Bush says the US does not engage in torture. Is he making up his own definition of torture? Is he allowed to do that? Isn't the United States bound by accepted definitions of torture in treaties to which the United States is a party? Or is George Bush allowed to make up the law?
2007-10-10 14:33:36 · 7 answers · asked by rollo_tomassi423 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He even ignores his own party. He used the signing statement on the McCain Detainee Amendment, a provision banning "cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment", of prisoners. The Amendment was passed in the Senate with an overwhelming 90-9 vote.
You may recall that the "signing statement" is used to allow the president to sidestep specific provisions of a law without consulting congress, in essence, it's the "line item veto" that the Supreme Court struck down in 1998.
2007-10-10 14:57:45 · answer #1 · answered by Mr.D 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
As torture was explained to me, we did not torture those prisoners. Oh wait, that was sex and I didn't have any with Monica.
I suppose that you are really talking about torture as in the Geneva Convention. Since Iraq did not sign the Geneva Convention we are not bound to follow it either, regardless I don't see that putting a pair of underwear on a POW's head as torture, I don't see water boarding as torture, I see these as acts of breaking down the enemy to get information that is needed to win this war.
Do you think that beheading our people is torture? is it worse than water boarding or any other thing that we may have done? Then remember that those that were beheaded were mostly US civilian reporters, Daniel Pearl was beheaded because he was a Jew.
Do you remember seeing the soldiers that were killed, burned beyond recognition and then dragged through the streets of Baghdad and hung up on a pole?
Write an email to John McCain, he was a POW for several years during the Vietnam war, ask him what type of punishment he had to endure. After you get his reply send an email to John Kerry and thank him for lying about all of the things that the US did in Vietnam, and then saying it while we still had POW's in Vietnam (Kerry was only there for 3 months)
The way I see it we are being to soft on these prisoners and why liberals want our Constitution to protect them is way beyond me.
2007-10-10 23:30:49 · answer #2 · answered by justgetitright 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
George Bush decides what torture is. He is the "decider", you know. Anyone else tries to decide and they feel the wrath of the VETO.
2007-10-10 21:43:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I have no problem with coerced interrogations of people who pride themselves on indiscriminately slaughtering innocent victims to further their agenda of hatred and domination.
In my humble opinion, you cannot draw any parallels between our alleged torture and the tactics employed by the Islamic militants - none.
Stop pandering the terrorists - they'd cut your head off just to make another video.
2007-10-10 21:45:25 · answer #4 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I agree. We shouldn't even wast our time with interogations. We should just give captured enemy combatants to our Middle Eastern Allies and let them extract information.
Trust me, their idea of Human Rights makes Waterboarding look like a day at the spa.
2007-10-10 21:41:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Bush's defninition of torture: "When the top 1% of income earners have to pay taxes." Everything else is fair game.
2007-10-10 21:39:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Bush didn't "lie", the US doesn't "torture", Armenians didn't suffer "genocide".
That's the way it goes in "American democracy" today.
2007-10-10 21:38:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