Lindaland
  Global Unity
  "The Great Decider" Clarifies The Geneva Conventions

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   "The Great Decider" Clarifies The Geneva Conventions
Rainbow~
unregistered
posted September 27, 2006 10:21 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Great Decider Clarifies
The Geneva Conventions

By Judith Moriarty
noahshouse@adelphia.net
9-27-6

Geneva Conventions:

GWB claims to be worried that CIA interrogators are confused by the rules that govern them.

GWB, claimed that all he is seeking to do is to define the Article's 'vague' provisons.


He said, "the standards are so vague that our professionals won't be able to carry forth the interrogation program because they don't want to be tried as war criminals. They don't want to break the law."


A prohibition contained in Common Article 3 (which is enforceable criminally through the 1996 War Crime Act which GWB seeks to change) forbids "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment". Abu Ghraib certainly meets this definition.

The real agenda (thanks to McCain's assistance) has at least three goals:

to allow the CIA interrogators (others) to continue in torture, as long as it doesn't "shock the conscience" (no mention of addressing those absent any conscience, i.e. sociopaths/psychopaths );

second to provide immunity for all those interrogators, civilian and military, who committed outrages upon detainees,'

and third to give congressionally- granted immunity to senior officials for their having ordered or encouraged field operatives to inflict degrading (many deaths have occurred) and outright torture in the past.

If anyone takes the time to Google the History of the Geneva Conventions, they will note the various men of great intellect, who over decades, through the various Conventions, arrived at what GWB, now sees as "vague!"

Think of the absolute lunacy ­( aside from entering into the argument, of what constitutes 'degrading and humiliating treatment'), of this man making himself, ("I'm the Decider") the final authority, of changing history, for his own ends!

He has 'decided' that his interpretation (or really others) of the Conventions ­ (absent any discussion or debates) is Gospel!!!

This from a man who is quoted saying:

"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves". Sept 21, 2003


"I'm the commander ­ see, I don't need to explain ­ I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president". As quoted in Bob Woodward's Bush at War

"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption" Sept 23, 2002

"This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating" April 23, 2002

"Do you have blacks, too?" ­ to Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, Nov 8, 2001

"For every fatal shooting there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it". May 14, 2001

"I don't know why you're talking about Sweden. They're the neutral one. They don't have an arm". During a Dec 2002 Oval Office meeting with Tom Lantos, as reported in the New York Times

"I'm the master of low expectations. I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things". ­ aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

"If this were a Dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier. Just so long as I'm the Dictator". Dec 16, 2000

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job". (No comment on God's language skills JM) speaking with an Amish group ­ 2004

The above is a small example of the intellect that found the Geneva Conventions ­ "vague".

Is it any wonder?

I rest my case.

JM

IP: Logged

Rainbow~
unregistered
posted September 28, 2006 03:09 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted September 28, 2006 04:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The United States Congress has now cleared up the murky language contained in Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

There were some who wanted to give United States citizen constitutional rights to terrorists. That amemdment was defeated by Senators who DO NOT have their heads up their ass.

Senate heads toward terror trial vote By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 41 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - The Senate, siding with President Bush shortly after he personally lobbied lawmakers at the Capitol, rejected a move Thursday by a leading Republican to allow terrorism suspects to challenge their imprisonment in court.

The vote paved the way for final passage of Bush's plan to establish "military commissions" to prosecute terrorism suspects in legislation that also spells out violations of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty that sets international standards for the treatment of war prisoners.

Republicans say the bill is necessary to ensure that terrorists can be brought to justice and that CIA personnel will not be charged with war crimes when interrogating these suspects.

Barring any last-minute hiccups, the bill could reach the president's desk as early as Friday.

Bush had gone to Capitol Hill earlier Thursday, urging senators to follow the House lead and approve the plan. "The American people need to know we're working together to win the war on terror," he told reporters as he left.

The Senate voted 48-51 against an amendment by Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) that would have allowed terror suspects to file "habeas corpus" petitions in court. Specter contends the ability to such pleas is considered a fundamental legal right and is necessary to uncover abuse.

"This is a constitutional requirement and it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court," said Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Three Republicans voted with Specter but others in the GOP caucus contended that providing terror suspects the right to unlimited appeals weighs down the federal court system.

"It impedes the war effort, and it is irresponsible," said Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Democrats sided with Specter.

"The habeas corpus language in this bill is as legally abusive of rights guaranteed in the Constitution as the actions at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and secret prisons that were physically abusive of detainees," said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), the top Democrat on the Armed Services panel.

The House on Wednesday passed a nearly identical measure on a 253-168, following bitter partisan debate in which Republicans and Democrats traded barbs on which political party would better protect Americans. After the Senate passes its bill, the House will vote again Friday to approve the Senate measure and send it to the president to sign, according to House and Senate leadership aides.

Three Democrats also were being given opportunities to offer amendments Thursday, but all were expected to be rejected along party lines. Democrats have said the legislation would give the president too much latitude when deciding whether aggressive interrogations cross the line and violate international standards of prisoner treatment.

The legislation would establish a military court system to prosecute terror suspects, a response to the Supreme Court ruling in June that Congress' blessing was necessary. Under the bill, a terrorist being held at Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba can be tried by "military commission" so long as he is afforded certain rights, such as the ability to confront evidence given to the jury and access to defense counsel.

Those subject to the commission trials would be any person "who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents." Proponents say this definition would not apply to U.S. citizens but would allow the detention and prosecution of individuals financing terrorist networks.

While the bill would spell out legal rights for the terror suspects to ensure a fair trial, it would eliminate other rights common in military and civilian courts. For example, the commission would be allowed to consider hearsay as evidence so long as a judge determines it is reliable. Hearsay is frequently allowed in international military tribunals, but is barred from being considered in civilian courts.

The court would bar the military commission from considering evidence obtained by interrogation techniques since December 2005 that involve "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" as defined by the 5th, 8th and 14th amendments. Coerced statements taken before the 2005 ban was put into effect would not be subjected to the same standard — language Democrats charge creates a loophole for abuse.

The measure also provides extensive definitions of war crimes such as torture, rape and biological experiments, but gives the president broad authority to decide which other techniques U.S. interrogators may use legally. The provisions are intended to protect CIA interrogators from being prosecuted for war crimes.

For nearly two weeks the White House and rebellious Republican senators have fought publicly over whether Bush's plan would give a president too much authority. But they struck a compromise last Thursday.

"This bill is everything we don't believe in," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.

___

The House resolution is HR 6166. The Senate bill is S 3930.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_go_co/congress_terrorism

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a