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

So much for having the moral high ground.

I wonder how the Bushbots can continue to support this guy. They must be a pretty die-hard group.

He probably wants torture legal so they can release the prison photos and cut the legs off any investigation which tries to place the blame further up the chain than a few grunts who were ordered to do what they did.

Looks like he's building a legal levey for his administration for the upcoming flood of finger pointing that's going to come with the release of more US torture evidence.

Here is the list of senators that voted Against this bill:

Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)

Guess they think torture is ok.

peace

Is there anything else that was attached to this bill that perhaps we don't know about? There could be a reason for the president to veto a bill if it also contains other stipulations within that bill. Could some one please let me know? Honest question.

Thank you,
Star

Again, won't it still pass if it goes back to congress and they get 2/3 or 3/4 vote on it even if the president says "No, torture is fun! Where's my broomstick and a arab I can torture?"

BTW Didn't the Boston Strangler do that to his victims? Rape/sodomize them with a broomstick before he killed them? Maybe Bush wants to be the next Boston Strangler.

[edit on 8-10-2005 by Full Metal]

Originally posted by Full Metal
Again, won't it still pass if it goes back to congress and they get 2/3 or 3/4 vote on it even if the president says "No, torture is fun! Where's my broomstick and a arab I can torture?"

[edit on 8-10-2005 by Full Metal]

2/3 majority vote is all they need to override his veto.

mod edit to shorten quote

[edit on 8-10-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by Amethyst
So much for having the moral high ground.

I wonder how the Bushbots can continue to support this guy. They must be a pretty die-hard group.

I agree with you. But his support is waning
How can they justify this??

Originally posted by Seekerof

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]

Seekerof, your comments never cease to amaze me...

If i may, I would like to address some things here..

- just becasue you may be able to quote HOW torture is justified doesnt mean you CAN discern when it's applicable or not while in the situation especially if ordered to do so.
- as you yourself pointed out you are "beclouded in a heavy patriotic inneundo", which to me means you haven't the ability to see ANY other point of view.
- you think it's proper for the current (or ANY) administration to profess that torture IS in fact justifiable? Ok, thats your opinion, however when you travel and find that the shoe is on the OTHER foot, dont expect OR cry when no one comes to help you, because yes you WOULD cry and yes it WOULD be justifiable and NO it wouldnt be illegal.


Personally, I think (even if its an outright lie) that the current administration should suck it up, and CLAIM they dont condone that activity..if they choose otherwise, this gives more fuel to the worlds terrorists and anti-american sentiment that started all of this to begin with. If "Dubya" really wanted to undermine terrorist activity, he would simply denounce any reciprocal semblance of that activity. This would insure world support and our ability to handle matters in a more covert way. But being OVERTLY pro-torture leaves the world wondering about our true intent, wouldnt you say?

Yes, you need that majority to override...but what happens if enough of them get bribed? Or blackmailed?

:shk: :shk: :shk:

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.

That's very well on you, Seekerof. I'm not the least bit surprised either that this would be a well served effort to imply some level of superiority, and more importantly, an effort to insinuate that a former military man like yourself is more than able to justify the unjustifiable torture of prisoners with this experience alone. Still, even fools fought in wars and were given medals of honour; the same fools who trotted along side thier beclouded leaders in thier uber-capitalist fever and geo-political goals which were more than enough to create the troubles we see in the Middle East today, don't you agree, Seekerof?

Exactly how did you serve your country, Seekerof? You seem like a man whome one would hire to quiten dissent, or steer the public opinion with masked allusions of patrioism and the postitive implications of unjustifiable wars. The haste in which you pounce on the oppurtunity to defend and blantaly corrup group of individuals is remarkable, if I must say so myself.

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?!

No, it's quite rational as you seem to have simply brushed my implication of your failure to realize that the torturing of children does not lead one to a group of terrorists; mind you, this level of torture still ceases to discontinue and disregards all conventional treaties that prohibit as such. BUT, as you and others will vehemently reinforce, would those terrorists show the same gratitude were the tables turned, and American soldiers were prisoners? I'm surprised nobody has realized that this level of debate can only be found within the premise of elementry school yards.

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.

