Under the circumstances, I think this is a good idea. I consider it typical of Bush and friends that they are pro-torture; if it hurts people, they support it.
Up for debate :
1 : Is this a good idea ?
2 : If the Bush admin keeps fighting, will it hurt their or the Republicans image even more, or are most Americans savage enough to cheer on those who support torturers ?
Also # 3 :
True or false ? Are we really incapable of functioning without torture ?
Finally # 4 : Am I the only one amazed this is even a matter of debate in America ? Now, I’m cynical; I expect savage behavior when, say, some soldiers want information or revenge from a soldier and think they won’t get caught. I never really expected the open defense and approval of torture in a country as big on moral superiority and “We’re number #1” as this one; it’s embarassing.
I am too. The concept that a president would go out of his way, and this very publically to oppose a ban on torture is just stuning. What it tells about current american society really isn’t pleasant.
It’s the closing chapters of the GOP agenda. Surprise is not warranted. Until now, there the right has been frustrated at having to cede reasons to the progessive parts of the country.
Why go to war?
Why legislate for torture?
Now, there’s no longer a need to pay any heed to these and similar things which concern progessives and UN stalwarts. Instead, the GOP rejoices in having driven out reasons and progress and restraint of law from American public life. These liberalisms are unpalatable to them.
The GOP from its position of victory, now openly crucifies the the values of its opponents and scripts its own indelibly in a banner across the map. “This is who we are.” Mission accomplished.
No, you’re not the only one. I’m shocked that our so-called leaders spend time quibbling about the definition of torture but I’m not amazed at Bush’s actions. I really believe he is so sophomoric that he really believes that those bull sessions in the frat house about “what we oughtta do” in solving various problems represent reality.
What does surprise me is that serious people fall in line with the idea of “active interrogation” and make excuses for it. I guess I shouldn’t be though when I remember that the Supreme Court sanctioned the wholesale internment of Japanese in WWII. That was done on grounds that the internment was in line with the Executive Order without ever examining the justification for the Executive Order itself.
The paniced reaction to the WTC and Pentagon attacks has a lot to answer for when the final accounting is done.
I assume that McCain’s anti-torture section doesn’t have enough support in Congress to override a veto?
If that’s the case, is it really a good idea to allow McCain etc to threaten the White House/President like that? I do not mean to support or oppose McCain’s ban on torture here, but it worries me that McCain is circumventing the system put in place to handle this kind of dispute.
And if there is, in fact, enough support to override a veto, why make threats?
It was approved in the Senate by a vote of 90-9. It probably has less support in the house, but I imagine it could still override a veto.
That’s the anti-torture provision on it’s own, though. If McCain introduced it as an independent bill, I don’t think he’d have any trouble. The spending bill that he originally attached it to probably won’t have the 2/3 supermajority it would need to override the veto.
The McCain Amendment passed the Senate 90-9, so overriding the veto is not the problem.
The anti-torture amendment, riding on the Pentagon appropriations bill, passed the Senate despite heavy pressure from Dick Cheney & his minions. But it looks like the House will scrap the amendment entirely (due to - surprise - pressure from Dick Cheney’s office). Cheney has promised that Bush will veto any bill exempting the CIA from adherence.
Speaking of veto, it’s sad and ironic that the President will use the very first veto of his administration, potentially cutting off funding for the War on Terror, just to preserve the right to torture.
What is stopping McCain et al from introducing the anti-torture amendment as a new bill, and then overriding the veto?
I suppose it could be the time it would take to introduce, pass, and override a new bill…seeing that preventing torture is a time-sensitive goal.
As I said before, I’m just worried that McCain et al is going about this the wrong way. It seems that their actions leave the door open to pass other, more controversial, amendments.
I’m sorry, but the fact that the United States even needs to have to put wordage towards banning torture is something I thought I would never live to experience in my lifetime.
If there was any doubt in my mind that George W. Bush was the worst thing to happen to America, this wiped all doubt away.
That said, I hope by all that is holy that McCain rams this ban down the Republican throat.
That’s what shocked me too. And the fact that it means it became politically possible to do so, IOW that the population is expected not to be very offended by advocating state-sponsored torture.
