President Bush's Speech

[Joe Lerch]

JohnP, your rant is so misinformed that's it's clear you've been getting your information from Rush Limbaugh ("listen to me. I'll tell you everything you need to know"). I don't even know where to begin.

Let me just say that it's clear that you're prpepared to ingore the Constitution entirely. I'm not. That's when I started changing, when it became clear that the Constitution was being eroded. So, you're ready to jam CNN because they don't tell the news the way you want them to (like the Iraqi papers who's reporting being controlled by our military. CNN has a worlwide reputation for reporting, and so does the New York Times, and so does the Washington Post. Just because they don't tell the news the way you want them to does not mean it's not truthful and accurate. There are fine conservative papers out there like the Wall Street Journal or the Orlando Sentinel, and their news reporting pages are all good sources of information. The same information (maybe a little later in some cases).

Al Qaeda is not thriving because of the news sources. It's thriving because of what we have done and are doing. The news sources are just reporting it. Maybe you want to censor that reporting. I don't. Not if we're talking about allowing democracy to grow.

The reason our intelligence agencies are not getting it done is because they haven't been allowed, and they don't have the funding because of the war. The pressure that Cheney put on them to come up with the right results is just an example of the interference that has prevented them from doing their jobs. Why do you suppose so many of their best people have quit.

The administration is much more interested in manipulating us than having good intelligence. Valeri Plame was in an anti nuclear proliferation operation. Her specialty was Iran. When shae was outed, any intelligence contacts we might have had were probably killed. Politics is above all, including our safety. Just gain power, and we'll worry about the rest later. That's the problem, and we see it every time an issue arises. You can blame lack of Congressional oversight (more politics) for that.

So, shut down CNN and believe what you want. The report about Anbar Province came from the Marine general responsible for the area, and it has never been denied by the administration.

And on the Geneva Convention, you no doubt think it should be dispensed with (if not actually, by interpretation). The Republicans opposing it are some of the best military and political minds, all battle experienced veterans and some experienced in international law. I think they know how information is to be obtained and how reliable torture information is. The convention has been there a long time, and it never required interpetation before, not even with respect to terrorists. Bush and Cheney were never in combat, but they disagree, and that's all that counts. Basically, they're trying to get us all to sign on to the wrongs that have already been committed for their cover.

It's also not a surprize that you don't get it with respect to eavesdropping. Bush has all the power to do it that's necessary. FISA allows it to be done without a warrant to avoid bootstrapping law enforcement. They do have to get the warrant reroactively within 72 hours. The consequence if they don't is not that they haven't gotten the information, but that they can't used it or anything it leads to as evidence. So, to the extent that Bush ahs not complied with FISA, he has already destroyed the prosecution of cases.

And why wouldn't he comply? I believe there have been something like 5,000warrants granted and 4 denied. The answer is they don't want to have a record (even a top secret one) of who is being spied on. So political opponents, reporters, etc. are fair game and nobody ever would know. The federal government has only that power given to them by the Constitution. Allowing searches and seizures with out a warrant would be a violation of the 4th Amendment, and Congress couldn't give the president that power, not without violating the Constitution, and it would then be struck down by the Court (or would it?). Again, Bush is trying to get legislation that would cover him for whatever is already being done.

Frankly, I was surpized to see the lengths to which your posts went. I can support everything I said here with real facts. Can you?

 

[kozulich]

Al Qaeda is not thriving because of the news sources. It's thriving because of what we have done and are doing. The news sources are just reporting it. Maybe you want to censor that reporting. I don't. Not if we're talking about allowing democracy to grow.

I would just like to point out that Al Qaeda hit us first, multiple times. We put up with it for too long and it emboldened them. It took something on the scale of 9/11 to get us out of our easy chairs. I don't think its appropriate or accurate to say that Al Qaeda is reacting to us when the opposite is true.

Is Al Qaeda in Iraq? Yes they are. Is it appropriate for us to go after them wherever they are? Yes, I believe it is.

Saddam had every opportunity to comply with international resolutions, and to expel Al Qaeda and withdraw support from them. He foolishly refused to do so and suffered the consequences.

