Bush and GOP sissy boys reach compromise

[JPinMaryland]

It seems that Bush and GOP leaders opposed to torture, e.g. McCain have reached some compromise in order to avoid party fracturing acording to the Post. Insiders told the post that this is a compromise on big issues and they expect the two sides to work out terms on the other issues and setttle this dispute.

Here is what Bush gives in on: He will not attempt to define the terms of the Geneva convention. They have reached some agreement on stuff like the duration of torture cannot be "sustained" rather than "prolonged" which the white house wanted. Stuff like that.

Here is what McCain et al give in on: they will not allow US personnell to be tried for crimes under the Geneva convention.

Here is what I dont get: Okay so Bush is not supposed to define the terms of the Gevena convention. Just because he defines some term doesnt make it the law. It still would have to carry weight with the judges in Geneva or the Hague or Nuremburg or wherever they try war crimes people these days.

So what the hell does that mean? Bush wont define the terms. Who cares what he says? It doesnt make it anything. I can define the terms of Geneva convention too. Who cares? If they really want to shut Bush down they should go to court, e..g. the Supreme Court and say Bush's defn of the Geneva convention is wrong. After all, Geneva convention is considered American law. It can be litigated in American courts.

All I'm saying is : judges have the final say in what it all means anyhow,there is no pt. to saying that Bush cant do "x".

On the McCain side. How the hell can they grant immunity to personnel who commit war crimes? Same thing with the courts. This is up to the courts, american courts in this case (the agreement only deals with them I gues). The law has already been passed McCain cant do anything to change it so how can they say that no one will be prosecuted.

Dem. leadership is taking a wait and see attidude in all this.

What do YOU think?

[Tom]

When Bush won't budge on issues, he is pigheaded.
Wehn he compromises, he is a wussy.
You guys slay me.

Here's what will happen - NOTHING.
Bush threw a bone to the boys and will continue dioing jsut what he has been doing.

I can't believe that POS McCaine would put minor discomforts of known killers ahead of preventing terror attacks.
Waterboarding is effective and not torture.

Unlike dems, Bush will not allow another terror attack - the dems would rather see Americans die than offend a muslem, And that's a fact.

McCaine is a disgusting little piss ant and not fit to eat with the pigs.

[Tote Master]

JPinMaryland
Dem. leadership is taking a wait and see attidude in all this.
They've had this "attitude" for as long as I can remember!
When are they going to wake up and realize that they live in America too?
I believe the American people and their well being and safety should in fact come first.

They also complained adamantly when we pulled out of Afghanistan prematurely (the first time). Now they want us to abandon the people in Iraq! Why don't they just commit to something? Anything that might be worthwhile for starters. Its obvious that they just don't have a clue!

Yes, I vote so as far as I'm concerned I have a right to voice an opinion. Those of you who don't, should get off your high horse and voice your opinions at the ballot box. Until then, your opinions mean absolutey nothing. That goes for our Canadian B.S. artists who might want straighten out their own house before they voice an opinion on ours.

Like it or not, that's what I think.

[highnote]

What do YOU think?


It's all about power. When Charles the 1st was taken down by Cromwell he said during his trial, "By whose authority do you try me?" At the time, the King was the supreme authority. He was immune from any crime.

But the answer to his question should have been, "By the authority of those who usurped your power."

A U.S. president can do just about whatever he wants until enough people band together and say they've had enough.

Charles the 1st was beheaded. Eventually, his son Charles the 2nd regained the crown. All those who where responsible for Charles the 1st's death were rounded up and put on trial. This quote from Wikipedia:

"Although Charles II granted amnesty to Cromwell's supporters in the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion, this specifically excluded those involved in his father's trial and execution. Many among those who signed Charles I's death warrant were executed in 1660 in the most gruesome fashion: they were hanged, drawn and quartered in the most barbaric medieval fashion; others were given life imprisonment. The bodies of Oliver Cromwell, Henry Ireton and John Bradshaw were subjected to the indignity of posthumous executions."

