I have to wonder if this will superceded the Pentagon's own guidelines that you reported about on Tuesday.
Posted by ann at December 15, 2005 09:53 AMHands in the air for all those believing this will end torture sanctioned by Bushco. OK, you, you and you, you're all idiots. There will be more exceptions and loopholes to this than can be counted or imagined. For starters, after anyone in our military, intelligence or law enforcement corners a suspect another country becomes the detainer of record. "Shit, I just pulled the guy over, Bubba took him down to the jail, ask him why the guy's nose is broke."
Posted by steve duncan at December 15, 2005 10:10 AMI believe our Secretary of State explained the situation clearly enough.
They can be as clear as possible about what is acceptable but they can't hold the hand of every single "employee" 24/7 to make sure the rules are followed.
I believe that's what you call "leaving yourself an out".
Posted by snark at December 15, 2005 10:17 AMWhy does John McCain hate America?!
Posted by dj moonbat at December 15, 2005 10:30 AMHmmm, why do I get the strange feeling that with the latest bits of backpedalling by this administration that something big is about to hit the fan? Rove frogmarching anyone?
Anyway as with all things Bushco says, I will watch what they do and not what they say. It's not like they haven't acted above (or broken) the law before. It's not like Congress will hold them accountable for anything.
WH! wnt my trtr! t's wht mks ths cntry grt! Trtrs lk McCn wll hv t mk svrl cts f cntrtn t gt rght wth Dr Ldr. Whhh!
[Editor: ignore=off]I'll be the Pollyanna stooge here, I guess, but this was a clear defeat for Bushco, hopefully the first of many.
Bushco has clearly sanctioned torture and permitted it to get a real foothold in the system, but this is at least a symbolic foot on the brake, and has to be welcomed as such.
Don't flog me too harshly.
Posted by euzoius at December 15, 2005 11:10 AMHmmm, why do I get the strange feeling that with the latest bits of backpedalling by this administration that something big is about to hit the fan?
Indeed. I was thinking the same thing myself, expecially after seeing this today of all days.
Posted by ann at December 15, 2005 11:11 AM...expecially after seeing this today of all days.
Just a little more cutting the Thigs will have to do from the Food Stamp program that's all.
Posted by snark at December 15, 2005 11:14 AM...Thugs... :0
Posted by snark at December 15, 2005 11:14 AMG McCn!!
nd thn jst rm.. G wll y lk G...?
[Editor: ignore=off]I'd be very very surprised if the actions followed the words.
Posted by judyo at December 15, 2005 11:35 AMMcCain's 'victory' will prove to be both illusory and very temporary.
Posted by pessimist at December 15, 2005 12:00 PMAlways remember The Key:
In the Bush Admin, everything is about politics, nothing is about policy.
Anything that seems remotely policy driven, or a change in policy, is simple political expediency, nothing more.
Anything that seems remotely policy driven, or a change in policy, is simple political expediency, nothing more.
Sure. But they recently spent a lot of energy (for political purposes, of course) justifying what on the surface would appear to be a torture policy. And lost. What have they gained, T2?
Posted by dj moonbat at December 15, 2005 12:52 PM...what on the surface would appear to be a torture policy.
That's what I was saying yesterday. There was no way for them to come across as anything other than the pro-torture side on this issue. There was no other way for them to spin their opposition to McCain's position. Especially after Condi's little tour of Europe.
Posted by snark at December 15, 2005 01:04 PMMoonbat, they gain the ability to go on Russert's show from now on and say they voted against torture, since the polls are not for torture. BUT, now we hear that Wingnut Hunter is threatening to nix the bill somehow... Hunter is a WH dupe, what he says is pre-approved by Bush/Rove, so that may be their out...i.e. We (Bush) would have signed it, but it was blocked by others. They get their cake and torture too.
Posted by T2 at December 15, 2005 02:14 PMThey get actual torture. They don't get legal torture. And they had to expend political capital, which is in short supply for them these days, to not get it.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 15, 2005 02:21 PMBush said we "adhere to the international convention on torture". But of course, he means the parts of UNCAT that we accepted, not those we didn't.
Posted by avaroo at December 15, 2005 02:38 PMT2...the Pro-torture House republican Rove go to guy Duncan Hunter appears to be playing the bad cop to Bush's good cop routine....I think you nailed their "stategery"...sadly.
Plus did you see Blinky Boyking sitting with McCain discussing the agreement. McCain stating so eloquently that we as a people in this country are better than those that do torture even those we deem as evil and we won't stoop to their level. Blinky looked pissed to be sitting there saying "we don't do torture".
Posted by emal at December 15, 2005 04:15 PMActually, Bush has said all along that torture was illegal (and it is under US acceptance of UNCAT). The US has not accepted th CID provisions of UNCAT
Posted by avaroo at December 15, 2005 04:16 PMBush caved. Good thing.
Posted by Ga6thDem at December 15, 2005 04:20 PMI wish the whitehouse web site would add in blinks just as they do (applause) in the news section.
Posted by dorita at December 15, 2005 04:48 PMHow did he cave?
Posted by avaroo at December 15, 2005 04:48 PMHow did he cave?