 

[Joe Lerch]

I don't think its appropriate or accurate to say that Al Qaeda is reacting to us when the opposite is true.

I didn't say that, because I agree that the opposite is true. THe Moslem world is reacting to us and Al Qaeda has become a cause, thanks to us.

Is Al Qaeda in Iraq? Yes they are. Is it appropriate for us to go after them wherever they are? Yes, I believe it is.

So do I, but not only aren't we doing it, we haven't been doing it long enough for Al Qaeda to have become the government in Anbar Province, per the Marine general in charge.

Saddam had every opportunity to comply with international resolutions, and to expel Al Qaeda and withdraw support from them. He foolishly refused to do so and suffered the consequences.

:Al Qaueda was not in Iraq under Saddam. The are under us. Saddam was in fact an enemy and distrustful of Al Qaeda, because they were a threat to his dictatorship and power. Every official report confirms that there was never a connection between the two. Dick Cheney disagrees, becuase only his opinion counts, and he doesn't want to be confused by facts. He made that clear in his recent interview on Meet the Press.

 

[kozulich]

:Al Qaueda was not in Iraq under Saddam. The are under us. Saddam was in fact an enemy and distrustful of Al Qaeda, because they were a threat to his dictatorship and power. Every official report confirms that there was never a connection between the two. Dick Cheney disagrees, becuase only his opinion counts, and he doesn't want to be confused by facts. He made that clear in his recent interview on Meet the Press.

I have no affiliation with the following website, but it makes for interesting reading. http://www.husseinandterror.com/ I'm not as convinced as you that Iraq and Al Qaeda were not linked under Saddam, official reports notwithstanding.

 

[JohnP]

JohnP, your rant is so misinformed that's it's clear you've been getting your information from Rush Limbaugh ("listen to me. I'll tell you everything you need to know"). I don't even know where to begin.

Haven't listened to Rush since Clinton was in office...but if he says the same thing I am, perhaps he is on to something. I think it is interesting that when you disagree with me you like to pass it off as, oh, you're getting that info from Rush. Joe, just because I am not an attorney does NOT mean I cannot come to my own conclusions based on what I've seen personally, in addition to the same sources you no doubt use yourself.

Let me just say that it's clear that you're prpepared to ingore the Constitution entirely. I'm not. That's when I started changing, when it became clear that the Constitution was being eroded. So, you're ready to jam CNN because they don't tell the news the way you want them to (like the Iraqi papers who's reporting being controlled by our military. CNN has a worlwide reputation for reporting, and so does the New York Times, and so does the Washington Post. Just because they don't tell the news the way you want them to does not mean it's not truthful and accurate. There are fine conservative papers out there like the Wall Street Journal or the Orlando Sentinel, and their news reporting pages are all good sources of information. The same information (maybe a little later in some cases).

Joe, you make accusations you cannot back up. Not allowing CNN or Al Jazeera to broadcast propaganda in the Middle East is not the same as infringing their ability to report the "news". I, like many, watch CNN. That does not mean that they are in the right by glamorizing the enemy. Report on them? sure. As far as your comments on the Washington Post or the NYT, IMHO freedom to report information is not the same thing as freedom from the consequences. Just because Americans have freedom of the press does not mean this extends to other nations. Our bill of Rights does not give anyone in Saudi Arabia, for instance, ANY right to hear ANY news. Only Americans. Joe, I have a right to bear arms, also. That does not mean I am in the right by bearing them, in say, Jordan.

Al Qaeda is not thriving because of the news sources. It's thriving because of what we have done and are doing. The news sources are just reporting it. Maybe you want to censor that reporting. I don't. Not if we're talking about allowing democracy to grow.

Joe, again, jamming reporting that supports the enemy cause, and even gives insight to our operations in theater is not the same thing as keeping it from Americans, who I agree, have a right to it.

The reason our intelligence agencies are not getting it done is because they haven't been allowed, and they don't have the funding because of the war. The pressure that Cheney put on them to come up with the right results is just an example of the interference that has prevented them from doing their jobs. Why do you suppose so many of their best people have quit.

