Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

[CBL4]

The Republican-led Senate voted overwhelmingly last night to impose restrictions on the treatment of terrorism suspects, delivering a rare wartime rebuke to President Bush.

Defying the White House, senators voted 90-9 to approve an amendment that would prohibit the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held.
...
The proposal, sponsored by Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, also requires all service members to follow procedures in the Army Field Manual when they detain and interrogate suspects. Bush administration officials say the bill would limit the president's authority and flexibility in war.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051006-121717-4560r.htm

Even though this is not law yet, it is very good news that 90% of the senate has some morality.

Lawmakers from each party have said Congress must provide U.S. troops with clear standards for detaining, interrogating and prosecuting terrorism suspects in light of charges of mistreatment at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

"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 Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam. I hope that they follow through on this. In the absence of clear law, the president has asserted powers which are clearly unconstitutional (and ruled such) and immoral.

CBL

[fishbob]

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00249

Note the Senators that voted against the restrictions.
As far as I can tell, this group of 9 are all die-hard neo-con panderers.

Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)

[Ipecac]

I think they're saying that Bush will veto the amendment as it's redundant to existing standards.

:rolleyes:

Because those standards so obviously worked to prevent abuse in the past . . .

[CBL4]

Originally posted by fishbob
As far as I can tell, this group of 9 are all die-hard neo-con panderers.I am not familiar with all these senators but I do not think they are neo-cons. The ones I know of are extreme conservatives.

Neo-cons tend to be much more idealistic. I have been informed that my idealism and activism makes me a neo-con but that does not prevent me from being an extreme civil libertarian. For example, I slightly supported the invasion of Iraq because I thought it would lead to much greater freedom for the Iraqi people. I should have realized that Bush lacked the moral temperment to lead a war morally.

CBL

[fishbob]

I am not familiar with all these senators but I do not think they are neo-cons. The ones I know of are extreme conservatives.

Neo-cons tend to be much more idealistic. I have been informed that my idealism and activism makes me a neo-con but that does not prevent me from being an extreme civil libertarian. For example, I slightly supported the invasion of Iraq because I thought it would lead to much greater freedom for the Iraqi people. I should have realized that Bush lacked the moral temperment to lead a war morally.

CBL

Sorry for my lack of clarity. I think this group of 9 are panderers to the neo-cons. Die-hard panderers. Bring home the pork at any price panderers.

[CBL4]

I think this group of 9 are panderers to the neo-cons. Die-hard panderers. Bring home the pork at any price panderers.I still do not how supporting torture has anything to do with neo-cons. Neo-cons support an activist, pro-democracy, unilateral, pro-trace foreign policy. They are generally much more socially liberal (libertarian) than traditional republicans.

From Wikipedia:
Generally neoconservatives supported a militant anticommunism; more social welfare spending than was sometimes acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives; civil equality for blacks and other minorities; and sympathy with a non-traditionalist agenda, being more inclined than other conservatives toward an interventionist foreign policy and a unilateralism that is sometimes at odds with traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law. They feuded with traditional right-wing Republicans, and the nativist, protectionist, isolationists once represented by ex-Republican "paleoconservative" Pat Buchanan. Still, the neoconservatives have generally allied with other conservatives electorally and in terms of which administrations they have joined. Ideological differences between paleoconservatives and neoconservatives are often ignored in alliance against those to their left.

But domestic policy does not define neoconservatism; it is a movement founded on, and perpetuated by an aggressive approach to foreign policy, free trade, opposition to communism during the Cold War, support for beleaguered liberal democracies such as Israel and Taiwan and opposition to Middle Eastern and other states that are perceived to support terrorism. Thus, their foremost target was the traditional pragmatic approach to foreign policy often associated with Richard Nixon, i.e., pragmatic accommodation with dictators, peace through negotiations, diplomacy, and arms control, détente and containment (rather than rollback) of the Soviet Union, and the beginning of the process that would lead to bilateral ties between the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the U.S. Today, a rift still divides the neoconservatives from many members of the State Department, who favor established foreign policy conventions.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)

CBL

[drkitten]

I still do not how supporting torture has anything to do with neo-cons. Neo-cons support an activist, pro-democracy, unilateral, pro-trace foreign policy.


