Senate rejects White House ‘compromise’ on detainees.
By on Sep 19th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Senate rejects White House ‘compromise’ on detainees.
CNN’s Katherine Koch this morning: “What we are hearing — this from a Republican source who’s very close to the negotiations and familiar with the offer that the White House sent up — is that in this source’s words the Senate Armed Services Committee is, quote, not accepting it in its current form.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Does it really matter what the bill says? For the White House they will issue a signing statement that clarifiys their position regardless of the language in the bill.
September 19th, 2006 at 9:26 amOf course, as this is an election year and we’re less than 50 days away from the next election, all the Republican senators want to portray themsleves as something other than rubber-stamps for the Bush Administration. Just ignore the last 6 years of rubber stamping everything that Pres. Bush has wanted.
Then again, the US public has a very short attention span.
Hey, what’s that news article about? Spinach can kill you? Wow!
Now, what was it I was talking about?!?!?
September 19th, 2006 at 9:27 amThere can be no compromise on torture. It is immoral. It is not effective for information gathering. It endangers our troops and our citizens abroad. It creates terrorists. It removes surrender as an option to our enemies. It brings disgrace on the United States and eliminates any moral authority we have as an nation. It is un- American.
September 19th, 2006 at 9:32 amI had a feeling the admin would just rebake the wording to obfuscate and attempt to ramrod this again.
September 19th, 2006 at 9:40 amThe bastards have no conscience. Nor a lick of common sense.
Thank you, mparker. You took the words right out of my mouth. Debating torture is like being a little bit pregnant. Either you’re for it or you’re not. Don’t argue the semantics of it.
September 19th, 2006 at 9:41 amAmerica’s Least Wanted
The White House’s compromise with the Senate-bushco sent over a tube of KY for the Senate to consider it’s “compromise”.
Karl is now upset. He coulda used that KY on his new “poolboy”.
September 19th, 2006 at 9:43 amhow about “not accept it no matter what”
even if the bill becomes benign, it will give the president the loophole he is looking for
if he’s ever brought to a trial where he is charged with taking responsibility for what he has done, he will claim “there were no guidlines before the bill was passed” even if the bill adds no changes to current interperatation
September 19th, 2006 at 9:46 amLooks like we’ll have to stop prosecuting and terrorists.
September 19th, 2006 at 9:49 amThey have admitted to secret torture prisons and noone wants totouch them with a 10 foot pole. This is all Bush.
September 19th, 2006 at 9:51 amWhy isn’t TP covering the Senate effort to allow eavesdropping on citizens without a warrant? MoveOn iks all over it? Seems like a major issue to me.
September 19th, 2006 at 9:56 amHeh, Heh you people are unacceptable. I demand the right to rape little boys and beat people to death and you’re standing in the way of keeping America safe and I won’t have it. Heh heh./ sarcasm off
September 19th, 2006 at 10:01 amI heard Pat Buchanan on Imus this morning, offering that BushCo wants “clarification” so the CIA knows how to treat non-military detainees. Easy – apply the Geneva Conventions to both military and non-military (i.e. terrorists) detainees. The “how far do we go to get information to prevent a terrorist attack that is imminent” argument is lame. Hasn’t the military had to deal with captured soldiers who had information about imminent military operations? Can the ends (maybe preventing an attack) ever justify the means (torture or the more pleasant-sounding “harsh interrogation techniques”)? Only if we don’t value America’s principles.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:14 amComment by Massachusetts_Liberal — September 19, 2006 @ 9:56 am
Things we never forget:
-torture
September 19th, 2006 at 10:15 am-illegal spying
-anthrax
I’m sure Bush would like to use a little of that torture on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:34 amHow about applying the standards that we have already established in thei country? I mean the standards that had been established prior to the reign of King George.
September 19th, 2006 at 10:58 amMaher Arar should be the poster child of why we are fighting torture.
Here’s the link of the CBS story about the software engineer being falsely accused of being tied to terror and being shipped off to Syria to be tortured for the United States.
From DemocracyNow: The Canadian government has acknowledged for the first time that one of the most well-known victims of the CIA’s ‘extraordinary rendition’ is a completely innocent man. On Monday, a judge concluded a major investigation into the case of Maher Arar. The Syrian-born Canadian was detained nearly four years ago by U.S. authorities at JFK airport and was sent to Syria where he was jailed for a year and repeatedly tortured.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:20 amWhile I appreciate that a mere 4 Republicans in the Senate are not being a rubber stamp for Bush it is hard not to respond “too little, too late”. The major damage has already been done. Too bad there was no backbone back in 2002 when it really counted.
And speaking of lack of backbone, none was more lacking in that time fram than Colin Powell. He let personal goals cloud his judgement and tarnish his standing with the public. Even today he only expresses “regret” when what is necessary is an outright apology.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14897312/
September 19th, 2006 at 11:20 amSpeaking of King George – Olbermann came about as close to calling Bush “King George” in his commentary last night when he wondered out loud how Bush would react if some of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence lines were directed to Bush. Olbermann’s remarks were dead-on, passionately stated, and more of what we need.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:25 amThe Congress must stand up to Bush or he will roll over them! He is a budding out of control despotic dictator who wants war on the world!
September 19th, 2006 at 11:32 amBush doesn’t need clarificantion on the meaning of the word torture, he needs clarification on the meaning of the word America.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:39 amWhat part of NO!…don’t you understand heir bush?