Not quite true. The intelligence community started getting the shaft before Bush ever came to power, let alone 9/11. The fact that people in high positions have quit, also unfortunately does NOT mean they were some of the BEST people. Only that they quit. What is not gained from signals intelligence HAS to be gained from human intelligence, and when every single method or procedure has to be approved by a judge, or is in the Washington post, it kindof hamstrings our guys. Our interrogators are afraid to ask questions, for crying out loud, because they don't want to be told they are breaking the law. The last information scandal, interrogators were making the guy uncomfortable by playing RedHotChiliPeppers music over and over to them in a cold room. This is nothing, even by police standards here in the U.S. and the "gentleman" in question was not harmed, not even bruised. Yet the senate screamed that it is Torture. I'll have to remember to report the neighbors for torture next time they turn up their stereos...
If we are going to conduct intelligence and even warfare as you and others seem to be suggesting, then we may as well give orders to gather no intelligence, no captives. Kill everyone. That is the corner that philosophy is driving us to. If we cannot question the enemy for intelligence, there is then NO reason for us to capture him in the first place.

The administration is much more interested in manipulating us than having good intelligence. Valeri Plame was in an anti nuclear proliferation operation. Her specialty was Iran. When shae was outed, any intelligence contacts we might have had were probably killed. Politics is above all, including our safety. Just gain power, and we'll worry about the rest later. That's the problem, and we see it every time an issue arises. You can blame lack of Congressional oversight (more politics) for that.

Valeri's husband just HAPPENED to have a book deal going at the time also. I would bet a case of beer that Valeri Plame has never once even been to Iran...I also doubt that she was in the least bit a "clandestine operative" so while it is distasteful for her to be "outed" my intuition tells me it is right up there with saying my neighbor is a firefighter. If you have proof that she was somehow more, or that some deeply secret operation was somehow thwarted by her work, then I'll look at it.

So, shut down CNN and believe what you want. The report about Anbar Province came from the Marine general responsible for the area, and it has never been denied by the administration.

Joe, re read what I wrote. I never disagreed with you about Anbar province. It IS controlled by the enemy. Saying we are somehow responsible for lowered standards of living there is like saying it is California's fault there are poor people in North Carolina. We are not going to build infrastructure for an area while it is controlled by and would help the enemy.

And on the Geneva Convention, you no doubt think it should be dispensed with (if not actually, by interpretation). The Republicans opposing it are some of the best military and political minds, all battle experienced veterans and some experienced in international law. I think they know how information is to be obtained and how reliable torture information is. The convention has been there a long time, and it never required interpetation before, not even with respect to terrorists. Bush and Cheney were never in combat, but they disagree, and that's all that counts. Basically, they're trying to get us all to sign on to the wrongs that have already been committed for their cover.

Joe, again...calm down, relax, and actually READ what I said...I think perhaps your vision was blurred by the rage you were in the last time...
What I said was I think the Geneva conventions should be strictly adhered to. The Geneva conventions call for death by execution of enemy combatants out of uniform. For any nation. So, unless we are calling their civilian clothes combined with a rifle, a "uniform", we are actually breaking the Geneva conventions by allowing any of them to LIVE. No one likes the prospect of torture, it is distasteful and illegal. However, torture is something that needs to be defined. When people are screaming torture because of mere intimidation tactics (used with impunity on U.S. citizens routinely when questioned concerning by police HERE, by the way) we need to rethink this. On the one hand I agree we shouldn't electrocute people, stretch them in the rack, pull out their toenails, or any such as that. But threats, repeating music, such things...come on. Such has NEVER been called torture in the past; why are we taking tools away from our professionals. They HAVE to be able to give the questionee a MOTIVE, to talk. Relaxing with his Koran for long periods is NOT going to get him to talk. Coerced interrogation is. This is not torture, and it is ridiculous that some have begun to call it that. No doubt the same people who cry and go into fits when they hear the word "no".

It's also not a surprize that you don't get it with respect to eavesdropping. Bush has all the power to do it that's necessary. FISA allows it to be done without a warrant to avoid bootstrapping law enforcement. They do have to get the warrant reroactively within 72 hours. The consequence if they don't is not that they haven't gotten the information, but that they can't used it or anything it leads to as evidence. So, to the extent that Bush ahs not complied with FISA, he has already destroyed the prosecution of cases.

