President Bush endorses Anti-Torture Bill, page 1

posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 09:06 AM

link

The White House has reversed its stand on Sen. John McCain's call for a ban on cruel treatment of prisoners in the war on terror. President Bush yesterday endorsed the McCain amendment after the Senate voted 90-9 and the House voted 308-122 in support of it. The amendment would establish the Army Field Manual as holding the standard for treatment of prisoners.

www.abc.net.au
Bush backs ban on torture
PM - Friday, 16 December , 2005 18:29:00
Reporter: Karen Percy
MARK COLVIN: After a long and bruising controversy, the US President George W. Bush has changed his mind and agreed to back a law which would ban the American military from employing cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment on prisoners.

President Bush had threatened to veto the bill brought forward by Republican Senator John McCain, himself a former prisoner of war who was tortured in North Vietnam in the '70s.

Revelations and allegations in recent weeks that the US has been moving prisoners to special secret prisons in other countries only increased the pressure on the Bush administration, but the move will be seen as a big win for Senator McCain, and a big back down by President Bush.

Karen Percy compiled this report.

JOHN MCCAIN: I'm very pleased that we've reached this agreement, and now we can move forward.

GEORGE W. BUSH: Senator McCain has been a leader to make sure that …

KAREN PERCY: As they stood side by side to announce their deal, President Bush and Senator McCain were speaking from the same page as they heralded the agreement.

GEORGE W. BUSH: A common objective, and that is to make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the International Convention on Torture, whether it be here at home or abroad.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Does President Bush think this is a good idea, or is he just bowing to political reality on this issue? Either way, I applaud his decision to support Sen. McCain's amendment.

Does this signal a general shift in the conduct of the WOT? Everybody laughed, especially Dick Cheney, back when John Edwards suggested treating terrorists with dignity and respect, even attempting to resolve their issues without using violence. Nobody wanted to hug a terrorist.

Short of hugs, is there a way to short-circuit the cycle of violence and terrorism? Can we hold up a standard of behavior, for them and us, that we all can live with, and stop the violence and bloodshed?

Interesting to note the only link I found on-line for this story so far is from Australia.

[edit on 16-12-2005 by Icarus Rising]

[edit on 18-12-2005 by asala]

thermopolis

posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 09:08 AM

link

This alone should be impeachable for the moron twins.....Bush and Mccain.

Benevolent Heretic

posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 09:25 AM

link

Washington Post

Lots more sources showing up now. I guess it had to go through the US Media Machine ...

This is great news, but somehow I doubt it really means anything at all. The way the prisoners have been treated has been kept as quiet as possible and will continue to be kept from the public.

The cynic in me doubts that a thing will change and she also suspects that Bush signed this and backed down, not because he changed his mind and became convinced that torture is morally wrong, but for political purposes only. Which isn't a big surprise.

Benevolent Heretic

posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 03:49 PM

link

Bush Could Bypass New Torture Ban

When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.

After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement" -- an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law -- declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

So, it seems that even though he signed the ban on torture, he made sure there was a caveat of sorts, saying that he could overturn it if he deems appropriate.

In other words, his signature on the ban is meaningless. Big surprise...