Neocons demonstrably support an Imperial Presidency with as few externalized restrictions on Presidential authority as possible. Of course, they do so for the moment, since a neocon is the sitting President -- they will no doubt be first in line to hamstring the next sitting activist liberal.

[CBL4]

There is an obvious fallacy here.
1) Neocons generally support Bush.
2) Bush supports torture.
The conclusion "Neocons support torture" is not a result of the above statements.

Nowhere in any definition of neocon is torture ever mentioned. In fact, they are generally consider idealistic, proponents of freedom.

Feel free to hate Bush (I share this view) but be accurate in your adjectives.

CBL

[Orwell]

Neocons = idealistic, proponents of freedom ...:eye-poppi :jaw-dropp

[Orwell]

Yeah, idealistic (i.e. blindly partisan) proponents of the freedom of the US gov. to do whatever it pleases, that's more like it...

[CBL4]

Yeah, idealistic (i.e. blindly partisan) proponents of the freedom of the US gov. to do whatever it pleases, that's more like it...What would you call someone who:
1) Believes that everyone should have freedom, democracy and civil rights.
2) Believes that these values are worth fighting for.
3) Believes that the powerful (nations or individuals) should help the tyrannized.

I would call them neocons. If you have a better word for it, please let me know. BTW, I do not believe Bush is a neocon because he clearly is not a believer in civil rights.

CBL

[Orwell]

What's the expression? "Drinking the kool-aid", right?

[Mycroft]

What would you call someone who:
1) Believes that everyone should have freedom, democracy and civil rights.
2) Believes that these values are worth fighting for.
3) Believes that the powerful (nations or individuals) should help the tyrannized.

I would call them neocons. If you have a better word for it, please let me know. BTW, I do not believe Bush is a neocon because he clearly is not a believer in civil rights.

CBL

You're arguing against a small handfull of people who have taken "neo-con" to represent everything bad they see in government and who are not interested in the actual meaning of the word.

Good luck.

[Orwell]

You're arguing against a small handfull of people who have taken "neo-con" to represent everything bad they see in government and who are not interested in the actual meaning of the word.

Good luck.

You know, there's what you say, and then there's what you do. Usually, people tend to pay more attention to what you do, and rightfully so.

[Dr Adequate]

What would you call someone who:
1) Believes that everyone should have freedom, democracy and civil rights.
2) Believes that these values are worth fighting for.
3) Believes that the powerful (nations or individuals) should help the tyrannized.A liberal. Since you ask.

[Mycroft]

A liberal. Since you ask.

And yet many liberals don't believe that the freedom, democracy and civil rights of Iraqi people are worth fighting for, nor that the powerful United States should be in Iraq.


Originally Posted by CBL4 View Original
What would you call someone who:
1) Believes that everyone should have freedom, democracy and civil rights.
2) Believes that these values are worth fighting for.
3) Believes that the powerful (nations or individuals) should help the tyrannized.

[Orwell]

And yet many liberals don't believe that the freedom, democracy and civil rights of Iraqi people are worth fighting for, nor that the powerful United States should be in Iraq.


Originally Posted by CBL4 View Original
What would you call someone who:
1) Believes that everyone should have freedom, democracy and civil rights.
2) Believes that these values are worth fighting for.
3) Believes that the powerful (nations or individuals) should help the tyrannized.

That's a rather dishonest way of summarising it, innit?
Many "liberals" think that invading and occupying a country is a lousy way of implementing democracy anywhere; even more so if the "lets make them into a democracy" thing clearly is a post facto addition used to justify the military action after the main reason given for the invasion (WMDs) revealed itself to be a load of dingo's kidneys...

[kalen]

Neo = new
Con = swindle