Joe, I am of the opinion that the importance is more on prevention, than on prosecution. If these people are not U.S. citizens, and often they are not, even if the number called is here, we are already limited on what can be done by that fact.

And why wouldn't he comply? I believe there have been something like 5,000warrants granted and 4 denied. The answer is they don't want to have a record (even a top secret one) of who is being spied on. So political opponents, reporters, etc. are fair game and nobody ever would know. The federal government has only that power given to them by the Constitution. Allowing searches and seizures with out a warrant would be a violation of the 4th Amendment, and Congress couldn't give the president that power, not without violating the Constitution, and it would then be struck down by the Court (or would it?). Again, Bush is trying to get legislation that would cover him for whatever is already being done.

Ahh yes. The power grab. This part I agree with you on; however I think it is something that is not particular to this administration alone. The only difference between Clinton, Bush, and Bush Sr. is that Bush isn't given cart blanche by the media like Clinton was. They were all to happy to scream about a dress or "ridiculous" accusations against him to notice that he signed over the entire patent database to the communist Chinese, or authorized transfer of guidance technology to them. When word came out about it, he had a chinese scientist outed as a "spy" although his own executive orders had already transferred the information. So....while I agree that big government wants to be bigger, and make all those important decisions for you....it is not only a "Republican" thing, nor is it a Bush thing. It is just the way it is, and we as well as our great grandchildren, will have to deal with governments being this way.

Frankly, I was surpized to see the lengths to which your posts went. I can support everything I said here with real facts. Can you?

Touchy are we? I have the same facts you do, and the Geneva conventions are available for anyone to read, as are the various news reports from the mid 90's on.
John P.

 

[Joe Lerch]

The misinformation is just growing and getting impossible to respond to, without having a lot more time than I have, so I'l just ask a question.

You seem to agree with Bush that the Geneva Convnetion needs interpretation. It's been in place for generations and everyone has manaaged to abide by it in all cases, including us, and including in cases of terrorists. Why do you suddenly think it needs interpretation? Do you and Bush aan Cheney know more about the subject than [eople who have worked with it all their lives, like L. Graham or C. Powell?

 

[JohnP]

Joe, you make it seem like we have been applying the Geneva conventions "to include terrorists" for years, even "generations" it makes it sound like we have been in this situation before. We have not. In fact, they've only been in their present form since 1949, well after WWII, and the last protocols being made in 1977, after the Vietnam war was over, it hasn't been THAT long. Joe, terrorists (your word not mine) have NEVER been afforded ANY protection under any of the Geneva conventions or protocols.
As for insurgents...
We have never been in a war such as the one we are in before. Ever. Not Vietnam, because the applicable protocols were after the war. Not engaging the uniformed forces of Libya, or uniformed Iraqi troops such as during the beginning of my tour there, it is not the same thing. We HAVEN'T been here before. So while I severely disagree with some of the things the administration is doing, asking for better definitions is just simple good sense. The applicable conventions are vague, and are subject to drastic differences in interpretation. We are in the position of having our countrymen ask questions which could theoretically save lives (ours, which, in case anyone forgot, are more important than the lives of the enemy...) but not asking, for fear that if a prisoner is made uncomfortable in any way, to include musical selections, apparently, it will be called "torture". I always thought torture was about excrutiating pain, perhaps disfigurement, and severe psychological damage, threats of death or serious bodily harm. Not having to listen to bad music, as Sen. Kennedy would have you believe. If they are going to keep changing the definition of such things so as to allow the petty slinging of mud at the administration, we need a solid, easy to interpret set of rules; because while Sen. Kennedy is getting his jollies at the administration by calling his countrymen torturers, he throws men and women onto the sacrificial altar, because those people in the middle east watching his pompous rant claiming we are routinely torturing people at Gtmo or elsewhere assume he is referring to torture that THEY are familiar with. Not bad music, but mutilation, murder of family members, gang rape. THIS is why we need a clearer definition.
A literal interpretation of the Geneva conventions would even imply they simply are not applicable to the enemy we are fighting; for instance, civilians are protected from outrages on personal dignity, rape, torture, etc. however, by taking up arms while trying to blend into the civilian populace, the enemy becomes a combatant guilty of deliberately obscuring the difference between combatants and civilians, which endangers the civilian populace, and is thusly not protected by the Geneva conventions. Since this is exactly what they are doing, then by strict interpretation, captured "insurgents" are NOT defined as prisoners of war, and are not protected. Even moreso, terrorists have NEVER been protected by ANY article of the Geneva conventions, EVER. So whichever category you consider the enemy to be, the fact that we are affording them the same protections afforded a uniformed combatant is IMHO a measure of our national sense of good will, not what is required by international laws of war. So why not clarify this for future use. It makes sense.
There are quite a few informative websites out there, http://www.genevaconventions.org/
Is a pretty good one.
Joe I seldom agree with you on politics but I do enjoy the discussion.
John P.

