Attention: The forums will be placed on read only mode this Saturday (Oct. 20, 2018)

During this outage (6:30 AM to 8 PM PDT) the forums will be placed on read only mode. We apologize for this inconvenience. Click here to read details

Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Bush wants more outsourcing!

by Dan McC / October 6, 2004 1:17 AM PDT

He says he doesn't want us torturing people. Apparently he doesn't mind sending prisoners out for contract torturing. And they call it 'extraordinary rendition'. I guess that sounds better than 'torture by remote control'.


The provision Rep. Markey referred to is contained in Section 3032 and 3033 of H.R. 10, the "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act of 2004," introduced by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL). The provision would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue new regulations to exclude from the protection of the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, any suspected terrorist - thereby allowing them to be deported or transferred to a country that may engage in torture. The provision would put the burden of proof on the person being deported or rendered to establish "by clear and convincing evidence that he or she would be tortured," would bar the courts from having jurisdiction to review the Secretary's regulations, and would free the Secretary to deport or remove terrorist suspects to any country in the world at will - even countries other than the person's home country or the country in which they were born. The provision would also apply retroactively.
This provision was not part of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, and the Commission actually called upon the U.S. to "offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors." The Commission noted that "The United States should engage its friends to develop a common coalition approach to the detention and humane treatment of captured terrorists. New principles might draw upon Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions on the law of armed conflict. That article was specifically designed for those cases in which the usual laws of war did not apply. Its minimum standards are generally accepted throughout the world as customary international law." These standards prohibit the use of torture or other cruel or degrading treatment....

Rep. Markey said, "When the Republicans 9/11 bill is considered in the House, I intend to offer an amendment to strike the torture outsourcing provisions from the Republican bill and replace it with restrictions restoring international law as provided in my bill. It is absolutely disgraceful that the Republican Leadership has decided to load up the 9/11 Commission bill with legislative provisions that would legitimize torture, particularly when the Commission itself called for the U.S to move in exactly the opposite direction."

(From a Markey press release)


Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Bush wants more outsourcing!
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Bush wants more outsourcing!
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Don't see where Bush is mentioned in the press release
by Evie / October 6, 2004 1:37 AM PDT
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) So you expect him to veto that bill?
by Josh K / October 6, 2004 1:51 AM PDT
Collapse -
by Evie / October 6, 2004 2:03 AM PDT

I see no mention of Bush hence Dan's subject line is misleading.

I would have to read the text of the bill and/or see where Bush is specifically endorsing or lobbying for such provisions before it could be laid at his feet.

Markey's outsourcing charge seems a bit over the top at first glance. But again, I would have to read the bill judge for myself.

I think the record would show that Bush has been the most sparing President on record with the veto pen.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Would "Bush approves of outsourcing"......
by Josh K / October 6, 2004 3:02 AM PDT
In reply to: Irrelevant. a better choice of words? If he signs the bill, then it would be fair to assume he's OK with its contents, no?

Collapse -
Re: Would "Bush approves of outsourcing"......
by Evie / October 6, 2004 3:18 AM PDT

Please Josh. Presidents sign bills into law all the time that they do not endorse or agree with every provision of. If they vetoed every bill that contained a provision they didn't agree with we would have no laws ever made.

It is silly to argue about Bush's position on this. Dan threw him into the mix based on something that is not his initiative. I'll await the debate on Markey's amendment as that will give more insight into what the implications of this bill really are.

FYI: H.R. 10 do a browser "find" for SEC. 3032 to get to the relevant sections. Much of the language is confusing as it is written as changes to some existing law rather than just writing out the new language in full. This is why I'll await the debate on the bill to get a better idea of what is ACTUALLY being legislated.

BTW, if you don't think Clinton "outsourced" some terror suspects in his day, you're fooling yourself.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Re: (NT) Don't see where Bush is mentioned in the press rele
by Dan McC / October 6, 2004 4:44 AM PDT

Do you honestly think that the Speaker of the House put that provision into such an important, high profile bit of legislation without the advise and consent of the head of his party?


Collapse -
Do you think that every ...
by Evie / October 6, 2004 4:49 AM PDT

... piece of legislation introduced by a Republican is run past the President first? Give me a break.

If you want to slam Hastert for the language in his bill, fine. But your use attack on Bush in the subject title is unwarranted unless you are privy to some knowledge that the rest of us aren't as to the behind the scenes communications between Bush and Hastert.

Collapse -
Is that what I said? No!
by Dan McC / October 6, 2004 5:35 AM PDT

This is not 'every piece of legislation' and it is receiving a great deal of attention. If you think that it is ordinary then you need a break.


Collapse -
Unless you are privy ...
by Evie / October 6, 2004 5:40 AM PDT

... to the conversations Bush and Hastert may or may not have had about every detail of Hastert's proposed bill, then you should refrain from indicting Bush improperly in your subject lines.

Collapse -
I'm privy to the real world
by Dan McC / October 6, 2004 5:53 AM PDT

It has it's benefits.


Collapse -
No ...
by Evie / October 6, 2004 7:34 AM PDT

... you are manufacturing your own "facts" without any basis. Your arguments would have more merit if you waited for Bush to publicly lobby for the passage of this legislation, and even then, there is precious little he can do about smaller provisions included in larger bills.

For example, Bush was heavily involved in NCLB. Vouchers were largely left out of the final version. So since he signed it I suppose you would claim he flip-flopped on vouchers? Ridiculous!

Collapse -
by Dan McC / October 6, 2004 11:11 AM PDT
In reply to: No ...

Not the same thing at all, but a nice try.


Collapse -
You can't back up your absurd subject title ...
by Evie / October 6, 2004 11:15 AM PDT
In reply to: Yeah...

... trying to slam President Bush. Nice try diverting the issue though.

