Bush:
“And that Common Article 3 says that, you know, There will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's like -- it's very vague. What does that mean, outrages upon human dignity? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation.”
“Now, the court said that you've got to live under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. And the standards are so vague that our professionals won't be able to carry forward the program, because they don't want to be tried as war criminals. They don't want to break the law. “
Text of Bush Press conference
But isn't it just the opposite, Mr. President? When laws are written vaguely and open to interpretation, aren't they difficult to enforce? The fact is, the Geneva Conventions are specific and well written, and educated people understand what they read, and know if they're breaking the law. Again, Bush talks to us like we're idiots.
Geneva Conventions Art. 3. 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. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
I don't see anything that needs clarification, or modification. Anyone who would want to weaken these rules will put our soldiers in danger not only on the battlefield but also when they're captured. When I read this passage, I don't think about our enemy. I think about some young American man or woman captured during combat and made prisoner. The Geneva Conventions provide a common ground for behavior that should be expected from civilized peoples. Our enemies may not agree with that statement, apparently neither does Bush. Obviously, the Geneva Conventions make no guarantee. If our enemy ignores the Conventions and tortures or cuts heads off, that doesn't mean it's okay for us to engage in the same activity. We will never defeat any enemy by being just like them, I should think we're better than that.
Saddam Hussein is accused of torturing and murdering people who were in his view, enemy combatants or enemies of the state. Without the Geneva Conventions as a guide, leaders of countries could round up people, imprison them, kill or torture them as they see fit, all in the name of national security. If Congress caves in to this flawed Bush logic, Saddam should hire Bush as his defense attorney.
Bush and many of his supporters have been playing this up to gain political advantage over Democrats and others who oppose their dangerous ideas. Bush views warrantless eavesdropping and torture not as an affront to civil liberties and freedom but as a twisted machination necessary for national security. Those who oppose this are therefore deemed unpatriotic, unamerican or worse yet, with the terrorists.
Hundreds of websites have parodized Bush's intentions for the past several years just to be funny. It's no longer a joke. Bush really has no use for our Constitution, the U.N. or the Geneva Conventions.
Why does Bush hate our soldiers?
9 comments:
He is saying that we need varification for our soldiers in the field. The Geneva Convention also states that an enemy combatant fights under a flag. Which flag does Al Queada fight under? Which country does Al Queada represent? That's what he's taking about when he says it need clarification. I don't think he would be saying that if we were fighting a conventional war with another country. It seems the democrats really don't want to win this war on terrorism they keep taking away the tools needed to defeat these monsters. And quite frankly it's sad. they want to take away the terrorist servalence from the CIA and FBI. A tool that is very helpful and has been helpful in preventing another attack on us. They whine about it being so bad but nowhere can they point out that it has been abused.
I'm not sure it has ever been determined that we torture enemy combatants. There was a deal at Abu Graib prison but that wasn't really torture to get information out of a terrorist. That was just some isolated incidents. I have no problem with the US military using means to get information out of terrorists. If it gets information out of them that twarts off another attack then so be it. If the means are humane. There are ways to be humane about getting information from people without really actually hurting them. That's waht needs to be defined. That's what the president means. We are a great country and we do follow the rules of engagement unlike our enemy. We are held to greater standards then the terrorists. There needs to be a little bit more clarity for the young people in the military that are defending our freedoms. Torture is a very broad term used very loosly by the lefties. Is sleep deprevation torture? Is playing loud music torture? It's not like we are using a iron madien or anything. It's just simple techniques that are being used to get information from these people. Obviously appeasement isn't working.
Well, if you believe Bush, terrorists fight under the Iraqi flag, he did call Iraq the central front in the war against terrorism, many times. Or Iran or North Korea. Possibly Pakistan and Syria. Maybe even Afhganistan, Lebanon or Venezuela. You might also want to include Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Indonesia and Yemen. The terrorists flags are flown in every country on Earth. Isn't the war on terrorism called a global war?
We can't lower ourselves to the likes of the Viet Cong, Hitler, Pol Pot or Saddam. At the press conference, for some reason I did not pick up that Bush wants to clarify rules for the sake of protecting prisoners rights.
Bush repeatedly insisting the "program" must continue was practically an admission that not only were all the horror stories we heard from the "liberal" press true, he gave the orders. Read the transcript. It's scary.
Terrorists don't fight under any flag don't be so iggnorant. Iraq doesn't like the terrorists either. It's foolish thinking that the Iraqi's embrace the terrorists. You can't be that blinded by haterd can you?
Are you calling Bush a liar? He's the one who repeatedly said that IRAQ IS THE CENTRAL FRONT IN TERRORISM. If not...then why are we there? WMD? Not! It is a global war, is it not? That's what I believe and I'll stand by that. We need to be interacting with every country on the planet to defeat our enemy. Not so much friendly countries, anybody can do that. But we have a president who refuses to communicate directly with indifferent countries. Our loss.
Iraq is the central front of terrorism. Al Queada is in Iraq. The Iraqi government has a military that wear Iraqi uniforms. Terrorist don't wear those uniforms they don't fight for a country. Your being very close minded in your analyis.
Dealing with our enemies in a global arena is close minded?
Versus pretending we can invite them into an innocent country for a phony war? I think not. Saying Al-Qaeda is in Iraq now is nothing for our country to brag about.
The latest assessment by 16 intelligence agencies supports my narrow mind.... that the Bush war has fueled an expanding and more dangerous enemy. My only question to them is - Why did it take them so long to figure this out?
The terrorists are flocking to Iraq because a democracy their would be a huge hit to their beliefs and their terror ring. It would no longer be a safe haven. It's the same with Afganistan. They don't like democracy and freedoms that's what they are fighting. I haven't seen anywhere where anybody is bragging about Al Queada being in Iraq. Of course it has fueled the terrorist activity they don't want a free Iraq or any other country in the middleast. We are seeing a concentration of terrorists in two countries instead terrorists all over the world.
When Bush says that he would rather fight them there than here, who is he talking about? Several purported 9/11 terror plots have supposely been foiled outside of Iraq. It only takes one to get through. We don't belong in another part of the world spreading anything that isn't welcome. Most of our soldiers willingly go to Iraq thinking they fighting against the perpetrators of 9/11. They have been lied to.
Post a Comment