Jackson Free Press

Am I the only one having trouble following Mr. Bush's tortured (sorry) logic here? If we don't torture, as he proclaims, then why in the holy Toledo can't we outlaw it???

President Bush vigorously defended U.S. interrogation practices in the war on terror Monday and lobbied against a congressional drive to outlaw torture. "There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again," Bush said. "So you bet we will aggressively pursue them but we will do so under the law." He declared, "We do not torture."

Over White House opposition, the Senate has passed legislation banning torture. With Vice President Dick Cheney as the point man, the administration is seeking an exemption for the CIA. It was recently disclosed that the spy agency maintains a network of prisons in eastern Europe and Asia, where it holds terrorist suspects.

The European Union is investigating the reports, which have not been confirmed by the White House.
"Our country is at war and our government has the obligation to protect the American people," Bush said. "Any activity we conduct is within the law. We do not torture."
Bush pointedly noted that Congress as well as the White House has an obligation to protect U.S. citizens.

The United States is holding hundreds of foreign terrorism suspects, also, at the military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

I loathe to think the price some Americans soldiers, in the wrong place at the place time, are going to pay for this administration's position on torture. Shudder.

Who are these people up there? They sure don't exhibit basic reasoning or logical skills—much less basic human morals. You're right, Mr. Bush, good people don't torture. Support the legislation.

Previous Comments

ID

171974

Comment

More on the war-crimes tribunals challenge, from AP: WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a challenge to the Bush administration's military tribunals for foreign terror suspects, a major test of the government's wartime powers. Justices will decide whether Osama bin Laden's former driver can be tried for war crimes before military officers in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Chief Justice John Roberts, as an appeals court judge, joined a summer ruling against Salim Ahmed Hamdan. He did not participate in Monday's action, which put him in the difficult situation of sitting in judgment of one of his own rulings. The court's intervention piles more woes on the Bush administration, which has already suffered one set of losses at the Supreme Court and has been battered by international criticism of its detention policies. "I think it's a black eye for the Bush administration. This opens a Pandora's box," said Michael Greenberger, a Justice Department attorney in the Clinton administration and law professor at the University of Maryland. In 2004 justices took up the first round of cases stemming from the government's war on terrorism. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring, wrote in one case that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens." Arguments in the Hamdan case will be scheduled next spring, in time for O'Connor's successor to take part. Bush has named Samuel Alito, an appeals court judge, to replace her. In his lower court decisions Alito has been deferential to government.

Author

ladd

Date

2005-11-07T12:48:37-06:00