Posted on 07/11/2006 7:39:26 PM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom
From the outset, President Bush declared that the battle against Al Qaeda would be a war like no other, fought by new rules against new enemies not entitled to the old protections afforded to either prisoners of war or criminal defendants.
But the White House acknowledgment on Tuesday that a key clause of the Geneva Conventions applies to Qaeda detainees, as a recent Supreme Court ruling affirmed, is only the latest step in the gradual erosion of the administration’s aggressive legal stance.
The administration’s initial position emerged in 2002 only after a fierce internal legal debate, and it has been revised in the face of international opinion, Congressional curbs and Supreme Court rulings. Two central ideas of the war on terror — that the president could fight it exclusively on the basis of his Constitutional powers and that terrorist suspects had few, if any, rights — have been modified repeatedly.
Scholars debated the meaning of a Defense Department memo made public on Tuesday that declared that the clause in the Geneva Conventions, “applies as a matter of law to the conflict with Al Qaeda.”
Administration officials suggested that the memo only restated what was already policy — that detainees must be treated “humanely.” But what was undeniable was that the president’s executive order of Feb. 7, 2002, declared that Article 3 did not apply to Al Qaeda or to Taliban detainees, and that the newly released memo, written by Deputy Defense Secretary England, said it did.
After the Pentagon released the memo, the White House confirmed that it had formally withdrawn part of the order and accepted that Article 3 now applied to Qaeda detainees. That article prohibits “humiliating and degrading treatment” of prisoners and requires trials “affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
When is the Times' building going to implode into the Hudson? I am so sick of these creeps.
I think we have been treating these subhumans better than any nation will do under any treaty not just the Geneva convention. Anyway Geneva convention does not mean no military tribunal, as usual the New York Times is having another fake orgasm thinking that President Bush has caved, he did not. Congress will pass the military tribunal law for terrorists, and the President will sign it.
In fact it is an early and fake victory that the Left and the media are celebrating they have been doing so for the last six years. Congress will pass a law for military tribunals for terrorists and the President will sign it.
I don't like the NY Times, because the NY Times is going to get us killed.
I could also say the same about the Supreme Court.
When your enemies do not talk, sometimes torture is necessary. Besides, it's not like we disfigure these people. Sometimes these lefties get torture mixed up with abuse. Sometimes, what is "abuse" is not abuse. Putting a barking dog in somebody's face does not cause mental distress unless you're really afraid of dogs. Of course, now I get it-dogs like to eat small, cowering animals.
From now on, if the war goes badly, you can blame the Supreme Court and the NY Times.
Unfortunately what you mentioned above are not our methods and ways and that is a problem for us in this war on terror because it will take us longer time to get information from these subhuman terrorists, that if we get any to start with.
Same old same old,
The MSM is invested in a simple strategy to defeat the president and the Republican/conservative movement. If they keep repeating negativity long and hard enough, a majority of sheeple will be so sick of the drumbeat of bad news that the administration and conservatives will be voted out of office simply so that the sheeple can have a respite from this negativity.
The NYT will always be what it is. The thing to do here is to capitalize on the Democrats' collective silence over this issue. They're playing the part of the "Staunch Protectors of the First Amendment" at a very high price. It comes at the expense of looking conflicted about its priorities, which is already a foregone in most reasonable people's minds. This party has reached a point where their contempt for common sense can't be disguised anymore.
The Times is their Holy Grail. The election year coordination between this newspaper and the Democratic Party is already the stuff of legend. It's undeniable.
There's no ambiguity about the New York Times' political leanings and the Democrats willful silence only compounds the perception of that pesky 'liberal media' myth that they just can't seem to shed.
Scott Shane, "Ex-CIA Official Says Iraq Data Was Distorted," New York Times, 11 February 2006.
Scott Shane New York Times GOP Plan Would Allow Spying Without Warrants Thursday, March 9, 2006
Invoking Secrets Privilege Becomes a More Popular Legal Tactic by US by Scott Shane, New York Times, June 4, 2006
Shane, Scott. "Panel Rebukes CIA and FBI for Shortcomings in Overhauls." New York Times, 16 Apr. 2005.
Shane, Scott, Stephen Grey, and Margot Williams. "CIA Expanding Terror Battle Under Guise of Charter Flights." New York Times, 31 May 2005
by Scott Shane, New York Times. December 17, 2004 | The nation's hard-pressed health care system for veterans is facing a potential deluge
AFTER FAILURES, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS PLAY BLAME GAME. by Scott Shane. The New York Times. September 5, 2005
Scott Shane, "Bush's Speech on Iraq War Echoes Voice of an Analyst," 2005
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.