Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).

Thursday, September 28, 2006

 

Lieberman Votes "Aye"

On final passage of S. 3930.

He was the last senator to vote, although he had been standing around the senate floor for a good ten minutes.

I guess he wanted to see how everyone else voted first.

"Principles" in action.
Comments:
So much for "the conscience of the Senate."
 
He did the EXACT same thing back in 1990 during the Clarence Thomas vote. If I remember correctly, he missed his name during the first roll call, and only voted "no" after the confirmation was already a done deal.

THAT was the moment I knew we had a creep on our hands in Connecticut.
 
It's time to call Lieberman "Pro-torture Joe"
 
Remember when Joe was anti-torture?

These comments came after the senators had screened a 30-second snippet in which, to quote John Burgess's report in these pages, "three black-suited assailants enter a bathroom, grab a young woman wearing a flimsy nightgown, then attach a long, hooked device to her neck to suck out blood." The clip led many of the evening's TV news reports, replete with anti-video-game-violence commentary spawned by Sen. Lieberman's earlier observations on the product: that it was set in a sorority house, where the object was to hang women on meat hooks. "These games teach a child to enjoy inflicting torture," said Lieberman.
 
Like Bush, he's consistent, consistently WRONG!
 
Thank goodness one democrat understands that this a war and not a traffic infraction. By the way, I have been searching and I dont see where in the bill it mentions that torture is ok.
 
Geez, energybanalist is back. Let's see how he would enjoy being picked up on some nebulous charge, sent to a foreign prison and subjected to interrogation procedure approved by Bush.

This is a dark day for our country. Here, a former attorney general, who would presumably have respect for the constitution, voted with his buddies to gut it.

If there is anyone left in the Democratic Party who actually believes Lieberman will vote with the Democrats, he or she is dilussional at best.
 
Energyanalyst, the bill specifically lets the president decide what kind of perverted torture is "ok." Given what we know about our sadist-in-chief, that is sure to include all manner of sexual humiliation, agonizing stress positions and, no doubt, Bush-frat-style branding on the bare butts of captives.
 
First of all Chaucer, thanks for the welcome back. Secondly, I beleive they dont pick up people off the street for this--actually most if not all are picked up on the battle field (actually, doesnt the geneva convention famously allow the summary execution of ununiformed combatants as spies?).
Now Matt, there are no laws that allow the torture of anyone, unless putting womens panties on someone's head is torture. Frankly, I'm in favor of what ever they have been doing because I havent seen many terrorist incidents here lately. There is no reason on God's green earth to provide constitutional protects to people who are trying to wipe out your country. As it is, this bill will open up the US courts to enemy combatant--and this is something that are courts are not properly designed to handle.
 
Don't buy the Lie.
 
energybanalist -- ask the Canadian who was picked up at the airport, sent to our good friends, the Syrians, tortured for months, then, oooppps, released without an apology. Watch who you give your donations to. I understand the 700 Club is quite the terrorist organization considering all the calls to kill folks. Get your name off the list now.
 
Chaucer, thanks for all the name calling and the ridiculous rants--it really becomes you. We're really tight with the Syrians I know.
 
energyanalyst: What very few people realize is that according to our own military, only 5% of the detainees were picked up on the battlefield. The vast majority were sold to the U.S. for bounty when we dropped pamphlets promising riches to anyone who turned in a suspect.

http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf#search=%22detainees%20Guantanamo%205%25%20battlefield%22

Not only are the majority of detainees innocent, but some were even enemies of the Taliban, languishing in the Taliban's jails until they were sold to the U.S.

These are the people whom we have tortured and imprisoned for years. And now we have officially said we can keep them for the rest of their lives, without charges, and without any chance of legal recourse.

It is almost too painful to believe. Yet it is the truth. And we must continue to speak out against it.
 
I know this will be difficult for you to swallow, but I give the people who fight for us a little bit of credit. They no more want to hold someone who is "innocent" " indefinitely", than they want to shoot the poor child many of these sub humans hide behind when they fight. I do believe (and I could find the number) that many of those detained were released (some wrongly, because they were picked up again on the battlefield). I read through your link and it looks to me like an interesting play on statistics by the council of "defendants". Not very many people run around where people are shooting guns, unless they are up to no good. I dont believe that the Pakistanis or the NA would be very shy about torture or killing, so they dont need the US to house their dregs. If these people can provide intelligence then... The same report says 45% committed hostile acts hmmmm.

It is funny to me that the President of the united states says something and most of you people run for the exits screaming bullshit, but a lawyer for gitmo detainees writes a brief and now it's the bible?
 
Post a Comment



<< Home