Get the jumper cables, electrodes, bamboo shoots and water board ready

[dog428]

This debate over defining article three of the Geneva Convention gets sadder by the damn minute. The incredible lack of thought put into this issue by GWB is amazing. And I mean that sincerely. I know I've made more than a few derogatory comments on here about Shrubby, but the fact that he can be this naive about this topic is astounding to me.

Here's a link to his press conference today, in which GWB and a reporter go back and forth on the issue. Decide for yourself which argument makes more sense.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=4a6ab820-4125-4276-9a90-0177382fc7f1&p=hotvideo_m_edpicks&t=m5&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/&fg=

Here's the article in question, No. 3:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

 

[Inky_Wretch]

I will side with Colin Powell and John McCain on this. If Bush continues to push this, Powell will be right that “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.”

 

[Bear]

http://www.bushslastday.com/

I fear what kind of world we're going to be living in when the clock hits zero.

 

[dog428]

It truly is amazing that he doesn't realize what this will do on so many different levels.

First and foremost, it appears, just by talking about it like this, that the U.S. is looking for a loophole that will allow us to torture prisoners. And that brings in the whole "world is beginning to doubt us ..." thing.

Second, by defining it, you automatically lessen its effectiveness, because there's simply no way you can accurately or adequately define torture. You just can't. And as soon as you try, while you might eliminate a lot of techniques, you'll make a whole ****load of them perfectly legal -- for EVERY OTHER COUNTRY.

 

[Smallpotatoes]

I always get a kick out of right-wingers using the term "moral relativism" when talking about liberals.
If trying to justify torture isn't moral relativism, what is?

 

[Birdscribe]

It truly is amazing that he doesn't realize what this will do on so many different levels.

First and foremost, it appears, just by talking about it like this, that the U.S. is looking for a loophole that will allow us to torture prisoners. And that brings in the whole "world is beginning to doubt us ..." thing.

Second, by defining it, you automatically lessen its effectiveness, because there's simply no way you can accurately or adequately define torture. You just can't. And as soon as you try, while you might eliminate a lot of techniques, you'll make a whole ****load of them perfectly legal -- for EVERY OTHER COUNTRY.

Thank you. Beat me to it, Mini Taters

What this reckless and feckless occupant of the White House is doing is needlessly endangering every member of our military who -- God forbid -- should fall into the hands of these barbarians.

And spare me the these-creatures-are-getting-what-they-deserve/you're-coddling-the-terrorists crap. Try another argument; this one isn't happening here. What we're doing is a nifty combination: abandoning all the principles that have made us the greatest country on Earth and making it Game On for our enemies to torture our soldiers, sailors and airmen unlucky enough to fall into their hands.

Truly amazing. Just when you think this Administration can't descend any farther, the basement drops off and a new one appears.

 

[pallister]

This is a legitimate issue, but please don't trot out the BS line about how this could make the enemy harm our soldiers further. Jesus Christ, the terrorists don't play by the rules. Is there something worse than a beheading you're worried about?

Again, I do not think this is being handled right, and you can talk about the morality of this issue, but stop using terrorists as a basis of comparison. They have absolutely no moral standing; they simply couldn't care less, and that's where the crux of this lies for me. Traditional methods of warfare, detention and interrogation do not work against this enemy. At some point, if we truly want to win this conflict, we are going to have to realize that we can't play the same geopolitical game that has defined conflicts between sovereign nations for so many decades.

Maybe what Bush wants isn't exactly the way to go, but sticking to the Geneva Convention against this enemy won't get us anywhere. We have to be willing to adapt to the fight we're in, and I think, ultimately, people are going to realize that, Democrat or Republican, some tough choices on how we deal with the bad guys are going to have to be made.

 

[old_tony]

This is a legitimate issue, but please don't trot out the BS line about how this could make the enemy harm our soldiers further. Jesus Christ, the terrorists don't play by the rules. Is there something worse than a beheading you're worried about?

Again, I do not think this is being handled right, and you can talk about the morality of this issue, but stop using terrorists as a basis of comparison. They have absolutely no moral standing; they simply couldn't care less, and that's where the crux of this lies for me. Traditional methods of warfare, detention and interrogation do not work against this enemy. At some point, if we truly want to win this conflict, we are going to have to realize that we can't play the same geopolitical game that has defined conflicts between sovereign nations for so many decades.

Maybe what Bush wants isn't exactly the way to go, but sticking to the Geneva Convention against this enemy won't get us anywhere. We have to be willing to adapt to the fight we're in, and I think, ultimately, people are going to realize that, Democrat or Republican, some tough choices on how we deal with the bad guys are going to have to be made.

I'm sorry, pallister, but if you don't want to be nice to the terrorists, you have no place in this country. Just ask dog.

 

[Smallpotatoes]

With the right-wingers, there always seems to be a "but" with this torture issue.
"Of course torture is wrong but..."
I'll say it again. No buts. It's wrong. No matter what the bad guys have done, want to do, thought about doing, know, know people who know, it's still wrong.
If we're supposed to be the good guys, we have to act like the good guys.
And torture doesn't work. I was born in 1966. Torture me enough and I'll confess to shooting JFK if that's what you want to hear.
Some people just watch 24 a little too much.

 

[Lyman_Bostock]

This is a legitimate issue, but please don't trot out the BS line about how this could make the enemy harm our soldiers further. Jesus Christ, the terrorists don't play by the rules. Is there something worse than a beheading you're worried about?

Again, I do not think this is being handled right, and you can talk about the morality of this issue, but stop using terrorists as a basis of comparison. They have absolutely no moral standing; they simply couldn't care less, and that's where the crux of this lies for me. Traditional methods of warfare, detention and interrogation do not work against this enemy. At some point, if we truly want to win this conflict, we are going to have to realize that we can't play the same geopolitical game that has defined conflicts between sovereign nations for so many decades.