Another account from a British Attorney I listened to today on "All Things Considered" on PBS radio said that the first of those executed for Charles II father's death was strung up, genitals hacked off and fed to dogs while the prisoner watched. Then he was disembowled and his entrails burned while he watched. OUCH. After a couple of these men faced their death so bravely the crowd began to chant that the rest be spared.

However, since they were spared, there was one minor problem facing the new King -- Habeas Corpus. So he got together with his advisors and they came up with a plan. The prisoners were sent to offshore prisons where Habeas Corpus did not apply. This was probably against common law, but it came down to who had the power to enforce Habeas Corpus.

There is a modern day parallel -- it's called Guantanamo Bay.

Interesting how history seems to repeat itself.

[JPinMaryland]

"Yes, I vote so as far as I'm concerned I have a right to voice an opinion. Those of you who don't, should get off your high horse and voice your opinions at the ballot box."

You seem to have a strange opinion of how the first amendment works.

The rest of your post seems full of strange generalizations and contradictions, you complain about the dems. not committing to anything and then in the next sentence you are complaining about them criticizing. Well which is it?

YOu might try offering some examples of what you are talking about and it might make more sense although I have my doubts.

[Tom]

"

You seem to have a strange opinion of how the first amendment works.



:ThmbUp::lol:

Touche!

[46zilzal]

no Tom, the rutabaga is a clown all the time.

that is, when he is not a talking parrot for the neocons.

[Secretariat]

It's all about power. When Charles the 1st was taken down by Cromwell he said during his trial, "By whose authority do you try me?" At the time, the King was the supreme authority. He was immune from any crime.

But the answer to his question should have been, "By the authority of those who usurped your power."

A U.S. president can do just about whatever he wants until enough people band together and say they've had enough.

Charles the 1st was beheaded. Eventually, his son Charles the 2nd regained the crown. All those who where responsible for Charles the 1st's death were rounded up and put on trial. This quote from Wikipedia:

"Although Charles II granted amnesty to Cromwell's supporters in the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion, this specifically excluded those involved in his father's trial and execution. Many among those who signed Charles I's death warrant were executed in 1660 in the most gruesome fashion: they were hanged, drawn and quartered in the most barbaric medieval fashion; others were given life imprisonment. The bodies of Oliver Cromwell, Henry Ireton and John Bradshaw were subjected to the indignity of posthumous executions."

Another account from a British Attorney I listened to today on "All Things Considered" on PBS radio said that the first of those executed for Charles II father's death was strung up, genitals hacked off and fed to dogs while the prisoner watched. Then he was disembowled and his entrails burned while he watched. OUCH. After a couple of these men faced their death so bravely the crowd began to chant that the rest be spared.

However, since they were spared, there was one minor problem facing the new King -- Habeas Corpus. So he got together with his advisors and they came up with a plan. The prisoners were sent to offshore prisons where Habeas Corpus did not apply. This was probably against common law, but it came down to who had the power to enforce Habeas Corpus.

There is a modern day parallel -- it's called Guantanamo Bay.

Interesting how history seems to repeat itself.

This is a very good post. The only difference is what has happened since worldwide. In WW 2 there was a thing called the Holocaust in which a nation rounded up people for their religion, and exterminated them as well as tortured them. As a result, the Geneva Convention were redrawn (of whch the US is a signatory as well as Iraq) vowing to abide by a set of conduct with a degree of moral decency. In other words that no matter what heinous acts others may commit, we as a nation will rise above it so as not to stoop to the level of a morality that is as egregious. Those who commit torture will be held accountable, but in no way is revenge torture justifiable udner the Geneva Conventions. Torture, by most accounts is not the best way of obtaining information. It is a way of getting prisoners to simply say whatever the interrogator wants to temporarily stop the pain.

