English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

"Bush urged lawmakers to quickly approve legislation authorizing military tribunals and harsh interrogations of terror suspects in order to shield U.S. personnel from being prosecuted for war crimes under the Geneva Conventions"

Why do our military personnel need immunity from human rights laws if we aren't doing anything wrong?

2006-09-15 10:35:27 · 33 answers · asked by John 1 in Politics & Government Politics

I'm not a commie, I just think Bush is losing sight of what his original goals were.

2006-09-15 10:43:51 · update #1

33 answers

Yes but he has been gone

2006-09-18 13:26:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Bush is hoping to sheild HIMSELF and his cronies from prosecution when he is inevitably impeached and brought up on War Crimes charges.
The list of what has been done with approval from the highest ranks of government is nothing that can be compared to "College Pranks" as Fr_Chuck suggests. We are talking about electrocution, drowning, beatings.
When the Geneva Convention was adopted by all civilized nations, they knew that it would limit the amount of information they could extract from a prisoner. This was the price they were willing to pay to be civilized. Name, rank and serial number. Now we are supposed to believe that some different set of rules should apply because they are labelled "terrorists"??? Shipping them to secret facilities, having no representation, out of the watchful eye of the Red Cross. We've stooped very low in my opinion.

We have violated the soveriegnty of another nation, destroying it under false pretenses.

We are responsible for the deaths of untold civilians.

Powell has finally spoken up and I expect more to do the same. The tide is turning and we will see the deck of cards that Bush has built begin to tumble very soon.

2006-09-15 12:41:49 · answer #2 · answered by jack b 3 · 0 0

NAH he has always been insane.
or
"a few sandwiches short of a picnic"

To me the bigger mystery is what the heck Laura saw in him. I mean she seems decent and she seems intelligent and she is not bad looking - maybe she is insane? I mean she has to be to have marries that illiterate druggie nutcase.

Hey Buddy up there - I am a liberal and do not want to destroy the military, If I did I would not protest the war in Iraq because that is a sure way to get rid of the military- Gosh some people are just so stoooopid!

2006-09-15 10:41:01 · answer #3 · answered by MelanieMediator 2 · 2 0

They need to be shielded by anti-American..err...
International interpretations like "securing enemy combatants against outrages to human dignity" (whatever that means), of the Geneva Conventions.

Here's a question few ask:

What's more important:

Establishing and following AMERICAN laws that protect AMERICAN citizens, OR

Aligning our laws with anti-American interpretations of the Geneva Convention so that our troops and law enforcement officials are hog-tied from protecting any of us and are busy protecting their own a s s es (which is what Bush is alluding to when he demands a decision, our CIA/FBI guys will NOT interrogate anymore until this issue is resolved).

American laws that protect American lives and defend America's viability are ALWAYS more important than international rules that NO ONE plays by.

When the enemy, Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Hamas....start adhering to the Geneva Conventions, then we'll be more than happy to legislate in accordance with this language (or ask that it be clarified in an international forum). When the enemy is busy slitting throats, using power drills into skulls, beheading civilians and running dynamite laden bicycles into outdoor markets, we should also be TOO BUSY to bother changing our laws to satisfy Europeans, who are by and large NOT in the theater of war.

The only wrongdoing here is the international community that is pushing for these changes, many of whom are financially and militarily supported by the U.S., putting the war against radical Islam and their totalitarian sponsors in a precarious situation not aligned for victory.

Perhaps this round, we will not come to Europe's aid when the bleeding out of radical Islam comes across the Old Continent and starts claiming innocent European lives. Our friends are failing us, we should not help them in this effort or do ourselves in by listening to people who don't have America's best interests in mind.

Last I checked, our sovereignty is more important than our alliances.

2006-09-15 10:48:03 · answer #4 · answered by rohannesian 4 · 0 0

He wants military tribunals to try these prisoners. Of course, we need harsh interrogation methods to get information out of these prisoners. Why do you think so many of them are shipped to foreign countries for questioning? They use harsher methods, that's why. This would NOT immunize our people from human rights laws. GW wants CLARIFICATION of what can be done in questioning these thugs. I think its you that can't see or understand the real world.

2006-09-15 11:14:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Your question got me thinking... in two years much will have changed... but who are we going to talk about with such fodder if not Bush? Say what you like, but we might not get a better President to make fun of in a long long while, he's just too easy of a target. I'm starting to feel sorry for him. Does George have a son who might go into politics? You know what they say... the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. "sorry...it's been a hard day in utopia... need to mock occasionally =) "

2006-09-15 10:57:10 · answer #6 · answered by Utopian Friend 4 · 0 0

It is said that one of the reasons that America is looked down on is our disregard for, or contempt of international treaties. What W literally said is that he wants Congress to conduct an investigation and decide exactly which acts are prohibited by the Geneva convention. For instance, one passage prohibits, "outrages against human dignity". What we need to know is: what, exactly, is an "outrage"? We are trying to be careful to stay on the right side of international agreements, and any grey areas must be clarified.

2006-09-15 10:46:59 · answer #7 · answered by presidentofallantarctica 5 · 0 0

no, he hasn't always been insane. i saw a clip not too long ago of him about 13 or so years ago debating. he was quite eloquent, and sharp witted. the man we see today is very different. slow in thought, stumbling over his words; he has been diagnosed by some doctors as having pre-altzeimer's dementia.

2006-09-15 10:51:51 · answer #8 · answered by phtokhos 3 · 0 0

You ask if Bush has 'finally gone insane' as if he was sane up to this point. The man HEARS GOD TELLING HIM TO INVADE IRAQ fer pete's sake! And if he DOESNT hear God, he LIES about hearing God! I have no idea which of those is worse, but either way his elevator does NOT stop at every floor.

2006-09-15 10:38:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

Yes, it's amazing how he can claim that the laws need to be changed to make the activity legal, and yet still try to argue that he hasn't been breaking any laws.

Rather amusing delusion to watch.

2006-09-15 10:38:55 · answer #10 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5 0

"Finally" gone insane???? Actually, I caught some of his speech today on C-span while I was at the doctor's office. I have no idea what he was talking about, but he wasn't even giving a speech. He was just ranting.

2006-09-15 10:37:45 · answer #11 · answered by badkitty1969 7 · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers