that this administration is considering what effect this will have on our current soldiers (men/women)? To allow our use of torture means that in the future, our own soldiers will be subject to these currently ILLEGAL practices, and we will have no recourse. Water torture will be allowed, death, death, will be allowed in certain circumstances, OUR soldiers can be wisked away to an unknown location and held WITHOUT CHARGES indefinitely. Without the aid of the Red Cross or any other int'l agency.
Pro or Con? Where do you stand?
2006-09-15 13:59:44 · 14 answers · asked by VHEE 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Of all the bad ideas this administration has had (and they've come up with some doozies), this one is thoroughly, unremittingly, unforgivably bad.
Nevertheless, the Bush administration and the Republican party will run with it because they need it to maintain control of Congress in November. I think the next edition of Webster's dictionary has just found a new definition for "cynical" and "self-serving."
Good question - thanks.
2006-09-15 14:03:41 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Not to amend Geneva Treaty but to clarify in a USA bill. We should interpret the language as the rest of the world has for some 50-60 years.and abide by the treaty, because we are a civilized nation and honor individual rights.
2006-09-15 15:09:24 · answer #2 · answered by longroad 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In fact he was asked by David Gregory if he would be ok with US soldiers were treated according to his new rules, and he said if all the "countries mentioned" used his standards the world would be a better place.
As for those who believe his explanations, being told that "inhumane treatment" is more explicit and less confusing than "degrading treatment" doesn't make it so.
2006-09-15 14:07:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's a massively stupid idea, which will cause far more harm than the benefits gained, but that doesn't distinguish it from most of his plans.
I guess the only real difference in this program is that he's finally making an attempt to actually follow the laws, rather than just ignoring them or breaking them whenever they get in his way.
2006-09-15 14:04:05 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Wow, such ignorance is fascinating. He is not working to change the Geneva convention. He couldn't even if he wanted to without a heck of a lot of other countries. It isn't U.S. law.
The part he is trying to get clarified is the the wording that says you can not degrade or humiliate. He has asked for congress to clarify what this means in U.S. law so that the CIA can not be charged with war crimes if they as an example tell a terrorist he is a filthy pig. (degrading and humiliating no?). Now regardless of what it means, do you really believe the terrorists thought about the Geneva convention when beheading prisoners or slamming planes into the World Trade Center? Huh, do you?
2006-09-15 14:07:06 · answer #5 · answered by Colorado 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Tonight, I heard he's doing it - retro-active, to keep his behind
out of trouble for stuff he's already done.
Also, I heard that there are 30 international violations
against him.
Heaven help the planet, there's a maniac in charge &
I think he's getting away with murder.
2006-09-15 14:32:28 · answer #6 · answered by Calee 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yep-he wants to keep himself as well as Rummy out of hot water!
2006-09-18 08:46:10 · answer #7 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There trying to cover their ***'es so they dont get tried for war crimes
Knuckles the Torturer Needs Your Help!!!
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0638,fiore,74465,9.html
2006-09-16 11:49:34 · answer #8 · answered by Bearable 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Con. Check out the following link!...
http://www.global-conspiracies.com/fema_concentration_camps.htm
2006-09-15 14:35:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Bush would rather be a dictator than a president.
2006-09-15 14:15:11 · answer #10 · answered by connie k 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