Question for real conservatives (mainly) about part of the torture bill..

motivez · 09-26-2006, 05:25 PM

Basically, the new legislation, if passed.. will allow the President the ability to, and I quote: "interpret the meaning and application" of the Geneva Convention standards..

Now, maybe I'm mistaken, but I didn't think part of the job of the executive branch was really so much to interpret the laws, but rather follow and execute the laws, while taking into consideration "Congressional Intent", and if there was some misunderstanding the judiciary was supposed to step in and do the interpretation of what our laws and treaty obligations meant?

The Supreme Court has already spoken about these people being afforded GC protections, but isn't he essentially going around them by getting the Rubber Stamp Republicans (and probably some Democrats since it's election time) to tell him he can basically interpret as he sees fit?

So, what's this interpretation nonsense?

It seems like it's been a common theme for this President to issue signing statements allowing himself the ability to re-interpret the meaning of the law, when it will apply, etc.. totally negating the judiciary and congressional intent even when it's specifically spelled out in the bill with what means what.. (ie: the McCain torture bill which his signing statement essentially shredded)

So, what's up with this? What do you guys think?

Diesel66 · 09-26-2006, 05:43 PM

Executive power always interpret the laws and decides how they are going to enforce them.

Everyone from Mayors all the way up to the President does it, it is the job of the legislation and judicial system to ensure they are pushing the law like they want.

Diamond Cross · 09-26-2006, 06:01 PM

People in power always believe that they are above the law.

And I am against torture myself.

But there should be stringent definitions of what torture is to minimise the political use of it.

ballz2wallz · 09-26-2006, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

But there should be stringent definitions of what torture is to minimise the political use of it.

That's what it boils down to. Otherwise, it will always be left to interpretation.

Diesel66 · 09-26-2006, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

But there should be stringent definitions of what torture is to minimize the political use of it.

People would invent new methods of torture, then the GC committee would have to add them to the banned list, Presidents have to sign the new treaty Senate has to approve the new treaty.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-26-2006, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

People would invent new methods of torture, then the GC committee would have to add them to the banned list, Presidents have to sign the new treaty Senate has to approve the new treaty.

Torture now and torture 50 years ago aren't even in the same league.

Playing loud music a cold room is now "torture"

WickedLou9 · 09-26-2006, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

People would invent new methods of torture, then the GC committee would have to add them to the banned list, Presidents have to sign the new treaty Senate has to approve the new treaty.

yeah that's the problem. So the way they have it now it'e like " Anything that causes severe physical pain" or something like that. OK.. well define severe? Is getting kicked in the balls severe? how about getting pinched really hard. Ok how about getting slapped. how about being shaken really hard. is that severe?

If you stand back it is really disgusting. It disgusts me that our leaders are incapable of understanding what is OK to do to another human being and what is not OK.. it shoudln't be hard.

WickedLou9 · 09-26-2006, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Torture now and torture 50 years ago aren't even in the same league.

Playing loud music a cold room is now "torture"

It's not just playing loud music. It's playing loud music 24/7 so as to cause sleep deprivation.. and it's not just a cold room. It's inducing hypothermia.

motivez · 09-26-2006, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Executive power always interpret the laws and decides how they are going to enforce them.

Everyone from Mayors all the way up to the President does it, it is the job of the legislation and judicial system to ensure they are pushing the law like they want.

Interpreting the law the law for the sole purpose of deciding how to implement policies in order to follow the laws is completely different.. That's essentially reading comprehension.

This is different in that it's questioning the fundamental meaning of the law and saying that essentially, the President can pick and choose whether or not he'll follow all of it, or only parts of it, when, and under what circumstances.

I think most of the signing statements Bush has issued do the same thing, allow him to circumvent the obvious meaning of a law (ie: the torture one -- says, hey, dont torture. signing statement says, hey, i'm gonna torture if i want to)

Diesel66 · 09-26-2006, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Interpreting the law the law for the sole purpose of deciding how to implement policies in order to follow the laws is completely different.. That's essentially reading comprehension.

This is different in that it's questioning the fundamental meaning of the law and saying that essentially, the President can pick and choose whether or not he'll follow all of it, or only parts of it, when, and under what circumstances.

Yet that is how our system works. The people/legislator pass a law and the executive power decides how they are going to enforce it.

kinggovernor · 09-26-2006, 06:48 PM

the executive branch interpets laws everyday

motivez · 09-26-2006, 08:59 PM

Diesel, that's not what I'm saying.

It's not about "how they'll go about enforcing it", it's about making decisions that go completely against what the law says based on questionable "interpretations" that have no grounding in the law at all.

Law: Don't torture
Action: Hay guys lets torture and ignore what the law says

If you don't want to have a discussion about that aspect of it, fine, but what you guys are posting is not what I'm talking about, and you know it..

Diamond Cross · 09-26-2006, 09:38 PM

But the problem is real acts of torture haven't been defined, it just says no torture. For example, is playing loud polka music torture throughout the day to be turned off at night or is it just annoying as heck?

There are some acts that don't need to be defined, yes, but there are some that does. For example, looking at a woman's breasts is not true torture as opposed to having your wife's breast cut off in front of you just because you said President Bush is a wimp.

The problem is that when partisan politics gets involved, the looking at a woman's breast will become highly exaggerated in order to make the opposing political candidadte/party look bad, and so on and so forth.

motivez · 09-26-2006, 09:42 PM

McCain's bill defined it. President still said "hooray for torture!" afterward in his signing statement. Like I said, it's a pattern.

Looking at a woman's breast is 'degrading and humiliating' for some prisoners, and that type of treatment is defined under Common Article 3.. but I don't want to make the thread about that.

kinggovernor · 09-26-2006, 09:48 PM

we shouldn't torture but we also should not make our techniques public knowledge, that makes them ineffective

Diamond Cross · 09-26-2006, 10:10 PM

And President Bush is full of shit on this one.

If we're the good guys, we shouldn't use torture. Only bad guys use torture.

And so what if it's degrading and humiliating? Fat people are degraded and humiliated in American society all the time and no one really cares about that do they? Degrading and humiliation while can be harsh, is not torture.

ballz2wallz · 09-26-2006, 10:11 PM

On the O'Reilly poll tonight, they asked the question: 'What methods should our government use on terrorist prisoners?' (Or something like that)

The results were:

5% for Geneva Convention

64% for Harsher Measures

31% for Torture

ballz2wallz · 09-26-2006, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

If we're the good guys, we shouldn't use torture. Only bad guys use torture.

That's stupid to say something so black and white. That's like saying 'in war, only bad guys use weapons to kill people; we shouldn't use weapons to hurt anyone.'

motivez · 09-26-2006, 10:19 PM

That's a suprising result considering O'Reilly's audience!

ballz2wallz · 09-27-2006, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

That's a suprising result considering O'Reilly's audience!

Many democrats watch O'Reilly, and you know that. Don't you watch him?