Open forum on The New axis of evil Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Frist/ et al.

si

I'm with you on this one. The idea that article 3 or any article of the Geneva Conventions can be redefined to fit any country's agenda really stinks - not to mention the implications for diplomacy with other countries.

The president was just an embarrassment at that press conference the other day. He just doesn't get it and only those who are blindly following him without a clue are on his side. Only people with no conscience and ability to empathize with anyone who doesn't think like they do would find his request to be a good or even reasonable one.

I didn't think it was possible for him to fall even lower in my estimation but he never ceases to amaze me because he did. This article is aptly titled.

Not redefine Re-Interpert the Genivia conventions dont apply to civilians with guns. The terrorist are not part of any nation's military they are just criminals who intend to destroy the free world and kill every christian who doesn't convert. Therefore we have the obligatoin to presue any means necessary to foil terror plots and save lives.

Who's more evil the guy who ended the regin of a dictator who killed 1million people or the guy who is saying the Holocaust is a myth

" Blah, Blah, Blah, Bush haters.....
It's funning how anything other that name, rank and serial number is torture.
You are just repeating the same old liberal babble.
When have we ever fought a war where our soldiers were treated according to the Geneva Conventions. And what's more important, our safety or what the world thinks of us. Wake up.
The terrorists give us 3 choices
Fight them there
Fight them here
Talk and convert to Islam.... Take your choice"

More rocket science logic from the rocket science right. How come these "genius" types are the only ones left standing to support president failure?




" Not redefine Re-Interpert the Genivia conventions dont apply to civilians with guns."

Sorry, but the supreme court disagrees with you.





"Therefore we have the obligatoin to presue any means necessary to foil terror plots and save lives."

What a stupid comment to support a stupid tactic that serves no purpose other than to demean our national status and further undermine our moral authority. Not to mention the fact that it openly encourages our captured soldiers being treated the same way. Not that you or Bush would ever care what would happen to one of our soldiers, however.




" Who's more evil the guy who ended the regin of a dictator who killed 1million people or the guy who is saying the Holocaust is a myth"

Bush. Without any question.

Clark, it's a stupid comment to say that the president of the United States is more evil than Sadam the dictator.

Don't waste your time on Clark, Dane.

It will take a lot more loss of life than the 3,000 of 9/11 to convince Clark that the Islamic fascists are the bad guys. For Clark, maybe a few hundred thousand from a nuclear weapon including some of his family members, but possibly not even then.

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

One of the ironies is that so many proponents of "English only" vote and continue to support a president who cannot speak English.

As for the mindless "fight 'em there or fight 'em here" jingle, Saddam Hussein had no capability of attacking the US when Bush rushed to war. The attacks on the USS Cole, the embassies, and the WTC were made by Saudis not Iraqis, though al-Queada, which was suppresed by Saddam Hussein, is now active in Iraq and the disastrous occupation has served as a recruiting tool so that there will be more terrorists, here, there, and everywhere as a result of the faith-based occupation by opponenets to nation-building (who are not opponents to graft on an epic scale.

One of the ironies is that so many proponents of "English only" vote and continue to support a president who cannot speak English.

Stephen makes a deciderly nukular argument.

It doesn't make any sense for me to feature this in the Nonconformists group. Any true loner is going to go with Bush from here on out. It's a losing proposition, and a choice of future humiliation and embarrassment. He's the most pathetic excuse for a human being, and if someone is defiant enough to not see that blinding light, I tip my hat to their tolerance for self infliced pain.

This is featured in Nonconformists, for the sad, sad apologists . . .

Ben the "independent" weighs in with the administration line equating Iraq with 9-11-01. He knows better but it is all he can do. Even his military coleagues are watching the sad ill conceived debacle of our foreign policy destroy our nation's readiness and our sense of national integrity.
Hows that for a sentence?

My, oh my, where to start. Sometimes the idiocy of the left amazes even me who spends so much time mired in the swamp of the liberal blogosphere. Goodness.

First. Of course uninformed military does not receive protections of the Geneva convention. The US senate -- fresh off of its war in the Philippines -- would not have ratified such a treaty. Indeed, the European powers which put the treaty in place would not have signed on since they were engaged in a variety of imperial wars. The idea that a guerilla or partisan force (terrorist for you playing the home game) are covered under Geneva is not ahistorical, but simply wrong.

Do Iraqi insurgents carry around accurate ID cards as required by Geneva? Do they wear identifiable uniforms? Do they cause civilian deaths? Do they provide Red Cross access to prisoners they capture? Do they refrain from raping, mutilating, burning, hanging, and killing they captives? No, No, No, No, No.

Ergo they are not protected by said treaty. Period. End of Discussion.

Should Blackwater Security be protected by Geneva? They wear uniforms (with a US flag on them), carry ID cards, and refrain from raping whoever the hell they capture. I would say yes, but does the same apply to thugs and criminal forces that do not?

What international bodies are trying Iraqi insurgents for war crimes? They are obviously engaged in a policy of attempted genocide (yesterday shi'i were the target, apparently today Catholics are). They are actively targeting civilians.

