" Hadley is doing a great job of describing what's going on here, btw."
Hadley was terrific .
The media and the Democrats have completely misrepresented the President's position.
Even Wolf Blitzer didn't seem to grasp the difference.
And Hadley made Powell look like a fool . Either Powell got suckered by McCain or he didn't do his homework.
Mort Kondracke was astounded on Friday- he said he had contacted McCain's office and McC's staffers told him that McC was unaware of exactly which techniques the US uses.
But, whatever they are-he's against them.
The WH is not doing away with the Geneva Convention- they just want clarification of Article 3, part c.
According to the Europeans- not having a private toilet is an outrage against human dignity and violates Article 3 .
Apparently McCain and Powell and Graham and the Democrats are now bathroom monitors for Al Queda.
They'll probably demand we provide Charmin instead of the generic.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice , center, talks with National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley inside the Oval Office as President Bush meets with South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 14, 2006
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (2nd R) stands with White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten (L), National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley (2nd L) and White House spokesman Tony Snow in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington September 14, 2006
The WH is not doing away with the Geneva Convention- they just want clarification of Article 3, part c. Another FReeper (kabar, IIRC) posted the text of "Common Article III:" Article 3 Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Sub para (c) is the supposedly "controversial" provision. What could POSSIBLY be more vague and non-transparent than this paragraph? Imagine trying to use this para as the basis for a private-sector lawsuit. Whatever happened to common sense? (We all know the answer to that one, but clearly this is NOT an "debate" over the meaningless opacity of a horribly written sub-paragraph.)