Questioning of suspected terrorists "won't go forward" unless Congress clarifies a U.S. standard for the treatment and interrogation of detainees, President Bush warned on Friday.
More at link...
More at link...
Bush defends stance on proposed terror tribunals
- Thread starter NewsBoy
- Start date
I can't believe he proposed to not interrogate these terrorists at all if he could not get his way and change the geneva convention meaning with this law they want defined to cover their own rear ends for what they have done already!?
And I admire the cia for saying they will not obey the president and not continue with this kind of interrogation UNLESS congress writes it in to law because they are afraid to be sued for it...that is what I heard on the 24/7....
And I admire the cia for saying they will not obey the president and not continue with this kind of interrogation UNLESS congress writes it in to law because they are afraid to be sued for it...that is what I heard on the 24/7....
The President is a spoiled brate; always has been always will be. He was dorn with a silver spoon in his ass, and still hasn't pulled it out. When he got away with drunk driving, drug use, and a failure to show up for his pilots physical, not to mention his years of AWOL status, he became convinced that the laws that apply to everybody else do not apply to him, and he has brought that same attitude into the White House and now that he is caught and his record is becoming more and more transparent regarding many of these issues and it appears that the Democrats might take over the House he is beginning to seriously sweat an tmpeachment for real "high crimes and misdemeanors." This whole sharade including the "I'll take my ball and go home tantrum" is not about tomorrow, or going forward this is about making the law retroactive in order to protect himself from the crimes he has already committed and is guilty of. That is why he is so adamant about all this. He is the wost, morst corrupt president in the history of the United States even with Harry Truman's use of the atomic bomb on Japan.
Do you boneheads understand what you read..?
How does wanting clarification of Article 3 change its 'meaning' in any way..?
How does clarification equate to reinterpritation in any way?
Why would anyone put himself or herself at risk of being prosecuted for a law that is vague and up to different interpretations?
And where in the linked article does it say anything about the CIA not obeying the President ?
Its been the Democrats and lefties from the very start trying to accuse and put on trial US soldiers doing what they deem as torture. Then when asked to clarify what the deed entails, they bitch and whine....if you want the CIA and military to just ask detainees politely what they know and then give them ice cream...spell it out...and thats the way it will be done...
Do you ever really stop and think...at all...what do you want....? Exactly...
How does wanting clarification of Article 3 change its 'meaning' in any way..?
How does clarification equate to reinterpritation in any way?
Why would anyone put himself or herself at risk of being prosecuted for a law that is vague and up to different interpretations?
And where in the linked article does it say anything about the CIA not obeying the President ?
Its been the Democrats and lefties from the very start trying to accuse and put on trial US soldiers doing what they deem as torture. Then when asked to clarify what the deed entails, they bitch and whine....if you want the CIA and military to just ask detainees politely what they know and then give them ice cream...spell it out...and thats the way it will be done...
Do you ever really stop and think...at all...what do you want....? Exactly...
Sure thing Tony, just let us know when the press conference is over, I have a deadline. I think that if you check you might find that in some circles people like Colin Powell, John McCain, John Warner, Lindsey Graham are concerned with what they see as a rewriting and changing of Article III. Since Bush is a known liar and has been for several years now, I think that even though some of these other people are also liars they are probably right on this one, so you know what Tony, even though I know they are confused about this and that Bush isn't trying to change anything (wink wink, nudge nudge), I 'm sticking with them on this one and trusting their reading of what Bush is actually up to here. And I didn't even read the article. I have been following this issue elsewhere.
Gaffer
Sanctimonious Prick
Those that argue against Bush's request say it leaves other countries open to their own interpretation of the convention. Well, excuse me but they all ready interpret it the way they want to see it. The US is not doing anything the other countries haven't already done. And besides, we don't go to war with people that interpret the geneva convention the same way we do. We go to war with cruel dictatorships and countries that don't worry about human rights. Its silly for this to even be an arguement.
maineman
Banned
one would think that a former POW like Senator McCain would have more credibility on this issue than a pissant coward who avoided Vietnam altogether and ditched his national guard requirement by directly disobeying a direct order. Why do republicans stand by this tinhorn and ignore the wise counsel of wise men from their own midst?
