1
   

The Geneva Conventions

 
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2004 05:37 pm
Quote:
"On Jan. 25, 2002, Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel, in a memo to Bush, said that the Justice Department's advice was sound and that Mr. Bush should declare the Taliban as well as Al Qaeda outside the coverage of the Geneva Conventions. That would keep American officials from being exposed to the federal War Crimes Act, a 1996 law, which, as Mr. Gonzales noted, carries the death penalty."


-- Neil A. Lewis, "Justice Memos Explained How to Skip Prisoner Rights", NYT.com

Quote:
"In recent public statements, Bush administration officials have said that the Geneva Conventions were "fully applicable" in Iraq."

-- Douglas Jehl and Neil A. Lewis, "US Disputed Protected Status of Iraq Inmates", NYT.com

Quote:
"Iraq's a nation. The United States is a nation. The Geneva Conventions applied. They have applied every single day from the outset."

-- Donald Rumsfeld, changing his mind about "combatants," msnbc.com

The neoconservatives are hopping on and off Geneva like Ann Coulter on a first date.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2004 05:53 pm
Sorry, timber, I just have one other question:

Will this be the first war shut down over embarrassment?

Quote:
Some prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison were ridden like animals, fondled by female soldiers, forced to curse their religion and required to retrieve their food from toilets, according to the Washington Post.


The Post said detainees were forced to denounce Islam, force-fed pork or liquor, required to masturbate in front of female soldiers, threatened with rape, and made to walk on their hands and knees and bark like dogs.

Clearly, this changes everything.

All of that -- including the homicides; let's not forget the beatings that became murders -- certainly 'cheapens the meaning of the word "Torture"'. God forbid Merriam-Webster should be forced to revise all those texts.

Of course, we should keep reminding ourselves that we're not nearly as bad as Saddam.

Although I am at a loss as to how, exactly, seeing as how rape and murder were part of the mix in each regime.

Oh ****, I just realized I have another question:

Is it now simply a matter of quantity? The difference?
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2004 08:53 pm
Quote:
It is fully and readily accessible within our capabilities to level and sterilize as large an area as we might wish at absolutely no combat risk to our own forces; it is to our credit we do not do so.


Perhaps you mob should remove all that rubbish on the Great Seal about E Pluribus Unum and replace it with something like:

-USA: Nukes'R'Us
-Democracy; or Fallout? - You can't have both
-Hey! Have we nuked YOUR country recently?

and my favourite:

USA: The world isn't big enough for both of us
0 Replies
 
detano inipo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2004 07:53 am
Anyone who commits torture is not human. To mistreat someone who cannot defend himself is an act of cowardice.
Torture is usually practiced in totalitarian states. If the US is resorting to torture it is closing the gap between democracies and dictatorships.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 07:04:42