or do you think its slick talk to gain what he wants anyway I think there has been no need for clearity before his agenda so why is there this desperate need now before elections if only more important issues could get such a rush job in congress then we would be in a lot better place?
2006-09-18 12:04:21 · 10 answers · asked by matthew_yelle 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
ok some of you here are willing to support him and i applaude you for your convictions but all i'm try to understand is even though the terrorist be head our troops as a show of distain for the U.S then let them and that will only strengten our resolve but when we have to seek ways around a document that has given this great nation alot of its credibility in the eyes of the world wich we would like to keep on our side or at least in our corner heck even if its the shadows of our corner then i say dont manipulate the system let the actions of the terrorist be shown for what they are and express a need to fight it on our level not theirs .
with this change there will be other amendment in the future that will use this to support extream tactic on the part of your local police and empower even state level government to make admendments to pasifly torcher addicts so they will give up the suppliers and then attacks against the mafia so on. we will be giving up our rights in the longrun
2006-09-18 13:09:08 · update #1
I think your observation is correct, of course we will have to see how the bill turns out, but the repuglicans have been accused of being rubber stamps and this "rebellion" might just be for the publicity of it and he Will get what he wants, I hope if this is the case that the American public sees through it and elects enough democrats to restore checks and balance to the government.
2006-09-18 12:10:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
The U.S. cannot unilaterally amend the Geneva Conventions, and that is not what Bush proposed. Some areas of the Conventions are overly vague, and nearly every nation that has signed them, has also passed legislation that interprets them in a way that is consistent with their own laws. The U.S. has never done that, and Bush is attempting to rectify that error.
This action was forced upon him by the Supreme Court, when it issued one of the most asinine rulings in it's history.
The Third Convention applies to Uniformed Soldiers only. All other fighters are considered illegal combatants, Under international law, those illegal combatants are entitled only to the protection of the Fourth Convention, which covers civilians. The Supreme Court chose to ignore the Fourth Convention, and decreed that the U.S. must apply the Third Convention to illegal combatants, in direct contradiction of the Third Convention itself!
2006-09-18 12:15:36 · answer #2 · answered by Jay S 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's not to ammend the Geneva Conventions it's to define it. The actual statements in the Geneva Conventions are "general". Whether I agree with the bill or not, he's right to compromise and push it through. He has no choice the Supreme Court has ordered him to do so.
This bill incorporates language from the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, that everyone (or at least the New York Times) applauded as banning torture.
2006-09-18 12:08:39 · answer #3 · answered by MEL T 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
the convention is so vague that just about everything is illegal.
It does need to be clarified.
besides bush isnt trying to eliminate the constitution like FDR actually considered.
FDR, the only president in history to seriously consider eliminating the constitution. Read the history, its a fact.
2006-09-18 15:18:01 · answer #4 · answered by pcreamer2000 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We need to define what inhumane and degrading treatment are, firstly because the Bush Administration doesn't know, and secondly because we need the definitions so that we can then find other ways to degrade detainees and treat them inhumanely.
Waterboarding wrong? Ok, we'll pretend drown them by hand. Forcing them to wear women's underwear wrong? Ok, we'll just have them run around naked. Electric shock wrong? Fine, we'll use a hot poker.
You get the idea. Knowing exactly how we "can't" torture people will clarify how we CAN torture them. And then we can get on with the business of bringing freedom and democracy to the world and proving to all of those godless heathens that God is on our side.
2006-09-18 12:19:49 · answer #5 · answered by Whoops, is this your spleeen? 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Maybe if you actually understood what he was asking for you would understand.... amending the Geneva Convention wasn't part of it. Now go back and read what was actually said.
2006-09-18 12:43:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I guess the Geneva Convention okays be-heading.
Anyway, I haven't heard one of you whiners about terrorists' rights complain about the be-headings of Americans and others.
Maybe you people are all foreigners who support terrorists and hate Americans.
2006-09-18 12:12:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
If there are Republicans who served in Military think it is wrong to tamper with it, then he should leave it the he!! alone. He is trying his best to destroy this country by making it like the fanatics in the Middle East. No President before him had a problem understanding the Geneva Convention, so have someone with intelligence read it to him....
2006-09-18 12:10:28 · answer #8 · answered by linus_van_pelt68 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Actually, he's trying to retroactive amend the federal war crimes statute (18 USC 2441), so that all of the crimes he has previously committed will no longer count as having been war crimes.
AG Gonzales came up with the strategy, and it's an intelligent one. If you can't get someone to follow the law, retroactively change the law so that what they did is no longer punishable under federal law.
2006-09-18 12:07:02 · answer #9 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
There was no need to clarify before liberals and rinos started siding with the enemy.
2006-09-18 12:12:11 · answer #10 · answered by Tommy G. 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