 

[kozulich]

Good posts JohnP! Always nice to see reasoned, civil discourse on touchy subjects such as these.

 

[JohnP]

I must admit I've also learned a few things during the discussion. Sometimes I think one's point of view on any subject is completely related to the facts one knows and in what order they are in.
There are things, for instance, I was wrong about (Joe-proceed to gloating) I was under the impression that the Geneva conventions called for death for combatants out of uniform/attempting to blend with the civilian populace; after reading more (it seems I am always reading these days) I realize it does not. While combatants acting in this fashion (blending, hiding in churches, etc) are not protected by the conventions, the conventions do not prescribe a punishment. While in combat, this may have the same end result, it is not exactly the same thing.
Fun stuff, no doubt.
John P.

 

[Joe Lerch]

JohnP, although it may not seem that way, I too enjoy our discussions.

Discussion and debate is a sure way of understanding an opposing point of view. When we refuse to discuss anything with an opposing party, we doom ourselves to conflict.

Thanks for the cite to the Geneva conventions. I'm quite busy today, but I'll get back to you tonight after I've had a look at the conventions.

 

[JohnP]

No problem Joe.
Kudos to Mark for coming up with these topics that get guys like you and I spooled up. To be honest I can only talk about creams/soaps/scents/brushes, etc so much before it can become tedious (and hard on my wallet). Debate on the other hand is harmless, and only risks that it will be hard on my ego if I am completely in the wrong about something.
Hey, it happens.
John P.

 

[Joe Lerch]

Joe, you make it seem like we have been applying the Geneva conventions "to include terrorists" for years, even "generations" it makes it sound like we have been in this situation before. We have not. In fact, they've only been in their present form since 1949, well after WWII, and the last protocols being made in 1977, after the Vietnam war was over, it hasn't been THAT long. Joe, terrorists (your word not mine) have NEVER been afforded ANY protection under any of the Geneva conventions or protocols.

Frankly, I never thought that the Geneva convention should be applied to terrorists, until we started calling evryone a terrorist. I think I've said before that an army is not the way defeat terrorists, but good spy work and law enforcement. They are not fighting a war, so you can't fight a war against them. They're just criminals with a political motive.

But once we started handling them with the military, we were treating them like and admitting they're combatants and were obligated to apply the conventions.

As for insurgents...
We have never been in a war such as the one we are in before. Ever. Not Vietnam, because the applicable protocols were after the war. Not engaging the uniformed forces of Libya, or uniformed Iraqi troops such as during the beginning of my tour there, it is not the same thing. We HAVEN'T been here before.

Not quite. I'm old enough to remembeer Viet Nam, and the Viet Cong were definitely insurgents. THe difference was they were supported by the North Vietnamese army and sometimes they fought together. Maybe this is more like Afghanistan, where we fought the Taliban along with terrorists.

So while I severely disagree with some of the things the administration is doing, asking for better definitions is just simple good sense. The applicable conventions are vague, and are subject to drastic differences in interpretation.

That's what Bush is saying, but if you list to the Republican opposition, made up of people who are essentially experts, he's really asking for a rubber stamp, but this time thay won't give it to him. That this is a different kind of enemy is beside the point everybody has known what activities violate the convention for a long time, and traditionally we were the ones to bring them to light. This is just plain dishonesty. I don't accept it, and I don't think anybody should, unless we no longer have the moral standards we once did, the so-called "high ground." I'm pleased that we still have some patriots that see us that way and insist on what's right.