Very well said, Seekerof, however, you forgot to realize that you're speaking to a man who can discern between your allusions and reality; the allusion is that this was simply a "fraternity hazing ritual", or a consequence of extreme stress" that happened in an isolated sector of the military; the reality; this was no mere ritual commited by young soldiers under extreme pyschological stress, nor was it some soldiers being 'stupid', these were acts commited over a long period of time by otherwise rational members of society who have testified that they were ordered to do as such.

I would recomend a brilliant book written by a very astute fellow, Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People: The Dynamics of Torture, by John Conroy. Conroy argues that the goverment has a very predictable pattern of reaction when faced with alligations of torture and other such prohibited actions: Firstly, they there is "absolute and complete denial." Congress was told by Rumsfield in 2004 that the US had followed the Geneva Convention "to the letter." Though we now know otherwise. Secondly, he states, "minimize the abuse." You know the drill, in fact, i'll quote you for a more fecund example:" 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." And then of course is to disparage the victims." The redundant asserting of these torture victims as being 'terrorists', or the worst scum of the universe who deserved to be tortured, really, you do understand the lingua franca of these neo-cons.

Seekerof, this is slowly becoming just pathetic to see you defend these men to the bone when simple common sense tells us that something spurious is hidden under the carpet, no?

Once again, your old freind, ZeroDeep, back with a new puesdonym, and still on your case.

Deep

Well, you've got to pick your battles....they always say. It warms my cockles to find out torturing folks is a noble enough "right" to fight for that you'd break a five year non-veto roll for.

Also, torture tends to make people tell you what you want to hear just so you stop torturing them, even if it's a lie. So, if we want someone to confess that he's part of "Al Qaeda" and he is in some nefarious plot to "destroy our freedoms" by blowing up a few buildings, then there is no better way than to torture the person. Then you can publicize this confession and make the public think that you have some dangerous terrorist captured, when it could be a person that has absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist group or action, and you tortured him into confessing lies.

In addition to that, Seekerof you say "concessions in war give the enemy the upper hand" but you forget that concessions is a very vague thing, concessions of what, where, and how? And who says that there exists an enemy, and who is this enemy and why is he an enemy? And what is this "upper hand"? We are the most powerful military force in the world, do you think Iraq is our enemy that can perhaps defeat us if we do not torture? Or do you think Al Qaeda can defeat us?

You say our enemies are most certainly laughing at us and our supposed torture-free policies. But in case you haven't noticed, we sort of tend to only make people weep, make them dead, angry, or anything in between those 3. And who says Al Qaeda even exists and is in any way our enemy instead of being just a government-created boogey man? Where is the evidence?

And last but not least, how do you know the government will not use torture against its own people that is "suspects" of being terrorists, as all governments throughout history have always done, regardless of whether those people were in any way a threat or involved in any form of "terrorism" at all? It seems that the only thing torture is good for is squashing dissent, as it makes people afraid to speak out against the government and its actions, in fear that they will be labeled as "giving support to the enemy" or even "terrorists" themselves, and legally tortured.

Out of all the people that were indefinitely imprisoned (usually without charge) because they were called "terrorists" by our government, do you know how many actually were in any way related to any terrorist organization or acts? Do you know how many were later released because there was no evidence at all that they were in any way a threat to anyone?

And yet, how many were held without evidence or charge anyway just because the government wanted? How many were transported to countries like Egypt where torture is legal to torture them anyway into confessions that the government wants to hear that it can then publicize and say "aha see we told you those evil terrorists want to kill us all! Booga-booga!".

You are operating under the assumption that there exists a threat of some sort to this country, against ALL evidence to the contrary and having no evidence that supports this assumption. Your second assumption is that the government will only use its powers for "good", again, against all evidence to the contrary.

It seems like you have a blind allegiance and blind faith in those psychopaths in power, and I wonder why? You think military service gives you a better understanding of these things? Well, Nazis were also serving in the German Military, and yet theri military service did not seem to enlighten them to the fact that they were pawns and their government was lying left and right, only to scare the population into surrendering all their liberties and allowing the government to torture anyone they called an "enemy", even if it is just a dissenter - which is what it always was because there WERE no enemies, only nations that fought in self defense against German invasions, just as there are nations now fighting in self defense against US invasions. And just like in Germany, we are claiming that there are evil terrorists there that hate everyone and want to kill us all and remove our "freedoms", so we must invade or else we're all doomed!


