If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Bush administration upset: cruel or degrading treatment of 'detainees' outlawed
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4314304.stm
Yay!
Bullshit. They just want a free hand to be able to do anything they like!
:eek: So that's democracy?
Legal insecurity, since when their troops beat 'enemy combatants' up, or rape them with truncheons or a whole host of other things some soldiers seem to find fun, then there could actually be some consequences! rather than good old GW Bush giving them a medal for the good work.
American politics are really confusing.
US senators have voted overwhelmingly to outlaw cruel or degrading treatment of detainees held in US custody abroad.
Yay!
The motion was opposed by the White House, which views it as unnecessary.
Bush administration officials say the move would be restrictive, and limit its fight against terrorism.
Bullshit. They just want a free hand to be able to do anything they like!
Correspondents say the White House could veto the entire $440bn (£248bn) bill to defeat the motion.
:eek: So that's democracy?
But the White House views any codifying of rules for interrogation as potentially restrictive and a possible source of legal insecurity for US troops.
Legal insecurity, since when their troops beat 'enemy combatants' up, or rape them with truncheons or a whole host of other things some soldiers seem to find fun, then there could actually be some consequences! rather than good old GW Bush giving them a medal for the good work.
American politics are really confusing.
0
Comments
Is this an implication that the US will not abandon Iraq and the Middle East (well, it doesn't occupy the middle east yet) for decades to come? Until at least the oil has dried up...
Yes. Each democratically elected part of the US government has a veto on the others.
It might not be his choice, if the war in Iraq keeps going badly I can see the Democrats running on a 'End the War' ticket come the next election.
As both sides are the same in US politics and do what the people who fund them tell them, whether they leave Iraq or not is down to the men at the fed.
Whilst I understand the sentiment in that comment, and probably sympathise with it, you really should look at how long it took before the West Germans were able to elect their own Govt and how long it took before the troops left...
The second part of that is a bit of a joke, the Americans are still there in huge numbers.
I'm not sure how Iraqi's would feel if you told them there would still be American troops there in 50 years time.
You might also want to look at how the Germans reacted at first, or at least at how the radical nazis reacted. Terrorism was not unheard of there either.
The Iraqis are less concerned about the fact that there are American soldiers on their soil and more concerned that those forces appear unable to prevent much of the terrorist (resistance) activity or ensure that vital infrastructure is in place. Had security not been an issue then you would probably have found that the majority of Iraqis would still be openly supportive
i would think the iraqis are more concerned that our troops are supposed to be protecting them, yet when british special forces agents are arrested with explosives and detained for questioning, we bulldoze down their prison, let a bunch of prisoners escape, and prevent anything like the truth getting out..........false flag terrorism anyone? wouldn't be the first time....
Now, how about NOT invading countries pointlessly for no real reason in future?
The end does not justify the means. The pro-war brigade, fully aware now that the chimp and his poodle have broken every law and convention in existence and cause the unlawful deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, are now clinging to the concept that one day in the future Iraq will be a better place than it was under Saddam, and that everything that has happened in between can be safely disregarded.
Even if Iraq is to become a better place within our lifetime (which at this rate, I'm starting to doubt) the fact remains that it should have not happened. Not in the way it did. We must ensure that the consequences of such actions are such that no future chimp or neocon is tempted to embark in a similar adventure under the pretext of trying to make a country a better place for its citizens (which it wasn't fucking true anyway- the wellbeing of the Iraqis was and has always been just about the very last thing in the minds of the US government and even our very own Tony.
gwb did announce that america was going to war for at least a generation.
They've been saying 'peak oil' is coming for ages, there is quite a lot down there, it will just get harder to get, we havent even started on proper deep sea drilling.
As it gets harder to pull out of the ground alternatives will get more profitable.
Thats not to say we should cain lots of oil or invade Iraq though.
we dont know how much is left for sure, we can only go by what the saudis say etc etc
remember shell caught lying last year!