WHO ARE THE MOST BLOODTHIRSTY AND VICIOUS 9 SENATORS ?
>
The Senate has finally stood up to the BushCo war machine. With all Democrats all but 9 of the most bloodthirsty war-mongering Republicrook bigots voting "aye," the Senate voted today to bar "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment to prisoners (against the hysterical admonitions of the Bush Regime). the final vote was 90-9 in a clear rebuke to an out-of-control, beyond-the-pale, power-mad Bush. The amendment was added to a $440 billion military spending bill for the budget year that began this week and Bush is threatening to veto it because of the restrictions on torture.
The proposal, which Bush claims will limit his "authority and flexibility"-- wow, someone must have explained it to him; THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS MEANT TO DO-- was sponsored by Sen. John McCain. It requires all service members to follow procedures in the Army Field Manual when they detain and interrogate terrorism suspects, just like in civilized countries, including in the pre-Bush U.S.
“We demanded intelligence without ever clearly telling our troops what was permitted and what was forbidden. And when things went wrong, we blamed them and we punished them,” said McCain, a prisoner of war in Vietnam. “Our troops are not served by ambiguity. They are crying out for clarity, and Congress cannot shrink from this duty.”
Even though all Senate Repugs but 9 die-hard neo-Nazis, voted with McCain, the GOP is split on this looking for ways to neuter it in the House-Senate conference that will report out a final bill. House Democrats and many Republicans looking nervously at re-election prospects in '06 support McCain but the House GOP leadership-- still under the thumb of DeLay-- wants to kill it. He is joined by several senators like right-wing extremist Ted Stevens of Alaska, who claimed that he was concerned that McCain’s legislation could inadvertently endanger the lives of people who work in classified roles. He said he hoped to fix the potential problems during negotiations with the House. “There are some changes that have to be made if we are going to be faithful to those people who live in the classified world,” Stevens said. (Oddly, he didn't mention anything about making sure Rove and Libby, who actually have endangered many specific people who work in classified roles, spend the rest of their brutish lives behind bars. It must have slipped his mind.)
On the other hand, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a retired four-star Army general, who, like virtually ALL men and women who have actually taken part in real wars (unlike any prominent members of the Bush Regime), enthusiastically endorsed McCain’s bill. “The world will note that America is making a clear statement with respect to the expected future behavior of our soldiers. Such a reaction will help deal with the terrible public diplomacy crisis created by Abu Ghraib,” Powell said in a letter that McCain read on the Senate floor.
So who are the 9 pro-torture Senators? Can you guess? Think "crazy." Think "vicious." Think "always wrong on everything all the time." Think "hateful" and "bigoted." Doesn't narrow it down enough? OK, good point. Here's the list of shame (in order of evil, with the most egregiously evil first, working it's way down to just plain garden-variety evil):
Coburn (R-OK)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Bond (R-MO)
Allard (R-CO)
Roberts (R-KS)
posted by DownWithTyranny @ 11:49 AM
1 comments
|
Reddit
1 Comments:
Today Bob Herbert asks a great question in the NEW YORK TIMES. It's a question every single American needs to ask himself.
WHO ISN'T AGAINST TORTURE?
Some people get it. Some don't.
Senator John McCain, one of the strongest supporters of the war in Iraq, has sponsored a legislative amendment that would prohibit the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of prisoners in the custody of the US military. Last week the Senate approved the amendment by the overwhelming vote of 90 to 9.
This was not a matter of Democrats vs. Republicans, or left against right. Joining Senator McCain in his push for clear and unequivocal language banning the abusive treatment of prisoners were Senator John Warner of Virginia, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a former military lawyer who is also a Republican and an influential member of the committee. Both are hawks on the war.
Also lining up in support were more than two dozen retired senior military officers, including two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell and John Shalikashvili.
So who would you expect to remain out of step with this important march toward sanity, the rule of law and the continuation of a longstanding American commitment to humane values?
Did you say President Bush? Well, that would be correct.
The president, who has trouble getting anything right, is trying to block this effort to outlaw the abusive treatment of prisoners.
Senator McCain's proposal is an amendment to the huge defense authorization bill. The White House has sent out signals that Mr. Bush might veto the entire bill if that's what it takes to defeat the amendment.
The Washington Post summed the matter up in an editorial that said:
"Let's be clear: Mr. Bush is proposing to use the first veto of his presidency on a defense bill needed to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan so that he can preserve the prerogative to subject detainees to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In effect, he threatens to declare to the world his administration's moral bankruptcy."
Last Wednesday, Senator McCain rose on the Senate floor and said:
"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states simply that 'No one shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.' The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the US is a signatory, states the same. The binding Convention Against Torture, negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by the Senate, prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
"On last year's [Department of Defense] authorization bill, the Senate passed a bipartisan amendment reaffirming that no detainee in US custody can be subject to torture or cruel treatment, as the US has long defined those terms. All of this seems to be common sense, in accordance with longstanding American values.
"But since last year's [defense] bill, a strange legal determination was made that the prohibition in the Convention Against Torture against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment does not legally apply to foreigners held outside the US They can, apparently, be treated inhumanely. This is the [Bush] administration's position, even though Judge Abe Sofaer, who negotiated the Convention Against Torture for President Reagan, said in a recent letter that the Reagan administration never intended the prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment to apply only on US soil."
The McCain amendment would end the confusion and the perverse hunt for loopholes in the laws that could somehow be interpreted as allowing the sadistic treatment of human beings in US custody.
Senator McCain met last week with Capt. Ian Fishback, a West Point graduate who was one of three former members of the 82nd Airborne Division to come forward with allegations, first publicly disclosed in a report by Human Rights Watch, that members of their battalion had routinely beaten and otherwise abused prisoners in Iraq. In a letter that he sent to the senator before the meeting, Captain Fishback wrote:
"Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as al-Qaida's, we should not be concerned. When did al-Qaida become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution."
Senator McCain and Captain Fishback get it. Some people still don't.
Post a Comment
<< Home