My concern has never been about torture but solely about the wording used. The wording that I read (and hopefully it has been changed) basically allowed for any prisoner to consider virtually any treatment as demeaning and hence would fall into the category of torture. I spent years as an interrogator myself (97E) for the military and I can see the problems coming if it wasn't reworded. It basically makes us totally ineffectual and will bring intelligence gathering to a halt. Training and treatment that I underwent as a basic trainee could be considered torture. Basic interrogation done by police in this country with U.S. citizens could be considered torture. In essence it allows for better treatment of prisoners than it does citizens of this country and even U.S. citizens in our own prisons for breaking any law and those under investigation. When you operate in that environment you draw a line as to what is ok and what is not and you are clear on how far you are willing to go to protect citizens of this country and remain within the law - both laws of this world and God's laws. The wording was entirely too ambiguous.

Having said all of that I will also add that UP UNTIL THIS MOMENT AND SITUATION WITH SPYING ON U.S. CITIZENS against the Bill of Rights, President Bush has not done anything that previous Presidents have not also done and in those cases we were not fighting a fluid war on terrorism. Whether or not everyone agrees with me I cannot help and I cannot offer documented proof only to say that I saw in writing what I saw and I experience what I experienced and I know what I know.



>Tracy,
>
>You are seeing the light. How does it feel? This all fits in with the newsweek article about Bush being in a bubble. He does not allow himself to hear discenting points of view. How many computer projects have you been on where the decision maker constantly based his/her decision on discussions with 1-3 trusted assistants, and refused to listen to any other point of view?
>
>It just can't be done. I'm sure in this case, Cheney, Rumsfeld or someone like that has his ear, and is a) telling him why torture, spying, etc. is a good thing b) telling him why those against such things are bad americans. And this is all Bush is hearing.
>
>He is going down a long dangerous path. Should the demrocrats gain a majority in 2006, our government will ground to a halt for the next 2 years.
>
>You've made a comment to someone else about torture. Why is is such a big deal that McCain had to go to the carpet to get the white house to accept concessions?
>
>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179067,00.html
>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/nsa/index.html
>>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/19/opinion/courtwatch/main1135144.shtml
>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10488458
>>
>>My personal opinion is that no matter how good a leader in a war against terrorism is, how important they are to the success of the security of the country, or what our options were, no President can make his own law or ignore the law. My libertarian viewpoints are showing through here, I'm sure. This is not a country meant to be run by a monarch or a dictator. The executive branch cannot supercede law and privacy for the citizens and especially not when it breaks the law and the Bill of Rights. To do so gives total power to one person and in essence a dictatorship. It does not matter whether or not it has saved lives or prevented further acts of terrorism. You cannot punish the few to protect the many. The same may be true of the Japanese internment camps, McCarthyism, et al. All were thought to protect the masses. If it could be justified then closed door sessions would have approved it (other classified actions have been condoned and made legal in the past when national
>>security required it but never based solely on the decision of the President and always voted on by congress to provide an avenue outside the current legal bounderies to protect the country).
>>
>>I'm sorry, but this action deserves investigation and consideration for impeachment. I'm not saying he should be impeached at this time, but if he personally allowed spying on U.S. citizens outside the Bill of Rights and laws and he is guilty and solely responsible, then it should be considered. If congress did not pass a law to allow it and no congressional action allowed it, then it should be considered. If it is determined that a previous president allowed the same, then that needs to be investigated as well. If congress determines or possibly a joint judicial committee finds sufficient evidence that such spying is necessary then the law will be made to allow for it even clandestine and classified, but no President can make the law or break the law independently.
>>
>>The current sense is either you support him 100% or you are just like the other liberals and that is total nonsense. Suddenly Republicans and Libertarians are forced into a "you're with us or against us" position. This is ridiculous. If you give up even a part of your rights as a citizen of this country, what else will you give up in the future? Who will be allowed to determine what we must sacrifice? How many personal liberties and how many rights? For how long? What if the war on terrorism lasts 20 or 30 years? Will our children be accustomed to living without civil liberties? What will the mindset of our youth be when it is all over - if it is ever over? If such unilateral actions are allowed then we become no better than the average citizen in any dictatorship. It is not any different imo than watergate. If the spying is necessary in order to protect our country and its citenzens then congress will agree even if it is behind closed doors. I hope we learn in the near
>>future that it was indeed approved or that the action was not taken and the law broken under the authority of solely one man. It is an abuse of power.