White House accepts McCain amendment

[Tingkai]

McCain

As much as I rag on U.S. policies, I like to think that the majority of Americans are like McCain: honourable, decent people who do the right things.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Shrub & Co. had to be dragged kicking and screaming. They only surrendered when they had no choice. Yay.

-Arrian

WaPo earlier had said that Rice, Hadley, DoD were ok with the McCain amendment. Only Cheney was dead set against. Do you really think the WH is so weak that if the admin were united against the McCain amendment, they couldnt have gotten more congressmen to support their position? The lopsided votes in support of the amendment were, I think, themselves symptomatic of how isolated opposition was WITHIN the admin.

[Arrian]

Whatever. How in the world could one oppose the amendment in the first place?

-Arrian

[Sava]

Originally posted by snoopy369

Bigger issue: Patriot Act

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=145685

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
Whatever. How in the world could one oppose the amendment in the first place?

Maybe due to the fact that it was already banned under US law and apparently can carry the death penalty.

[Arrian]

Well that certainly seemed to be working.

-Arrian

[Bill3000]

Hmm. but what if the Death Penalty is considered cruel and unusual punishment? Wouldn't that mean that we would be stuck in an infinite loop that would result in everyone in the United States dying?

[DinoDoc]

Well, how's a law that bans something already banned going to change anything?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Whatever. How in the world could one oppose the amendment in the first place?

-Arrian

IE lets rehash the old arguments, despite the fact that the situation has changed

I think one of the BENEFITS of the McCain amendment is that it can enable us to move on, and focus on the common struggle against the jihadis. I suspect McCain himself would agree with that.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Maybe due to the fact that it was already banned under US law and apparently can carry the death penalty.

The existing law doesn't seem to have stopped the torture though has it? It would seem that additional clearification was needed.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well, how's a law that bans something already banned going to change anything?

Because it gave to much wiggle room for the Administration to torture people and then claim no torture had occured. Clearifying what is and isn't torture seems to be in order.