It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush hasn't Vetoed anything, But he will Veto this???

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   
The history of President Bush is of one that has never Vetoed anything that congress has sent him. No matter how much money congress said they needed, no matter what they wanted he gave to them. Then to hear that this piece of legislation, is going to be Vetoed, By the president of the USA, by all acounts they leader of the free world after 5 years in power, this is the bill he will veto.



The Bush administration pledged yesterday to veto legislation banning the torture of prisoners by US troops after an overwhelming and almost unprecedented revolt by loyalist congressmen




The man behind the legislation, Republican Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner in Vietnam, said the move was backed by American soldiers. His amendment would prohibit the "cruel, inhumane or degrading" treatment of prisoners in the custody of America's defence department


www.telegraph.co.uk

What will happen to American soilders captured by terrorists in our fights against terrorizm??


peace

mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 7-10-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Holy Jesus Christ on Stilts. What the hell are they thinking? Well, not thinking...

Let's see, don't show pictures of Abu Ghraib because it will make Arabs mad, but making Abu Ghraib actions legal won't?



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   
The really crazy thing is he's up against his own party. The banning of torture has wiiiiide bi-partisan support.

Bush is practically all alone here in his pro-torture promise to veto his own party.

Pffft. Quack, quack.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
It was what? 90-9(the 9 being republican I bet) and one who Abstained. Why would Bush break his record? I mean come on he could go down in history for never vetoing a bill but no, has to make torture legal...



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I guess we all can see that the reason the photos won't be released is because of the reaction of the American people, not the terrorists, because if he was concerned about agitating Al Quaeda he wouldn't be willing to veto legislation to stop the torture. If the American people had to face a graphic display of what is going on, they would either be too ashamed or too horrified to support the Bush regime. How can this be excused? What comes around goes around Georgie Boy!



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Personally, I hope Bush vetoes it, as well.
Lets worry about our enemies more than about our troops.
Makes sense, huh?
Think the enemy will pass such legislation?
Riiight.
Bush vetoing this would be like making a breakthrough in genetic engineering: the regeneration of spines of many in Congress and the Senate....





seekerof



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CindyfromFlorida
I guess we all can see that the reason the photos won't be released is because of the reaction of the American people, not the terrorists, because if he was concerned about agitating Al Quaeda he wouldn't be willing to veto legislation to stop the torture. If the American people had to face a graphic display of what is going on, they would either be too ashamed or too horrified to support the Bush regime. How can this be excused? What comes around goes around Georgie Boy!


Ths thing that sucks about this is its not going to be Bush, or his friends and family that suffer. Its going to be the Americans in the military, and civilians, Bush will suffer politically, and he won't be viewed as a World Leader taking a stand for Human rights, but he will be seen as a child-like war-monger.

I feel for the Troops, what happens when they get captured? because of a president with an apparent lack of vision, an moral compass.

peace



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   
If Bush Vetos it goes back to the congress right? And if they get, uh, 2/3 or 3/4 it passes anyways, I think. Hopefully they pass it anyways.

Sad to see someone supports torture. I wouldn't torture anyone, not even Hitler. WHy? If you commit the same evils the enemy commits what is the difference?

"To know yourself is to know your enemy." Unkown(To me at least, if anyone knows please say.

WHat does it mean? WHy are they your enemy? Because they torture people? Then you go and torture people, how are you different from the enemy?



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
In war, to make concessions is to give the enemy the upper-hand, an advantage.
War is never humanitarian, clean, or by the morality handbook.
Obviously, many here do not understand that, but efficiently and simply play the "we are better than that" or the humanity or moral card.

This piece of legislation is simply playing such a card.
Congress and Senate handcapped the troops and military in Vietnam, and is seeking to do the same damn thing now with the troops and military in Iraq.

Passing this legislation is going to resolve what?
Its going to indicate to whomever we are fighting against WHAT?
Whomever they are that we are fighting and categorizing as "our enemy," they are most certainly laughing their behinds off, as is the ACLU , etc.....





seekerof

[edit on 7-10-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   
But how can you say you are doing the right thing when you do what you accuse the enemy of! So Hitler commit genocide on the Jews, you say evil, we go and commit genocide on Germans, we the good guys? !HOW!

The reason they are the enemy is because they do things we find evil, but then Bush supports doing the same evil things! I am so glad people like Bush weren't in power in WWII or you would find camps of dead Germans with the gold fillings removed from their teeth and their shoes/clothes/cars being used to help the support the war in Europe.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
why veto it....I mean, there are laws on the books that outlaw torture now, aren't they. I think they just chose to ignore them to begin with. what's one more law to ignore? on the other hand, what is the guy thinking? since vetoing it is like an all out confessing that, yes, we want to torture!! sorry, but his actions seem crazier as time goes by!



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
This bill is nothing but a slap in the face to the military and a mask to the world trying to say how loving we are and all this, dont make the arabs mad crap. Why does everybody all of a sudden want to be such a nice guy, or perceive to be such. You think this bill, even if passed would make any difference on reality? If we had captured some arab scum and he knew the whereabouts of a nuc in our country, ill dam gaurentee that hes tortured til his heart stops. If you think its better to spare one enemy than 50,000 americans, your a traitor, period.