We are in the position of having our countrymen ask questions which could theoretically save lives (ours, which, in case anyone forgot, are more important than the lives of the enemy...) but not asking, for fear that if a prisoner is made uncomfortable in any way, to include musical selections, apparently, it will be called "torture". I always thought torture was about excrutiating pain, perhaps disfigurement, and severe psychological damage, threats of death or serious bodily harm. Not having to listen to bad music, as Sen. Kennedy would have you believe.

This is just more politics. The conventions are by now well understood by all. COnvention II is not limited to excludng torture it alsoincludes outragees on personal dignity, such as humiliating and degrading treatment and the passing of sentences and executions, with acourt and judicial guarantees. This convention was passed in 1949, although actually completed in 1929. With two world wars in close sight we were well aware of the sorts of emergency situtions that could tempt violations. But we and the rest of the signers saw fit to sign it, so it's the law of the land. It's not subject to interpretation by us so as to negate any of its terms, but then Bush wouldn't understand that, because he routinely adds signing statements to legislation that change its intent.

If they are going to keep changing the definition of such things so as to allow the petty slinging of mud at the administration, we need a solid, easy to interpret set of rules; because while Sen. Kennedy is getting his jollies at the administration by calling his countrymen torturers, he throws men and women onto the sacrificial altar, because those people in the middle east watching his pompous rant claiming we are routinely torturing people at Gtmo or elsewhere assume he is referring to torture that THEY are familiar with. Not bad music, but mutilation, murder of family members, gang rape. THIS is why we need a clearer definition.

You can't do that, and we don't have the right to amend a treaty by interpretation. Woooooould you deny that some of the things we did at Abu Graihb were violations? I'm sure a lot of what you're complaining about is politics, but the legislature knows a lot more about what's going on than we, so let's give them a little credit, after all, the prime movers here are Republicans. There's a rule of evidence where types of statements not usually accepted are considered good evidence, because they're statements against interest. When someone makes a statement against interest, there's reason to believe it. A good part of our problem now is that too many of our elected officials are putting party above country (isn't that how it was with the Nazi party and Soviet communist party?). Now, we're looking at some real patriots who are putting the country above the party. It's about time, and we should listen.

A literal interpretation of the Geneva conventions would even imply they simply are not applicable to the enemy we are fighting; for instance, civilians are protected from outrages on personal dignity, rape, torture, etc. however, by taking up arms while trying to blend into the civilian populace, the enemy becomes a combatant guilty of deliberately obscuring the difference between combatants and civilians, which endangers the civilian populace, and is thusly not protected by the Geneva conventions. Since this is exactly what they are doing, then by strict interpretation, captured "insurgents" are NOT defined as prisoners of war, and are not protected.

Insurgents and partisans are considered combatants under the convention. But to be covered they're required to carry weapons openly and to wear a sign that can identify them from a distance. THis, of course eliminates partisans from the letter of the convention, but the tendency has been to cover them

Even moreso, terrorists have NEVER been protected by ANY article of the Geneva conventions, EVER. So whichever category you consider the enemy to be, the fact that we are affording them the same protections afforded a uniformed combatant is IMHO a measure of our national sense of good will, not what is required by international laws of war. So why not clarify this for future use. It makes sense.

This is not what's being asked for, but a definition of what acts are forbidden. That is well known and is not affected by the nature the opponent.

As I said I believe terrorists are criminals and should be treated that way, in other words by the judicial system.

Which reminds me of another point. The Constitution does not limit the Bill of Rights to citizens or residents or to the physical territory of the US. Aside from the judicial requirements of the Convention, there's a reasonable argument to be made that since we are occupiers our Bill of Rights extends to our governmental actions in Iraq. I believe that's why we've left evrything in the hands of the military, different rules apply then, but the Bill of Rights still does.

 

[Joe Lerch]

I must admit I've also learned a few things during the discussion. Sometimes I think one's point of view on any subject is completely related to the facts one knows and in what order they are in.

WHich IMHO is as it shold be, but not if you're the administration. They're not fact based and that's one of the scaroest things.

