their tendency to appeal to the religiosity of their supporters, and in the mannerisms through which they operate. But politically? Far from it. This admin's dominant imperative has been gov. intervention.


    Who suggested they were?
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Becuase you don't seem to grasp the point the the religious right and the traditional conservative party are NOT ONE. In fact, it will be the lowest turnout from the religious right in protest of the way traditional conservatives run Congress.
    Your whole arguement is based on the idea that this is some sort of movement and its NOT and the polls favor Deomcrats in almost every category down the line.
    You did.

  26. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    Dead serious.

    If the trend is reversing as you contend it to be then give some evidence, anecdotal or quoted I don't care, but show me somewhere in the cultural framework where the United States public is endorsing any kind of shift away from the far right and towards the left.

    As I said, the elimination of the Rep. party is NOT about IDEOLOGY but POLICY, you of all people should know that.
    Then I am convinced that you do not follow politics because Nancy Pelosi is a die hard liberal and thats you next Speaker. Saying the Democratic party isn't influenced when your primary fund raiser is George Soros' is comical. Its just ridiculous.

    You want me to prove the a population has a shift of morality and you obvisouly already know thats its impossible to answer. A sign is the pulling away of the traditional conservatives form the religous right. Go read Tempting Faith by David Kuo.

    You started to debate stating the republican and religious right we're as one and that simply isn't true if you actually followed politics.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  27. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
    You did.
    Where in that statement does it say the Bush administration follows traditional conservative views?
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  28. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Then I am convinced that you do not follow politics because Nancy Pelosi is a die hard liberal and thats you next Speaker. Saying the Democratic party isn't influenced when your primary fund raiser is George Soros' is comical. Its just ridiculous.

    You want me to prove the a population has a shift of morality and you obvisouly already know thats its impossible to answer. A sign is the pulling away of the traditional conservatives form the religous right. Go read Tempting Faith by David Kuo.

    You started to debate stating the republican and religious right we're as one and that simply isn't true if you actually followed politics.
    The "your" you keep referring to as it pertains to Democrats, is not mine. I live in Canada, and so am not subjected to a two party rule and have an ACTUAL reference point to Social Democracy and liberalism.

    I never said prove, how can you prove beyond a doubt the existence of an ideology? I simply asked you to provide some evidence to back up your assertion, I have for mine, and the only thing you have countered with is the predicted election of the Democratic party. Which, as I have stated, is NOT LIBERAL in the historical, or even contemporary construction of the word.

    Some of the largest individual, and corporate sponsors of the Republican Party are right-wing evangelicals, and you mean to tell me that the amalgemation of these two rights which took place after Sep.11 has now magically regressed because people who follows basically the same ideologies are now going to take office???

    I think it is you, who is kidding me.

  29. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Where in that statement does it say the Bush administration follows traditional conservative views?
    Not the Administration, but you are/were implying the Repub. party as a whole does.

  30. But, that does not really matter as it is essentially besides the initial point which is usually the signifier an argument has lost its 'gusto' so to speak. And on that note, my girl is calling me for far more pressing matters.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law
    By hillbilly_210 in forum Politics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-12-2009, 01:13 PM
  2. Bush Names Iranian "military Guard" As Terror Group
    By anabolicrhino in forum Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-15-2007, 01:46 PM
  3. Bush Signs Law to Widen Legal Reach for Wiretapping
    By anabolicrhino in forum Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-10-2007, 04:33 PM
  4. Terrorism anyone?
    By YellowJacket in forum General Chat
    Replies: 185
    Last Post: 01-12-2003, 10:30 PM
Log in
Log in