Oh and of course even if you ASSUME that there is some threat to our existance (hypothetically), and the government is given all those powers to deal with it, who is to say that the government will not continue to act like the threat still exists even after the threat is gone just to keep the power? That's the problem though - if there was no clear proof/evidence that the threat existed in the first place, how will you know the difference between a real threat and a fake threat if all you have to go on is what the government tells you? And yet you take their word for it anyway, hoping they'll just "do the right thing" even if historically no government EVER did "the right thing", and have NEVER relinquished their powers without being violently overthrown with lots of bloodshed.

it is simply the nature of those in power to only act in their own interests, and it still continues to be their nature, and will forevermore be their nature. Yet there continues to be a huge number of ignorant/naive people who trust the government anyway, for no reason whatsoever other than because they say so. They say they want peace, yet they wage war. They say they want to protect our freedoms, yet they remove them in order to "fight the enemy". They say they want to protect us, yet they piss off the entire world off by illegally invadind and killing tens of thousands of innocents, with no evidence of any threat to begin with. Well if there was no threat, there is one now because of our actions

[edit on 10-10-2005 by lilblam]

quote by: lilblam it is simply the nature of those in power to only act in their own interests, and it still continues to be their nature, and will forevermore be their nature. Yet there continues to be a huge number of ignorant/naive people who trust the government anyway, for no reason whatsoever other than because they say so. They say they want peace, yet they wage war. They say they want to protect our freedoms, yet they remove them in order to "fight the enemy". They say they want to protect us, yet they piss off the entire world off by illegally invadind and killing tens of thousands of innocents, with no evidence of any threat to begin with. Well if there was no threat, there is one now because of our actions

Good posts Very well said.

There have been things about the USA that set us Apart from the rest of the world.

1 We never invaded another counrty unless attacked first.....not anymore
2 We used Due Process in arrests and detainment.....not anymore
3 We used our laws for prisoners rights, even though they were law breakers. They Had the chance to prove their innocence.......Not anymore
4 We did Not use Torture, We did not condone Torture, We did not Justicfy Torture....Not anymore

So if we use the same methods of our Enemy, or the Methods of our past Enemys....what does that make us????

peace

[edit on 10-10-2005 by LDragonFire]

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....

I suggest putting your spine on the front in Iraq. That way when captured you can make claim to your captors that you don't care about torture.

I was stationed in Germany during the 70s and one day came across a gentleman that was a POW in the States during the war. He was very complimentary of his treatment.

Now we have people like yourself that apparently could not give a lick about our status as a peace loving country. People like yourself who get off by not having to sacrifice or fight the fight. One who acts just like the enemy we fight or worse.

The only ones without spines are the ones who think like this.

I wonder how the Bushbots can continue to support this guy. They must be a pretty die-hard group.

They support him out of blind allegiance to the "party" he represents. If they actually knew what his party was for and against these days they would dramatically back off. Most are working off of party brainwashing and still think that the old welfare system is in place.

I live amongst them in one of the highest per capita counties in the country. I ask many questions and on issues. Ask one about an issue and 95% go along with the Democrats. Then when informed of such they are appaled at why that could be. My poor mother-in-law was asked stances on issues one night and answered every question on the Democrat side. However, she couldn't change her vote because of what dem's represent? HUH?????

It's called the leading and fleecing of the sheep. Many are closet rascists here in the South, and most have what I refer to as "White man's disease".

I think a very important point to make here is that patriotism has nothing to do with allegiance to the government and its policies, but everything to do with the IDEA of the country, as for example, the IDEA of America as it was put forth by the founding fathers.

Being "against" Bush or any other politician has nothing to do with being against America as a nation and against the American people. Politicians will glaldy remove the constitution and create a totalitarian rule if the people allowed them.

My point is simply this - let us not blindly defend a politician because of our attachment or love for him or his party, be it republican or democrat, liberal or conservative. Let us not be divided by such silly and very superficial divisions. Those in power, regardless of what superficial political side they say they represent, are always the same in their nature, and THAT is what we as the people of this country need to learn to SEE and understand. This is something that keeps escaping the people of this world and they repeat the same mistakes over and over because of this.

If you love America as it was designed, then please maintain this design and critically question and carefully WATCH anyone that dares veer away from it and provides a flimsy excuse. This initial design can be easily slipped away from underneath us when the citizenry becomes apathetic, as it is now, and is more concerned with superficial party monickers and as thus are DIVIDED by the very politicians that created this game to begin with.