Maybe what Bush wants isn't exactly the way to go, but sticking to the Geneva Convention against this enemy won't get us anywhere. We have to be willing to adapt to the fight we're in, and I think, ultimately, people are going to realize that, Democrat or Republican, some tough choices on how we deal with the bad guys are going to have to be made.

I'm sorry, pallister, but if you don't want to be nice to the terrorists, you have no place in this country. Just ask dog.

With the right-wingers, there always seems to be a "but" with this torture issue.
"Of course torture is wrong but..."
I'll say it again. No buts. It's wrong. No matter what the bad guys have done, want to do, thought about doing, know, know people who know, it's still wrong.
If we're supposed to be the good guys, we have to act like the good guys.
And torture doesn't work. I was born in 1966. Torture me enough and I'll confess to shooting JFK if that's what you want to hear.
Some people just watch 24 a little too much.

Hey, when you fight with both hands tied behind your back, it makes things a lot more interesting.

 

[BigDog]

"If there’s any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, that’s flawed, flawed logic," Bush said.

BigDog agrees.

 

[D.Sanchez]

Saying that terrorists receive all of the rights conveyed by the Geneva Convention without actually obeying any of its rules, makes the Convention merely another tool for the terrorists to use in their efforts to overthrow the principles behind them. The argument that the Geneva Convention should apply to all diminishes the benefits of actually signing it.

 

[buckweaver]

To pall, tony, et al:

So do we throw our dignity out the window here? Do we throw our honor out? What about the self-respect involved in not succumbing to the methods of terrorists? Where does that come into play?

If any and all means are deemed necessary, does that mean at some point down the line, we should be able to scare the terrorists by beheading one of them and posting the video on the Internet? Where does the line get drawn?

At what point do WE put aside our values during a war?

 

[D.Sanchez]

To pall, tony, et al:

So do we throw our dignity out the window here? Do we throw our honor out? What about the self-respect involved in not succumbing to the methods of terrorists? Where does that come into play?

If any and all means are deemed necessary, does that mean at some point down the line, we should be able to scare the terrorists by beheading one of them and posting the video on the Internet? Where does the line get drawn?

At what point do WE put aside our values during a war?

During WWII the Allies routinely shot, as spies, soldiers captured not in uniform and this was allowed under the Geneva Convention. In my eyes all of al Qaida's "soldiers" are spies.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

The US can win this fight without descending to the level of the scum we're fighting.

We can.

Too bad Shrubby finds it . . . so . . . "inconvenient".

The last two years of this nonsense are going to be a trip. Think Nixon, in a different key.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

If what the wingnut chorus here says is true -- To hell with John McCain. What does he know? We watch 24 every week! -- then why does Fredo constantly argue that what we do isn't torture? And, once you've answered that, explain to me why he's trrying to retroactively immunize people against prosecution for those tactics? Here are some hints:

1) He doesn't know what he's talking about. If someone water-boarded his daughters, would he consider that torture? The administration that once considered the Geneva Conventions "quaint," now is interested in more clearly defining them? Bull**** squared. Same thing on the NSDA spying. He broke the law 30 times and he knows it. He wants immunity ex post facto, because he's a feckless bully who believes he should never account for his actions.
2) It doesn't work. The people who know most about it say it doesn't work.
3) The idea that the threat of Islamonazifascists -- or whatever the bedwetting term of art is this week -- is sufficient to change the nature of who we are in the world so drastically is a surrender to fear so obvious that everyone in this country should be ashamed.

 

[Smallpotatoes]

What, exactly are the benefits of torture?
Does it make 9-11 victims' families feel better knowing these people are treated like this? Does it make most decent Americans feel better? Does it deter potential terrorists because they'll know they'll be treated this way if they're ever captured?
Is the information obtained by torture necessarily reliable or do people tend to say whatever their captors want to hear just to get them to stop?

 

[slappy4428]

Perhaps it wouldn't apply to this war against terrorism.
But say something flares up six months from now against a country with a real army -- lets for arguments sake say Argentina. Bush is thinking short term with terrorists, but long term its a mistake.
What is to keep the Argentines from saying, "US doesnt use the Geneva Convention, why should we?"

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Fredo's relationship with Jesus, I guess.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

This is a legitimate issue, but please don't trot out the BS line about how this could make the enemy harm our soldiers further. Jesus Christ, the terrorists don't play by the rules. Is there something worse than a beheading you're worried about?

Again, I do not think this is being handled right, and you can talk about the morality of this issue, but stop using terrorists as a basis of comparison. They have absolutely no moral standing; they simply couldn't care less, and that's where the crux of this lies for me. Traditional methods of warfare, detention and interrogation do not work against this enemy. At some point, if we truly want to win this conflict, we are going to have to realize that we can't play the same geopolitical game that has defined conflicts between sovereign nations for so many decades.

Maybe what Bush wants isn't exactly the way to go, but sticking to the Geneva Convention against this enemy won't get us anywhere. We have to be willing to adapt to the fight we're in, and I think, ultimately, people are going to realize that, Democrat or Republican, some tough choices on how we deal with the bad guys are going to have to be made.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Just because we're fighting terrorists, we don't have to adopt their tactics and methods. We are better than they are; sticking to the Geneva Convention proves it.

And slappy makes a very strong point. I've said this before and it still applies: the Bush 2 administration does not take the long view on anything. Eventually, that's going to bite this nation in the ass.

The Bush 2 administration clearly thrives on one emotion: fear. I for one have had enough of that.