Ok, I need to know, Where does president Bush get off claiming that he alone knows how to interrogate terrorism suspects? He has never been in Combat, neither have any of his close advisers. But now he truly believes, with all the passion he's shown in press conferences, that his way and only his way, will make us safer. With a track record like Bush's? I'd rather trust American Law, International law, and Colon Powell.
If you actually listened to the press conference you would have realized that what the president is asking for is clarification of the law, which I completely agree with. We can debate about how we can interpret Article 3, but we HAVE to interpret it and put it into law. As it stands, it is possible down the line that American troops could possibly be subject to international interpretations of Article 3... which NO Americans are comfortable with, except for you liberals. Which is yet another reason to top on the heaping pile of reasons why (if you love polls anyway) despite the presidents approval rating and the troubles Republicans are having, Americans still trust the Republicans over the Democrats by a wide margin when it comes to protecting the country. Its absurd and unbelievable that someone would actually go along with having Americans be subject to European law. Have you actually read how the EU courts interpret Article 3? Its absolutely ridiculous and no American in his or her right mind would accept it. By the way, what kind of idiot actually believes that the president believes that only he knows how to interrogate terrorism suspects? Do you actually believe that the president drafted this law by himself?
I won't even get into Article 6, which makes terrorists EXEMPT from protection through the Geneva Conventions. And I'm definitely not getting into the absurd idea that because members of cabinet haven't been in combat that they shouldn't have input into how these programs are run. Most if not all cabinet positions have historically been filled by civilians with no prior military experience. The entire suggestion is beyond idiotic because (according to liberals, anway) that basically makes all administrations before and after unqualified to lead the CIA and the armed forces, including good old Billy boy. What you are really saying, David, is that you hate GWB and the current cabinet. Skip past your discombobulated rhetoric and please just get to the heart of the matter. Should we be listening to people who are getting advice from intelligence and military professionals, or should we be listening to crunchy granola hippies who sit at their computers and bitch about the president all day in their blogs and editorials? The choice is obvious.
If our troops are tortured we will have no basis to demand their torturers be punished. We will be breaking the verry law that protects our soldiers.
This is possibly, with all due respect David, the dumbest thing I've read in a while that relates to the torture subject. IF our troops are tortured? IF?!?!?!?! David do you not realize that throughout history our soldiers have been tortured? And how the fuck are you going to expect that anyone that tortures American soldiers, PARTICULARLY TERRORISTS, are going to be punished? We can go beyond soldiers - ever heard of Nick Berg? These people cut heads off, tape it and post it on the internet. Are liberals really naive enough to believe that we should be demanding that the terrorists and those who harbor them to punish their terrorists for torturing Americans? The heart of the problem with liberal logic regarding this topic is that we should be treating terrorists like we would treat soldiers from a foreign country, which in Article 6 makes it very clear that they should NOT be. Regardless of the obvious and clear position on where terrorists stand in the Geneva Conventions, the idea that terrorist organizations have the same moral authority that we do is pure bullshit. This is another reason why, despite the problems the R's are having, the people will never give the keys to the military to the Democrats.
Offering our own interpretations of the laws of war. That sounds like a terrible thing for any country to do, offer their own interpretation of the laws of war. Especially during a time of war. Isn't that the whole point of laws in the first place? Isn't that the whole point of checks and balances? This is not a nation ruled by the passions of men, we are ruled by time tested Laws. That's the whole point of the constitution. And it's what makes a democracy last.
David, this is a case where I believe that you simply don't know enough about how international law is handled by individual countries. Its very, very common for countries to pass legislation in their own country to interpret international law within the framework of their own law. Clarification of the law is essential, which is why the EU has already done it with Article 3 and beyond. You can read about how Article 3 has been interpreted by other countries, and a reasonable discussion as to why countries do this here ->
That's torture, the United States does not stand for such things, these are evil and sinister acts. just because Bush happens to be president for 6 years doesn't mean he can soil the constitution and remove the honorable standards that make America a proud nation.
Rhetoric.
David, where is your sensitivity when Josh or I are characterized as chickenhawks, right-wingers, worse than Islamofascists, among other things? Is it only when the word "liberal" or "leftist" comes out that it becomes offensive?
For what it's worth, I doubt anyone here is 100% liberal or 100% conservative. Even (e:Ajay) thinks Afghanistan was a good cause, something that many anti-war types would find offensive.
Well, I don't think Dems are "soft" on terror - it is just kind of an afterthought, like how Bush views the poor.
Which "R"s are you talking about, (e:joshua) ? John McCain, John Warner, Colin Powell and Lindsey Graham?
I'm glad to see that they (and you) agree with the Democrats.
Stop brandishing this "Democrats are soft on terror" label. It just makes you look stupid, pardon my language.
(e:joshua), If you want to continue to attack people and force a political divide among the people on (e:strip) then I think you need to explain why you lied on (e:dcoffee)'s journal :::link:::
I don't like calling you out on a lie, but I think it needs to be addressed. Don't say what other people think is rhetoric when you can't even speak the truth.
We all have a right to say what we want and not have someone shove a label down our throats. I am (e:libertad) and I want my views to be my own not a leftist, a liberal, a rightist,a demorcrat or a republican. We absolutely have the right to disagree.
It is amazing the trouble a few pictures can cause isn't it. The truth is that the CIA has used tourture for a long time. Has the military used it before most likely. Then you have soilders who try to humalite muslum iraqis and some one takes a picture. So Now you have public documention that Tourture takes place. So now people who knew about the tourture in private now have to act as if they didn't know aboutit and how bad it is. It is by belief that Bush thinks he is above the law (and he isn't the only one). He went aganst what the UN said and basicly made what is says not mean anything with invading iraq. If Bush where speaking for the American people and say ing "us Americans need to know how to define tourture" then that might be ok. But Bush has his own agenda of trying to control things that he has no business controlling. It dosn't matter what the rules on tourture are the us is going to say Torture is bad then break all the rules anyways.