TBy contrast, that some leader in a democracy would secretly allow/order the use of torture wouldn’t surprise me the slightest bit.
Torture aside, no president likes to have limitations put on his authority by Congress. I wouldn’t expect any administration, end particularly this one, to just roll over and say: “Whatever you want, Congress. We’re here to do your bidding.”
Also, there is a continuum on the scale of interrogation <----> torture. I haven’t followed this battle too closely, but is this more about exactly where to draw the line or is the legislation really as loosely defined as saying “no torture allowed”. I mean, what exactly is torture and what isn’t torture?
I don’t buy the argument that such a bill would unduly restrict a president’s power. The president should not have authority to do something morally reprehensible. The fact that this even requires legislation speaks volumes of the moral bankruptcy of the Bush administration.
Well, if you accept the definition of the UN Convention Against Torture which we’ve signed and is legally binding:
The convention also differentiates “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” (though bad) from torture, and requires different levels of compliance. Arguably much of what went on in Abu Ghraib, though bad, did not rise to the level of torture.
But that’s not the whole story. That’s the internationally accepted definition of torture. There’s also the Bush admininstion’s definition of torture.
According to the now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, torture is inflicting permanent damage or pain amounting “to the level of death, organ failure, or the permanent impairment of a significant body function.” As far as mental torture goes, “acts must penetrate to the core of an individual’s ability to perceive the world around him, substantially interfering with his cognitive abilities, or fundamentally alter his personality.” Apparently torture by the administration’s reckoning is anything fucking a person up for good or bringing a person to the brink of death.
Presumably under the Administration’s definition bamboo shoots under fingernails, electrical shocks, and medeival dunking Salem-style, though bad, would not rise to the level of torture. :eek:
Whatsmore, they argue that torture must involve “specific intent” to cause pain, damage, or bodily harm. Ie, if the intent was to obtain information, and bodily harm was simply consequent to this attempt to obtain information, torture did not occur.
Given this obscenely ghoulish definition of torture, the fact that Bush wants to legalize it really says something.
And of at least part of the Congress and a good number of the people.
The President’s only real power is the power of persuasion. Sure, he (or she) is Commander in Chief of whatever armed forces the Congress sees fit to provide. But the commands are in accordance with regulations laid down by Congress.
The President’s job is to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress. From time to time the President must give the Congress a report on how things are going so that the Congress can take whatever legislative action is needed.
Congress, if it so desires, has the power to remove any and all Executive Department personnel and demand that the new President appoint people who will do what Congress wants done.
Congress always has the last word in matters between it and the Executive and all that it has to do is use it for the national good instead of their own benefit.
It’s hard to tell how long it will take for the US to recover internationally from the damage done by this administration.
Yes and I’ve also heard of an override. Congress has the last word.
The partial quote of the decision that you gave isn’t dealing with a limitation on the power of Congress to impeach. It is defining what is meant by an officer of the Executive branch. The definition is for the purpose of laying the groundwork to overturn a law because Congress intruded into the carrying out of a law and that’s the executive’s prerogative.
The whole case had nothing to do with impeachment but rather threw out at least one provision of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings on the grounds that the Act unconstitutionally gave an executive function to someone, the Comptroller General, who was a Congressional functionary. And the Comptroller is a creature of Congress because he or she can be removed by methods other than impeachment.
Here’s the part of the decision that you didn’t cite:
So say the President’s lawyers. But they don’t have the last word either do they? If it really, really wanted to the Congress has the power to stop this or any other war. The authorization for war was made by the Congress and can be withdrawn by the Congress. In which case the President’s wartime powers, which are granted by Congress in the first place, evaporate.
And, or course, that Presidential power to use torture is what the whole debate is about. And still some people seem content to excuse the use of torture by the US government whenever the President thinks it’s necessary.
It does directly address that “Congress cannot reserve for itself the power of removal of an officer charged with the execution of the laws except by impeachment.”
That kind of flies in the face of “Congress, if it so desires, has the power to remove any and all Executive Department personnel and demand that the new President appoint people who will do what Congress wants done.”