September 19th, 2006 at 11:40 amThere can be no deal with the White House — on Geneva, or on FISA, or on anything else.
It is out of control. And almost everyone knows it now.
McCain passed a bill months ago, against the wishes of Bush-Cheney, and then Bush just nullified it with a signing statement. Now the situation is much starker, and the stakes are even higher…
Remember, this isn’t about just about torture (although that fight would be worth fighting on its own), this is about tyranny…McCain, Warner and Graham are speaking for the US Navy (who have been told to prepare for a blockade of Iran, BTW), just as Jack Murtha is speaking for the US Marines…
Read the “Statement for the Record” from the “Office of General Counsel” on “Involvement in Interrogation Issues” (aka the Mora Memo)
Remember Krugman’s analysis:
So why is the Bush administration so determined to torture people?
To show that it can.
The central drive of the Bush administration — more fundamental than any particular policy — has been the effort to eliminate all limits on the president’s power. Torture, I believe, appeals to the president and the vice president precisely because it’s a violation of both law and tradition. By making an illegal and immoral practice a key element of U.S. policy, they’re asserting their right to do whatever they claim is necessary.
Richard Power
September 19th, 2006 at 11:50 amhttp://words-of-power.blogspot.com
#3, mparker
Good post! It is sad, indeed, that you had to keep explaining why torture is bad past “it is immoral.” I want our country to set an example and BE BETTER than the “terrorists.” Even if torture was an excellent way to gather information, we should NOT DO IT BECAUSE IT IS IMMORAL. Period.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:13 pmI would like to think that the Big 3 Republicans are doing what is right but I am leery of being sidetracked and then they negotiate a deal which allows Bush and the other Republicans to shine.
http://dontbealemming.com/2006/09/16/are-we-seeing-boogeymen-when-it-is-just-shadows.aspx
Posted by the Lemming Herder at Don’t Be A Lemming!
September 19th, 2006 at 12:37 pmThe ideal way to handle this mess is stop it cold all together….Don’t allow the bill to progress, let it die or fillabuster it. No bill no signing statement…The only reasons they want this to pass is to relieve this administration from their guilt and prosacution…Stop the madness send emails and keep kicking and screaming…..Blessings
September 19th, 2006 at 1:03 pmIMPORTANT
Read … Seven British troops are up for Murder charges of an Iraqi that was in Custody he was left in stress position and died, A soldier has admitted guilt…
September 19th, 2006 at 1:12 pmIF YOU CHANGE ARTICLE 3 OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION ?>>>>>>DO NOT EXPECT BRITISH TROOPS TO FIGHT ALONG SIDE YOU THEY WILL NOT
if you change Article 3 also dont expect coalition troops to fight along side you ever again
September 19th, 2006 at 1:16 pmGood. The Presidetn is right on this – and the American people are right behind him.
September 19th, 2006 at 4:40 pmGood. The Presidetn is right on this – and the American people are right behind him.
Comment by Citizen+Dad — September 19, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
Good they will all be identified then when the War Crimes trials start.
September 19th, 2006 at 5:20 pmI would dearly love to see the administration proponents of these Gestapo interrogation methods be subjected to their own rules and standards of behavior. Sleep deprivation, hot/cold temperature extremes, prolonged stress positions, waterboarding, electrical torture, thumbscrews, hot coals, attack dogs loosed on them, threats to their families, and so on–see how they like it.
September 19th, 2006 at 6:03 pmStephen Colbert explains it so:
September 19th, 2006 at 7:30 pm“Everyone knows that President Bush is one of the world’s great clear thinkers…. Torture is illegal. The US obeys the law. Therefore, the US does not torture. So… we need to make it legal.”
Too bad the Queen Mother never taught the Boy King the difference between right and wrong. Then he would know, you don’t torture people because it’s wrong.
September 20th, 2006 at 1:01 amwhat i dont understand is the following: since when did something being illegal ever stop these guys from doing it?
the way i see it, if someone REALLY did use torture to stop an imminent threat, how many juries are going to convict the guy?
probably almost none.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
its called jury nullification folks, and I beleive that if this information is gathered in an illegal way and its truly something more important than the size of osama’s wang, most juries will either find the torturers innocent or give them a slap on the wrist…
September 20th, 2006 at 2:43 amThe terms invented by torturers are designed to disguise and minimize what they do. We should not use such terms.
Victims of “stress position” describe it as extremely painful. It is in fact most similar to the root meaning of “torture” : to “twist” joints. We should call it “pain position” or simply torture.
“water board” sounds like some children’s attraction in a marine-fair. It was once called “drowning”. We should call it drowning.
“electrical torture” is so vague that it is difficult to imagine. Everybody understands “electric shock”.
“temperature extremes” is almost meaningless, because any ordinary person who experiences one or the other in real life either dies or assures that he will never experience it again. In ordinary language, we say things like “freezing” and “boiling”. The torturers will claim that is not what they do (and some do literally boil their victims); however, if we persist in talking to ordinary people with ordinary words, saving the clinical descriptions for court, we will likely prevail.
“sleep deprivation” is no big deal to anyone who has had the care of a baby or neglected an essay too long. “keeping them awake for days on end” is more accurate, thought it does not trip so lightly from the tongue. But then ‘lightly’ is part of the desired charm of the official euphemism.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:57 pm