Apparently the about-to-be-a-new law says this: Torture is not the American way, and these are the guidelines for handling prisoners, except the President may set his own guidelines without further intervention.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6161223

Politics at it's finest.

Geez, another letter demonizing a political party, what a surprise.

One man's torture is another's enticement, and unfortunately, with the exception of the obvious, no one seems to agree on at what point the line is crossed.

I'm pretty much alone with my attitude on this issue. Against torture? Yep, I am - and I'm also fully supportive of having an open government that does not operate in complete secrecy from it's constituents.

But, much like George H.W. Bush's decision to unilaterally remove tactical nuclear weaponry from deployed naval units in the early 1990's, I think you are functionally better off hiding some decisions and policies from your enemies.

If I'm seeking information or cooperation from a prisoner I'd much rather have him nervous and apprehensive as to how he might be treated than to have him come in and smugly peruse the ethnically proper dinner menu while browsing through the addendum of his newly issued Koran.

It's way too late now, and I fully realize that my opinion may very well be subject to scathing criticism, but I feel - much as such things were handled in World War 2 - that such policies and practices would have been more pragmatically addressed by ongoing and active Congressional oversight than by public disclosure and debate.

Gotta love the lack of logic in some of these LTE's lately. This one is par with yesterday's when the guy said he will vote for Vernon Robinson because Brad Miller happens to be in the same party as Kennedy, Feinstein, et. al.

If you vote for Republicans you vote for torture!!!

I could easily flip that around and say if you vote for Democrats you vote for a Terrorist Bill of Rights. Your illustration of a terrorist looking at his dinner menu while browsing his newly issued Koran fits here Jan. Don't forget the newly issued prayer rug.

Here we go again...us against them...my party is better than your party...lumping all of one party into one little niche. Politicians just love our division. WE are the losers, folks. Let's stop believing the spin and start looking for facts from both sides. Think we will find any. Would we recognize the truth if we saw it?

Military Commission Act 2006

Senate Roll Call

YEAs ---65
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
NAYs ---34
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 1
Snowe (R-ME)

D=Democrat, I=Independent, R=Republican

Well, Zhak beat me to it but the vote was 65-34. And the nonvote was the ever wishy washy Mrs Snow (R)Maine. Please explain your statments and math to me. It is not about torture. Few condone torture (wish I could say none). This bill will define the diff between acceptable and unacceptable interrogation techniques. Your letter is a lie or is written in total ignorance.

Your definition of torture might help us here. Pink bellies, less than 8 hours sleep, music, uncomfortable room temps... what?

Senate numbers by party breakdown:
Rep = 51
Dem = 48
Indy = 1

Get it right before you demean our country, our President and our military.

The posturing for the elections is ridiculous. Republicans are so corrupt they can't even pretend to be moral anymore. The Democrats are so interested in not Appearing to be soft that they show no backbone.
Thank God for candidates who seek to unite not divide. Thank God for candidates who take the high road in running for the United States Congress. Thank God for the candidates who seek to unite us all in peace, properity, and security, without slinging mud.

Thank God for Vernon Robinson!

(NOT!)

Reading that Demon Deacon had endorsed Vernon Robinson, even in jest, is without question a sign of the apocalypse.

As for me I just took it in stride, wet my pants, went into cardiac arrest, lost all feeling in my lower extremities and began to have vivid hallucinations about terrorist attacks upon our strategic Pez candy reserves.

But as long as I don't begin to find Hillary Clinton somehow sexually attractive there's no need for concern.

Of course if Deacon's post is followed by one in which Neocon praises the political philosophies of Charles Schumer don't even bother to put me on life support.

I'll happily go straight to hell, with or without the benefit of a handbasket.

Here we go again.......

My post on this topic from yesterday is much too long to repeat, even with copy & paste, so I'll just say.....

"Shame on those who are playing into the hands of our enemy."

The interrogation techniques in question are NOT torture, and those who insist on framing the debate using that word are naive at best, traitorous at worst.

Our enemy has sworn to kill us. They succeeded nearly 3,000 times on September 11, 2001. They have attempted to kill more of us since then. We will not defeat them by being nice. A prisoner of war has no right to an attorney, no right to remain silent. The techniques being used make the prisoner uncomfortable, scared, maybe even sleepy. For those who say the information gained is unreliable, I say maybe. It is checked, and if found to be unreliable, not acted upon. That fact can then be used against the prisoner who provided it. I know, that's not nice. Too bad, war is not nice.

And I say again, shame on those who use the issue to aid and abet the enemy.

"The interrogation techniques in question are NOT torture"

First off, those in charge of such dealings disagree.

"For those who say the information gained is unreliable, I say maybe"

Those cited above (who, being in the intel field should know) argue that this DOES NOT WORK. You can say maybe all you want but in the end, it just proves you to be another sadistic subhuman, exactly like those whom you hate.

