The Senate And The President Reach An Agreement
It is now official. The Senate is done playing games, done playing politics with national security--for now--and reached an agreement on the treatment of detainees, prisoners of war, or whatever the Hell these stooges want to call them. Pay attention to the bolded areas below. They are, in essence, the tale of the tape. From the WaPo:
The White House and rebellious Senate Republicans agreed Thursday on rules for the interrogation and trial of suspects in the war on terror, and President Bush urged Congress to make them law before adjourning for midterm elections.
"I'm pleased to say that this agreement preserves the single most potent tool we have in protecting America and foiling terrorist attacks," the president said, shortly after administration officials and key lawmakers announced agreement following a week of high-profile intraparty disagreement.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, one of three GOP lawmakers who told Bush he couldn't have the legislation the way he initially asked for it, said, "The agreement that we've entered into gives the president the tools he needs to continue to fight the war on terror and bring these evil people to justice."
"There's no doubt that the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved," McCain said, referring to international agreements that cover the treatment of prisoners in wartime.
Details of the agreement were sketchy.
The central sticking point had involved a demand from McCain, Sen. John Warner of Virginia and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina for a provision making it clear that torture of suspects would be barred.
One official said that under the agreement, the administration agreed to drop language that would have stated an existing ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment was enough to meet Geneva Convention obligations.
Convention standards are much broader and include a prohibition on "outrages" against "personal dignity."
In turn, this official said, negotiators agreed to clarify what acts constitute a war crime. The official spoke on condition of anonymity, saying he had not been authorized to discuss the details.
The agreement did not extend to a related issue -- whether suspects and their lawyers would be permitted to see any classified evidence in the cases against them.
Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he wouldn't consider the agreement sealed until Bush signed on.
That happened within an hour, when the president stepped before microphones in Orlando, Fla., where he was campaigning for Republican candidates in the fall.
First off, "details were sketchy?" anyone got a clue as to why the details were that way? Let me venture a guess here: Because torture is already banned by US law, maybe. In other words this whole debate--wasting our time, our money, and our patience--was all politics as usual. This was an effort by Sens. McCain, Graham, and Warner to score political points. McCain benefits the most from this because he's running for president in 2008. He is going to make this look like he is concerned for the nation's "well-being" in regards to international law.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that America has ALWAYS done its best to abide by the Geneva Convention and international law. We aren't the problem. Our enemies are. Even some of our allies are, when they opt to ignore international law or the Geneva Convention. We try to abide by both as much as possible, and I would wager a guess that we're good 99% of the time when it comes to such questions. Of course the Left can latch onto things like Abu Ghraib, and be appalled; claiming torture committed by US troops as opposed to unruly and unsupervised actions by a handful of troops. If they want, they can reach back to My Lai, and point fingers.
What they refuse to acknowledge in bvoth cases is that they're ISOLATED INCIDENTS!. These AREN'T the respected and condoned actions of the US military. They make no distinction. One indicts the rest, as far as they're concerned, especially when it comes to Republicans and the military. (Which explains a lot in their defense of people like Rodney King, who was stoned out of his gourd so badly that police had to use extreme force to put him down.) So, the "text" is irrelevant. noithing int he law will be change; mark my words. This was a political stunt, and nothing more.
In addition, notice that the "sticking point" the MSM focused on was whether or not terrorists and their attorneys could see classified information. It's stated, point-blank, in the story that the subject was never addressed. Lindsey Graham lied to the nation in the interview with Hugh Hewitt:
Well, here's the reason, I think. One, I don't want to do it a third time. You've got 25-50 people down there that should have been prosecuted years ago, and we've just been screwing around with this thing, Hugh, playing cutting corners when we don't need to. 10 of the guys ready to be prosecuted will go into the court and say I did it, and look the judge in the eye. One of them's already looked the judge in the eye and said I will kill you and your family. If we enact a procedure where the jury can convict the accused on information not shared with the accused, it will fall, and we'll be setting a precedent for a trial to happen in a foreign land with one of our soldiers ...