Train



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
In war, to make concessions is to give the enemy the upper-hand, an advantage.


Fair enough point of view. I'm a kick 'em when they're down proponent myself, though I'm not so keen on anal rape with broom handles.

We'll just have to disagree on the applicable standards and accountability of a super power versus the "bad guys," and the appropriateness of the "message" Bush is actually sending to the culture from which they recruit with this promised veto.

But in the interest of expanding this "no concessions" philosophy... Is that what you also extrapolate is going on here.

US forces bomb Iraq's Euphrates bridges
October 06 2005 at 09:58AM


Baghdad - US-led forces have bombed eight bridges on the Euphrates River in western Iraq to stop insurgents using them, US military spokesperson Major General Rick Lynch said Thursday.


Is rebuilding Iraq giving the enemy the upper hand and bombing it's infrastructure progress in the War on Terror?

I seriously think the "messages" are mixed in both cases and the philosophy you cite a bit flawed as black & white imperatives go.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I think it's the principle America took during this war to bring more human rights to a country deplete of them, and these humane rights dictate that more human measures be taken when dealing with enemy combantants, and when we already know that many are taken without charge.

Regarding of Seekerofs comments which always seem to be beclouded in a heavy patriotic inneundo; maybe he can't discern between torture for relevent information, and the torture prisoners recieved at Abu Graihb?

Luxifero



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I'm concerned with the message it is giving europe, russia, china, and the other countries that are major players within the UN. this is just another peice of evidence in a any future war crime trial against america.

and well, do you think, for one moment that any of those countries that I mentioned would not consider torture as a way to open up some of those encyclopedias of sensitive information that are in the Bush administration if they could get thier hands on them?



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
This bill is nothing but a slap in the face to the military and a mask to the world trying to say how loving we are and all this, dont make the arabs mad crap. Why does everybody all of a sudden want to be such a nice guy, or perceive to be such. You think this bill, even if passed would make any difference on reality? If we had captured some arab scum and he knew the whereabouts of a nuc in our country, ill dam gaurentee that hes tortured til his heart stops. If you think its better to spare one enemy than 50,000 americans, your a traitor, period.

Train


Nuke us??
please, like Iraq was gonna nuke us?.....Fear is whats this administration is all about fear the terrorists, because they will nuke us...fear the terrorists because they hate our freedoms....please.....The terrorists are not as powerfull as Washington wants you to believe....Do you really think we will be nuked by a terrorists this year?...next year??....

You have a better chance of dieing in a natural disaster here in the USA because this administration picks people to lead government positions on the "Values" and not on there experience, ill tell you right now the Katrina fiasco was because of inept Leadership, and it goes all the way to the top.

Stop bein a fraidy cat when it comes to terrorist, fight them I can agree with, but Stop tryin to make America live in Fear because of them, that makes it look as though they are winning, whitch they arn't.

peace



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Iraq had no nukes, never did. Bush Lied. Everyone but republicans know that. Polls done show people who watch Fox News/Listen to Rush Limbaugh think Saddam had sex with Satan to get Nukes from Russia and... As you see they are wrong, everyone who watches CNN/MSNBC/don't listen to GOP Propaganda know Saddam never had nukes, or any other WMDs except the ones WE SOLD THEM!

Also, the Anthrax we sold them had a shelf life of 2 months, so 12 years later it wasn't dangerous. And the Anthrax we sold them wasnt white poweder but Coca Cola like substance. So when Powell went to the UN with the white powder he was wrong, he should have held up a Coke Bottle.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luxifero
Regarding of Seekerofs comments which always seem to be beclouded in a heavy patriotic inneundo; maybe he can't discern between torture for relevent information, and the torture prisoners recieved at Abu Graihb?


I served this country in both Kosovo and the 1st Gulf War, so its blatantly obvious that I am "beclouded in a heavy patriotic inneundo", Luxifero.

As to your insinuation of torture and my abilities of discernment between the use of torture for obtaining "relevant information" and the use of torture at Abu Ghraib is "maybe" ludicrous?!

What happened at Abu Ghraib has been repeatedly shown to be caused by the lack of proper training and officer mismanagement and lack of operational awareness. Contrary to your mis-guided conceptions, torture or the use of torture within the military is not a fundemental doctrine or code that is habitually taught or practiced. Abu Ghraib was an unfortunate isolated occurance. What happened there does not, in no way, shape, or form, represent the military or how they are trained, as a whole.





seekerof

[edit on 7-10-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
It doesn't, but it was still wrong! But Bush is trying to make it ok, that is also wrong! Torture is wrong, if you do it you are wrong.

Also, Kosovo, why were we there? I understand Gulf War, to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi invaders, but Kosovo? Never did understand that one, seemed more like a Vietnam(Started by a democrat, Kennedy) then a WW or other war.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Who cares about this mickey mouse stuff?

There are bigger fish to fry but no one has an appetite for fish lately, im very hungry and gonna make myself a tunafish sandwich now.



mod edit to remove censor circumvention

[edit on 7-10-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]







 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join