My point is simply this - let us not blindly defend a politician because of our attachment or love for him or his party, be it republican or democrat, liberal or conservative. Let us not be divided by such silly and very superficial divisions. Those in power, regardless of what superficial political side they say they represent, are always the same in their nature, and THAT is what we as the people of this country need to learn to SEE and understand. This is something that keeps escaping the people of this world and they repeat the same mistakes over and over because of this.

Good point lilblam also one thing to consider is that the counrty is not mostly liberal or conservitive.....But Moderate, normally the Moderates deside all elections, and policy. But conservitives belive the louder they speak the more people will believe in their right wings agendas, witch and be seen in there downward spiral in the polls, the US people listened and went along untill things started falling apart.

Being "against" Bush or any other politician has nothing to do with being against America as a nation and against the American people. Politicians will glaldy remove the constitution and create a totalitarian rule if the people allowed them.

Another Good point lilblam democracy does Not deal in Absolutes, despondic regimes allways do. Most don't or are starting to see how close we are to becoming a despontic regime. Who in there right mind would Give this president powers to use the military in natural or national Emergencys???

It seems to me that Habius Corpus will be the next thing for this admistration to go after, well using the term Enemy Cobatant is how they have gotten around it thus far.

You had better agree with them or they will Electrify your genitals.

If you love America as it was designed, then please maintain this design and critically question and carefully WATCH anyone that dares veer away from it and provides a flimsy excuse. This initial design can be easily slipped away from underneath us when the citizenry becomes apathetic, as it is now, and is more concerned with superficial party monickers and as thus are DIVIDED by the very politicians that created this game to begin with.

This sadly enough is allready happening, To think in todays age we are debating whether or not Torture has a place in our law

peace

That's actually pretty funny too - a few months ago torture was "evil" and "wrong" and "amoral" and "it doesn't work" (as I think Rummy said) and considered the tactic of psychopathic and totalitarian regimes, and terrorists perhaps. I wonder how long before indefinite detainment without charge becomes the next norm in the name of "national security"? It's funny that the more the government lies and removes our rights, the more shocked the citizens get and the more people wake up to realise what is happening, but the more this goes on the harder it is to do anything about it. It may already be too late and the country will go into a massive state of denial just like Nazi Germany - the citizens continue to believe that they live in a democracy when they live in a fascist dictatorship.

But then again, most things that have happened since 911 would've been perceived as absurd, scary, draconian, and unacceptable before 911. It seems that either a group of terrorists has tremendous power to destroy all democracies - blow something up and let their respective governments do the rest. How easy is that? It seems that anyone can turn a democracy into a fascism these days - just explode a building and the government of that country will be all too happy to claim that an all powerful terrorist network of evil has plans to take over the world, and so all that they do is "for our own good" (which includes war, removal of liberties, etc). Unless of course the governments engineered the "terrorist acts" to begin with, but then again, when people are so full of fear and emotions, who cares about evidence and proof, people want blood and the government is all too happy to provide the scapegoat, the fall guy.

If before 911 the government said that there exists a huge global terror network that presents an immediate and grave threat to US and the world at large, and that they need to invade certain middle eastern countries or we're all doomed, would the citizens go along with it? I highly doubt it, we'd require proof first. But 911 changed that, as the nation was so emotionally charged, critical thinking was effectively shut down and as people's minds closed, the government's opportunities for power opened.

If before 911 the government tried to enact the Patriot act I and II and other measures in order to spy on its own citizens and limit our civil liberties because the nation is supposedly infested with some evil terrorists everywhere and we need to be protected - would the citizens allow them t o do this without any proof? I highly doubt it. But 911 changed all that, people did not care WHO blew up the World Trade Center, they did not care who truly benefits - they were emotionally charged and believed their government would not lie to them, would be incapable of such inhumanity as to attack its own citizenry to gain power. And war began fueled by hate and emotions, with absence of critical thought once more.

