Republicans intend to pass a bill that gives the president the right to rape and torture american children?

Question

This is all being done under the guise of fighting "terrorists." It goes against legal precedent dating back over 700 years. Back to the Magna Carta. Do you support the president in this matter?

Check out this article from The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html&OQ=_rQ3D4Q26orefQ3DsloginQ26orefQ3DsloginQ26orefQ3Dslogin&OP=4827bf3dQ2FRQ7CDdR!BQ5DlfBBQ7EQ27RQ27JJgRJQ5CRQ271RBo8c8BcRQ271Q7EQ3BQ26)_Q3BQ7Eyx

Here's a link to another article since the New York Times piece is no longer availible

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/september2006/290906sexuallytorture.htm

Another

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11488.htm

I don't get the first response to this post. You're saying that torturing children is OK because of 9/11? Or are yoou being ironic?

"John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles."

These are some of the bill's biggest flaws:

Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of "illegal enemy combatant" in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there's no requirement that this list be published.

Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise o

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

Answer 1

It sue does appear to be heading that direction when they cover-up for their own pedophiles Mark Foley and Brian J. Doyle.

Answer 2

Well, this doesn't surprise me, but it outrages me.

It seems, however, that the NY TImes article under "Offenses" conflicts the other two links because it says, "eliminate the idea of rape as torture". So I don't know which article is correct.

However, they are being forwarded to my Congressmen and others who would be interested in seeing this, and I will demand an explanation. I am also forwarding it to DNC Chairman, Howard Dean.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Answer 3

You're a liberal dupe. All you have to do is read the first word, which is "Editorial," and then read the first two sentences of the article to realize this was written by a Bush-bashing liberal. I read the article from start to finish and found it full of outright lies and half-truths (and as we all know, a half-truth is also a half-lie). You are a perfectly dull example of a brainwashed American -- you're simply regurgitating something someone else already said, and without bothering to verify the accuracy of any of the statements in that article you bought the whole load of garbage hook, line, and sinker. Learn to think for yourself...

Answer 4

OK - this shows that the USA has no idea about protecting children and child development. Lets hope it's not true.

Answer 5

700 years of legal precedent? sorry i don't think people who strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocent people deserve any rights. If you can produce one case of abuse from any of the laws passed after 9-11 let me hear them.

Answer 6

Yep, George Bush is a criminal.

Answer 7

God Bless America! 9/11 We wont forget!

Answer 8

What a spin. Stop it, you're making me dizzy.

Answer 9

I'm sorry, none of those sources are reliable. I don't buy it at all. NY Times is the MOST reliable of the three, but I don't buy into them, either.