America-Hating Pinko Commie Subversives
by Lee
Here’s an op-ed on Bush’s recent executive order regarding torture (you know, the torture that we don’t engage in). Let’s see just who these America-hating leftist authors are.
One of us was appointed commandant of the Marine Corps by President Ronald Reagan; the other served as a lawyer in the Reagan White House and has vigorously defended the constitutionality of warrantless National Security Agency wiretaps, presidential signing statements and many other controversial aspects of the war on terrorism. But we cannot in good conscience defend a decision that we believe has compromised our national honor and that may well promote the commission of war crimes by Americans and place at risk the welfare of captured American military forces for generations to come.
Okay, so these guys are a couple of real MoveOn/Code Pink/Michael Moore types, pinko subversives to the core. Let’s continue.
Last Friday, the White House issued an executive order attempting to “interpret” Common Article 3 with respect to a controversial CIA interrogation program. The order declares that the CIA program “fully complies with the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3,” provided that its interrogation techniques do not violate existing federal statutes (prohibiting such things as torture, mutilation or maiming) and do not constitute “willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency.”
In other words, as long as the intent of the abuse is to gather intelligence or to prevent future attacks, and the abuse is not “done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual”—even if that is an inevitable consequence—the president has given the CIA carte blanche to engage in “willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse.” [Emphasis added]
What? You mean the Bush administration would issue a decree which appears to say one thing but in actuality does the exact opposite? I’m shocked, shocked to read this.
It is firmly established in international law that treaties are to be interpreted in “good faith” in accordance with the ordinary meaning of their words and in light of their purpose. It is clear to us that the language in the executive order cannot even arguably be reconciled with America’s clear duty under Common Article 3 to treat all detainees humanely and to avoid any acts of violence against their person.
Uh-oh. This America-hating pinko commie faggot thinks that we should treat all people with a fundamental degree of decency. He’s obviously a traitor who despises this country. I mean, doesn’t he understand that we’re dealing with terrists who are trying to kill us and destroy Amurka?
The Geneva Conventions provide important protections to our own military forces when we send them into harm’s way. Our troops deserve those protections, and we betray their interests when we gratuitously “interpret” key provisions of the conventions in a manner likely to undermine their effectiveness. Policymakers should also keep in mind that violations of Common Article 3 are “war crimes” for which everyone involved—potentially up to and including the president of the United States—may be tried in any of the other 193 countries that are parties to the conventions.
Obviously this traitor doesn’t understand that the conventions only apply to other nations who ratify them. Clearly he hates America and wants our troops to die.
In a letter to President James Madison in March 1809, Jefferson observed: “It has a great effect on the opinion of our people and the world to have the moral right on our side.” Our leaders must never lose sight of that wisdom.
Unfortunately, we’re dealing with leaders who have no wisdom, and an electorate who is far more concerned with being right than in doing the right thing.
Comments
Yawn
A more succinct reply, one which so perfectly crystallizes the disgusting apathy which much of the right displays concerning this matter of national honor, I cannot find.
Bravo.
Unfortunately, we’re dealing with leaders who have no wisdom, and an electorate who is far more concerned with being right than in doing the right thing.
no lee, the electorate is more concerned about who is winning on American Idol
Besides, as long as it’s just happening to Ay-rabs, who don’t feel pain the way real people do, it doesn’t matter, does it?
I do not like to think of what President-for-Life Hillary Clinton will do with these powers. I wonder if it’s too late to defect to Albania?
no lee, the electorate is more concerned about who is winning on American Idol
Who’s winning American Idol???
Again.....I’m going to jump in here....for a variety of reasons.
Lee....did you read the executive order itself, or did you look for people that disagreed with it, in order to give you more fodder to bash the POTUS over this? Let’s look at the order itself:
I will put some sections in quotes:
I hereby determine that a program of detention and interrogation approved by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency fully complies with the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3, provided that:
(i) the conditions of confinement and interrogation practices of the program do not include:
(A) torture, as defined in section 2340 of title 18, United States Code;
(B) any of the acts prohibited by section 2441(d) of title 18, United States Code, including murder, torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, rape, sexual assault or abuse, taking of hostages, or performing of biological experiments;
(C) other acts of violence serious enough to be considered comparable to murder, torture, mutilation, and cruel or inhuman treatment, as defined in section 2441(d) of title 18, United States Code;
(D) any other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment prohibited by the Military Commissions Act (subsection 6(c) of Public Law 109 366) and the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (section 1003 of Public Law 109 148 and section 1403 of Public Law 109 163);
These are the subsections that are in the executive order before the one that is quoted in the op-ed piece you found and posted.
Here’s the next section...again, quoted from the executive order itself:
(ii) the conditions of confinement and interrogation practices are to be used with an alien detainee who is determined by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency:
(A) to be a member or part of or supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated organizations; and
(B) likely to be in possession of information that:
(1) could assist in detecting, mitigating, or preventing terrorist attacks, such as attacks within the United States or against its Armed Forces or other personnel, citizens, or facilities, or against allies or other countries cooperating in the war on terror with the United States, or their armed forces or other personnel, citizens, or facilities; or
(2) could assist in locating the senior leadership of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces;
(iii) the interrogation practices are determined by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, based upon professional advice, to be safe for use with each detainee with whom they are used; and
(iv) detainees in the program receive the basic necessities of life, including adequate food and water, shelter from the elements, necessary clothing, protection from extremes of heat and cold, and essential medical care.
ONe more thing...this near the top:
(b) The Military Commissions Act defines certain prohibitions of Common Article 3 for United States law, and it reaffirms and reinforces the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions.
THE POTUS HAS THE AUTHORITY, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND UNITED STATES LAW, TO INTERPRET THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS. Period.
In short, this executive order extends Common Article 3 protections to those ‘unlawful enemy combatants’ that the writers of the article even say, “America voluntarily extended the protections of the full Geneva Convention on prisoners of war to Viet Cong guerrillas who, like al-Qaeda, did not even arguably qualify for such protections.” Note the word ‘voluntary’, Lee. The authors establish here that we do not, under the Convention, have to afford these terrorists the same protections that we gave to the Germans and Japanese.
We have decided, on our own and via Constitutional processes (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) that we have to extgend Common Article 3 protections to captured detainees. It wasn’t the Geneva Convention, or international honor that decided this, it was the SCOTUS. The process works.
In short, this executive order extends Common Article 3 protections to those ‘unlawful enemy combatants’ that the writers of the article even say, “America voluntarily extended the protections of the full Geneva Convention on prisoners of war to Viet Cong guerrillas who, like al-Qaeda, did not even arguably qualify for such protections.” Note the word ‘voluntary’, Lee. The authors establish here that we do not, under the Convention, have to afford these terrorists the same protections that we gave to the Germans and Japanese.
And as I have shown countless times, John, including in that bitch-slapping I gave your boy Drumwaster, the definitions of the limits of how far the president may interpret these rules IS DEFINED IN THE RULES ITSELF. Bush is violating those rules.
It’s not difficult. We torture people. You simply cannot deal with that fact, and will go to any length, no matter how obscenely illogical or absurd, to avoid admitting that fact.
Look, this guy was commandant of the fucking Marine Corps under Reagan. You believe whatever your little heart desires.
Tell me, John. Since the right of the president to interpret these laws is absolute, could he interpret them to mean that everyone in America gets a free toaster?
It’s not absolute. The SCOTUS checked him and his decision about enemy combatants in Hamdan. If what the POTUS does, in regards to treaty, is unconstitutional, then he is checked.
Drumwaster is his own man, as are you. Neither of you are ‘my boy’.
And, again, I will say this. I am not a fan or torture. I can deal with that fact, and have shared it many, many times. However, my friend, you have chosen not to accept that because my opinion about George W. Bush is not the same as yours. You have assigned a negative connotation to me...I relish and support torture, or are blind to it...because I dare have a different opinion with you on the President!
You don’t have to convert me on the evils of torture. However, you aren’t going to convert me to hating GWB.
You don’t have to convert me on the evils of torture. However, you aren’t going to convert me to hating GWB.
John, answer this one as honestly as you can. Let’s say that everything is exactly the same as it is now, with one small detail changed: Bush is a Democrat.
Would you go to such great lengths to defend him? Would you contort yourself into such uncomfortable positions to make the square peg fit in the round hole? Or would you call a spade a spade?
That’s the difference, I think. If Bush was a Democrat what I say about him now and what I would say about him then would be identical in every way. I don’t need the party as a qualifier for what I think is right and wrong.
I would support the President no matter his party. I’m not a Republican, nor a Democrat.
My problem with WJC and his foreign policy was that he used the military ass-backwards---he deployed them in matters that weren’t of strategic interest, and was weak and ineffective with those things that were of strategic interest. He also continued breaking down the military and intel assets after the threat of Islamofascism/terrorism became more substantial. He was a geopolitical introvert...a post-nationalist...and, by his actions, showed me that he generally opposed American strategic interests.
Clinton--Chamberlain
Bush, for all his faults (and he has several), understands the threat, has named the threat, and has ordered action to deal with the threat. He has dealt with proper things in proper manners in a geopolitical sense (negotiations for North Korea, Kashmir, invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq). He is admittedly ham-handed, and less deft at politicking than his predecessor, but isn’t looking for the quick publicity gain, and is sticking to his guns.
Bush--Churchill
Neither Bush nor Clinton can adequately be judged in a historical sense....we can state our likes and dislikes of the men, and our opinions of their policies, but we can’t really state how they affected the USA in the long-term. We’re too close to see the entire picture, no matter what we want to think or say.
That being said, it is important to remember that Chamberlain was highly respected and was very popular with Britons, and Churchill was dumped out of the PM position after the war was over because of war fatigue and unpopularity.
Lastly, and again, you are trying to paint me in a negative context because I don’t agree with you. Claiming that I support Bush simply because he’s a GOP’er isn’t true, and it’s meant to debase both my position on the subject and the rationale behind my point. Also, it isn’t germaine to the debate at hand.
If the situation were reversed...i.e. Gore were POTUS, I would have the same position, and would be strictly opposed to quitting Iraq. I can’t say whether or not he’d have done a better job, because it’s a hypothetical.
Next entry: Turkish Style
Previous entry: V for Victory
Server Drive
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 4393
Total Logged in members: 1
Total guests: 72
Total anonymous users: 0
dog,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
I got an idea!
(32 total, Last @ 01:31)
AlexinCT: Read it again, perhaps more slowly this time, and you may see the sarcasm. Just wanted to make sure nobody took it as advice instead of just another jab at dog's expense working_man.
I got an idea!
(32 total, Last @ 01:28)
working_man: No matter how low your opinions is of someone, and believe me, mine of dog can’t go much lower - barring them actually trying to do something nasty to you personally - something like this is uncalled for working_man. And for the record, I agree with everything else you said.…
A Done Deal?
(3 total, Last @ 01:21)
Hal_10000: I wonder if after this disaster the CBO scoring will even mean anything. What’s the point? No it won't. That a point I should have mentioned. The Democrats will get their rosy projections, pass the bill, claim they've reduced the deficit and then proceed to "fix" the bill with all…
A Done Deal?
(3 total, Last @ 12:00)
AlexinCT: The CBO has scored the new Healthcare bill and concludes: According to a Democratic source, CBO has finished its work and will release the official preliminary score later today. Don't forget that disclaimer the CBO added thatthey had yet to review the details of the bill and were going of…
A Done Deal?
(3 total, Last @ 11:24)
H. Ratliff: I wonder if after this disaster the CBO scoring will even mean anything. What's the point? The Democrats are going to structure the bill in such a way that the score is as rosy as possible. I mean, does anybody think the CBO is going to bitch-slap Obama and the…
Last 30 Comments
Yawn