Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Wolfstar
While President Bush and Congressional Republicans duke it out on defining Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, has anyone given thought to taking the matter back to the convention signers to be addressed in a manner ALL signer nations will be expected to adhere to?

Like him or not, Colin Powell is correct is stating that a unilateral definition of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention could pave the way for other nations to make their own unilateral definition that could bring great danger to our troops if ever they should fall into enemy hands.

Yes, such a course of action could well stall for many more years the Supreme Court ruling that trials be held for the suspected terrorist detainees, but this may not be all that bad.
79 posted on 09/16/2006 6:18:50 PM PDT by backtothestreets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: backtothestreets

Bite your tongue. Colin Powell has never been supportive of this President and it's about time someone reminds him that he's not in office anymore and needs to shut up.


85 posted on 09/16/2006 6:26:18 PM PDT by ilovew (I hope I get to meet Rummy this fall...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: backtothestreets
Like him or not, Colin Powell is correct...

With respect, I don't agree he's correct. The Geneva Conventions (emphasis plural since there are multple such) were written some 60 years ago in the aftermath of WWII, long before common sense ceased to exist; long before modern political correctness and misplaced angst about "the moral high ground" infected thinking about such matters.

These days, with lawyers hanging over everything, and with the western world fairly strangling itself on nonsensical political correctness, the more clarity in law, the better. The currently serving JAG's and general officers quoted at the top of this thread disagree with Powell, and for good reason.

89 posted on 09/16/2006 6:30:29 PM PDT by Wolfstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: backtothestreets

We should be so lucky that other nations would adopt our standards for the treatment of prisoners.

Standards mean squat to most of them.


94 posted on 09/16/2006 6:41:32 PM PDT by altura (Bushbot No. 1 - get in line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: backtothestreets

***Like him or not, Colin Powell is correct is stating that a unilateral definition of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention could pave the way for other nations to make their own unilateral definition that could bring great danger to our troops if ever they should fall into enemy hands.***

As some Freeper said on another thread, name three of our enemies who HAVE treated our prisoners well.


101 posted on 09/16/2006 7:10:42 PM PDT by kitkat (The first step down to hell is to deny the existence of evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: backtothestreets

Tell that to the north viet nam army whose country DID sign the articles....how about Korea? Then there's Iran..tell me those countries will treat anyone let alone an American with dignity..


104 posted on 09/16/2006 7:38:01 PM PDT by Jewels1091
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: backtothestreets
Like him or not, Colin Powell is correct is stating that a unilateral definition of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention could pave the way for other nations to make their own unilateral definition that could bring great danger to our troops if ever they should fall into enemy hands.

These seem to be the Democrat and media talking points. Do the enemies we are fighting right now abide by the Geneva Convention? Any legislation WE pass won't have any effect on folks who think beheading is a viable method of punishing an enemy. Forget torture; they just kill them! Doesn't sound like Geneva Convention rules to me.

The President is right in that some guidelines HAVE to be in place so some hot shot liberal lawyer won't come back with a jihadist client in a couple of years screaming torture and wanting to hold one of our military or CIA personnel PERSONALLY criminally liable. We can't be held back by worrying what our enemies might think of our rules, as long as we know WE are abiding by the Conventions, which by the way are for UNIFORMED personnel, NOT unlawful combantants.

123 posted on 09/16/2006 9:01:10 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson