7/11 Dubya flip-flops. All DoD personnel are to comply with Geneva
Conventions for all detainees, including GTMO detainees.
No mention of CIA policies.
\_ It's all David Addington's fault.
\_ Even the Pentagon agrees that the Geneva Convention applies
to Gitmo detainees:
http://www.csua.org/u/ge0
\_ Yes, they "agreed" after the SCOTUS decision
Please note that "the Pentagon" == Rummy
(yes, I do know that probably the majority of professional
military lawyers in the govt thought Dubya's policies were
illegal)
\_ Why are you upset that Bush would adhere to a treaty? You were
happier when he didn't?
\_ In order: 1) Happy that he will adhere to a treaty. 2) No.
3) Dubya's a flip-flopper. Cf. pot, kettle, election 2004.
\_ 1&2: ok. 3: The policy change seems to be nothing more than
PR. I don't see that the everyday life of the average Gitmo
terrorist is going to change at all. As far as 2004 goes,
the USSC already said they can't do tribunals like they want
so there's no reason to not say we're now following Geneva.
That's a far cry from voting for it before voting against it.
\_ there is nothing flip-flopping about voting against a
bill after a vote for amendment you sponsored fails. -tom
\_ missing the point. it wasn't his action that was under
assault but his self presentation. he came off like a
dithering clown with that line. if he was a (R) you
wouldn't be all over him for it calling him an idiot?
\_ It's impossible to have every sentence you say
scrutinized in public without coming off badly
sometimes. Certainly Kerry didn't come off badly
based on his statements as often as Bush does.
The main thing is that Rove and the dittohead machine
seized on that line as a political lever, a way
to portray Kerry's subtlety as indecision and
Bush's bull-headedness as strength. And you fell
for it. -tom
\_ Comparing to GWB is off topic. I never said GWB
was brilliant. I said Kerry looked like an idiot.
Yes, he was tired, yes he had been long on the
campaign trail, yes, what he said was technically
correct, and yes he looked like a buffoon. If he
was a (R) would you be here defending him or
telling us how often he comes off looking bad
compared to some other (D)? Kerry can look like
an idiot all on his own. Comparing an idiot to a
chimp doesn't make the idiot any less an idiot.
\_ To answer your spittle-flecked question, no,
I do not spend my time pointing out the verbal
miscues of Republicans. There are plenty of
substantive issues with what Republicans do;
there is no need for gamesmanship. You seem
to be inordinately focused on a single verbal
miscue (which you brought up, no one else)
with no substantive error behind it. -tom
\_ wouldn't it be nice if the 'terrorists' were as nice with the
US troops they captured, instead of killing, mutilating them and
leaving the bodies booby-trapped.
\_ We should not descend to the level of the enemy and still expect
to hold the moral high ground. The arguments for why we should
have nukes and no one else, for example, basically involve
"because we're better people" If we stop being better people
in real, measurable ways...
\_ PP wasn't suggesting we descend. Where did you see that?
They were suggesting that it would be nice if the terrorists
weren't, well, terrorists and didn't mutilate captured US
troops and leave their booby trapped corpses to be found.
What is so wrong with that? -!PP
\_ You're being obtuse. -5 points.
\_ No, you're being cynical and reading things that
aren't there. I don't need or want your "points".
\_ He was implying we should measure ourselves by their
actions. -John
\_ I didn't see that at all but I'm a glass half-full
person. I don't look for the bad in others.
\_ Then what the fuck are you doing on motd?
\_ Flip-flops? You mean obeys order from SCOTUS, right? A ridiculous
order BTW, since AFAIK Al Qaeda isn't a signatory to the GC.
\_ Common Article 3 applies regardless of whether al-Qaeda signed
or not, and regardless of citizenship or lack thereof
\_ Not entirely obvious since "terrorists" as we know them
today didn't exist at the time the GC was written/signed so
they aren't well defined by it. If it was written today, they
would much more likely fall under the spy/saboteur bit where
the GC has no issue torturing and executing them. Granting
humane POW style treatment to members of amorphous shadowy
organisations who fight by directly targetting civilians does
not appear to be the intent of the GC given the way spies and
other non-uniformed combatants are treated.
\_ I'm trying to not make a strawman of your argument, but
as far as I can tell, you are trying to defend torturing
people. Why? What do we gain by treating people
inhumanely regardless of whether they are in a shadowy
amorphous organization or not? I just don't get it.
\_ I'm saying what I said. Don't read between the lines.
There is nothing between the lines. The GC was written
before the current concept of "terrorist" existed, thus
the best the GC can do is apply the spies/saboteurs
line which allows tribunals, death, etc.
\_ No, the GC does not allow anyone to be tortured. Are you
the same person you claimed that the US is not a signatory
to the GC? You are a very seriously misinformed person.
The 4th Convention of the GC very clearly states that
everyone is covered by it, just some have more rights than
others. We could certainly execute them, but only after a
trial by a competent tribunal. Please read it for yourself
so that you can make informed statements about what it says.
\_ Key point: some have more rights than others. Also, I
didn't say they weren't covered by it. I said quite
clearly that the closest thing that covers them is
spies/saboteurs. Please don't put words in my mouth.
And no, I'm not that other person who said we didn't
sign.
\_ "..the GC has no issue torturing ... them"
This is wrong. Common Article 3 sets minimum standards
for everyone caught up in armed conflict, including
civilians and irregular forces. It prohibits
torture and humiliating or degrading treatment.
\_ do we have a definition of what "terrorist" is? It seems that
we call anyone we don't like "terrorist."
\_ "If you are not with us, then you are with the terrorists." -GWB
Does that mean that the military can summarily execute anyone
who votes Democratic?
\_ No. It means that the military can summarily execute anyone
who doesn't vote Republican.
\_ Definition = someone who looks like psb |
http://csua.com/feed/