Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 10/06/2005 View Wed 10/05/2005 View Tue 10/04/2005 View Mon 10/03/2005 View Sun 10/02/2005 View Sat 10/01/2005 View Fri 09/30/2005
1
2005-10-06 Iraq
Senate in 90-9 Vote Passes Bill Seeking Clearer Detainee Rules
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Captain America 2005-10-06 00:25|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 This makes me very angry that the Senate is now going to play politics with the War on Terror instead of allowing what is best for our soldiers and their unhindered prosecution of the WOT.
I do not care about the BBC, the MSM, HRW, ACLU the Muslims or any other anti-American organization, what they say or think.
They do not care about our soldiers.
They only care about the criminals at the sake of the victims.
These anti-American organizations should have no say in how our military conducts its business and the Senate should not be doing their bidding.
Please, join with me to support those who oppose this McCain bill.
If this bill is added to the Defense Bill then a bill which annuls it should be added to hurricane relief bill.
Please, help me to fight McCain, this bill, the other MSM darlings and any senator who would dare support it.
Our soldiers should be above our politics.
Any one using them for politics should be considered a traitor.
As a supporter of President George W Bush and the Republican party I will make it clear that not one penny of what I give to the party will be given to any Republican who supports any bill that hinders, restricts or endangers our soldiers or holds them up to public ridicule in any way.
Fifty five minus 9 are 46 Republicans Senators who should be very ashamed of themselves.
Please, help me to shame them now if they aren't shameless (my definition of a politician)!

Kristeen Kid
Posted by Kristeen Kid 2005-10-06 02:46||   2005-10-06 02:46|| Front Page Top

#2 Well said! I'll do the email routine with those I contributed to.
Posted by .com 2005-10-06 02:53||   2005-10-06 02:53|| Front Page Top

#3 Why am I not suprised? When is McCain going to be called out as the RINO attention whore that he is. Just the fact that he is a MSM darling should be all the info required. He is dead wrong on this issue.
There are no Choir boys being held in Guantanamo, and they should live constantly under the threat of being shot.
Posted by JerseyMike 2005-10-06 08:03||   2005-10-06 08:03|| Front Page Top

#4 I disagree; this is overdue and welcome. Congress is charged with the creation and maintenance of the armed forces under the Constitution, and it has the final authority and responsibility (not the President) to set these rules.

GWB can and should engage the Congress on what exactly the rules should be, and I think some cooperation here would go a long way to helping us in the field. Soldiers would understand exactly what is and isn't allowed, and it would help with a more unified front at home (excepting Pelosi, Hildebeast, etc). The debate so far has been more reasonable than not, and that's a good thing.

I'm with McCain in this particular instance (ick, why do I feel soiled?). The Army Field Manual is completely defensible and responsible, and it should the rule we use for handling detainees. There, that's my nickel.
Posted by Steve White">Steve White  2005-10-06 09:04||   2005-10-06 09:04|| Front Page Top

#5 Here's 4¢ change. Now go wash you mouth out with Phisohex, lol. :)
Posted by .com 2005-10-06 09:13||   2005-10-06 09:13|| Front Page Top

#6 Any news on how the House voted on this?
Posted by Raj 2005-10-06 09:15||   2005-10-06 09:15|| Front Page Top

#7 I can see Mc'Cain's (gee I feel soiled too...) interest in the treatment of Prisoners -- wasn't he a POW during the Vietnam war (as a LEGAL COMBATANT)?

But I think any guildlines should clearly state (in every other pargraph in bold so it does not get missed) that the standards only apply to LEGAL COMBATANTS and the ILLEGAL COMBATANTS can be summarily shot and treated however-the-hell the military wants - in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
Posted by CrazyFool 2005-10-06 09:58||   2005-10-06 09:58|| Front Page Top

#8 Congress is charged with the creation and maintenance of the armed forces under the Constitution, and it has the final authority and responsibility (not the President) to set these rules.

