Xavius

Powell endorses efforts to block Bush's terrorist plan

By Laurie Kellman
ASSOCIATED PRESS

7:55 a.m. September 14, 2006

WASHINGTON – Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Thursday endorsed efforts by three Republican senators to block President Bush's plan to authorize harsh interrogations of terror suspects.

The latest sign of GOP division over White House security policy came in a statement that Powell sent to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the rebellious lawmakers. Powell said that Congress must not pass Bush's proposal to redefine U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions, a treaty that sets international standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.

This development accompanied Bush's visit to Capitol Hill, where he conferred behind closed doors with House Republicans. His would narrow the U.S. legal interpretation of the treaty in a bid to allow tougher interrogations and shield U.S. personnel from being prosecuted for war crimes.

“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” said Powell, who served under Bush and is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”

Republican dissatisfaction with the administration's security proposals is becoming more prominent as the midterm election season has arrived. The Bush White House wants Congress to approve greater executive power to spy on, imprison and interrogate terrorism suspects.

Walking through the Capitol to a basement conference room, Bush was flanked by Vice President Dick Cheney, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and White House adviser Karl Rove.

For Bush, the election season visit capped a week of high-profile administration pressure to rescue bills mired in turf battles and privacy concerns. It also gave GOP leaders a chance to press for loyalty among Republicans confronted on the campaign trail by war-weary voters.

“I have not really seen anybody running away from the president,” House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters this week when asked about the caucus' split. “Frankly, I think that would be a bad idea.”

Bush was expected to ask for support for two key pieces of legislation he says are crucial to preventing terrorist attacks. One would meet CIA demands that Congress reinterpret the nation's treaty obligations to allow tougher interrogations of detainees, but it's snagged in the Senate between the leadership and a trio of powerful Republicans.

At nearly the same time Bush met with House Republicans, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on Thursday was asking his panel to finish an alternative to the White House plan to prosecute terror suspects and redefine acts that constitute war crimes.

The White House on Thursday said the alternate approach was unacceptable because it would force the CIA to end a program of using forceful interrogation methods with suspected terrorists.

“The president will not accept something that shuts the program down,” presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.

Warner believes the administration proposal would lower the standard for the treatment of prisoners, potentially putting U.S. troops at risk should other countries retaliate.

Two other Republicans – Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina – have joined Warner in opposing Bush's bill.

The administration didn't allow such a direct challenge to pass without criticism. On Wednesday, the White House arranged for a conference call with reporters so National Intelligence Director John Negroponte could argue that Warner's proposal would undermine the nation's ability to interrogate prisoners.

“If this draft legislation were passed in its present form, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency has told me that he did not believe that the (interrogation) program could go forward,” Negroponte said.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who supports the administration, said he did not think the Bush plan would endanger U.S. troops because al-Qaeda doesn't take prisoners. “The prisoners they do take they behead,” he said.

The other bill Bush is pushing would give legal status to the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. It was approved on a party-line vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, but is stalled in the House amid staunch opposition from Democrats and some Republicans concerned that the program violates civil liberties.

With Bush preparing for the House caucus, White House spokesman Tony Snow said Wednesday, “This is a chance for members to ask their questions and express their concerns.”

House Republicans have plenty of those, and some aren't shy about sharing them with the president.

One, Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., earlier this year confronted Bush over his wiretapping program at a GOP retreat. Now she is the sponsor of a bill embraced by House GOP leaders – but not the White House – that would restrict the domestic surveillance program and step up congressional oversight.

A member of the National Security Council under Bush's father, Wilson is facing a tough election challenge in her home state. A day earlier, Republicans abruptly canceled a scheduled committee vote on her bill that was expected to send it to the floor where the administration would push for amendments.

The atmospherics stand in stark contrast to Bush's visit to the same group in July 2002, amid debate over a trade agreement and brisk legislative momentum for his war on terrorism.

“I talked to them about how pleased I am with the progress we're making,” he told reporters after that meeting.

This time, happy talk is hardly on the agenda.

“We hope to hear from the president how urgent it is that we pass measures to fight terrorism before Congress leaves for the November elections,” said Ron Bonjean, spokesman for Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/...h-congress.html
________

I hate when liberal senators like this stand in the way of our country's ability to torture and spy.

__________________

Assman

How else should we fight the war on terrorism? You got idiots from HRO saying that playing Red Hot Chilli Peppers out loud is considered an act of torture. What do they propose? Give them a ****ing popscicle and tell them that they'll be free once they give us what we want? These prisoners have told soldiers in GITMO that if they ever get out, they'll kill them and their entire families. As for the Geneva Conventions, they do not apply to terrorists because they are non state actors. They only apply to nations and to armed conflict not of international actors. Terrorists aren't fighting on behalf of a nation.

Xavius

So really our country should be able to torture them without restraint, perhaps even using debased tactics we wouldn't even use on animals?

Is this really the kind of America you want? Just asking you seem to dedicated to dehumanizing these prisoners.

