Who Stole my Homeland, Part II
Senator John McCain, a combat veteran and former prisoner of war, has ammended a Pentagon spending bill. His ammendment has created a measure that would make it explicitly illegal to abuse prisoners of war.
“We demanded intelligence without ever clearly telling our troops what was permitted and what was forbidden. And when things went wrong, we blamed them and we punished them,” said McCain.
The measure… would require American troops to follow interrogation standards set in the Army Field Manual and bar “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” of prisoners in U.S. custody
The measure passed the Senate, 90 votes to 9. There is broad support for the measure outside the Senate as well.
Former Secretary of State and retired general Colin Powell backed the motion, saying that it would “help deal with the terrible public diplomacy crisis created by Abu Ghraib”.
Supporters of the measure also hope a commitment to treat prisoners in U.S. custody fairly will help secure humane treatment of U.S. citizens or servicemen kidnapped abroad.
However, the White House is threatening to veto the measure:
Bush administration officials say the legislation would limit the president’s authority and flexibility in war, and advisers say they would recommend a veto
They’re afraid to limit the President’s authority to torture people? To me, the idea of giving a President the authority to torture people is chilling. No matter what Alberto Gonzales wrote, nothing good can come of pretending it’s okay to treat people like this.
Let’s not make the cure worse than the disease.
I am more afraid of living in a country that condones torture than I am of any terrorist.
Come on, Mr. President.
Stand up for the true values of America.
Sign the bill.
mom said,
October 10, 2005 @ 8:36 pm
Where is the new bill posted. Has any one read it all the way through to see what it really says? Politics is a dangerous game and our President is NOT for torture. Wording can mean a lot, even one word in a sentence can distort or change a meaning. Maybe it just needs to be a little more clearly stated EXACTLY what it says. There are bills out there that have failed because of wording, or maybe just changing a few words to appease the majority. Think??
Patti said,
October 12, 2005 @ 1:21 pm
Mom,
Well, a person can’t read minds.
I can, however, read the text of the White House objection to this bill. They didn’t say, “There is hidden meaning in this measure that we don’t like.”
Instead they said, the measure would “restrict the president’s authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bringing terrorists to justice.”
Washington Post
The White House outright said that they don’t like being told they can’t torture people.
It is obvious from your comment that you, like me, believe that torture is a bad thing. It is not obvious from the White House statment that the President agrees with us.
I know that it’s hard to accept, but sometimes the officials we vote for don’t agree with us on every topic. Every official I’ve ever voted for has disappointed me in some way.
Sometimes they are outright liars. During the campaign, they tell us what they think we want to hear, and then we find out from their actions after they are in office that they are not the people we had hoped they would be. Other times, caught up in their own political intrigues, and trying to please their campain donors, they simply fail to live up to their ideals.
You are right to say that politics is a dangerous and complicated game, and there often are hidden agendas behind bills and measures. (boy could I list some examples of that!)
In this case, however, I think that the measure is straightforward. First, 90 senators voted for it, while only 9 voted against. As cynical as I am, I do still think that this kind of overwhelming majority can only come from a good piece of legislation.
Second, here is the text of the ammendment:
I honestly can’t find anything subversive in this.
If you want more information about this ammendment, you can read Senator McCain’s statement on his website.
We can never know what our elected officials think, and it wouldn’t be any of our business if we could know it. (I believe in a person’s right to privacy)
All we can know is what they do, but that turns out to be a lot. We all know that power corrupts. So when we hand these powerful jobs to people, it’s our job to watch them, and to give them a correction when they misuse or abuse that power.
If we let them know we’re watching every move, it is a very strong incentive to behave.