Not long ago, they were threatening a veto.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 15, 2005 05:12 PMSince the Pentagon is circulating a addendum of the Field Manual that includes many of the questionable tactics and the McCain bill does not carry the force of law, Cheney has appears to have found a work around.
Posted by Dave Marco at December 15, 2005 05:22 PM"Not long ago...."
Bush couldn't have vetoed what the US agreed to when it accepted the torture provisions of UNCAT. The US has NOT accepted the CID provisions and isn't bound by them.
Posted by avaroo at December 15, 2005 05:24 PMBush was talking of vetoing a bill like what McCain was asking for. McCain got it.
T2 can think that this is just what Bush wanted from the conspiratorial Left. You can think Bush is purer than the driven snow from the trollatorial Right. It doesn't matter. He said he didn't want this bill to become law, but he has changed his mind.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 15, 2005 05:38 PMBush cannot veto what the US has already agreed to in UNCAT. A prohibition against torture is ALREADY law in the US.
Posted by avaroo at December 15, 2005 05:46 PMLet's not forget that John McCain himself said that although torture is illegal in the US (which it is), in the event that a terrorist with informaion that could save lives were captured, the US could always "opt not to prosecute" should that terrorist be tortured. Now THAT'S creative.
Posted by avaroo at December 15, 2005 05:51 PMI repeat: it matters not what you think Bush can or cannot do. He threatened a veto, and lacked the political will to force the other side to back down. Since our people will continue to torture, that doesn't make much actual difference. But it is a political loss. Period.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 15, 2005 05:52 PMthis is all nicely staged to set McCain up for a 2008 presidential run as the moral maverik who stood up to Bush and Cheney to stop torture - while still being a hawk on Iraq and strong on Homeland security.
The game was up on torture as official policy the second the photos were published, and the really bad ones we have not seen yet will come and slam that idea shut totally, so why not make McCain look good -
he may be the Republicans only hope by 2008.
McCain can't run on a "I'm against torture, but you do what you have to do" platform, which was basically his position when he said that in specific circumstances, the US would elect not to prosecute torturers.
Posted by avaroo at December 15, 2005 06:03 PMActually, dj, it matters very much what Bush can and cannot do. He cannot veto the UNCAT provisions the US has already accepted.
Posted by avaroo at December 15, 2005 06:05 PMAnd yes, people will continue to torture. And be prosecuted for it. Unless, as McCain says, the circumstances warrant us not prosecuting. He's a pretty principled guy, isn't he?
Posted by avaroo at December 15, 2005 06:06 PMand with this agreement, he (w) has set the bar by which he and his admin will be judged. the Euros are not happy with the liberties this admin. have taken. Some of them will lose their voting rights for helping the current US government in torturing questionable suspects.
There is no "out" either by treaty or agreement. w buckled under the weight of his benefit gain by McCain politicing for him. w had to pay up -- my guess is that he (w) didn't think it would be about torture. Price paid. Perhaps McCain could get a little more mileage out of this.
Posted by dorita at December 15, 2005 07:56 PMAnd yes, people will continue to torture. And be prosecuted for it. Unless, as McCain says, the circumstances warrant us not prosecuting. He's a pretty principled guy, isn't he?
I guess you're just not real sharp, so let's review.
As a policy matter, I don't think this matters very much. BushCo is committed to torturing people, and they will find ways to continue.
As a (say it real slow) political matter, this is a loss for BushCo. They said they would veto, and in the world of (again, say it slow) politics, it doesn't even matter whether your bullshit reading of our current torture laws would have prevented such a veto; they didn't veto.
When you say you're likely to take a forceful step like vetoing something, because it would "tie your hands" in the War on Terra, and then you don't, you look like irresolute; or, as your ilk often call it, a "flip-flopper." Whatever the underlying merits of the dispute, Bush lost this one in the arena of political appearances.
You should get a new screen name, too: "avaroo" is as stupid as the arguments that go with it.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 16, 2005 05:02 AMIt's another lie. Nothing will change. As long as Bush is still in office, nothing will change for the better. Another lie, upon lies.
Posted by Mal Feasance at December 16, 2005 07:12 AMNo, dj, as a policy matter this won't change anything. The US was already a signatory to the torture prohibitions of UNCAT.
Since it's not a change, it cannot really be a loss. Bush didn't have to power to revoke US agreement to UNCAT and McCain and Bush don't have the power to violate the US Constitution.
You appear ill equipped to discuss the US position on torture as well as CID.
Posted by avaroo at December 16, 2005 11:00 AMWhat is it about the far left that makes them unable to detect grandstanding? In either party.
Posted by avaroo at December 16, 2005 11:01 AMYou're either too dumb to tell that talking about policy and politics means two different things. I feel for those who have to deal with you in offline environs.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 16, 2005 12:59 PMIf avaroo is correct, I wonder how it is that all the silly senators and a large number of (obviously ill-informed) people in the admin (including Cheney) seem to think that the McCain amendment actually was ABOUT something that would have an effect on US law, and was not just a meaningless high school debate?
If only avaroo had been present at the meetings, then they'd all know the whole controversy was utterly irrelevant because of "UNCAT".
Next time, just send everyone an email settin' 'em straight right from the start! Save all this time- wasting.
Posted by euzoius at December 17, 2005 08:34 PM