Bush Signs Torture Ban

[Jaime]

And yet you refuse to assent to the Church on the issue of torture.

[PadreSantiago]

FIne you are ready for an attack which is laughable. The real point is that you justify torture just because some where down the road someone might attack us. Well obviously someone is going to mess with us sooner or later. There's always going to be some enemy and then some reason to throw away another part of the constititution or ignore the bible with regards to torture. DO YOU THINK JESUS CHRIST WOULD CONDONE TORTURE? NO! He would have you turn the other cheek

[peacenluvbaby]

There is an even broader definition of torture used by the UN than the one above "cruel or degrading treatment or punishment". (UDHR)

Also there is plenty of scientific evidence - psychological and otherwise - that shows that torture produces information but that that information is what the torturers want to hear and completely unreliable and therefore useless!!!

Basically it all comes down to the wonder "Ends dont justify the means." And the Bush administration has refused to answer whether waterboarding is still used, and their legal advisor guy - I heard him on the BBC but forget his name - has said the US condemns torture, but would not say "according to the UN's definition" thus there has been debate within and outside of the Bush camp as to what "qualifies" as torture.

TORTURE IS NEVER JUSTIFIED...EVEN IF THE GUY KNOW WHERE A BOMB THAT WILL KILL 1 MILLION PEOPLE IS!!!!!!!!! NEVER IS NEVER!!!!!

Peace - I love this thread btw...such concern for HUMANITY instead of just so-called "security".

[jasJis]

Why did McCain and Congress try to circumvent the Constitution by having the Legislative Branch reduce the powerd of the Executive Branch? The US already has laws on the books against Torture. That's why the guards from Abu Graib are in prison or on trial.
The "New" ban on torture is only a superficial political move to make the current administration look bad and erringly over-reaches the power of the Legislative Branch.

[peacenluvbaby]

There were not "laws on the books" per se. There were treaties and the constitution...but passing a law in Congress is sometimes a "move" to bring attention to an issue that is being neglected or to close loopholes that up to that point had been manipulated by the armed forces of whom Bush is Commander in Chief and therefore responsible.

BTW as far as "executive power" Bush as have other presidents, often oversteps his/their bounds by issuing executive orders which contradict or circumvent other laws on the books - ie Johnson used such orders to keep Vietnam going despite the fact that Congress passed a Bill requiring Congressional oversight of potential escalations.

Peace Out!

[Didacus]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 16 2006, 03:56 PM']First he threatens to veto a ban on torture.  Then when congress prevented him from being able to, he REWRITES THE LAW!


[right][snapback]858071[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

He's YOUR president!

HA! And you where all squacking about Martin legalising gay marriage in Canada! HA! :

LOL



[i]He... just kidding... just kidding....
I know you've got the nukes... and er.. the torture law... just kidding about all that... we can still be 'friends' right?[/i]

[Cam42]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Jan 17 2006, 10:56 AM']Fixed 

Torture is contrary to the dignity of the human person.
[right][snapback]858625[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Absolutely correct. From a Catholic perspective:

[quote name='CCC #2297']Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. [b]Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.[/b] Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.[/quote]
(cf. DS 3722)

[quote name='CCC #2298']In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. [b]In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. [u]On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition.[/u] We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.[/b][/quote]

This is exactly what the Church teaches. I would be interested how one who claims to be Catholic AND Republican can justify this with what President Bush has done. I am a Republican, and I can't do it.

Let's not forget that Bush doesn't use the Church as a template on what he deems necessary from a moral point of view, as we have seen with capital punishment (he is WAY to liberal with the application), abortion (he is WAY too liberal with the application), and now torture (he is WAY too liberal with the application). He doesn't have to, because he is not Catholic, but he is bound by the moral law.

As a conservative, and I am more conservative than any of you possibly know; I am alarmed at how many moral issues he is taking a liberal stand. As a true conservative (politically), I am beginning to question President Bush on several decisions that he is making.

As an orthodox Catholic, I am obliged to make known the Catholic understanding of morality. It is this moral law that is universal. It is written into the heart of every man. Here, this is affirmed:
[quote name='Gaudium et Spes #16']In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.[/quote]

[Jaime]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Jan 18 2006, 06:26 AM']Why did McCain and Congress try to circumvent the Constitution by having the Legislative Branch reduce the powerd of the Executive Branch? The US already has laws on the books against Torture.  That's why the guards from Abu Graib are in prison or on trial.
The "New" ban on torture is only a superficial political move to make the current administration look bad and erringly over-reaches the power of the Legislative Branch.
[right][snapback]859563[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And exactly how did they go about doing that? It is the legislative branch that creates law. Not the president.

And the new ban on torture is expanding Article X which only addressed torture in terms of prisoners of war. That is why Abu Graib guards were prosecuted. It held POWs The new ban says everybody being detained by the US govt. That would include Guantanamo and any other facility around the world.

Are you honestly suggesting that republicans (including Sen McCain) are trying to make Bush look bad?