While looking at this it's hard to also know what a strong influence these other agencies have had on Congress. I wonder if instead of having clear communication with the president and following their hearts that they are being swayed by the MSM, CAIR, etc I've never liked the idea of tying our soldiers hands behind their backs, their job is hard enough.
Posted by Jan 2005-10-06 11:15||   2005-10-06 11:15|| Front Page Top

#9 I'm with CF on this one. I'm even o.k. with it for LEGAL COMBATANTS. But, the bill should CLEARLY define what that is (as if current law already doesn't do so...). And, when you're deemed a "NON-LEGAL COMBATANT", the military can use you for the next Lyndie England sex video or target practice for all I care.
Posted by BA 2005-10-06 11:27||   2005-10-06 11:27|| Front Page Top

#10 The passage of this amendment is a disgrace. Four years after 9/11 a "Republican" Senate is taking away the "Republican" president's authority to wage war.

It accepts the propaganda pushed by the MSM, Abu Ghraib, an "evil" Gitmo as perpetuated by the likes of Kennedy and DTurban.

McCain is pushing his own version of a cook book on interrogation, but for those of us with experience, any cook book goes out the window with an unprecedented enemy. It represents more bureaucratic b.s.
Posted by Captain America 2005-10-06 12:19||   2005-10-06 12:19|| Front Page Top

#11 Incidentially, McCain recently became the favored recepient of letters from modern day Kerry wannabes, who prefer to do end-arounds rather than go through the military investigative process.
Posted by Captain America 2005-10-06 12:22||   2005-10-06 12:22|| Front Page Top

#12 I don't know what I think about the legislation, exactly.

I just think McCain is a prick. :)
Posted by .com 2005-10-06 12:22||   2005-10-06 12:22|| Front Page Top

#13 It wasnt just McCain, you guys. Every GOP senator but 9 was on this. Maybe they know something we dont? Like maybe a lot of military guys are damned unhappy with what this sh*t has done to morale and standards with the military? I think standards and guidelines make sense - perhaps different guidelines for unlawful combatants, then for lawful, but guidelines for BOTH are needed.

My sense is that we're long past the point of diminishing returns on the use of certain interrogation techniques.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-10-06 13:10||   2005-10-06 13:10|| Front Page Top

#14 I'm okay with this as long as the Army Field Manual also strongly recommends shooting unlawful combatants upon contact.
Posted by Darrell 2005-10-06 13:20||   2005-10-06 13:20|| Front Page Top

#15 Does this mean we have to stop force feeding them?
I hope so.
Posted by tu3031 2005-10-06 13:33||   2005-10-06 13:33|| Front Page Top

#16 What missing is all the coverage of the military actually prosecuting their own for mistreatment and violations in the WOT. One of the big lies about Abu Ghrab is that the media discovered it. Centcom briefed the press in January, followed by notification of the completion of the investigation in March. By January members of the chain of command were being relieved. In April the judicial/courts martial process began. It was then that one of defendents family, desperate to save their perp's ass tried to shift the blame elsewhere first going to Seymour Hersh and then CBS with photos. Then in sweeps month, CBS 'breaks' the story. One big media BS sham.

The military has had numerous investigation and court martials against its own serving members. Usually buried by the MSM. Notice how much even the conviction of the Abu Ghrab group got? The system is working. There is absolutely no perspective to this act.

This act is just grand standing.
Posted by Wholuger Whavirt7613 2005-10-06 13:57||   2005-10-06 13:57|| Front Page Top

#17 A prick or dangerously wack?
Posted by Shipman 2005-10-06 14:05||   2005-10-06 14:05|| Front Page Top

#18 Seems several of you are for more guidelines for legal combatants. Isn't that what the Geneva Convention is for?

Generally, guidelines are good. Follow them and you are less likely to get into trouble. Part of the problem with the recent brouhaha is that there were no guidelines for detainees, so there was no "allowable" actions, all were "questionable". As a result, all were questioned!

Some folks will always exceed the guidelines to get the job done. The line give us something to measure from - a little every once in a while, or a lot, all the time?

Hunger strikes, for example. The detainees can be on strike all they like, lose as much weight as they like, and look as pale as a ghost, but we will keep them alive and relatively healthy by standard medical means, under medical supervision, and assure they can either be set free someday, or stood up against the wall and face the firing squad.

