.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

The Asylum

Welcome to the Asylum. This is a site devoted to politics and current events in America, and around the globe. The THREE lunatics posting here are unabashed conservatives that go after the liberal lies and deceit prevalent in the debate of the day. We'd like to add that the views expressed here do not reflect the views of other inmates, nor were any inmates harmed in the creation of this site.

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Senate Committee Balks At The President's Request For Tribunals

AllahPundit @ Hot Air has the story. It appears that some familiar names and faces are behind this idiotic turn of events:

The House Armed Services Committee ratified Bush’s proposal for tribunals yesterday, 52-8, putting the ball squarely in the court of its Senate counterpart. Would Warner, McCain, and Lindsey Graham cave? Or would they hold the line, thereby striking a blow for America’s soul?

The issue was decided this afternoon when our nation’s moral leader finally
entered the fray

From CNN:

The Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday 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 suspects' rights.

The bill was backed by Republican Sens. John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

It 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 proposal that critics say re-interprets a Geneva Conventions rule that prohibits cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees.

In a decision earlier this summer, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration must meet Article III standards in its treatment of detainees.

Article III 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 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.

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

Allah has a thought regarding that last piece:

Is he actually suggesting that the head-chopping animals in Iraq are acting out of a sense of legitimate grievance? If we redefine Article III and a U.S. soldier is subsequently captured and beheaded — just like Pfc. Tucker was, let us not forget — would Powell actually point back to this legislation and say, “Well, that’s what we get”??

There is no doubt and no argument that former Secretary of State Powell disliked the idea of going to war in Iraq. And it seems that he has poked his nose back into a debate where it is not needed or wanted. But the bigger story is not how this started today, but rather how it ended, and it was not a victory in the war or for the nation:

A Senate committee, in a bipartisan rebuff to President George W. Bush, approved military tribunal legislation that would give more legal protection to suspected terrorists than the administration wants.

Four of the 13 Republicans on the panel joined the 11 Democrats to pass their version of the measure, rejecting Bush's proposal to bar defendants from seeing classified evidence prosecutors may want to use in court. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed the Senate approach, warning that the Bush administration is risking the safety of U.S. troops and worldwide opinion by permitting harsh treatment of detainees.

The committee acted just hours after the president made an unusual visit to Capitol Hill to urge support for his proposals on domestic eavesdropping and military tribunals. Meeting with House Republicans, Bush said he reminded them that ``the most important job of government is to protect the homeland.''

I am sure that many of those opposed to this war and the measures the president has instituted will be celebrating this little victory. But as Sherlock Holmes was known for saying, "The game's afoot," and that is certainly true today:

Senate Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee has said he may call up the president's proposal for debate on the Senate floor, blocking the committee measure. If that happens, McCain said he would propose amendments to change the administration version.

I do hope that Senator Frist does make this "end-run" around the committee's decision. The preisdent's proposal is sound and justified. It is not our fault that the antiwar nuts all want Geneva Convention protections for these animals. And I detest the fact that Senator McCain (our worthless senator from Arizona) has threatened to include those amendments to the bill.

Every one makes a big to-do about torture, yet they do not understand the first thing about the controversy. We are not torturing these people when we have them in custody. We are interrogating them. And if a little discomfort helps them spill the beans, then so be it. We are not shoving bamboo shoots up their fingernails or beating them. That is torture. What we engage in is the furthest thing from that.

But, as an aside, I would like to state that we, at The Asylum, have no problem with exerting a little extra force when it comes to pressing and possible attacks. As a good friend of ours once said, "If torture will save one American life, then get the car battery and remember that red is positive and black is negative." We would not go to those extremes on a daily basis. But if we have evidence showing a possible attack on America, you bet we would support torture to get the information. And as for classified material to be used by these "defendants" our answer is no, they may not see it. That information is classified for a reason, and should not be subject to any negotiations involved in this issue.



Post a Comment

<< Home

weight loss product