... The mother of the Marine...let me tell you. I don't want to legitimize a trial of her son in some foreign land where they never showed him the evidence against him, and they convict him. That is not going to happen. It need not happen. It would be a disaster.
Lindsey Graham made an impassioned argument during this interview, at this point. I know because I listened to it. And it was moving. But today we find out that this one issue--whether or not our enemies have access to such inforation--was not even in the bill. Graham played on the emotions of the nation, and screwed them. All three of these men did in this three-ring circus that the MSM dubbed a "stalemate" between the Senate and the President. Now, we've broken through it, and a key point that was boasted and hyped isn't even there. On top of that, this is pretty much a repeat of what our existing laws ban. So three senators decided to use this as a "scoring issue" for political points. Nice. Classy. Typical of DC, to say the least.
Anyone else have to ask why Marcie and I detest Senator McCain as much as we do? He started this. He moved this into the Senate. He stood on this soapbox and beat the dead horse even further. I hope he's happy. America won't be when they shis dog-and-pony show behind the scenes. This will get out. And we're not the only ones who will be bringing this up.
And then there is this from AllahPundit:
The Blotter says Hayden’s pleased with the deal and that all six techniques the CIA had requested have been approved. To refresh your memory:
The first — the attention grab, involving the rough shaking of a prisoner.
Second — the attention slap, an open-handed slap to the face.
Third — belly slap, meant to cause temporary pain, but no internal injuries.
Fourth — long-term standing and sleep deprivation, 40 hours at least, described as the most effective technique.
Fifth — the cold room. Prisoners left naked in cells kept in the 50s and frequently doused with cold water.
The CIA sources say the sixth, and harshest, technique was called “water boarding,” in which a prisoner’s face was covered with cellophane, and water is poured over it — meant to trigger an unbearable gag reflex.
Anyone else think that the American public just got horn-swaggled? I hear more voices over the Internet about this than I hear "moderate" Muslims "shouting from the rooftops" against the Islamofascist beliefs and tactics.
Publius II
It is now official. The Senate is done playing games, done playing politics with national security--for now--and reached an agreement on the treatment of detainees, prisoners of war, or whatever the Hell these stooges want to call them. Pay attention to the bolded areas below. They are, in essence, the tale of the tape. From the WaPo:
The White House and rebellious Senate Republicans agreed Thursday on rules for the interrogation and trial of suspects in the war on terror, and President Bush urged Congress to make them law before adjourning for midterm elections.
"I'm pleased to say that this agreement preserves the single most potent tool we have in protecting America and foiling terrorist attacks," the president said, shortly after administration officials and key lawmakers announced agreement following a week of high-profile intraparty disagreement.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, one of three GOP lawmakers who told Bush he couldn't have the legislation the way he initially asked for it, said, "The agreement that we've entered into gives the president the tools he needs to continue to fight the war on terror and bring these evil people to justice."
"There's no doubt that the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved," McCain said, referring to international agreements that cover the treatment of prisoners in wartime.
Details of the agreement were sketchy.
The central sticking point had involved a demand from McCain, Sen. John Warner of Virginia and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina for a provision making it clear that torture of suspects would be barred.
One official said that under the agreement, the administration agreed to drop language that would have stated an existing ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment was enough to meet Geneva Convention obligations.
Convention standards are much broader and include a prohibition on "outrages" against "personal dignity."
In turn, this official said, negotiators agreed to clarify what acts constitute a war crime. The official spoke on condition of anonymity, saying he had not been authorized to discuss the details.
The agreement did not extend to a related issue -- whether suspects and their lawyers would be permitted to see any classified evidence in the cases against them.
Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he wouldn't consider the agreement sealed until Bush signed on.
That happened within an hour, when the president stepped before microphones in Orlando, Fla., where he was campaigning for Republican candidates in the fall.
