Comments on: Why?

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:18:27 +0000

You see somebody protecting their turf, I see somebody setting dangerous precedents regarding torture. Looking at it from your perspective, I think it can honestly be seen as both.

Also, I understand WHY they want that option on the table, but even Republican Senators are saying nobody should have that right. I agree with the people proposing and drafting the amendment.

Do you not? And if not, then where do you think no-limits on torture will lead?

By: Pouncer

Pouncer — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:52:22 +0000

I suppose there is absolutely no principled case to be made for the notion that the constitutionally commissioned commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces is protecting his turf, and the constitution, from incursion by a separate branch of government?

By: Justin Gardner

Justin Gardner — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:39:18 +0000

I believe the article says that it’s assumed that the Dems will follow McCain’s lead.

In actuality, this is probably the reason.

The Republican effort is intended partly to cut off an effort by Senate Democrats to attach more stringent demands to the defense bill regarding detainees. One group, led by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), has proposed an amendment calling for an independent commission — similar to the Sept. 11 commission — to look into administration policies on interrogation and detainee abuse.

Personally, I’d be open to this as well, but asking Republican’s to put their own President up for scrutiny simply isn’t going to happen.

That’s not to say it shouldn’t happen, but let’s get these limits in place first and then we can worry about accountability for past indiscretions.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:25:06 +0000

I agree that the McCain-Warner-Graham amendment is admirable, but I’m having trouble reconciling your statement:
“TheyÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re trying to find common ground.”
with this quote from the article:
“No effort has been made by McCain to cultivate Democratic support, although his aides predict he could get it easily.”
Why cut Democrats out of the process?

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sun, 24 Jul 2005 17:17:19 +0000

Probably because these techniques work. (See The Interrogators and the waterboarding of that one guy, though that was CIA.) Still, doesn’t mean we have to do it.

By: Rafique Tucker

Rafique Tucker — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:28:09 +0000

I couldn’t agree with you more. This seems open and shut to me. Graham, McCain, and Warner are hardly “moonbats,” and I cannot figure out why the Adminstration and its supporters regards any attempt to deal with this issue as undermining the WOT.

Abuses like this put our soldiers in harm’s way.

By: J. Thomas Duffy

J. Thomas Duffy — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 23:05:45 +0000

Justin

When it comes to “protecting America”, this administration is long past banking on getting a “blank check” … They’ll forge one, if necessary

Peace
JTD