Are all nations' criminal courts required to supply Geneva conventions to murderers of civilians. NO. The convention was never intended to be an international human rights bill or interfere a country's domestic courts. So why is it that Iraqi courts and prisons or American ones in Iraq should provide this protection to a group that openly defies the criminal laws of sovereign, United Nations recognized, democratically elected government.

When Clinton bombed aspirin factories with his dick in Monica's mouth was he complying within international treaties? How is his mistaken intelligence any difference than Bush's mistaken intelligence?

Second, you are a simple-minded twat if you cannot follow the logic leading from 9/11 to Iraq. Iraq was a hostile regime toward American interests. They plotted to assassinate a former American president, they fired on American aircraft enforcing United Nations resolutions, and they actively funded attacks on civilians of one our allies in region. They had a history of opposing America.

When 9/11 happened Bush decided that the only way to enact long-term change was to empower individual middle easterners with democratic choice. Why not tackle one the most brutal despots in the region, who as already noted was one of our enemies in the region.

The choice of him seemed doubly wise considering the world community agreed that they had WMD's. Indeed when question was voted upon by the UN leading up to engagement only one country voted that they didnt: Iraq itself.

There are you links. A desire to enact long-term change in the Arab world as a response 9/11; a willingness of Saddam to support terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians; Saddam's flouting of the treaty he agreed to ending the first Iraq war; internationally agreed intelligence information that he had an active chemical weapons program; and an attempt to assassinate one of our former leaders.

There it is. I would have thought someone intelligent enough to type would be smart enough to recognize these links. I was wrong. RAAH! LETS JUST WATCH MICHAEL MOORE! HE KNOWS EVERYTHING!!

Andrew

PS -- BEN ROCKS!

RE Did he say he supports Bush blindly? No. I know that reading before opining is not a strength of the political left, but please take the time to read what Ben wrote before you just start blabbing to hear yourself speak. I bet Ben could think of 10 things that he diagrees with Bush with; however, I doubt that you could name 10 things with which you agree with Bush.

P.S. Even if he were to blindly follow Bush, he would still be someone who blindly follows Michael Moore

Ben's comments read and repasted here:
It will take a lot more loss of life than the 3,000 of 9/11 to convince Clark that the Islamic fascists are the bad guys. For Clark, maybe a few hundred thousand from a nuclear weapon including some of his family members, but possibly not even then.

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Ok Ben there are your comments and another free plug for your book. Now let us break it down for you slowly.
Prior to our invasion of Iraq there were no Islamic fascists who were using iraq as there base of operations.
Saddam was not a supporter of Religious extremists.
Now on this day A 50,00 square mile section of Iraq known as Al Anbar province is the newly minted home of the newly minted terrorist organization known as Al Quaida in Iraq. That organization is there and growing stronger because of our incompetant military leadership who foolishly went into iraq with no idea of what they would be getting into.They went there thinking they would be liberators. They also went in under the new experiment that Rummie was trying of fewer troops. Another strategic blunder which will cost us 10 years of military occupation expenses and eventually a triilion dollars. We know Islamic facists are bad so why did we attack one of the only secular countries in the region first and with so few troops. Iran is by all accounts years away from getting a nuclear weapon. North Korea already has one and they are not even a Muslim country.
I think Ben is a nice old military guy who has convinced himself that our miltary must know what it is doing.
However now that the terrorists are once again controlling large portions of Afghanistan even he has to wonder why we took our eye of that situation.

They will embarrass you, humiliate you, and leave you pissed off while they're counting your money somewhere. They'll sell missiles to the enemy, they'll say trees cause pollution, they'll pick Dan Quayle as a running mate. You poor gullible kids. Sleep now, try not to wake up . . .

Ron thanks for an injection of humor I am getting sleepy now.

Randall are you PRO-TORTURE? Torture yeilds INCORRECT INFORMATION! The fact that you are defending from a pro-torture stance is mind-boggling. In your next life you will born the son of an Iranian Ayatollah.

If Bush really wants a list of banned "interrogation tactics" he should probably start with his hazing rituals he used as his Fraternity's rush chairman. Human branding would definately be banned.

For those who call themselves "conservatives" or strict constructionists, they more than anyone else should be alarmed over this unconstitutional law proposal. If these hypocrits were to trouble themselves to read the US Constitution they would know that ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden in Article I, Section 9, and Section 10 in the USC. At this moment detainees are being held under tormentous detention without charge as there is no legal basis to charge them with anything! Now Bush wants legislation to justify his criminal actions on these detainees thereby circumventing the US Supreme Court's decision against unlawful detention and certain members of Congress are siding with him. Where are their 'conservative, strict constructionist' principles?

Or is this what Republicans call "compassionate conservatism?"

Any attempt to diminish the Constitution jeopardizes freedom for everyone. When John Adams used the Alien + Sedition laws to detain people he was savagely attacked by Congress for his attempt to lessen Constitutional protections. Yet, Bush is doing the same with fanatical support from those who have no value for freedom. Once again, it proves that Bush lovers are unpatriotic America haters in that they stand against everything our Founding Fathers stood, fought, and died for.

Thanks Luckky_. The whole process is meant to distract and it is likely that the legislation will be struck down even by the conservative supreme court because the rights of the accused whoever they are is protected under our rule of law.