[Kruger]

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"

[Kruger]

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.

[Mulletsoldier]

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?

[Kruger]

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.

[Kruger]

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.

[Mulletsoldier]

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

[Mulletsoldier]

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.

[Kruger]

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.

[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'.

[Mulletsoldier]

*partisan politics, sorry in that first sentence

[Kruger]

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.

[Mulletsoldier]

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.