Perhaps this is the thinking of the 90 Senators? Kennedy and Kerry STILL don't count!
Posted by Bobby 2005-10-06 14:44||   2005-10-06 14:44|| Front Page Top

#19 Bureacracy is a deadly thing during times of war. And, for the record, the issue has zero to do with the Geneva Convention. At issue is dealing with unlawful combatants.

The Senate caved to popular MSM folklore and only enboldened the conspiracy loons who baffooned the "supposed" widespread abuse at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.

McCain is lamenting the fact that he couldn't find Rummy with a whip and hip boots.

There ARE guidelines for the treatment of all detainees (lawful and unlawful combatants) and there has been for years.

This is just another baldfaced media attention whore move by McCain. The Repubs have become whimps.
Posted by Captain America 2005-10-06 15:25||   2005-10-06 15:25|| Front Page Top

#20 "seeking clarification"

Ok, how about this: We will beat and mangle them until we get bored.
Posted by flash91 2005-10-06 19:15||   2005-10-06 19:15|| Front Page Top

#21 The thing they have not thought about: if you can't effectively interrogate thbem, why take prisoners?
Posted by Snuter Snineter3342 2005-10-06 19:20||   2005-10-06 19:20|| Front Page Top

#22 McCain would sell us down a river to get a paragraph or two touting his "moral authoruity". This from a man who's cut off your freedom of expression in election periods, taken money from Soros, and sold favors in the Keating Five. Absolutely pathetic. Favorite republican in the MSM...

describe what's "degrading behavior", LH? What's "cruel or inhumane" when a prisoner knows where an IED is buried and won't tell? Sanctimonious prick - don't try the moral highground with me
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-10-06 20:23||   2005-10-06 20:23|| Front Page Top

#23 > McCain would sell us down a river to get a paragraph or two touting his "moral authoruity". This from a man who's cut off your freedom of expression in election periods ...

Err, some of the foaming-at-the-mouth comments about McCain are mystifying to me. On the scale of 1-10 Antichrist, he doesn't even move the meter for me. Some of you seem to think he's the worst enemy of the Republic.

And, Frank G., if you're looking for the man who's cut off your "freedom of expression in election periods," you can start with one George Walker Bush, who signed that turd of a bill into law, after first saying he thought it was unconstitutional.

At least McCain has had the stones to say it was a mistake, in hindsight.
Posted by Mizzou Mafia 2005-10-06 20:40||   2005-10-06 20:40|| Front Page Top

#24 MM? hindsight? Propose a modification then....hasn't, has he? Moral cowardice, and I include W in that. McCain is a puke not because of his hero status, which is rightly deserved, but on the way he uses that to deflect any questions about his judgement (nuts with an anger mgmt problem) and ethics (bad to worse by deed). He's planning on running for Pres...would you but a Saving and Loan acct from him? Then why would you vote for him? I'm thinking George Allen in '08
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-10-06 20:49||   2005-10-06 20:49|| Front Page Top

#25 I'm leaning Allen or Brownback '08
Posted by Captain America 2005-10-06 23:26||   2005-10-06 23:26|| Front Page Top

#26 The problem is not setting standards. That's a legit role for congress and it should have been handled a long time ago. The problem is the moral preening from those who get to pontificate from their offices while our people are getting killed everyday on the battlefield. I'd be shocked if we don't have to re-write some field manuals to deal with these scumbags.

Reuel Marc Gerecht had an interesting take. He said his talks with europeans familiar with our interrogation methods suggest we're not hard enough but that we should be doing it on US soil not hiding in Gitmo. Of course, to do so would have taken an act from a gutless congress.
Posted by JAB 2005-10-06 23:54||   2005-10-06 23:54|| Front Page Top

00:27 JosephMendiola
00:00 William Gates
23:54 JAB
23:48 JosephMendiola
23:46 DMFD
23:37 jules 2
23:30 Ernest Brown
23:29 .com
23:26 Captain America
23:23 .com
23:23 Alaska Paul
23:20 .com
23:18 JosephMendiola
23:16 jules 2
23:10 jules 2
23:02 SteveS
22:58 .com
22:55 .com
22:44 jules 2
22:37 Frank G
22:35 Frank G
22:15 Alaska Paul
22:08 OregonGuy
21:47 3dc









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com