Bush alters rules for interrogations

jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
edited July 2007 in A Moving Train
we corrected a wrong. thats a good thing. although I still believe there is a grey area if a nuclear attack was imminent. I think any means necessary should be used in that case. but anyway

WASHINGTON - President Bush signed an executive order Friday prohibiting cruel and inhuman treatment, including humiliation or denigration of religious beliefs, in the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects.
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

The White House declined to say whether the CIA currently has a detention and interrogation program, but said that if it did it must adhere to the guidelines outlined in the executive order. The order targets captured al-Qaida terrorists who have information on attack plans or the whereabouts of the group's senior leaders.

"Last September, the president explained how the CIA's program had disrupted attacks and saved lives, and that it must continue on a sound legal footing," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. "The president has insisted on clear legal standards so that CIA officers involved in this essential work are not placed in jeopardy for doing their job — and keeping America safe from attacks."

The executive order was the result of legislation Bush signed in October that authorized military trials of terrorism suspects, eliminated some of the rights defendants are usually guaranteed under U.S. law, and authorized continued harsh interrogations of terror suspects.

The Supreme Court had ruled in June 2006 that trying detainees in military tribunals violated U.S. and international law, so Bush urged Congress to change the law. He also insisted that the law authorize CIA agents to use tough methods to interrogate suspected terrorists.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070720/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_terrorism
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • I was reading some reports that it was vague, and no one was willing to provide specifics as to what was or wasn't allowed.

    To be honest I don't trust anything they do and say anymore. It's all broken
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Eliot RosewaterEliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    jlew24asu wrote:
    we corrected a wrong. thats a good thing. although I still believe there is a grey area if a nuclear attack was imminent. I think any means necessary should be used in that case. but anyway
    "any means necessary" shouldn't ever be an option. Especially when we're trusting this administration, or any politician for that matter, to define "imminent."
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    "any means necessary" shouldn't ever be an option. Especially when we're trusting this administration, or any politician for that matter, to define "imminent."

    by imminent I mean a proven fact that there is a nuclear bomb on American soil somewhere ready to be detonated. if that is a proven fact, I think law enforcement should be able to use any means necessary to find it and stop it from happening
  • Eliot RosewaterEliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    jlew24asu wrote:
    by imminent I mean a proven fact that there is a nuclear bomb on American soil somewhere ready to be detonated. if that is a proven fact, I think law enforcement should be able to use any means necessary to find it and stop it from happening
    But jlew, even though you and I seldom agree on anything here, I would still trust you to define imminent. Certainly more than I'd trust 99.9% of American politicians. The problem is that even with these new rules for interrogations, we're still trusting them, particularly a known liar in GWB, to define it. I bet you twenty bucks he can't even say it, let alone define it. :)
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    jlew24asu wrote:
    we corrected a wrong. thats a good thing. although I still believe there is a grey area if a nuclear attack was imminent. I think any means necessary should be used in that case. but anyway


    I think you need a long hike in grizzly country.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • bingerbinger Posts: 179
    gue_barium wrote:
    I think you need a long hike in grizzly country.

    With some pork chops stuck to his backside.
    I want to point out that people who seem to have no power, whether working people, people of color, or women -- once they organize and protest and create movements -- have a voice no government can suppress. Howard Zinn
  • Eliot RosewaterEliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    binger wrote:
    With some pork chops stuck to his backside.
    No, no, no. It's GWB who needs that. Not jlew. Goodness.
Sign In or Register to comment.