Bush to Veto CIA Waterboarding Ban Bill

Bush to Veto CIA Waterboarding Ban Bill

www.reuters.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush will veto legislation on Saturday banning U.S. intelligence agents from using waterboarding and other controversial interrogation methods, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said on Friday.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Unreal...Decider is vetoing it, even though it has been officially recognized by the CIA CHIEF, and the United Nations as being ILLEGAL.

Oh wait, since when did breaking any law matter to these maniacs...I forgot. Silly me.

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I don't understand.

Is bush banning the water boarding technique or is bush banning the bill to ban the water boarding technique?

Its should be impossible that there is a leader like George Bush in lead of world superpower. Shame on you USA, who has elected that kind of maniacs to power. This take bottom off from all the efforts to drive human rights to world!

If superpower accepts torture as one of its metods in "investigate" happenings, what will be reaction in Africa and South America? Or Asia? How many innocent will be punished all over the world because USA legislation?

F... Y... Bush! I hope you suffer a lot in your future life!

I pray for you, smart peoples of USA, to start driving those maniacs out from the Red-White Blood House... With all needed force!

reply to post by The Universal Mind



He's banning the bill, stating it's illegality and making sure it's not allowed in the future. Mr. Decider loves to thwart the Geneva convention. The law doesn't apply to him or any tool at his disposal.

That "President" might be fun to waterboard... it's not illegal right? Maybe just waterboard his family members? Oh, his mother. Nah, just flip the bird to those CIA clowns in my city.

Vic

reply to post by JanusFIN


Hold on there. You can't blame the entire USA for putting Bush in the White House, we voted for Al Gore, Bush just jumped in there though.

Bush's approval rating is now down to only 19%, but anyone who can do something is bought off and corrupt.

Dennis Kucinich is stepping up though trying to get these criminals impeached.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


Well, if he is going to do that, I suggest that he should get the chance to experience what waterboarding feels like.

This just in : Bush and Cheney don't give a %#*$ what the American public wants, and has not for the enirety of his administration.

Nothing new here. No surprises. Just more tyranical posturing to see how far they can push the American public before we start getting really angry.

Also, don't forget, a good portion of our citzenry supports the torture of 'insurgents' regardless of proper trials etc. Let's not forget that not every American is modern and enlightened... we've got plenty of buck-toothed 'kill 'em all' types out there who will gobble up anything the government says.

Are there no Bush fans to support him now? Where are the masses that voted this guy into office... twice? This one a little too tough to take on?

They sure didn't mind defending him after he lied us into war, after he fear mongered us into losing personal rights, and after he lied about domestic spying.

Come on Bush supports, don't get lame on us now. You might as well just finish off the job of making yourselves look like idiots.

Originally posted by Sublime620
Are there no Bush fans to support him now? Where are the masses that voted this guy into office... twice? This one a little too tough to take on?

Generally, Bush supporters will sit back quietly while the President turns the nation against him, and will mumble things like 'liberals' under their breath. Unfortunately, it's not just liberals and democrats who are sick of Bush, it's everyone... from both parties...

so yes, it's harder for Bushies to stand up for their man anymore. But once we have a Democrat in office... we will have DEMOCRATS sticking up for whatever tyrannical operative the government takes.

Originally posted by Sublime620
Are there no Bush fans to support him now? Where are the masses that voted this guy into office... twice? This one a little too tough to take on?

Generally, Bush supporters will sit back quietly while the President turns the nation against him, and will mumble things like 'liberals' under their breath. Unfortunately, it's not just liberals and democrats who are sick of Bush, it's everyone... from both parties...

so yes, it's harder for Bushies to stand up for their man anymore. But once we have a Democrat in office... we will have DEMOCRATS sticking up for whatever tyrannical operative the government takes.

Well, Bush has made it abundantly clear he not only disagrees with international law, but he is willing to carry out violations of international law in ways that only dictators can.

And because of this. I do believe Bush should be held to the same consequences other dictators are held to... penalty of death.

OK, I'm a Bushie! I'll bite, just to read the "gnashing of the teeth" !

Bush is standing fast on the justification that the CIA is not subject to the same regulations as the US Army because of the status or lack of status under the Geneva Convention afforded to the non-combatants they are dealing with. The haters will call this twisting the rules or more flagrantly violating the Convention itself. Frankly, the President and the CIA are charged with protecting the nation under whatever circumstances they deem necessary. This can lead to some pretty unpleasant results. But I'm particularly amused by Senator Kennedy's assessment of the President's decision.

"President Bush's veto will be one of the most shameful acts of his presidency," charged Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat who supported the legislation outlawing waterboarding.

This is coming from the poster boy of aquatic antics himself. Shameful in deed!

Now let the fireworks begin!!!



[edit on 8-3-2008 by sharkman]

I remember reading this in the news yesterday and not really understanding why people are surprised. Dont people know him?

Originally posted by sharkman
Bush is standing fast on the justification that the CIA is not subject to the same regulations as the US Army because of the status or lack of status under the Geneva Convention afforded to the non-combatants they are dealing with.

And there's the crux of the matter. Non-combatants are the good guys, enemy-combatants are the bad guys. Surely that couldn't be a Freudian Slip...?

But then why is it that only three of the thousand odd Guantanamo detainees have ever gone to trial? What about the other camps still being run in Iraq and Afghanistan where none of the inmates have ever been to trial? And the CIA's admitted black sites all over the world? Do you know how many people have died in US custody since 2002? No, you don't know. We don't know. They aren't telling.

Is there a scenario where torture is acceptable? Yes, IMO when there is imminent danger that can only be averted by using torture. Has that occurred? No. Not a single imminent event has been prevented by the CIA torturing captives in this WOT. The highest profile terrorist, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, admitted plotting to blow up EVERYTHING, including buildings that didn't even exist before he was captured. His information is useless...

So what now? Continue to violate all concepts of human rights to mistreat and torture the 3000 odd detainees, in case we get lucky? Most of these people are guilty of nothing but trying to protect their homes and families from armed invaders. Some of them are farmers and peasants, some of them are children.

For seventy years we've had the admiration of the world because of our support for freedom, democracy and human rights. Now the world is waiting for us to prove that we're the good guys we made out to be..

Originally posted by sharkman
Frankly, the President and the CIA are charged with protecting the nation under whatever circumstances they deem necessary.

Actually, the Prez is responsible for defending our nation by protecting and upholding that which defines it; the Constitution.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Unfortunately, it seems like he's forgotten the last half, and misinterpreted the first. When it says "execute the Office", they didn't mean "kill it" and replace it with a totalitarian regime.

[edit on 3/8/08 by redmage]

compassionate conservatism at it's best!!!

see how compasionate they are!!! The first glimpse of danger and they're willing to torture people into talking!!
But they are still conservative enough to to try to force that "biblical marriage" bit down women's throats and expect them to just blindly follow their men anywhere ever so obediant.....and if they don't like where the men are leading them, well.....they should have faith, and pray to God that God will turn the hearts of their men!!!

where the hecks is this man's faith that he cannot have a little trust in God that God will protect this nation instead of turning his back on the Compassionate Christ and joining league with dark forces?

wolf in sheep's clothing!

reply to post by sharkman


The president swears to uphold the law... not just the laws he agrees with.. all of the laws. International treaties are the law of the land.

Anyway we don't torture... bush minor has told us so... we outsource it to private contracters as in enunciated in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Copernicus


I think it's kind of of like a kid who always disappoints his parents. I wouldn't say the parents are surprised, as much as they just wish they had an abortion.