#3 Posted on 7.10.05 0534.51 Reposted on: 7.10.12 0539.29
Look,I am all for treating prisoners of war right and all, but there are times when getting information out of a war prisoner might save thousands of lives. So signing this bill handcuffs the president's military. So I will be disappointed if he doesn't veto it.
#4 Posted on 7.10.05 0913.50 Reposted on: 7.10.12 0914.46
Originally posted by AWArulzLook,I am all for treating prisoners of war right and all, but there are times when getting information out of a war prisoner might save thousands of lives. So signing this bill handcuffs the president's military. So I will be disappointed if he doesn't veto it.
Except that as the level of inhumane treatment increases AWA, the level of accuracy decreases. My heart says do whatever to these bastards but my head says that it creates more problems than it solves.
Since last post: 1971 days Last activity: 1969 days
#5 Posted on 7.10.05 1021.29 Reposted on: 7.10.12 1022.16
The bill passed through the Senate 90-9, so even if Bush does veto it, they have more than enough of the required 67 votes to overturn that veto. At least in the Senate. The tricky part will be getting 2/3 in the House, which are far more Bush-supportive. Also it's dicey because each and every member of the House will be going back to their district this time next year to explain themselves one way or the other.
The bottom line is that for better or for worse, how the house acts on this may be decided by opinion polling. Especially since Presidential election support isn't what it was a year ago.
Since: 12.1.02 From: Indianapolis, IN; now residing in Suffolk, VA
Since last post: 19 hours Last activity: 15 hours
#6 Posted on 10.10.05 0204.54 Reposted on: 10.10.12 0205.02
Here's a link to another article about the same topic.
As I understand it from reading an article in the paper a few days ago, the House has passed a similar defense budget bill, only without the anti-torture language involved. The two bodies of Congress will now have to get together to reconcile the differences, and the article I read didn't seem optimistic that the anti-torture language would remain in the bill.
If the U.S. is going to have any kind of moral authority at all to lecture the world so adamantly on human rights, this must pass. Before we can tell China that their political prisoners can't be forced to sew together soccer balls with their teeth or be killed and their body parts converted into feminine hygiene products, we must pass legislation that makes it clear, in no uncertain terms, that the U.S. does not condone torture under any circumstances.
If we're gonna be the good guys, we need to act like it.
So it doesn't surprise me at all that President Bush is against this legislation.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE