Reply
Wed 20 Oct, 2004 04:57 am
LAST WEEK we questioned whether there was a difference between President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry on the crucial question of U.S. policy for handling prisoners captured abroad. Mr. Bush continues to take the position that the Geneva Conventions should not be applied to many detainees, including anyone captured in Afghanistan, and that harsh interrogation techniques foresworn by the U.S. military for decades should be used on some of these prisoners. Mr. Kerry critiqued the shocking abuses that have resulted from that decision, at Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere, but not the policy itself. Now Mr. Kerry has taken a stand. In a statement drawn up in response to our questions, the Democratic nominee declares that "a Kerry administration will apply the Geneva Conventions to all battlefield combatants captured in the war on terror."
The result is an important new distinction between the presidential candidates. In our view, Mr. Bush's decision in February 2002 to set aside the Geneva Conventions was one of the most damaging mistakes of his presidency. It led directly to the imprisonment of hundreds of foreigners at Guantanamo Bay without any legal process, until the Supreme Court intervened earlier this year. Mr. Bush's decision also led to the sanction by senior administration officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, of harsh interrogation techniques that are illegal under the Geneva Conventions. As several official investigations have found, these techniques soon "migrated" from Guantanamo to U.S. field units in Iraq and Afghanistan, leading to hundreds of cases of torture, homicide and other abuse, and a shameful stain on the international reputation of the United States.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld still refuse to acknowledge the terrible consequences of the decisions they made, much less correct their mistakes. In a letter published on this page today, Mr. Rumsfeld's spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, once again claims that no policy or decision made by a senior official had anything to do with the abuses at Abu Ghraib. To bolster his case, he selectively cites official investigations that have, in fact, proven the opposite. For example, Gen. Paul J. Kern, whom Mr. Di Rita quotes, testified to Congress last month that techniques approved by Mr. Rumsfeld in December 2002 -- including nudity, painful stress positions and the use of dogs to incite fear -- "found their way into documentation that we found in Abu Ghraib." The Schlesinger commission, also cited by Mr. Di Rita, determined that Iraq commander Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez approved similar practices, "using reasoning from the President's memorandum" of 2002. It also concluded, "There is both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels" for the crimes at Abu Ghraib.
Without any change in policy, there is every reason to expect that a second Bush term would produce more scandals like Abu Ghraib. As the history of the past three years demonstrates, such abuses result when the rule of law is set aside. That's why we welcome Mr. Kerry's pledge to resume full U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Such compliance does not prevent a U.S. president from holding enemy combatants indefinitely or from denying them prisoner-of-war status. It does not prevent American forces from conducting interrogations. But it does ensure that the United States will operate according to the same international standards that it wishes to see applied to its own service members and citizens. "We will abide by a principle long enshrined in our military manuals," says the Kerry statement: "That America does not treat prisoners in ways we would consider immoral and illegal if perpetrated by the enemy on Americans." That strikes us as a policy that is both more in keeping with American standards, and more likely to be successful in practice, than that pursued with such disastrous results by Mr. Bush.
What our country needs right now is a healthy dose of pride in itself...and how it conducts itself in this world.
A second Bush administration is not likely to furnish that!
I have to say I was not very proud to be an american when I saw the pictures from Abu Ghraib. And I'm definitely not proud of the Guantanamo decision. I'm also not proud of my president.
FreeDuck wrote:I have to say I was not very proud to be an american when I saw the pictures from Abu Ghraib. And I'm definitely not proud of the Guantanamo decision. I'm also not proud of my president.
Hey Duck...
...some of the people who claim not to have lost pride in our country after the misadventures of the last 4 years probably had no true pride to lose.
What the hell...some of them think a president lying about a blow job is a greater embarrassment than a president lying about why he is sending our armed forces to war....a greater embarrassment than sending young men and women to die and be maimed.
No brains...no foul...or something like that.
Frank Apisa wrote:
...some of the people who claim not to have lost pride in our country after the misadventures of the last 4 years probably had no true pride to lose.
Yeah, or their pride is based on something I don't quite comprehend.
Quote:
No brains...no foul...or something like that.
I think this has been the motto of Bush's life.
"What the hell...some of them think a president lying about a blow job is a greater embarrassment than a president lying about why he is sending our armed forces to war...."
I think a sitting President repeatedly lying under oath about anything is more egregious than the President, with the agreement of our elected representatives, being misled by faulty intelligence re: one aspect of reasons to eliminate the Saddam regime.
Larry434 wrote:"What the hell...some of them think a president lying about a blow job is a greater embarrassment than a president lying about why he is sending our armed forces to war...."
I think a sitting President repeatedly lying under oath about anything is more egregious than the President, with the agreement of our elected representatives, being misled by faulty intelligence re: one aspect of reasons to eliminate the Saddam regime.
