Goodbye America....

I imagine the Supreme Court will have something to say about it eventually, but in the meantime we get to look like Mother Russia for a while.

Here's the House vote on the bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-491

It was basically right down party lines, with ~30 dems voting for and I think 7 republicans voting against. Hastert, after the bill was passed, said this:

"House Republicans have worked hard to create a system that will protect our troops on the battlefield, while also conforming to international laws and treaty obligations. This is not enough for the Democrats who continue to support rights for terrorists. In fact, Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and 159 of her Democrat colleagues voted today in favor of MORE rights for terrorists. So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled, if we followed the Democrat plan."

Apparently, he still doesn't get that authorizing torture is something we, as a democratic nation, are supposed to decry. And I don't see how, by any stretch of the imagination, this law is in line with the Geneva Convention.

The senate vote is here: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259

Again down party lines (mostly).

The message this new law gives is that we're not any better than the terrorists. It's sad and shameful.

Here's a question: if torture is OK, why'd we go through the trouble of ousting Sadaam?

Well, so far the courts have done a good job, despite their makeup, of reigning the administration in. I can only hope that it'll continue. <fingers crossed>

Mac, you and I are diametrically opposed most of the time. I think we can acknowledge that and move on; plus, I like you, witty bastard! ;-)

Both sides of the aisle have been shrill about "rights"  and " terror." I feel fortunate that regardless of whether it is Ginsburg or Alito, the SCOTUS sees what is viable legally and constitutionally, and what is blatantly not going to happen. It is the the stuff that is one iota near the line that is difficult. This is more along the lines of what the left has been yammering on about. If you notice, the 1993 WTC bombers were handled by the Clinton Administration as criminals, and put through our legal system, which is what this law intends to do. Before, we just put them in Gitmo and tortured them, according to Messrs Reid and Pelosi. Now, after passing pretty much the law taht guarantees the same treatment that the originial WTC bombers received, again, we hear about Republican "Nazi" tactics. I am interested to see how the elections turn out, and if truly the Democrats win one or both of the houses, what they attempt in their leadership positions. That will truly be a tell.

I couldn't disagree more!  We need to have this information advertised during "Lost", "Grey's Anatomy" and "Dancing with the Stars".  It is their responsibility to inform us of what is going on.  I'm sure we would be a much more responsible citizenry if that were the case, and not simply use the time to go to the bathroom. 

That is false.  They have three chances to clear themselves.  Military court, whick can be appealed to the court right under the Supreme court and then that can be appealed to the supremem court. Don't believe everything you read from an NBC affiliate.

Please provide a link or a "cut and paste" to back your statement.  Thanks!

I consider it torture because the American Government considered it torture and prosecuted it during WW2.

So you don't know what waterboarding is?

Strapping someone down to a board.

Laying a wet rag over their face

laying them back at an angle with their head below their feet

pouring water over the rag

Doesn't sound like torture to me.

Putting people on camera to plead for their life right before you slit their throat in front of the entire world.  That sounds like torture.  And it sounds like you are defending the very people that would slit your throat because you are american. 

All you have to do is read the act that your are opposing to see the light.  The media likes to spin to make it look bad.  They think that American's are too lazy to read the full act, or too stupid to understand the language. 

Just trying to have a lively debate about the issues.  Instead, you accuse me of defending those who kill Americans.  Typical rhetoric from one with no stance and needs to attack the character and the person rather than providing substance to his arguments.  Because I question what my government does, I'm lableled an apologist for terrorists and my very patriotism and love of my country is called into question?  Weak...

Oh, and another way Bush is like hitler? They both have killed 6 million Jews

Seriously, isnt there a rule that states the first one to compare something in the above discussion to Hitler loses. 

I don't recall labeling you as anything.  I do recall saying "It sounds like you are defending those who would slit your throat for simply being american".  If this is not your stance simply state that it is not.  I'm not trying to start a bickering session here.

The Substance is in the very act that is being discussed, why should I have to cut and paste passages?

I don't for one second question your patriotism.  Where do you get that?

I can't stand to hear that all over the world America is being called weak because we won't do what has to be done to win the war.  When we do we are called terrorists.

 To clarify I'm not saying you are saying this.  It is all over the place though.

No problem.  I can understand the point of view that states in order to defeat terror, we must become tougher.  I don't necessarily agree with it.  Don't get me wrong, I believe those that wish to do us harm should be dealt with.  The safety of our country and it's citizens is of much importance.  I do not necessarily believe that the methods to do so that are being passed by this (or any) administration are admirable as they seem to chip away at some of the basic tenants of American doctrine established centuries ago.

As was the case for the Japanese camps, time will tell whether or not current policy will be heralded in years to come or apologized for by successive leaders.

Yup, it's kinda like hiring Al Sharpton for your legal and advisory team.  Once I hear a Nazi comparison, it is immediately clear to me that I am not dealing with someone from a rational position (whic is too bad, because sometimes they have a point)

He didn't say bush is Hitler, he only stated the paralell between the powers the two established for themselves.  Having that power is one thing how you use it is another.  Bush as horrible as a person I think he is, is not comparable in likeness to Hitler. 

I think that he was trying to outline, and show the seriousness of these powers and how those powers can be used.  History can teach us a lot.  Even though Bush isn't Hitler, it's scary to give anyone that power.  Rather then focusing on the avenues that you have and finding ways to make that intelligence more effective he keeps giving himself more power. 

Exactly.  In no way would I draw a parallel between Bush and Hitler.  I'm no fan of Bush, but he's not in the same category as a Hitler or Milosavic.