Silliest thing I've heard today.

[Sojourner]

Does anyone really have to try to make Bush look bad? It seems like it happens so naturally ...

[PadreSantiago]

[img]http://myspace-682.vo.llnwd.net/00350/28/64/350834682_l.jpg[/img]

[Akalyte]

Personally, i wish Johny Kerry would have won the elections. Just so yall could see the mess he would have created.

Just imagine all the pro-choice justices on the supreme court Kerry would have put into place.

He would have made it so we all had to pay for abortion, and "orthodox" catholics? Would most likely have to go underground because the anti-catholics and anti-catholic catholics would have had their leader.

Bush aint no where near perfect but i'm glad he's our president and not Kerry. I think some of yall need to chil, your true colors are coming out. At least Bush respects Catholics. Oh and I wish William Donahue could see some of your posts too.

Edited January 19, 2006 by Akalyte

[Jaime]

So because he nominated conservative judges, we're supposed to turn a blind eye to any abuse or attrocity he commits? Please tell me how that is orthodox thinking?

What happened to the zeal of fraternal correction shown on this board before?

He wants the ability to torture prisoners at his discretion! This is immoral and wrong!!

And if William Donahue were reading this, he'd be in agreement! I wish he was here as well!!

Edited January 19, 2006 by jaime

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 18 2006, 05:46 PM']So because he nominated conservative judges, we're supposed to turn a blind eye to any abuse or attrocity he commits?  Please tell me how that is orthodox thinking? 

What happened to the zeal of fraternal correction shown on this board before? 

He wants the ability to torture prisoners at his discretion!  This is immoral and wrong!!

And if William Donahue were reading this, he'd be in agreement!  I wish he was here as well!!
[right][snapback]860361[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Honestly, though, it does seem all you do on these boards anymore is bash Bush, and Republicans in general (and even conservatism).

This goes beyond "fraternal correction" to near-obsession.

Are you trying to make everyone feel bad that Kerry's not president?

I see scarcely a word against the many Democrat attrocities (including the Dem Party leadership's agressive defense of abortion on demand).
(You'll only concede something negative about them if pressed hard.)

If you attacked Dems and Republicans equally, maybe you'd be taken more seriously.
But this is just looking like partisan cheerleading.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 18 2006, 07:35 PM']Honestly, though, it does seem all you do on these boards anymore is bash Bush, and Republicans in general (and even conservatism).

This goes beyond "fraternal correction" to near-obsession.

Are you trying to make everyone feel bad that Kerry's not president?

I see scarcely a word against the many Democrat attrocities (including the Dem Party leadership's agressive defense of abortion on demand).
(You'll only concede something negative about them if pressed hard.)

If you attacked Dems and Republicans equally, maybe you'd be taken more seriously.
But this is just looking like partisan cheerleading.
[right][snapback]860433[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I have seen countless threads bashing liberals and democrats. Are there horrible democrats and liberals out there?

Absolutely and it sickens me

Should democrats and liberals be condemned?

Absolutely not and the fact that they are on this board sickens me

When there have been threads started to simply bash one political party, yeah I've stepped in and offered a mirror to Bush supporters.

But this is different. This is a president rewriting the constitution. Plus he's doing it by justifying an act that has been condemned by congress and the Church.

This should outrage democrats, republicans, liberals and conservatives alike.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 18 2006, 08:47 PM']I have seen countless threads bashing liberals and democrats.  Are there horrible democrats and liberals out there? 

Absolutely and it sickens me

Should democrats and liberals be condemned? 
[right][snapback]860444[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

personally, i only condemn "liberalism" ... and the answer is YES - and that is [i]my[/i] opinion

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jan 18 2006, 08:47 PM']Absolutely not and the fact that they are on this board sickens me

When there have been threads started to simply bash one political party, yeah I've stepped in and offered a mirror to Bush supporters. 

But this is different.  This is a president rewriting the constitution.  Plus he's doing it by justifying an act that has been condemned by congress and the Church. 
[right][snapback]860444[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Wow – did it cross your narrow mind that congressional geniuses looking at re-election and politics maybe are circumventing Constitutional provisions to pass a “feel good” bill of “no torture”
It is the President’s constitutional responsibility to act as commander and chief of the military… and his job alone to see to the workings and procedures of how our country’s defenses are conducted.
The senate members have decided to play politics with this war (it IS an election year, after all) and pass an bill that would grant due-process to enemy combatants – in other words, people from other countries who wanna see us all dead … would be granted protection under our US Constitution [i]as if they were common crooks…
[/i]
[b]This has never been done during a time of war in the USA …ever!
[/b]
This is stupid, suicidal, and ignorant
And this is lead by the liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans --- and the spineless other politicians who are afraid of people saying that if they do not support this bill that they are “for torture”
Well, this is the stupid part of politics
And it is this ignorant side of politics that prompted President Lincoln to proclaim that [b]“the Constitution is not a suicide pact!”
[/b]