Yeah, yeah...I know. You are being oh, so reasonable.
Fact is...American conservatives...the unwashed assh hole of political philosophy...have been on the wrong side over every major issue this nation has ever faced...and they are on the wrong side now.
Vote for the moron if you choose. Suppose that Clinton lying about a blow job is somehow a greater embarrassment (and danger) for our country and the world than your moron making decisions after damn near demanding faulty intelligence to rationalize his moronic moves...if you choose.
I am confident that a majority of the American public will see through the ideology driving such stupidity...and throw the bums out.
In the meantime...no matter who wins this next election...he will have to contend with the incredible mess that has accumulated over the last four years...and I somehow doubt (once again, no matter who is elected) that the country will be out of this deep hole anytime very soon. MY GUESS: The next several presidents will be shovelling this ****...and the stink will remain even then.
I think it's a huge mistake for the dems to trot out Clinton. The American Bar Association doesn't seem to be so proud of him and don't think this has gone unnoticed.
Either keep him in the solidly democratic states or send him to the South and watch the poll numbers for Bush skyrocket.
"Fact is...American conservatives...the unwashed assh hole of political philosophy...have been on the wrong side over every major issue this nation has ever faced...and they are on the wrong side now."
Frank, you realize that your opinion has dropped to that of comic relief, right?
Larry434 wrote:"What the hell...some of them think a president lying about a blow job is a greater embarrassment than a president lying about why he is sending our armed forces to war...."
I think a sitting President repeatedly lying under oath about anything is more egregious than the President, with the agreement of our elected representatives, being misled by faulty intelligence re: one aspect of reasons to eliminate the Saddam regime.
Two things here. Why does the 'under oath' even matter? It implies that lying while not under oath is somehow more acceptable. The other thing, president Bush is supposed to be a strong leader, so why should we let him off the hook for being 'misled'? The congress was clearly misled, the president, however, had the power, the opportunity, and the obligation to verify the facts. It was his initiative.
Larry434 wrote:FreeDuck wrote:[
Two things here. Why does the 'under oath' even matter?
It matters greatly when the chief law enforcement officer of the land engages in unlawful behavior, as the court found in finding Clinton in contempt, and the Congress found in impeaching him. I do not think lying, absent an oath not to, is unlawful.
The congress was clearly misled, the president, however, had the power, the opportunity, and the obligation to verify the facts. It was his initiative.
Every major intelligence agency in the world got it wrong. Of course the Congress and President were misled by that. And is silly to believe that they could presume to know more than the intelligence pros.
Absolutely amazing what self-induced blindness will do!
Larry, I understand your point of view, just understand that to me, what Clinton did was akin to jaywalking. Just my opinion.
As for Bush, I think you will see when the final report comes out after the election that his policies and behavior shaped the intelligence to bolster his case. And it's hard not to notice that even the wrong intelligence was pretty thin. It's pretty clear that this war was desired, not just by him, from before he even took the oath of office.
"Absolutely amazing what self-induced blindness will do!"
Indeed frank.
FreeDuck wrote:Larry, I understand your point of view, just understand that to me, what Clinton did was akin to jaywalking. Just my opinion.
As for Bush, I think you will see when the final report comes out after the election that his policies and behavior shaped the intelligence to bolster his case. And it's hard not to notice that even the wrong intelligence was pretty thin. It's pretty clear that this war was desired, not just by him, from before he even took the oath of office.
Why did Bill Clinton believe Saddam was a threat? Because PNAC told him to?
FreeDuck wrote:Larry, I understand your point of view, just understand that to me, what Clinton did was akin to jaywalking. Just my opinion.
As for Bush, I think you will see when the final report comes out after the election that his policies and behavior shaped the intelligence to bolster his case. And it's hard not to notice that even the wrong intelligence was pretty thin. It's pretty clear that this war was desired, not just by him, from before he even took the oath of office.
I'm curious Free. How is it pretty clear that this war was desired by him (and others) even before he took the oath of office? What evidence from prior to 9/11 do you use to base that opinion on?
I ask because prior to his taking the oath of office I do not remember anyone, media, democrat politician, or whoever, warning us or reporting that he wanted to go to war with Iraq. And since you seem pretty sure he did, I really would like to know what evidence you have for it.
McGentrix wrote:FreeDuck wrote:Larry, I understand your point of view, just understand that to me, what Clinton did was akin to jaywalking. Just my opinion.
As for Bush, I think you will see when the final report comes out after the election that his policies and behavior shaped the intelligence to bolster his case. And it's hard not to notice that even the wrong intelligence was pretty thin. It's pretty clear that this war was desired, not just by him, from before he even took the oath of office.
Why did Bill Clinton believe Saddam was a threat? Because PNAC told him to?
Believing he is a threat is not akin to actively seeking ways to invade and occupy the country.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace