I'm still confused as to what's the hold up about defining what we can and can't do. If we don't want water boarding then put that in there as a no. No loud music? Put it in there. I don't see what's so hard about this.

yes, it would be better in theory for President Bush to just state that the decision is unconstitutional and thus not binding upon the Executive Branch

In Noonan-speak, this means: President Bush should (once again) ignore the letter of the law & simply do as he pleases, because he's the President. A Supreme Court decision? Means nothing. The Bushbots are so used to King George breaking the law that they now actually expect & hope for him to do so.

By the way - al Qaeda terrorists are not conventional soldiers in any way, and should be entitled to zero "rights" as far as I'm concerned.

Gozer,

Resolution of the issue might accrue to the benefit of President Bush - and for the left, that just can't be allowed as Bush, not the terrorists, is the real enemy.

maf,

The SC says Article III applies to the terrorists - as we are a signatory of the GC, it is binding law for the United States...of course, as anyone reads Article III it becomes fairly clear that it doesn't apply to terrorists, and that is where the SC made an ass out of itself.

The branches of government are co-equal - none of them get the 100% final word on anything. President Bush could fight this out on Constitutional principle, but wartime is not the time for such arguments.

The dirty little secret is that the dems really don't care about how the prisoners are treated. The dirty little secret is that this is just another canard that they can use to ensure Bush's efforts to keep our nation safe are thwarted.

This is an election season, after all.

Well Mark, you almost made it through that without turning it into an attack against the left. I agree with the part of your post that actually had to do with the issue, most of it. I understand that in your mind anything the left does is dumb, anti-American or just to make Bush look bad. This position makes you look bad, I see you have some intelligence, but you tend to close it out with your hate for Democrats.

I agree that Clinton was an idiot, but I think Bush should have gotten the blow job. Guess that makes me an independent.

There have been real instances of torture, not necessarily ordered or approved, but they still happened. The responsibility for this falls on management or administration.

The issues that need clarity are more common, I think shacked to the floor naked, and left to crap on yourself needs addressed as well. There was a reason the FBI docs obtained through the FOIA had to fought for in court, they are quite incriminating. Read the FBI memos, there are about 90,000 of them that were released.

$10 says, in a closed room, I could get you to tell me where in Syria you and Saddam stashed the WMD. I'm sure we have some information that is of about the same quality.

We have not fought a signatory of the Geneava Conventions since 1945. And THAT was Nazi Germany.

The Japanese tortured, starved, executed, and conducted germ warfare experiments on British and American prisoners. We hanged some after the war.

The North Koreans, Chinese, and Vietnames were just about as bad. None punished. And why not? Because we did not have the decisive victories there like we did in World War Two. These laws are meaninigless. The winners presecute the losers.

Why isn't Iran screaming for the heads of the Iraqui leaders who used gas on their troops? Welllll, maybe because you both have to agree not to do that before it becomes a crime.

I had a feeling you would jump on this Mark, so here I am to correct you and President Bush.

The article in the Geneva Convention is absolutely not vague, as president Bush claims. It is not vague at all. If you need help to understand I suggest you, Republicans and President Bush can look up each word in the dictionary: "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment"

And your claim that this is not about torture is absolute non-sense that is because: the Geneva Convention is about torture! So you can see how Democrats are truely and justly upset. This issue is absolutely about torture.

There is no clairification needed for President Bush, or anyone else, because what he wants to in-act will likely be in violation of the Geneva Convention.

And if want to know what torture is just read that little part you and President Bush have highlighted: "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment"

The only problem we have and the only clarification we need is you, Republicans, President Bush, and the Bush Administrations is the ability to understand a simple sentence.

In Noonan-speak, this means: President Bush should (once again) ignore the letter of the law & simply do as he pleases, because he's the President.

More fantasy from one of the DNC-bots.

Mark, why put up with this b/s? Trolls such as mf53 contribute nothing but Al Franken talking point lies. You and I both know that President Bush has not broken any laws as CiC, that the courts, with the backing of the hate-Bush left in Congress, are subverting his efforts.

BTW, I include McLame, Limpy Graham, Joke Warner, and the rest of the RINO's as part of the hate-Bush left. Fifty-five GOP senators, and we're the minority party.

Harold, learn to write more coherently, please. Your last post is so poorly written, it's confusing. You're supposed to be the intellectual, yet your writing proves otherwise.

I don't think they where worried about Section 1 of Article 3 as they keep blowing up civilians. They don't deserve coverage of the convention. How can Kofi Annan attented a non conformist convention then demand conformality? Typical liberal spin job. They say they can protect us how? To quote a real Democrat, Z Miller, "With what? Spit balls?

The enemy is laughing at our laws and our media being used against us. The WWII AXIS would of loved to have had a gift like Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter, and David Letterman pounding on the leader of America 24x7 as if he was the enemy.

No Maf, you're wrong. This is war and the President of the United States is Commander in Chief and given powers to conduct the war. Not the Congress and not the Judiciary.

Sorry you don't like that, but that's how the forefathers wrote the Constitution.

Too bad so sad.

You are trying to blur the lines. A normal terrorist, like say Timmy Mcveigh, no they would not apply as a prisoner of war, although you are still bound to treat him humanely as a prisoner as well.

But, Bush has decelared a "war on terror" and sent in the storm troopers, who are rounding people up and putting them in secret prisons.

Until they have been proven to be a "terrorist" through due process, you are bound to treat them as a prisoner of war as they were captured in a battlefield situation in many cases. In others, warlords ratted people out to collect bounties.

For all you people so eager to abandon the world court, you forget that it PROTECTS your soldiers as well, because if the US becomes a torture nation, then your soldiers will also be subjected to the same torture, rendition, and murder as you subject to others. Obviously Mark could care less about how US soldiers would face the same. Some "support" of you troops.

maf,

The SC says Article III applies to the terrorists - as we are a signatory of the GC, it is binding law for the United States...of course, as anyone reads Article III it becomes fairly clear that it doesn't apply to terrorists, and that is where the SC made an ass out of itself.

The branches of government are co-equal - none of them get the 100% final word on anything. President Bush could fight this out on Constitutional principle, but wartime is not the time for such arguments.

warrior,

I might remind you that Bush is commander in chief of the military ONLY, not the nation. That applies in times of peace and war.

Further, Bush is BOUND to FOLLOW US law and took an oath to uphold the law and constitution. He is to obey, the law, not break it. He is not above the law, as a king would be in a monarchy

Looks like the madness of king George is contagious and spreading among his minions

keefer
I kinda have other things on my mind today. Sorry for you inconvenience, I missed an 'l' in shackled, and a 'be' in another line. It was also a little mixed up, with the thought about Clinton and Bush in the middle, and the bet at the bottom. I'll try harder to stay focused, I know how easily you get confused. If any of this is unclear, explain what part you don't get, and I'll clarify.

New subject keefer, just letting you know so it doesn't confuse you.

kahn
I understand and partially agree with what you said, but what are you getting at? Are you suggesting we shouldn't make or follow international laws regarding war?

What I don't agree with is both sides needing to agree before it's a crime.
My position on rules of war is that as the greatest country, we need to lead by example, and hold the moral high ground. Then we can hang the criminals.

Axis - Bush is AGREEING with you. He says that Article three is so vague that he must end ALL questioning unless the people (US Congress) further define it. So, isn't that what you just said?

It "vague", and yet world countries have managed to follow it for decades with no problems. Perhaps, its time to pull Bush out of the "figuring things out" department, since his sub 90 IQ doesn't seem to be up to the task of following US and international laws.

And no, Bush is pushing to not have Geneva apply to these people, and now even Collin Powell has had to come forward and speak out about it. Where have you been Kahn, in a cave in Bora Bora?

Axis,

If this is all so clear to you then please definew what "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment" means.

The problem is that it means one thing to you ans something else to someone from another culture.

Wow, clearly axis has gotten the latest memo from the neorad command center. In one thread he has brought in the Hitler meme (storm troopers) the monarch meme (King George) and the stupidity meme (IQ reference). (No doubt axis can address the IQ issue personally, obviously having graduated from Yale, gotten an MBA from Harvard, passed the rigid tests required for fighter pilots, and then passed fighter pilot training and flown a jet fighter for four more years. Because no one has not done those things could reasonably whine aboout the IQ of one who has.)

And the criminal meme is prevalaent through the Ususal Suspects of James, maf, and axis.

Sounds like you little soldier-boys were given your marching orders. doesn't it?

I spent hours yesterday trying to have an intelligent conversation wtih a much-loved but very frustrating BSD relative. Arrgghhh!!!!
This guy is bright, and by natural philsophy is a conservative. But the Bush hatred is so overwhemling he is absolutely incapable of having a simple conversation.

It was like being back on this blog, reading posts by James, axis, and maf.

Bush knows what his legal powers are---powers inherent in the Constitution of the United States. He may or may not choose to exercise all of those powers, but he knows what they are. And we know what they are. And, quite simply, you all know what they are, too-----you just hate Bush so much you don't want HIM to be the one exercising them. That is what is so transparently obvious, when you start ranting and raving about the so-called Bush transgressions. You would be perfectly happy having Gore or Kerry doing what Bush is trying to do. The hypocrisy is astounding. Or it would be if it were not such a common element of what passes for political discourse on the Left.

Conservatives start with philosophies, and choose theire politics based on their philososphies. Liberals start with politics, and then tailor their philosophies to match their politics.

So the starting point with neorads is that Bush Is Totally Bad And Always Wrong. And then what they think passes for political discussion works backward from that.

No wonder Bin Laden wants a Dem for President. It has always worked out so well for him in the past.

And in the meantime the end result of the awareness that the Left (including political whore McCain) will obstruct any effort to question or even detain captured terrorists is that we will simply capture fewer of them. This is one of the Unintended Consequences of the goofball Liberal spinelessless. Instead of making a guy uncomfortable for a few hours by putting him in a cold room or making him listen to Barbra Striesand, we will just put him in a hole. It's now a three-tap rule in the field, just to make sure.

But, Bush has decelared a "war on terror" and sent in the storm troopers, who are rounding people up and putting them in secret prisons.

Folks, this is yet another misrepresentation of the facts by axass. And "decelared" must be a Canadian word.

The only people "rounded up" are suspects, not every Muslim in sight. Unlike the rounding up of every Japanese citizen on the left coast during WWII. I'll bet axasshole doesn't remember that little bit of history.

History for these kooks began in 2000...

Hey queefer,
you just proved Axis's point "The only people "rounded up" are suspects"
so according you and the rest of the America hating sheep there's no problem with waterboarding a "suspect" because they may be a terrorist? Is this how little you think of our military and intelligence?

-Look queef, I didn't start my first sentence with an upper case letter...OH NO, that might bring out the grammar police!

" Is it an outrage upon personal dignity to be deprived of sleep? To have loud music played in your cell? To have your lights kept on all night? To be yelled at by interrogators? To be placed on reduced rations? To be deprived of commissary privileges? "

http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/index.html

What the President has accomplished with his bellicose media campaign is to cement the idea that torture is a Republican idea, pushed by a Republican President, with Republican backing.

Nah, no grammar police for you, Dopus--you already know you're a moron.

Dopus, KSM wasn't a suspected terrorist when they waterboarded him--there was already proof that he was involved in the planning of the 9/11 attacks.

Why do you hate America so much, Dopus? Who told you it was patriotic to hate America? Homo Dean? Nancy Piglosi? Harry Reid-tard? Jackoff Murtha? Your mama?

Run along now, little girl; in a battle of wits, you come to the table unarmed...

wow Queef's going for the your mama insult and put in D in from of opus...Wow, I mean really...Wow, you are truly intellectually superior to...well I'm sure to something, just have no idea what that may be.

-KSM wasn't a suspected terrorist when they waterboarded him
Who waterboarded anyone??? are implicating our military in a war crime??? I saw no waterboarding...your hatred of this County and our military is just about as putrid as the sheep of a mother you've got.

James,

You're new here, so you just don't know - I really do blame the left for all the troubles in the world...absent the left, and the world would be a much better place. The left, you see, is built on hate and sustained by lies and is entirely destructive of civilization and the human spirit.

Of course, that is an exaggeration - some of the troubles of the world are natural in origin, while even conservatives can be bone-headed from time to time...but the plain fact of the matter is that the left takes problems and makes them worse. Like this:

1. The levees broke in New Orleans and a thousand people died and a city was ruined - a huge problem that we have to deal with...thanks to the left, it was only a month ago that we finally learned WHY the levees broke...we spent a year debating the idiotic leftwing talking points about New Orleans rather than finding out what happened and thus what we need to do to fix the problem.

2. Some soldiers disobey ordered and maltreated prisoners. This is a big problem we have to deal with in order to ensure that captives are treated well and soldiers maintain perfect discipline at all times. Thanks to the left, we are debating whether or not the United States tortures - feeding STRAIGHT in to enemy propaganda, rather than dealing with the actual issue.

People die because of the left, and die entirely un-necesssarily; reforms are delayed; vital actions not taken; stupid policies advanced...

Mark
I would comment on your 2 examples, but the first paragraph explains it all. You have the vision of a blind man.

No wonder Bin Laden wants a Dem for President. It has always worked out so well for him in the past.

Bin Laden wanted Bush as president. It's why he helped Bush with that little pre-election video. This is fairly common knowledge among those who actually, you know, study Bin Laden. You're usually wrong about things, Almy, but in this case, your position is the polar opposite of the truth. Keep ranting, though. It's funny to see you hold yourself out as an insightful person and be so very, very incorrect.

Axis - The European Court has interpreted article 3 to mean that you must have your own cell and your own bathroom. Meanwhile - we have not fought a signatory to the treaties since 1945 and again, that was the Nazi's.

What is wrong with you? You want to say what to do - so say what to do. The CIA people will NOT continue under these circumstances. Either you define the rules or you decide to stop all interrogation. A non-choice is a choice to stop.

man - you are so stupid. Really, what is wrong with you? You argue against torture - we just want you to define it. How's this - your stupid posts are torturing me - you animal! Stop the torture! Arrrggghhhhh! It's awful! Stop! Stop! Not another Bush is stupid post! Nooooooooo! OK, I'll talk. I'll talk. The beer is in the refrigerator.

"outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment"

Hey SUSA, before I correct your appalling writing skills, define the above for me. It is most certainly vague, as is reality to you.

Now for your education: There is no hyphen in nonsense, and in-act is not a word. it's enact, dumbass.

And no, Bush is pushing to not have Geneva apply to these people, and now even Collin Powell has had to come forward and speak out about it. Where have you been Kahn, in a cave in Bora Bora?

No he's not--"Geneva," as you call it, already doesn't apply to these people. And just who is Collin Powell?

Kahn, I don't know if there are any caves in Bora-Bora, but I hear it's a nice island. OTOH, you may find a few caves in Tora-Bora...

Keefer says,

"The only people "rounded up" are suspects, not every Muslim in sight. Unlike the rounding up of every Japanese citizen on the left coast during WWII. I'll bet axasshole doesn't remember that little bit of history."

Very true. So, is the detention of Japanese citizens during WWII something that you feel was not justified? Or was it acceptable given the enormous threat that America faced?

Kahn, Almiranta, Mark N, etc, please feel free to help keefer out on this one; I would love to hear what you all think too.

Very true. So, is the detention of Japanese citizens during WWII something that you feel was not justified? Or was it acceptable given the enormous threat that America faced?

if you paid closer attention, Nate, you'd realize that I already posted my thoughts on the detention of Japanese citizens during WWII, by a liberal DemoCRAP president. Do some research on some recent threads. A citizen is a citizen, and should not be locked up unless one becomes a suspect...

Keefer says,

"A citizen is a citizen, and should not be locked up unless one becomes a suspect..."

Ok, but how do you define "suspect"? That can be a pretty dangerous term if not used carefully. During WWII, almost all Americans of Japanese descent were subject to some sort of scrutiny by the government. Obviously, if they were being locked up, they were considered "suspects" by the government. The only step that FDR skipped is that he didn't declare them to be "enemy combatants" first.

So, again, what's a "suspect", and who decides?

James,

No, you're not responding to them because you can't...

keefer - I made no post mentioning Bora Bora, or Tora Bora, or Boolah Boolah, or Yatta Yatta.....

Japanese Detention Camps. Clearly wrong. Democrat President. The Democrat Supreme Court he'd packed to validate his "New Deal" programs.

As I've said before almost ALL Klansmen were Democrats. Why would detention camps be a surprise from THAT party?

Is it the liberal position that we couldn't even take away an Al-Queda leaders private room privaledges to stop a mass murder? That even requireing a community bathroom would be considered torture? Because that IS the EU standard.

Please, enlighten me with the vast intelligence of your enormous brains.

almost ALL Klansmen were Democrats.

Yup--conservative Democrats. As a conservative, aren't you glad to have that as your legacy?

John McCain earned the right to voice his concerns regarding the Geneva Convention.

Warriornation,

I see the following in the US Constitution related to this discussion. It could be read to suggest that the Legislative Branch holds much of the power related to armed conflict despite the President being the CIC. These lines could also support an argument that the Legislative Branch should be discussing issues of torture.

From Article 1, Section 8:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Warriornation,

The following from Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution could support arguments that while the US President is CIC, the founders wanted the Legislative branch to have much control over the military in the US.

From Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution

[The Legislative Branch shall have the power]

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

SeesThroughIt- "Conservative Democrats" - Ha.

Maybe you could define liberal, conservative, when the party changed from one to the other, and what the hell progressive means.

The Democrats made up the Klan for a hundred years after the Civil War. Finally, a few defectors joined with the Republican minority to pass the Civil Rights laws.

Seeing the strong-arm control they had slipping away, the Democrats under LBJ passed the "Great Society" laws in the 60's (calling it liberalism). These laws were and are designed to keep minorities under control by keeping them addicted to government assistance. Everytime a Republican says - "Hey, it might be good if the blacks stood up on their own." They are branded racist and a stingy mean-spirited person. Gotta hand it to good ol' liberal LBJ - he sure put the fix in.

Proud of THAT?

No, no bleeding hearts here eh? No souls either apparently. You fearmongers are so quick to jettison everything this country has stood for in the last two centuries. This isn't about Al Qaeda or any other extremist nutjob, it's about the USA. Maintain the moral high ground.

GOP '06: Nothing to offer but fear itself.

Maintain the moral high ground????? Bush said he was willing to accept the limits on treatment that McCain put into the Army operations manual. Whay can't Congress just DEFINE THE DAMN RULES.

The decision to leave article three undefined (by four RINO's and ALL the Democrats) means all questioning stops immediately.

It is hard to maintain the moral high ground from six feet underground.

The last enemy we fought who abidded (mostly) by the Conventions was Nazi Germany. The Japs didn't, the Koreans and Chinese didn't, the Vietnamese didn't, and the Arabs and Persians DON'T. Wake up.

This Moral High Ground chant is stupid - we're willing to accept your definitions but you refuse to put them forward.

Kahn -

I would completely expect the democrats to try to leave Bush without a clear set of rules to work with; chaos works in their favor right now. But I don't see McCain and company seeking ambiguity in this fight. Do you not think their counter-proposal is clear and well defined?

Maybe you could define liberal, conservative, when the party changed from one to the other, and what the hell progressive means.

If you don't know those definitions, that's your own fault (and doesn't speak very highly of your political acumen as these are basic terms), not mine. In the meantime, read up about the Dixiecrats. They were conservative segregationist Southern Democrats--led by none other than eventually-heavily-feted-GOPer Strom Thurmond--who split from the Democratic party and eventually became Republicans based on...wait for it...the parties' stances on segregation. Thurmond & Co.--conservatives, remember--were in favor of segregation, opposed Truman's 1948 Civil Rights legislation( which meant they were against abolishing the poll tax, against having a federal anti-lynching law, and against the prevention of racial discrimination in jobs funded by federal money), and found a better home for their views in the Republican party. Ladies and gentlemen: your conservative legacy!

I think, though, that you actually know this and that you just feign ignorance in order to maintain the "Democrats populated the Klan!" talking point. In order to be that meticulously dishonest, you have to know the honesty you're trying to hide and how to avoid it, hence your semantic game.

so, does that mean the only Klansman in Congress; Robert Byrd is conservative?

In fact, wasn't it Liberal ~ democrat ~ Klansman Robert Byrd that held the last filibuster in the Senate to prevent passage of the 1964 Civil Rights bill? And wasn't it Republican Leader Dirkson (hardly a Klansman) that gathered the necessary Republican votes for cloture?