I hear we live in a global economy, and in some ways that is true. The Geneva Convention is an attempt to foster a global morality in regards to what is permissible conduct of captured soldiers. We can either abide by the document that we signed, or break our promise which has stood well over the past century.

The power of the Executive in this country is not the same as a monarchy. There is three levels of "balance" in our govt, the executive, the legisislative, and the judicial. This is one big difference between Charles' world and ours. Our founders realized that unrestricted power in the hands of one man (a king) is what helped lead to the Revolutionary War, and a Constitution that divides power equally. Currently, for GW Bush to insist that his way is the only way harkens back to the monarchy approach. He has got to realize that he is not a king, and that Congress, and the Judicial also have a voice in this decision, and that documents we sign such as the Genenva Conventions are international documents that he cannot bend to fulfill his own personal hubris.

[JPinMaryland]

It doesnt really seem like much of a compromise. It seems that there could certainly come a time in the future when some other section of the Geneva convention is involved in something someone in hte military would have to ask "hey what does this part of the treaty mean?" "Oh sorry we cant tell you?" Seems odd.

[Tom]

What are the libs prepared to do when THEY violate the Geneva Convention?
WE already stopped several plots, including another airplane plot.
Question for the libs - if you had it to do over agin, what decsidion would you make - allow the waterboarding or allow the attack?
BTW,,,, the POS is still alive and not permanently injured or maimed.

[kenwoodallpromos]

It's all about power. When Charles the 1st was taken down by Cromwell he said during his trial, "By whose authority do you try me?" At the time, the King was the supreme authority. He was immune from any crime.

But the answer to his question should have been, "By the authority of those who usurped your power."

A U.S. president can do just about whatever he wants until enough people band together and say they've had enough.

Charles the 1st was beheaded. Eventually, his son Charles the 2nd regained the crown. All those who where responsible for Charles the 1st's death were rounded up and put on trial. This quote from Wikipedia:

"Although Charles II granted amnesty to Cromwell's supporters in the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion, this specifically excluded those involved in his father's trial and execution. Many among those who signed Charles I's death warrant were executed in 1660 in the most gruesome fashion: they were hanged, drawn and quartered in the most barbaric medieval fashion; others were given life imprisonment. The bodies of Oliver Cromwell, Henry Ireton and John Bradshaw were subjected to the indignity of posthumous executions."

Another account from a British Attorney I listened to today on "All Things Considered" on PBS radio said that the first of those executed for Charles II father's death was strung up, genitals hacked off and fed to dogs while the prisoner watched. Then he was disembowled and his entrails burned while he watched. OUCH. After a couple of these men faced their death so bravely the crowd began to chant that the rest be spared.

However, since they were spared, there was one minor problem facing the new King -- Habeas Corpus. So he got together with his advisors and they came up with a plan. The prisoners were sent to offshore prisons where Habeas Corpus did not apply. This was probably against common law, but it came down to who had the power to enforce Habeas Corpus.

There is a modern day parallel -- it's called Guantanamo Bay.

Interesting how history seems to repeat itself.
________________

"http://www.bartleby.com/65/va/Vane-H2.html"
This is the story of SIr Henry Vane II, whose sister Frances Vane was my direct ancestor- Vane II was executed by Charles II even though both Vane I or II refused to participate in the trial and executrion of Charles I.
Facts of history all depend on who's slanted writings you read, as will be the case of Mustache's book and Bush, Powell, and Armatige's recollections!LOL!!

[ljb]

Unlike dems, Bush will not allow another terror attack - the dems would rather see Americans die than offend a muslem, And that's a fact.

McCaine is a disgusting little piss ant and not fit to eat with the pigs.
Sorry Tom but I need a fact check on these statements. Could you verify ?

[JPinMaryland]

What the hell is wrong with McCain anyhow? DIdnt 7 years in a prison camp teach him anything about the role of torture? Disgusting.