Finally, some Republicans doing something I can respect.

[Arlos]

Standing up for the continuing to act as a nation of laws, where everyone has rights before the law, and torture of all kinds is abhorred. Amazed to see this many republicans breaking ranks with Bush, but much as I harp on them for other issues, on THIS one those dissident republicans have my respect. Colin Powell certainly regains a lot of the respect I'd lost for him, too, when he stood up and read what were effectively lies to the UN. Good for him for following his conscience on this.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Facing a rebellion among fellow Republicans in the Senate, President Bush on Friday defended his stance on proposed military tribunals for suspected terrorists.

"There are two vital pieces of legislation in Congress that I think are necessary to help us win the war on terror," Bush said during a White House news conference.

The Bush administration says it wants to "clarify" how detainees are interrogated, but critics say it's an interpretation that could weaken the Geneva Conventions and threaten the safety of U.S. forces overseas.

"My job and the job of the people here in Washington, D.C., is to protect this country," Bush.

"This enemy has struck us and they want to strike us again, and we'll give our folks the tools to protect this country, that's our job."

The press briefing comes a day after the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 15-9 to recommend a bill -- over the objections of the Bush administration -- that would authorize tribunals for terror suspects in a way that it says would protect the defendants' rights.

The bill was backed by Republican Sens. John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The three lawmakers and Susan Collins, R-Maine joined the Armed Services Committee's Democrats in voting for the bill. (Watch GOP senators buck the White House -- 2:57)

The committee's bill differs from the administration's proposal in two major ways: It would permit terror suspects to view classified evidence against them and does not include a re-interpretation of a Geneva Conventions rule that prohibits cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees.

In a decision this summer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the administration must meet the Geneva Convention's Common Article 3 standards in its treatment of detainees.

Article 3 prohibits nations engaged in combat not of "an international character" from, among other things, "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment."

The House Armed Services Committee sent the administration bill to the House floor in a 52-8 vote Wednesday.
White House: Critics misunderstand

On Thursday, White House spokesman Tony Snow said opponents of the administration's proposal on terrorist tribunals misunderstood the administration's intentions when it proposed to define how Article 3 applies to the interrogation of terrorist suspects.

The administration believes that the court's ruling prevents it from properly interrogating terrorist suspects because it opens military and CIA personal to prosecutions, so the White House asked Congress to define the the terms of Article III, Snow said.

"If you have people in the field trying to question terrorists, if you do not have clear legal definitions, they themselves will be subject to the whims and the differing interpretations given by foreign courts, foreign judges and foreign tribunals," Snow said. "And we don't think that's appropriate."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sent a letter to Warner saying that the administration's "proposed legislation would strengthen U.S. adherence to Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions because it would add meaningful definitions and clarification to vague terms in the treaties."
Powell breaks with administration

But critics, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell and top Republican senators, oppose reinterpretation of the Geneva Conventions rule.

Powell expressed his opposition in a letter to McCain released Thursday.

Warner, Graham and McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war -- along with Powell -- oppose any changes to the U.S. interpretation of Article 3, arguing that it could adversely affect enemies' treatment of captured U.S. service members. (Watch why the GOP is split over tribunals -- 2:40")

"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," Powell, a retired Army four-star general, wrote in his letter to McCain, whose amendment last year opposed the use of torture. (Read Powell's letter)

"To redefine Common Article III would add to those doubts," Powell said. "Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

-Arlos

[Evermore]

so no more electrodes to the scrotem?

[Arlos]

They'll make an exception for you, Evermore, since they know you like it so much.

-Arlos

[Spazz]

Torture is retarded. You fuck someone up bad enuff theyll tell you what ever you want to hear.

[Evermore]

It was the only way i could get you to release your lip lock on my saq

[Lyion]

[Lueyen]

There are a few problems I have with this whole issue. While I don't want to see malicious torture and maiming, I have no problem with making an enemy uncomfortable or applying pressure to garner information that will save American citizens American troops lives. The problems I see however are the following.

