State-sanctioned torture

As I mentioned earlier, Senator John McCain(R, Arizona) proposed an amendment to the Senate that would prohibit the use of torture on prisoners, specifically those considered terrorists. Well, it passed in the Senate 90-9 and is now steamrolling its way through the House of Representatives as well. Now, despite differences in individuals, we can all agree on some universal principles; our children should be educated, people should be safe and free, and people shouldn't be tortured. Right?

Wrong!

The White House apparently does not agree. They would like exemptions added to the bill that would allow the CIA to continue torturing their prisoners(in, allegedly, secret prisons throughout Europe where prisoners have been held for up to three years without being charged OR being allowed to see their lawyers). Isn't that insane?

Problem is, this hasn't been a very good year for the prez. With the "War" in Iraq proving to be a PR disaster, the national deficit skyrocketing, his social security plan being non-existent, his blatant cronyism being exposed both by Mike Brown, head of FEMA and Harriet Miers both failing to get the job done, and key members of not only his staff, but his party being indicted, you could say his second term is off to a rough start. As I said, it is highly likely that this bill will fly through the House and end up on the presidents desk.

Normally, he would just have his mouthpiece Scott McClellan come out and say how it wasn't in the "best interest of the nation", and then twist it somehow to make it sound like disagreeing with the prez was unpatriotic. But this unfortunate hurricane of failures and negative publicity will just magnify any actions he takes, and he may be forced to sign a bill he opposes. Can you even imagine him vetoing it? "My fellow americans, I know you don't want us to torture people, but I don’t really care that your elected represen...represent...your elected officials thought this was a good idea, I don't like it so I vetoed it. Oh, and the war in Iraq is going really well." Even if he did veto it, a 90-9 vote is a sure indicator that the bill would just be re-introduced and passed without bush having to sign it. Gotta love those checks and balances. I guess we know now what bush meant when he said running this country would be a lot easier if it were a dictatorship. If only he didn't have those obnoxious Senators and Representatives overruling his decisions, or that pesky press pointing out all his flaws. Vetoing this bill could be the nail in his presidential coffin, both because it would just show how little he cares for human life(except his own, of course....sending americans to die in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's okay, but he literally ran and hid during his own service), and also that the bill would just be passed again anyway, undermining the deathgrip he's had on our nation for the past 6 years

Here's a Thought... For the next two presidential nominees, voting against this bill would be the quickest way to end your candidacy. Voting for the inhuman treatment of ANYONE is a surefire way to destroy your popularity and chances of being elected. Despite all our differences, there are some universal morals that all people share, and I'd like to think that torturing people being okay isn't one of them. Trying to listen to the president speak is enough torture already.