"The techniques being used make the prisoner uncomfortable, scared, maybe even sleepy"

Intellecutally dishonest and false. Read just a little more on the subject and get back to me.

Aid and abet the enemy? You. Are. Laughable.

Denzien,

1) Maybe some disagree, certainly not all. Dishonest on your part.

2) You've reverted to name-calling when arguement fails. Popular with your side, since your arguements so often fail.

3) Showing the usual arrogance of "if you were just smarter, you'd see things my way" that your side that the left uses. I've read up on the subject, and I still feel that those who use the issue of "interrogation techniques" to blast our country are aiding & abetting the enemy for political purposes. This blog means nothing on the world stage, but those who have a platform (Bill Clinton, John McCain, John Warner) and do it should be ashamed of themselves. You need not be, only because you have no influence.

Denz,
Even Bush is stepping back and evaluating.....hard to believe, but seems he's shaking off his protracted sleep and is beginning to have delusions of adequacy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15061812/

Of Course, Hugh has stated his belief that any problems in Afghanistan are just "gnats" or "flies" to be swatted as they fly around. LOL!
(I just remember that the same Hugh contributed a link to Popular Mechanics as a source for national news!)

Oh, about forgot! There's some good "Family Values" story out on Florida Congressman Mark Foley-------gotta love it when the sanctimonious take a tumble.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15063977/

Let's see...Tom Delay, Bob Ney, and on, and on....

Nic- excellent citations for your contentions.

Cite me an intelligence authority that agrees with you. I'll cite Lt General Kimmons, AGAIN- nobody's ever refuted his contentions- can you?

"GEN. KIMMONS: Let me answer the first question. That’s a good question. I think—I am absolutely convinced the answer to your first question is no. No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tell us that.

And moreover, any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress, under—through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility. And additionally, it would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used. And we can’t afford to go there."

Name calling? Check out the DSM IV's Sadistic personality disorder and note how many might apply to those espousing your views:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadistic_personality_disorder

A question for you: Why is it, that in 2006, the United States has to go outside of the Geneva Conventions in order to do its job? By implying that they do, you imply that they are incompetent. Is that what you really mean to say- that we can't win without breaking the rules?

Denzien, your rude and demeaning comments could fit the definition in your link better than most any others I have seen on here. I have yet to see neocon, hugh, DD, Vernon Robinson or anyone else call someone a sadistic subhuman.

Oh, one more bit of commentary:

"Our nation was created in response to the abuses visited on our ancestors by the King of England, who claimed the right to enter their homes, to levy taxes at whim, and to jail those perceived as a threat without allowing them to be confronted by their accusers. Now, 230 years later, we find our own President claiming the right to put people in detention centers without legal recourse and to employ interrogation methods that, by any reasonable legal standard, are categorized as torture."

"http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092606S.shtml"

In regard to anybody's knickers in a twist over being called a "sadistic subhuman", I will apologize for the use of "subhuman." I was truly in error there, and not adding anything to the dialog.

Sorry, Nic.

I agree almost completely with your posts on this issue, Denzien. You also seem very knowledgable about what you post on. Many people discuss EVERYTHING on here, whether they know about it or not. I don't see your comments in that way. I also don't want good, helpful and potentially instructional discussions to get ignored because of a wayward comment.

"Our enemy has sworn to kill us."

Nic - could you please clearly and specifically define "Our enemy"? I'm serious; it's crux, and I'd like clarity.

I, too, would like to know the answer to that one, JDR. While the war on terrorism is said to be worldwide and the enemy is out to kill us or convert us all to Islam, no specifics are known. We know there are rogue killers who continually commit suicide and kill numbers of people. The fear and hatred in some seems to cloud all reason. It is being fed to us by our leaders. Who is our real enemy?

And to think you used to be a school teacher Carol and JDR is an engineer. Sorry no insult intended, but a silly question like "Who is our real enemy?" makes me shake my head in wonder. If you guys didn't figure that out five years ago it make take a few more 9/11s for you to realize it.

One clue, it isn't Darryl.

Another clue, it is people like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta_al-Sayed

Of course to the American left the real enemy is Bush.

Still looking for validation that torture is a reliable way to get intel, and "well, I think so" doesn't count.

Anybody? Nic?

Dan - if you're still following this thread:

I followed your link to Mohamed Atta al-Sayed.

I'm sure I speak for Carol when I say he's one of the bad guys - but funny, there is no mention of the work IRAQ in that link - 'cept "there was no factual basis behind the report that Mr. Atta met an Iraqi diplomat."

No-one is doubting the few thousand original al Qaeda members as 100% sworn enemies of American Policy .. what we're asking is what the heck we're doing in Iraq. Who are the enemies there that are not New Converts?

Nic? Where are ya', bud?