First there seems to be an attempt to apply the rights of civilians or soldiers to terrorist combatants when they are neither. The US constitution protects the rights of the country's citizens, not the country's enemies and not those that seek to destroy it. The Geneva Convention is an agreement between countries to prevent atrocities to any countries captured military soldiers. Terrorist combatants do not represent any country or body that has signed and has agreed to the rules set forth by the Geneva documents. In essence the leadership of these combatants has not agreed and is not bound by the guidelines there in. There is no justifiable reasoning that the rights granted to US citizens in civil proceedings or rights granted foreign military soldiers should be granted to those that seek to destroy that which would be protecting, and are not bound by the same agreement for their part. When discussing terrorists or non structured military combatants that do no represent an official body that has agreed to be bound by the rules of the Geneva Convention, in no way is our decision on staying within those rules going to guarantee that our troops will be treated in kind. I see the argument that treatment of our captured troops will parallel that of our treatment of those we capture as being unrealistic, since there is not real agreement or enforcement of conduct to the enemy.

While I think it is important to have some level of guarantee of rules of how captured combatants are treated, and some form of review to ensure that those rules are not violated, I think those rules should be very specific and not subjective. The problem with using the Geneva Convention's Common Article 3 is that it forbids "humiliating and degrading treatment". This is absolutely subjective and to prevent red tape in interrogating prisoners we need to have clearly defined what this means. By red tape I mean tying up our courts by having it become necessary for a judge to make a subjective determination on whether treatment toward a prisoner violated this sort of clause. Again the idea of a litmus test of "would we want this sort of action applied to our captured soldiers" simply does not apply, as this is not an agreement between the US and the enemy, it is the US defining how it will treat it's prisoners and has no bearing on how this enemy will treat our own soldiers who become it's prisoners.

I am also concerned with this part :

It would permit terror suspects to view classified evidence against them

This could easily prevent a situation where charges that would otherwise be applied may not be brought due to greater national security concerns, because between this and the idea of client/lawyer privilege, classified evidence could easily be leaked to the enemy. I'd rather not have a situation where intelligence gathering methods that are effective become exposed and nullified by an enemy due to this information being leaked out of a trial.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see any human being brutally tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment, I think that the handling of military prisoners needs careful oversight, but we need specific boundaries that do not lend themselves to interpretation or opinion. The Geneva convention would be a good basis however, the enemy we face is not a convential one, nor bound by those same rules. By applying unclear subjective rules with no concensus between both sides as to interpretation, we are effectively imposing on ourselves a standard that will likely not be followed by our enemies.

[Arlos]

So, because the terrorists don't respect human rights that means we don't have to? Because they have no qualms against torture means we shouldn't either? What, then would make us different from them, apart from the fact that they don't operate out of a specific piece of geography? We've killed plenty of innocents as well trying to strike at our enemy, far more innocents than died in 9/11, if you want to look at the stark naked facts of the matter.

If we wish to distinguish ourselves from our adversary, we *MUST* maintain the moral high ground, inconvenient as that may be. That means treating captured prisoners with ALL the dignity that we would wish our captured prisoners would be treated with. That means no torture, no softening of the interpretation of article 3, nothing. PERIOD.

Furthermore, this government is ENTIRELY capable of picking up random people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, labeling them terrorists, and then detaining them indefinitely. How many have been put in Guantanimo only to be later released with no charges? Lots. If the government DOES try someone, they have EVERY right to know what they're being charged with and what the evidence is. If we vote to not allow them that access, that sets an incredibly dangerous precedent and is incredibly open to potential abuse.

Ultimately, the war on terror is, in many ways, at its heart a war of marketing campaigns. Which we are, at present, losing to a bunch of people in caves, which shows the ineptness of Bush's response, but that's a tangent. The power of marketing is in word of mouth. If America stands up and says "We treat EVERYONE equally, no matter who or what they did, and we treat them humanely and morally" and can PROVE it, that gives us a huge leg up in that marketing war. The moment we even appear to descend to their level, we lose it. Forever.

Yes, being "the good guy" can be inconvenient, and you tend to have to operate with in effect 1 hand tied behind your back. That is the price we pay for calling ourselves civilized.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

So, because the terrorists don't respect human rights that means we don't have to? Because they have no qualms against torture means we shouldn't either? What, then would make us different from them, apart from the fact that they don't operate out of a specific piece of geography? We've killed plenty of innocents as well trying to strike at our enemy, far more innocents than died in 9/11, if you want to look at the stark naked facts of the matter.

If we wish to distinguish ourselves from our adversary, we *MUST* maintain the moral high ground, inconvenient as that may be. That means treating captured prisoners with ALL the dignity that we would wish our captured prisoners would be treated with. That means no torture, no softening of the interpretation of article 3, nothing. PERIOD.

