64 Senators Support Torture

[Imran Siddiqui]

He's beyond hope, Ted.

[Kidlicious]

Ned just doesn't have the ability to see fault with Republicans. If this were a Democrat administration Ned's opinion would be quite different, I'm sure.

[realpolitic]

For what it's worth here are some Conniticut election results:

Kerry 54% Bush 44%
for those who think the election had rigged machines, they didn't have many in Conneticut:
2004 exit polls Kerry 55% Bush 44%

2000
Gore/Liberman 56%
Bush 38%

Senate:
Liebeman 63%
Opponent 34%

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

1) Severe is in the eye of the beholder. What we are doing in Gitmo is very consistent with Ireland v. UK.

It actually goes far beyond that. And since those rulings, the definition of torture has encompassed that behavior, especially since the Convention on Torture was passed afterwards.

2) Inhumane treatment is not subject to criminal penalties in the US. See the "memo." The CAT is NOT self-executing. Congress implemented thru a statute which was the subject of the "memo."

When Congress implimented the Torture statute, it said the Convention did not go far enough and added using truth serum as a part of torture. Now, it seems to me that most defenders of Bush would never consider using truth serum as torture, but the government did indeed do so. Since the definition was expanded from the Convention, I'm sure that what teh ECHR defined as inhuman treatment, would be considered torture under the US statute.

3) We are hardly going to allow a member of al Qaeda to go to Canada. Syria was a proper alternative.

If he was an Al Queda member, why did Syria release him saying they got nothing on him?

You might do well to actually read the memo on the legislative history. The Ireland v. UK case was the case relied upon by Reagan to define the difference between torture and mere coercion. Congress relied upon Reagans stated explanation in drafting the law. Ireland v. UK is hardly outdated. It is the law.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Ned just doesn't have the ability to see fault with Republicans. If this were a Democrat administration Ned's opinion would be quite different, I'm sure.

You guys crack me up. I have many times said I backed Clinton on foreign policy. Many times. And this is what I get?

I think much of the pettiness coming from the left is pure partisan politics. I think foreign policy should be bipartisan. But, since Vietnam, it hasn't been.

[Ted Striker]

Yeah right!

You have routinely bashed Democrats in this thread.

You also tried to associate them with me, and I'm not even a Democcrat.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned
I think much of the pettiness coming from the left is pure partisan politics. I think foreign policy should be bipartisan. But, since Vietnam, it hasn't been.

and Vietnam was a monumental mistake...

[Ted Striker]

Ned blames anti-war protesters for the poor outcome of the Vietnam experience.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You might do well to actually read the memo on the legislative history.

I've read it. It's legal crap. Ask the legal scholars around the country. It's very bad scholarship.

The Ireland v. UK case was the case relied upon by Reagan to define the difference between torture and mere coercion. Congress relied upon Reagans stated explanation in drafting the law. Ireland v. UK is hardly outdated. It is the law.

That's nice, but legislative history is bunk. Who really knows who each Senator and Congressman voted on the law? Just because the administration used it doesn't mean crap, especially when you had a Democrat Congress, who may not have cared about the administration's reasons. What matters is the text and the text alone.

[Ted Striker]

Word

[Drake Tungsten]

I still have trouble believing that the USA now has a Hispanic Attorney General. I'm proud to see how far we've come and thank Bush for being the man who brought us here.

Bush
Gonzales
America

[Ted Striker]

Was a good troll attempt though

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Molly, yeah, "to be killed" as in al Qaeda in Canada will soon kill Americans. The man was al Qaeda. He was returned to his homeland.

He was? Al Qaeda is a nation state?


Stap me vitals. I missed out on that independence day parade.


The burqa'd cheerleaders with hand grenade pom poms must have been bootylicious.

[Mr. Harley]

Imran, as I noted your neo-conservative sig - and thank you for the honesty, unlike Ned's weaseling on this one - you realize Gonzales is being groomed as the next SCOTUS nominee. From your last post I assume you are a strict constructionist? What do you think of the kind of decisions/agenda Gonzales will bring to the court, especially given his record in Texas on their Supreme CourT? Yes, in any other circumstance you could accuse me of throwing a red herring or straw man argument at you here, but he IS the darling of many neo-cons (versus genuine Barry Goldwater conservatives). I just couldn't resist - and remember I'm gave Scalia his due on the Habeus Corpus case earlier in the thread.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Yeah right!

You have routinely bashed Democrats in this thread.

You also tried to associate them with me, and I'm not even a Democcrat.

Ted, as with Republicans, I think there have been good Democrat presidents and lousy Democrat presidents. I would rank Kennedy, FDR and Clinton as good presidents. I would rank Carter and Johnson is very bad presidents. The primary difference between the two groups of presidents is how they approached foreign-policy. One group stood tall for America. The other group were a pack of appeasers, unworthy to be presidents of the United States.

Any president who is unwilling to do what is necessary to protect United States is not worthy to be president of the United States. I think most Democrats understand that; and their opposition to Bush on this issue of using coercion in interrogating Al Qaeda prisoners is pure politics.