__________________

Assman

Playing Red Hot Chilli Peppers is considered torture and dehumanizing!? LMAO.

Xavius

You didn't answer the question.

__________________

Assman

It was already implied and answered through with another question. If you think playing the Red Hot Chilli Peppers is considered dehumanizing and torture, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Xavius

Well I think that's ridiculous. My question to you is that if the Geneva Conventions don't apply to these people, then really, we can do whatever we want to them right? There seems to be no limit as to how we can treat these people, what happens to them regardless of what they've done, and you're ok with that. I just want to make your position clear.

__________________

Assman

Maybe I'm missing the point, but what type of inhumane torturing techniques have we done? I wouldn't consider sleep depravation, restraint in painful positions, loud music, and bright lights considered inhumane torturing techniques. It isn't like we're cutting off body parts. For those that do act unethical, like the Abu Ghraib prison incident, those soldiers were dealt with and punished.

Caster13

I'd say anything used to prevent a single moment of peace and quiet and sleep, irregardless of what song or band is being played, is torture.

__________________
"I have captured the enemy for meat testing! Praise me! PRAISE ME!!!" -GIR
Wi-Fi ID: 1627 8934 4983 8539

Calcifer

But now they're trying to pass legislation that will make it ok to do the same thing that happened in Abu Ghraib. This isn't about what happened in the past, it is about what may happen in the future. Also there has been MANY contradictions within the white house on how we should actually treat the terrorists. Should we treat them as POWs? Or criminals? Or people without rights? I don't believe that anyone has actually agreed upon it.

__________________
Strange days indeed.

Pojo

I hope to God that you never get abducted by a terrorist, if that's the case.

Or get married.

__________________

Calcifer

If by some odd chance, the government were to think you were a terrorist, I'm sure you would not want to be subjected to some of the tactics they have used before. Especially not some of the tactics that they will use if this is passed. These are people being held without trial, you can't torture them, you really shouldn't be able to treat them badly at all.

__________________
Strange days indeed.

Advance

I think it's time Powell put up or shut up and ran for president.

__________________

What would you do if you were stuck in one place and every day was exactly the same, and nothing that you did mattered?

Pojo

If you try to be nice to everyone during a war, you're going to get your ass beat. There is important info out there that needs to come to the surface.

Most of these people are terrorists. Don't allow yourself to be fooled. I think they deserve much worse than this, but I understand that we have certain limitations. Unfortunately, we have a bunch of pussy organizations telling us that we're being mean to people based around the idea that we maybe, might harm some innocent folks (as if that is the intention). WELL DUH. Are you Rosie O'Donnell or something? I guess we shouldn't go to war because we might hurt someone that didn't do anything wrong? It sucks, but it's not a decision that is made without thought. The consequences must be weighed.

These are the kind of people that would be asking the terrorists what they did wrong as the terrorist slit their throats. Don't become a pushover, because you will get trampled.

__________________

Assman

You have to be ****ing ****ting me. It's a no win situation with idiots like you. God, you're ****ing retarded.



Amen to that, brother.

Caster13

I doubt being abducted by terrorists would be a pleasent situation in any case.

That's just mean.

It's not a no win situation because of me, it's a no win situation because of the situation.

Torture is, simply, the infliction of pain and/or suffering, yes? The human body and mind needs a few certain things to maintain itself: food, water, rest. Being deprived of such things is effective to inflicting suffering on the human body and mind. And thus, depriving any of these, I'd say is torture.

Besides, you didn't even try to argue against me. I just presented a more thorough version of my argument, so why don't you see if there are any logical gaps in it?. Simply calling me an idiot and retarded is just lazy thinking.

__________________
"I have captured the enemy for meat testing! Praise me! PRAISE ME!!!" -GIR
Wi-Fi ID: 1627 8934 4983 8539

Drunken Savior

I side with Powell and Cain.

__________________
"Because most people think, "Life sucks, and then you die." I disagree. I think life sucks, then you get cancer. Then you go into chemotherapy. You lose all your hair, you feel bad about yourself. Then all of the sudden the cancer goes into remission. You look good you feel good, you're going great, and all of the sudden you have a stroke. You can't move your right side. And one day you step off the curb at 68th by Lincoln Center and bang, you get hit by a bus. And then, maybe, you die."

Assman

It's a no win situation, because you're too soft on terrorists. Depravation is used, but it isn't like the U.S. is starving them to death, and when I use the word "torture", it's the implication of what liberals think we're doing. Continious physical abuse, etc.


I pray to god one day that a terrorist kills you. That would make my day.

Xavius

Spoken like a real American. You have no class, Assy.

You brought up ethics before. There's a fine line between what is ethical and what is torture. Your argument was that terrorists don't fall under the Geneva convention and so what is ethical and what is torture becomes a non-issue with you. It doesn't matter what is done because terrorists are no longer under the umbrella of protection and so what the hell do you care if it's torture or not? And what do you define as unethical anyway?

__________________