Understand Arlos, I'm not condoning torture or saying it should be implemented or that we should soften article 3. What we should do is get very specific about what is and is not torture or degradation. It is subjective and up to individual interpretation to an extent. This is actually fine with the Geneva Convention guidelines because the interpretation is agreed upon by both sides. What we should try to avoid is dragging interrogators or guards into court every time a combatant prisoner feels they are being mistreated in some way shape or form, even if you or I might even be in agreement that they weren't being mistreated. What if an interrogator raising their voice was considered by a prisoner torture... should we then bring the interrogator up on charges? We absolutely need to be specific with what can and can not be done in the course of interrogation. Admittedly that is easy to say and hard to do, because of balance. The balance that must be achieved is between preserving human rights yet still providing effective methods of obtaining crucial information that the prisoner does not want to give up. Honestly I think this balance will only be obtained when carefully thought out, and specifically detailed.

Furthermore, this government is ENTIRELY capable of picking up random people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, labeling them terrorists, and then detaining them indefinitely. How many have been put in Guantanimo only to be later released with no charges? Lots.

You make it sound as if people are arbitrarily being rounded up and placed in prison at Guantanamo, which is far from the case. Before someone finds themselves in Guantanamo bay there are several assessments made by different individuals, and these assessments are then reviewed independently by individuals higher up the chain of command. While it's not perfect, neither is any criminal justice system until the day we can read someone’s mind. Understand the reason we detain these people is that there is very good reason to suspect they are enemy combatants, and we detain them until such time as we can determine if that is the case, if it is not then they are released... what would you propose we do instead? Just let them go, or perhaps we should kill them just to be on the safe side? Either extreme is obviously not a good answer, but the middle ground of detention until we can be sure is better then both.

If the government DOES try someone, they have EVERY right to know what they're being charged with and what the evidence is. If we vote to not allow them that access, that sets an incredibly dangerous precedent and is incredibly open to potential abuse.

And if full disclosure of the evidence would reveal a mole, informant, or method of infiltrating a terrorist organization should that have to be presented to the defendant also? (no argument here on letting them know what it is they are being charged with). This is the sort of situation I am concerned with, and while I'm inclined to agree that we need to provide information relevant to the accused defense, we also in some way must guard against compromising security, how would you propose we do this?

Ultimately, the war on terror is, in many ways, at its heart a war of marketing campaigns. Which we are, at present, losing to a bunch of people in caves, which shows the ineptness of Bush's response, but that's a tangent. The power of marketing is in word of mouth. If America stands up and says "We treat EVERYONE equally, no matter who or what they did, and we treat them humanely and morally" and can PROVE it, that gives us a huge leg up in that marketing war. The moment we even appear to descend to their level, we lose it. Forever.

Yes, being "the good guy" can be inconvenient, and you tend to have to operate with in effect 1 hand tied behind your back. That is the price we pay for calling ourselves civilized.

I can agree on that, but we must absolutely find a way to avoid compromising security and the safety of our troops, and our allies. We must also avoid tying our own hands. There are disagreements with what has been proposed by the Bush administration, I have absolutely no problem with that, however I feel it is extremely erroneous to categorically dismiss the idea that we need to flesh out the details where they are very subjective and there is no informal consensus brought about by an agreement to follow broad guidelines.

[Arlos]

Understand Arlos, I'm not condoning torture or saying it should be implemented or that we should soften article 3. What we should do is get very specific about what is and is not torture or degradation.

The problem is, it is almost impossible to define in a universal case, as every individual is going to be different. If they served ME 3 meals with bacon for breakfast, ham sandwiches for lunch, and gourmet-cooked pork chops for dinner, I'd love it. Give a muslim person (or orthodox jew for that matter) the alternatives of eating pork or starving however, and that's torture.

If there were some realiable and universally accepted method of defining what is and is not covered, I would be all for it. I would argue strenuously, however, that Bush & his cronies are the *LAST* people who should be doing so, however. Even if you like them, they certainly will be less than impartial out of self-interest if for no other reason. Given that it's an international treaty, and where the actions of one signatory are judged by the other signatories, such a clarification of rules would seem to need to come FROM those other signatories, if you wanted to be ABSOLUTELY sure of not treading on toes.

Needless to say, that would be highly impractical. Therefore, interrogators are going to need to err on the side of caution when it comes to what they're doing, which I don't consider in any way a bad thing.

You make it sound as if people are arbitrarily being rounded up and placed in prison at Guantanamo, which is far from the case

Over 250 people have been released from Guantanamo, most of whom were never charged with any crime whatsoever. Some indeed WERE in the wrong place at the wrong time, and were picked up in sweeps and detained, in some cases for years. I assure you, I am not making these situations up, go look at some of the newws stories regarding them.

