Posted on 09/19/2006 7:38:57 PM PDT by bobsunshine
I am with you....I think waterboarding is too good for them, however!
That would be the ACLU, CAIR, al-Qa'ida, etc, etc. You better believe that they care if we're following it or not.
ROFLLL!!!!!!
Saturday night- Ann said that waterboarding should be a REWARD for GOOD BEHAVIOR! ROFLLL!!!
YOU ROCK!
I know the President does work this way but I would kick the table over and go out every day and campaign on how they Old Boys club in DC is blocking anything getting done to make the American people safer. Reagan was a genius at making it "you and me against DC". Bush should take a page from his book, we could pick up a couple close Senate seats on it.
But the President is fighting a war and is more intrested in protecting Americans then playing politics. Too bad, we should be reaming the Do Nothings with this gaff.
"The senators propose to provide clearer guidelines for interrogators by amending the War Crimes Act to enumerate several “grave breaches” that constitute violations of Common Article 3"
how can you possibly pass a law that enumerates these things? what's it going to say - cutting off fingers is banned, use of electricity is banned - how can it possibly list every action that is banned? and suppose it doesn't list someting - can I turn hungry rats loose on KSM if the law doesn't specifically ban that?
what they simply needed to do was re-affirm what everybody knows was the original intent of geneva - to not cover these types of combatants. let the SCOTUS then try to toss that.
and the issue of how the tribunals will work, is still wide open.
I still think that this is a prelude to a big, HVT announcement. If SCOTU hadn't come down on UBL's drivers side, I think they would have already made it. The White House wants the rules set in stone so that when the HVT is transferred to Gitmo, the rules are in place for a military tribunal and no interference from the courts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1661789/posts
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof
6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Just a couple of examples of where the Geneva Convention is willingly ignored by the 4 Senator Stooges with their flatulent PR spin to lie about why they are so desperate to manufacture any reason to avoid having to stand with the Administration on anything.
That "a former JAG" like Graham is this grotesquely ignorant of what Common Article 3 actually says indicates it is merely another LIE told by the RINO clown posse to come up with yet another excuse to backstab the Administration.
Past time to fire these 4 clowns.
The MSM will declare a McCain victory without knowing exactly what changed and Johnny will run like the wind away from this issue.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1661789/posts
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof
6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Just a couple of examples of where the Geneva Convention is willingly ignored by the 4 Senator Stooges with their flatulent PR spin to lie about why they are so desperate to manufacture any reason to avoid having to stand with the Administration on anything.
That "a former JAG" like Graham is this grotesquely ignorant of what Common Article 3 actually says indicates it is merely another LIE told by the RINO clown posse to come up with yet another excuse to backstab the Administration.
Past time to fire these 4 clowns.
Well..you take this "conflict" and you add the one from the other thread...about Soros being upset that Specter may be working out a "compromise" on the NSA surviellance program that would be "impeachment proof"...
And you have a POTUS who is making sure that he gives NOTHING to the Soros gang to drag him and his administration through endless hearings if by some fluke the House went to the Dems.
President Bush is the grown up in Washington, and knows he has an important job as CIC that no other person in the USA has...and he takes it too seriesly to worry, I guess, about "playing politics"...
I know it makes ME mad...I prefer him angry and dug in myself...but, he HAS to make sure that our CIA people are protected or I will be mad at him for "caving".
Would someone PLEASE explain how we have ANY obligations whatsoever under the Geneva Conventions towards terrorists who are not only caught in countries who are NOT signees to said documents, but also are nationals of countries that are not signees.
And one additional bit - these terrorists do not respect any such conventions or rights of prisoners.
there are only two HVTs higher in the food chain then the ones we already have - Osama and Al-Zahwari. I do not think we have them in custody.
how can you possibly pass a law that enumerates these things? what's it going to say - cutting off fingers is banned, use of electricity is banned - how can it possibly list every action that is banned? and suppose it doesn't list someting - can I turn hungry rats loose on KSM if the law doesn't specifically ban that?
In all likelihood, the guidance is going to be a results based, not method based.
It may, for instance, list types of damage or injuries that may not occur, without specifying how they would be inflicted. That's just a guess, but, having known some military and civilian interrogators, they're a very, very wily bunch. You can't possibly give them a list of methods not to use, and think they won't come up with more ways to skin the cat.
The only safe thing is to tell them that they can't skin the cat at all, only shave it, and let them decide if they want to use a razor, tweezers, or their fingers.
I believe I heard on Hugh Hewett's program that the White House had offered a compromise and McCain and company turned it down cold.
the simple answer - 5 judges on the SCOTUS said so.
its a fantasy that Geneva applies to them of course, but when you have 5 members of the SCOTUS who are willing to make things up as they go along, this is the system we have to deal with, unless and until we replace 1 or 2 of these 5.
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.