Did Al Qaeda only suddenly appear after 911 and out of nowhere there suddenly exists this huge global terror threat bent on global destruction and domination? It seems Al Qaeda are tactical geniuses, but are logical retards - they can plan and execute the most spectacular attacks while evading the multi-billion dollar military industrial complexes and spy agencies of the most powerful nations on Earth entirely - and yet fail to realise that their "terrro attacks" will only benefit the governments of the respective countries being attacked, and in no way benefit Al Qaeda or Muslims at large, nor help their cause. In fact, it only brought down hell on themselves and their people, and provided excuse for our government to limit our own freedoms and give themselves expanded powers INDEFINITELY. So either Al Qaeda are complete fools (which they are not given that they can masterfully shut down all security and plan and execute flawless stunts like 911), or Al Qaeda are not at all who we are told they are, and we should perhaps look a little closer to home...

Which begs the question, if our government is stripping us of the very freedoms they claim they protect, the very freedoms they claim the terrorists hate - WHO ARE THE REAL TERRORISTS? Why is it so difficult to add 2+2 together? Why not treat this as critically and wisely as a detective treats a crime investigation - if we do this, things become very clear indeed.

The question is, if we give the government these powers and blindly trust them on their word that we're in some sort of threat, can we also trust that once the war on terrorism is WON (something Bush said can't be won actually) that they will simply go back to how it was and all will go back to normal? Or will the government continue with the illusion of a threat to keep those new powers? What does history tell us - of ANY country and ANY government in ALL of history of mankind? Even if we forget the philosophical and logical aspect of the nature of those in power and just look at data of our history, does that not already tell us the answer to this question?

A building blowing up is NOT evidence that Al Qaeda is out to get us - it is evidence that a building blew up, period. And then you pay attention to whose mouth runs the most with the least evidence, you pay attention to who benefits the most, you pay attention to who tries to cover up the event the most, etc.

There is a very wise saying - The guilty flee when no one pursues.

And of course it is understandable that considering the possibility that the government of the "greatest nation on Earth" could do all these things is painful, especially for the citizens of this nation who were conditioned to love it no matter what it does, America can do no wrong, right?

But one thing has always been and will forever remain true - there is no free lunch in the universe. When citizens expect the government to simply "be good" and trust it to "do the right thing" on its own accord, that's when they expect "free lunch" with no effort or thought on their part, and it ALWAYS - ALWAYS ends in huge deceptions, lies, and blood. When citizens stop demanding proof and stop holding the government accountable for everything that it does, it is akin to saying "we don't know your intentions or whether what you say publically you believe privately, but we'll pretend you always speak truth and only act in our best interests anyway, what could go wrong?"

And then everything goes wrong and people are shocked and surprised and horrified. It's the exact same story over and over and over.

We have a political system that awards office to the most ruthless, cunning, and selfish of mortals, then act surprised when those those willing to do anything to win power are equally willing to do anything with it. "
-- Michael Rivero

[edit on 11-10-2005 by lilblam]

It seems not all lawmakers are in league with this administration:

Congressman Ron Paul has accused the Bush administration of attempting to set in motion a militarized police state in America by enacting gun confiscation martial law provisions in the event of an avian flu pandemic. Paul also slammed as delusional and dangerous plans to invade Iran, Syria, North Korea and China.

"It's really hard to believe it's happening right in front of us. Whether it's the torture or the process of denying habeas corpus to an American citizen."

AlexJones

Torture and martial law go hand in hand with Despondic Dictator Regimes.

peace

Originally posted by RANT
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.

At this point, if the Republican Party has any sense at all, they will tell Bush to be as hostile to them as he possibly can, or they'll have him shot. Those would be my words to him if I were running that party, "Dubya, I want you to veto every god blessed thing we send you, I want you to call us names, and I want you to fire Condi and anyone else in your administration who I think has a future in this party".
I'd then proceed to help the dems override Bush vetoes on bipartisan issues, and try to prove to America that Republicans don't hate puppies so that they can at least retain the house of reps if not the senate in 2006 and 2008.
I'm not saying Republicans are necessarily wrong about everything, or that they're evil (I'm not even close to the most morally conscious person here), I'm just saying that right wrong or indifferent they have a serious image problem.

Edit to clarify: the following is not a threat against our president. As a conspiracy theorist, I am simply stating my suspicion that if the Republican party had their way, they'd eliminate the image problem that Bush presents for them.

Bush has become a liability. In a perfect world they'd shoot Cheney, get Rice put in the VP slot, then shoot Bush, and try to get Condi to carry out whatever policies the party has at heart, but in a way that doesn't make people with liberal leanings (especially moderate republicans) want to throw up.

[edit on 19-10-2005 by The Vagabond]