Collapse -
Re: I'm privy to the real world- Dan
by Bob / October 6, 2004 9:49 PM PDT

I'll bet you don't get the last word in, Dan.

Collapse -
As he shouldn't in this case
by Evie / October 6, 2004 9:56 PM PDT

If he wanted to talk about the implications of the bill, he should have left off the gratuitous slam at our President.

Collapse -
The President has to take SOME responsibility for his Party
by Ziks511 / October 6, 2004 8:37 AM PDT

and their actions. There's only so often you can say "I know nothing, noo-thing. I didn't know the gun was loaded. Its all somebody else's fault." If you're in charge and things go wrong repeatedly and consistently,then you're responsible establishing a flawed process and for not fixing it.

And just wait 'til the truth emerges about Gitmo.

Rob Boyter

Collapse -
GIve me a break
by Evie / October 6, 2004 8:51 AM PDT

Yes, the President (of any political party) can propose an agenda, but it is and has always been the Congress that drafts and passes legislation. While Republicans in Congress and the President might be on the same page with many initiatives, all Republicans are not simply the puppets of the President just because they share party affiliation.

As I said to Dan, if there was a public endorsement by Bush of this bill, or any mention thereof in the Markey release, then his subject line accusation would at least have some merit. But as of right now I've seen no evidence of such so I'll withhold judgment until (a) the debate on the bill and Markey's amendment to clarify the true implications of the "objectionable" clauses, and (b) whether or not Bush takes an active role in the legislation.

AFAIK, Bush has endorsed most of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. He may well come out in favor of legislation implementing them. But I also believe that the line item veto has been ruled unconstitutional (frankly I'm not sure what happened to that exactly, just think it would have been used if it were a power available to the Prez), so it is a regular occurrence that presidents sign into law bills containing objectionable parts, if the benefit of the whole is perceived to be greater. That is the reality that Dan seems to be oblivious to.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Thanks!!
by Evie / October 6, 2004 12:05 PM PDT
In reply to: Clinton v New York
Collapse -
Re: GIve me a break
by Dale Johnston / October 6, 2004 2:34 PM PDT
In reply to: GIve me a break
"it is a regular occurrence that presidents sign into law bills containing objectionable parts, if the benefit of the whole is perceived to be greater."

I would hardly consider the export for torture of suspects a mere "objectionable part". How can anyone with any shred of humanity consider the "greater benefit of the whole" to be sufficient justification for torture of another soul?

Like you we have yet to read the whole wording from the source, but according to the presentation Dan portrays, these people would only be suspects, and not proven terorists.

Or have we now reached a point in America's pursuit of liberty where merely saying it's so makes it so? I truly hope not, otherwise the country just gave up much of what it has always stood for. Sad
Collapse -
Re: GIve me a break
by Evie / October 6, 2004 9:33 PM PDT
In reply to: Re: GIve me a break

Firstly, this is a BILL in the forming stage. According to Markey's release, he will introduce an amendment to change those portions. H.R. 10, which is quite a lengthy piece of legislation, is in committees at this time. I'll await the debate on Markey's Amendment.

Secondly, if you scan down to the relevant sections (3032 & 3033), it is unclear to me how this is "outsourcing torture". Just because someone coins a cute phrase doesn't make it so. This deals with rules of deportation, and I don't see why, if the US chooses to deport a Saudi terrorist to his home country, we have any obligations as to what the Saudis might do to him. And if the Saudis don't want him, then the terrorist doesn't get to choose his final destination if there is a country willing to take him. Terrorists don't get the luxury of our judicial process simply by claiming "asylum".

BTW, if you think that the terrorists that were captured by the Pakistanis that are coughing up that great info -- which is protecting me, you and the entire free West from the spread of Islamist fascism -- are doing so because the Pakistanis are playing nice and asking "pretty please", then you are kidding yourself.

Collapse -
p.s. Dale ...
by Evie / October 6, 2004 9:39 PM PDT
In reply to: Re: GIve me a break

... we are talking about deportation. Something that is legal and appropriate for any person in our country illegally or in violation of the terms of their visa. Using an alias would be a violation. Not providing current addresses to immigration would be a violation. Not attending school when here on an education visa would be a violation. That's all it takes, and there is nothing wrong with sending them back where they came from rather than clogging up our legal system trying to accomodate them.

Collapse -
Where have you been?
by Dan McC / October 6, 2004 11:17 AM PDT

This guy doesn't have to take responsibility for anything.

"The blame shifts away from here."

Get with the program.


Collapse -
You are the only one shifting here Dan
by Evie / October 6, 2004 11:47 AM PDT
In reply to: Where have you been?

This has NOTHING to do with Bush at this point. Try to find a press release where Markey at least implies that Bush is leading the charge for these provisions and you have a leg to stand on and there will be something to discuss.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) What am I shifting?
by Dan McC / October 7, 2004 12:24 AM PDT
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) The blame incorrectly to Bush
by Evie / October 20, 2004 7:10 AM PDT
Collapse -
by Dan McC / October 20, 2004 7:03 AM PDT

I heard a report on NPR this morning stating that there were White House staff at all of the meetings on the Hill regarding this bill.


Collapse -
(NT) (NT) So?
by Evie / October 20, 2004 7:11 AM PDT
In reply to: Update
Collapse -
by Dan McC / October 20, 2004 7:29 AM PDT
In reply to: (NT) So?

You were prattling on and on about how bush was in no way involved in the preparation of this bill? Do you remember that? If you don't you can just read some of the posts as a refresher.


Collapse -
Re: Remember?
by Evie / October 20, 2004 7:42 AM PDT
In reply to: Remember?

Yes I remember. Refresh your memory. White House officials sitting in on committee meetings discussing this bill does not make your charge any more valid.

Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!