More than you think do not ignore those in their midst with wisdom.
The Democrats, led by Senators Biden and Kennedy have conflated the treatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib with the Taliban at Guantanamo because it suits their purpose to confuse the issue. Then they imply that an Iraqi prisoner with panties on his head is somehow equivalent to an American civilian captive with no head.
I wonder how McCain feels about this..?
I wonder how McCain feels about this..?
Yeah...I've asked before....how is clarifing Art. 3 making an end around it....
look the the def. of clarifing if you have to......
Those panties can't be pretty degrading.....maybe not on a par with having your head sawed off, but pretty serious huh? Think prison time is in order for those us soldiers....degrading is degrading, right
look the the def. of clarifing if you have to......
Those panties can't be pretty degrading.....maybe not on a par with having your head sawed off, but pretty serious huh? Think prison time is in order for those us soldiers....degrading is degrading, right
maineman
Banned
Like I said..... you asked what McCain would think about it....I told you his position is quite clear..... and so is mine. I wonder why, in fact, you evwen asked such an assinine self evident question in the first place.
If you fuck around with the geneva convention... or if you attempt to introduce legislation that would not allow the accused to be confronted with evidence against him....if you do these things today, you are inviting a future enemy to do those things to our soldiers tomorrow. This isn't about Abu Ghraib, it is about the rules of war.
If you fuck around with the geneva convention... or if you attempt to introduce legislation that would not allow the accused to be confronted with evidence against him....if you do these things today, you are inviting a future enemy to do those things to our soldiers tomorrow. This isn't about Abu Ghraib, it is about the rules of war.
Well what did McCain have to say about putting ladys panties on the heads of detainees....? I know Kennedy ranted about how degrading it was....did he suggest any charges against those responsible.....?
How about "humiliating"....what constitutes a humiliating act....? How about us using a picture of allah for target practice....would that humiliate the detainees?
How about showing them a cartoon of Clinton getting his dick sucked by Lewinsky....would that be considered detainee abuse....
If we're going to send some of our troops to prison for humiliating or degrading a detainee...they should understand the rules.....with "clarity".....
I think our troops should just ask our questions in a polite manner and call it a day....why take chances on a dishonorable discharge....or turn the interrigation over to Teddy Kennedy and John Conyers....
better safe than sorry I always say...
How about "humiliating"....what constitutes a humiliating act....? How about us using a picture of allah for target practice....would that humiliate the detainees?
How about showing them a cartoon of Clinton getting his dick sucked by Lewinsky....would that be considered detainee abuse....
If we're going to send some of our troops to prison for humiliating or degrading a detainee...they should understand the rules.....with "clarity".....
I think our troops should just ask our questions in a polite manner and call it a day....why take chances on a dishonorable discharge....or turn the interrigation over to Teddy Kennedy and John Conyers....
better safe than sorry I always say...
Just what EXACTLY did Bush say about Article 3.....?
Don't give me bullshit about what somebody else THINKS Bush said or what they THINK he means....Bush can and did speak for himself....I don't need his remarks interpreted by anyone else.....what did Bush say....IN HIS OWN WORDS.....
He DIDN"T say to change the law...he DIDN'T say to re-write the law....he DIDN'T say to ignore the law.....he DIDN'T say to renegociate the agreement with other countrys....
He DID say that our Congress needs to clarify the law....so our soldiers don't put themselves in danger of going to jail by not understanding what the vague language of law means.....
A more than reasonable request....after all...its OUR Congress hes asking to make the determination....
Don't give me bullshit about what somebody else THINKS Bush said or what they THINK he means....Bush can and did speak for himself....I don't need his remarks interpreted by anyone else.....what did Bush say....IN HIS OWN WORDS.....
He DIDN"T say to change the law...he DIDN'T say to re-write the law....he DIDN'T say to ignore the law.....he DIDN'T say to renegociate the agreement with other countrys....
He DID say that our Congress needs to clarify the law....so our soldiers don't put themselves in danger of going to jail by not understanding what the vague language of law means.....
A more than reasonable request....after all...its OUR Congress hes asking to make the determination....