Wednesday, President Bush admitted to having secret CIA bases scattered throughout eastern europe which he had previously denied existing to the american public in no uncertain terms.
The reason for the secret bases and why these terrorists have not been brought to american prisons is to avoid the monitoring of their conditions, in violation of the Geneva convention. The tacit understanding is that torture would be occurring even though Pres.Bush has stated, "I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture."
He did however ackknowledge that, "I cannot describe the specific methods used — I think you understand why. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe and lawful and necessary"
However, with the definition of psychological torture extending into "outrages against personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment", it seems clear that Bush has lied about this situation to the face of America.
2006-09-06 17:18:54 · 15 answers · asked by special-chemical-x 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
According to the conservative supreme court of the US all of the "enemy combatants" held by the united states have Geneva convention rights.
2006-09-06 17:31:56 · update #1
To Mira: Clinton WAS impeached but not convicted.
2006-09-06 17:33:12 · update #2
Truelly azreal's answer seems the most succinct with regard to the absolute legallity of his lies not being under oath.
2006-09-06 17:45:52 · update #3
To Barometer: CIA prisons are not part of the military. Lying about their existance does not therefore protect military secrets, military troops, or mislead enemy troops.(other than to that they exist - which isn't much of something to be misled concerning)
I do agree with you about Clinton's lie.
2006-09-06 17:53:40 · update #4
Clinton was impeached for lying about oral sex. I will lose all faith in our government if Bush is not impeached for lying about these places of torture. Not to mention everything else he has lied about which has resulted in tens of thousands of innocent deaths. and that whole warcrimes thing too.
2006-09-06 17:30:33 · answer #1 · answered by k8o 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Sorry, but no. For starters, we would have to impeach every president - they all lie, usually starting during their campaign before they are even elected!
Secondly, lying is necessary at times to protect military secrets, protect our troops and agents, and to mislead a the enemy.
Regarding the CIA bases - of course he denied they existed because they were SECRET!! How secret would they be if any ole reporter could demand to know if they exist.
If bush were to be impeached for anything, I would say it would be for fabricating reasons to invade Iraq. Those "lies" were clearly to manipulate US citizens, congress, and the international community into supporting the invasion of Iraq.
Bill Clinton's initial lie (to a US Grand Jury and all US citizens) that he did not have "sexual relations with THAT woman" was not justified either. True, it is his personal life, but it took place in the oval office with a white house employee less than half his age!
2006-09-06 17:34:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
How dumb! It is called National Security - you can't be suggesting that the President tell everything to the public,
or ask their approval on items of security. The President of
the United States has never needed permission nor told items of national security until after the threats are over. It has never been done & will not start with Bush. Was I the only one in Civics class?
2006-09-06 17:25:16 · answer #3 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Bush, unlike Clinton, has not lied under oath. That is the key difference. Lying to the public is not in and of itself a crime, but lying while under oath to tell the truth constitutes perjury which is a crime.
2006-09-06 17:25:10 · answer #4 · answered by azrael505 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
His job requires that he not reveal wartime secrets that may be useful to the enemy. If anything, he might be impeached for giving in to demands that he tell the public more.
Terrorists are considered 'spies and saboteurs' and do not have rights under civilian law, wartime tradition or Geneva Convention. Battlefield commanders may simply shoot them in the head or make better use of them. This is internationally recognized.
2006-09-06 17:22:09 · answer #5 · answered by speakeasy 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Lying to the public is what the previous administration did to the American public. And it was proven.
What you are trying to do is Bush bash. And you need to grow up!
2006-09-06 17:24:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
I'm guessing that the spawn of demoncrats had a note from their mom to skip Civics class.
2006-09-06 17:27:14 · answer #7 · answered by mnm75932 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Oh yes, he should. But his own party isn't going to impeach him, and the Democratic party can't seem to manage it either, so it's a moot point. Now if only somebody would do a Monica Lewinsky on him, that ought to do it.
2006-09-06 17:21:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
really they should just kill them all instead to avoid criticism from sickos like you. If the liberals would only join their islamic brothers in battle we would all be better off.
2006-09-06 17:24:41 · answer #9 · answered by yoda_alamoda 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
they are not entitled to the Geneva convention because they do not fight for a nation and they don't have uniforms
2006-09-06 18:46:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