And if full disclosure of the evidence would reveal a mole, informant, or method of infiltrating a terrorist organization should that have to be presented to the defendant also?

There are ways to hide the source of information gathered. They're done right now in RICO cases against people in the Mafia, or other organized crime groups. Also remember, that Bush's bill not only wanted to allow for denying defendants the right to examine the evidence against them, they also wanted to allow for hearsay evidence (something not allowed in ANY US judicial court) and for information extracted under torture. Sorry, but I cannot but abhor ANY of those conditions, and it's why I am VERY glad these Republicans are breaking ranks with the President over the issue.

We must also avoid tying our own hands.

Ahhhh, but maintaining a system of morality and following the rule of law instead of "eye for an eye" type justice REQUIRES at least partial tying of your own hands. Cannot be anything else, I'm afraid. Methods will have to be found to work around our self-imposed hand tying, or the consequences for not doing so will be far worse than those resulting from the hand-tying itself.

-Arlos

[Eziekial]

Equating our armed force's collateral damages to a terrorist attack aimed at the civilian population is dirty pool there Arlos.

[Arlos]

No, it's not quite the same thing. However, I am far more oriented towards Results over Intentions. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We can not intend to kill civilians in our military strikes, yet the upshot is that they're still dead. (Of course, in some cases civilians HAVE been targeted, see: Haditha, etc. though I agree that that was not institutional policy)

The families of the dead innocents don't CARE that they were killed as "collateral" damage, their wife/daughter/grandmother/etc is still dead, regardless of HOW. You think publicly posted "regrets" by the military are going to in any way assuage the grief and anger of a father who lost his wife and 2 year old little girl when an american bomb missed its target and blew up his house while he was at work? Somehow, I think not.

In any case, this is a tangential discussion to the primary issue under consideration in this thread. Many before have accused me of being blindly "Democrat Good, Republican Bad", regardless of what's going on. I have said repeatedly, show me Republicans doing things I can respect, and I will stand up and applaud just as loudly as when a Democrat did it. These Republicans did something I could DEFINITELY respect and support, and I wanted to call attention to it. McCain especially is sticking to his guns on this issue, despite pundits warning that it might well cost him the Republican presidential nomination in '08. That does nothing but INCREASE my respect for the man, honestly. Truly refreshing to see someone in politics hold fast to a point because it is morally right, and I absolutely respect that, regardless of the party of the person involved.

-Arlos

[Evermore]

Car Batteries to the Scrotum for everyone. to the Titties for the gals!

[Eziekial]

Morally right? So are you saying our government should use morals for guidance on all policy?

[Narrock]

Btw... Bush's ratings just climbed up (again).

[Arlos]

Given how low they were (are) it would be hard for them to go any OTHER direction, unless he were caught on film buggering sheep or something.

-Arlos

[Narrock]

Given how low they were (are) it would be hard for them to go any OTHER direction, unless he were caught on film buggering sheep or something.

-Arlos

Naw, he could've gone much lower. It was down to 33% at one point.

[Arlos]

Well, they caved. Respect gone. The "compromise" bill still violates the Geneva convention, still allows for evidence obtained by coercion, and still allows for secret evidence that the defense isn't allowed to see. Oh, and it exempts all interrogators from prosecution for their actions, regardless of how far they transgress over the line. Not to mention, it gives the President executive power to change the list of what is and isn't allowed at any time.

Absolute bullshit piece of legislation. The various REAL human rights organizations around the world have already blasted the bill. The US now has no moral leg to stand on to try and get other countries to recognize human rights, when we just codified laws violating them. I am absolutely sickened.

My only hope is that we'll get a Democratic congress in place after the fall elections, and they can reverse this bill.

-Arlos

[Narrock]

Well, they caved. Respect gone. The "compromise" bill still violates the Geneva convention, still allows for evidence obtained by coercion, and still allows for secret evidence that the defense isn't allowed to see. Oh, and it exempts all interrogators from prosecution for their actions, regardless of how far they transgress over the line. Not to mention, it gives the President executive power to change the list of what is and isn't allowed at any time.

Absolute bullshit piece of legislation. The various REAL human rights organizations around the world have already blasted the bill. The US now has no moral leg to stand on to try and get other countries to recognize human rights, when we just codified laws violating them. I am absolutely sickened.

My only hope is that we'll get a Democratic congress in place after the fall elections, and they can reverse this bill.

-Arlos

You've got to be joking.