First off, "details were sketchy?" anyone got a clue as to why the details were that way? Let me venture a guess here: Because torture is already banned by US law, maybe. In other words this whole debate--wasting our time, our money, and our patience--was all politics as usual. This was an effort by Sens. McCain, Graham, and Warner to score political points. McCain benefits the most from this because he's running for president in 2008. He is going to make this look like he is concerned for the nation's "well-being" in regards to international law.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that America has ALWAYS done its best to abide by the Geneva Convention and international law. We aren't the problem. Our enemies are. Even some of our allies are, when they opt to ignore international law or the Geneva Convention. We try to abide by both as much as possible, and I would wager a guess that we're good 99% of the time when it comes to such questions. Of course the Left can latch onto things like Abu Ghraib, and be appalled; claiming torture committed by US troops as opposed to unruly and unsupervised actions by a handful of troops. If they want, they can reach back to My Lai, and point fingers.
What they refuse to acknowledge in bvoth cases is that they're ISOLATED INCIDENTS!. These AREN'T the respected and condoned actions of the US military. They make no distinction. One indicts the rest, as far as they're concerned, especially when it comes to Republicans and the military. (Which explains a lot in their defense of people like Rodney King, who was stoned out of his gourd so badly that police had to use extreme force to put him down.) So, the "text" is irrelevant. noithing int he law will be change; mark my words. This was a political stunt, and nothing more.
In addition, notice that the "sticking point" the MSM focused on was whether or not terrorists and their attorneys could see classified information. It's stated, point-blank, in the story that the subject was never addressed. Lindsey Graham lied to the nation in the interview with Hugh Hewitt:
Well, here's the reason, I think. One, I don't want to do it a third time. You've got 25-50 people down there that should have been prosecuted years ago, and we've just been screwing around with this thing, Hugh, playing cutting corners when we don't need to. 10 of the guys ready to be prosecuted will go into the court and say I did it, and look the judge in the eye. One of them's already looked the judge in the eye and said I will kill you and your family. If we enact a procedure where the jury can convict the accused on information not shared with the accused, it will fall, and we'll be setting a precedent for a trial to happen in a foreign land with one of our soldiers ...
... The mother of the Marine...let me tell you. I don't want to legitimize a trial of her son in some foreign land where they never showed him the evidence against him, and they convict him. That is not going to happen. It need not happen. It would be a disaster.
Lindsey Graham made an impassioned argument during this interview, at this point. I know because I listened to it. And it was moving. But today we find out that this one issue--whether or not our enemies have access to such inforation--was not even in the bill. Graham played on the emotions of the nation, and screwed them. All three of these men did in this three-ring circus that the MSM dubbed a "stalemate" between the Senate and the President. Now, we've broken through it, and a key point that was boasted and hyped isn't even there. On top of that, this is pretty much a repeat of what our existing laws ban. So three senators decided to use this as a "scoring issue" for political points. Nice. Classy. Typical of DC, to say the least.
Anyone else have to ask why Marcie and I detest Senator McCain as much as we do? He started this. He moved this into the Senate. He stood on this soapbox and beat the dead horse even further. I hope he's happy. America won't be when they shis dog-and-pony show behind the scenes. This will get out. And we're not the only ones who will be bringing this up.
And then there is this from AllahPundit:
The Blotter says Hayden’s pleased with the deal and that all six techniques the CIA had requested have been approved. To refresh your memory:
The first — the attention grab, involving the rough shaking of a prisoner.
Second — the attention slap, an open-handed slap to the face.
Third — belly slap, meant to cause temporary pain, but no internal injuries.
Fourth — long-term standing and sleep deprivation, 40 hours at least, described as the most effective technique.
Fifth — the cold room. Prisoners left naked in cells kept in the 50s and frequently doused with cold water.
The CIA sources say the sixth, and harshest, technique was called “water boarding,” in which a prisoner’s face was covered with cellophane, and water is poured over it — meant to trigger an unbearable gag reflex.
Anyone else think that the American public just got horn-swaggled? I hear more voices over the Internet about this than I hear "moderate" Muslims "shouting from the rooftops" against the Islamofascist beliefs and tactics.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 3:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home