There are things, for instance, I was wrong about (Joe-proceed to gloating) I was under the impression that the Geneva conventions called for death for combatants out of uniform/attempting to blend with the civilian populace; after reading more (it seems I am always reading these days) I realize it does not. While combatants acting in this fashion (blending, hiding in churches, etc) are not protected by the conventions, the conventions do not prescribe a punishment. While in combat, this may have the same end result, it is not exactly the same thing.

No gloating here. It's a common misconception, but if you think about it, the conventions were inteded assure humane treatment, not to mete out punishment. THere are plenty of laws that provide for that.

For me, the bottom line is that the whol Geneva Convention issue is a test of our metal. Powell has left no doubt about it. If we define away the convention and do stuff that until now we knew we shouldn't, we have given the Islamic terrorists a victory. As it is, facts have come to light that already make us look bad to the world. We've been able to rationalize those by saying they were violations and meting out punishment. Interpreting the Geneva Conventions effectively would be a ratification by our legal representatives and, therefore, us.

 

[JohnP]

Joe,
I've been away from computer-stuff for a day or two, but here goes.
I think when it comes down to it we both agree on a lot of principles, but have different views of what is happening. I definitely agree giving this (or any) administration cart blanche is a bad idea. In fact, I would like to see quite a bit of the power of the government, along with quite a few laws, go away. I am a supporter of States' rights, (what works for California might not work for Ohio, for instance)if only to keep Washington from getting "too big for its breeches".
That said, I still believe enstating a law or some sort of official policy over what is or is not torture, and who it applies to, is a good idea. It might not matter a lot on capitol hill but down in the trenches with enlisted like myself or the junior officers having to actually apply these rules it would be a great asset. We are all given some training in the Geneva conventions, but many of the "gray" areas are often up to interpretation. Too many people in modern times do not fit the 1949 mold nor the one used for the protocols of 1977. For instance, who is or is not protected, and what tactics can be used in either case. By the letter of the law, as I understand it most of the "insurgents" by way of their tactics, are not protected, and NO captives combatant or otherwise who admit being part of Al Qaeda(or any other internationally recognized terrorist organization) are protected. Protected persons are not allowed to be tortured, beaten, etc. So for starters, what is "torture"? It needs to be defined in terms usable at the "working" end of the equation. If making an admitted Al Qaeda leader (terrorists are not protected remember) listen to music he does not like is considered "torture" then we need to think about this. While his status as a known terrorist denies him any protections, the principle of the thing still applies. I feel there is a difference in making someone uncomfortable (next they will complain about metal toilets or uncomfortable beds in US prison here!) and torture. You mention Abu Ghraib. I still don't think we know everything about that one, but at the very least it was a national embarrassment. Some of the things happening seemed to be humiliation for the personal amusement of some of the personnel, which is unacceptable. Were the individuals protected by the conventions? I don't know, but even if they were not I see a difference in questioning someone or making them uncomfortable(NOT injuring or humiliating them) until they hopefully give good intelligence, and sadistic humiliation of prisoners for personal amusement, which is what it looked like to me, and apparently everyone else. I also think it was good that the network receiving these images went to the administration and gave them the time to prepare; get everyone into custody, investigate, file charges, prepare for hearings, etc. before the blow up in the media would destroy any chance of a fair trial these people may have had. They did not have to and it was big of them to wait. We do not get the same rights in a military trial as civilians do, but the convictions hold the same weight even after we are out. A conviction at court martial is a felony conviction, even if something done is not illegal in the civilian world; nor is there any "double jeopardy" protection, so the odds are already stacked against the accused from the get go. Regardless, I think these juvenile actions of some sick individuals have harmed our image worldwide more than perhaps anything in the last 50 years.
If making someone sleep on a hard bed, or listen to music they don't like, even if they are protected, is torture, we need to re write the definition of torture, so our interrogators can do their jobs and know they are not breaking the law; and if we are going to apply the Geneva conventions to terrorists, then that needs to be clarified also, because in conventional worldwide practice, no one else applies it to them. If we are going to be the first, it should be clarified. I feel there is a lot of resentment against America if only because of the power we are able to wield. We are never going to win the popularity fight while we are the pre-eminent military power (perhaps next to China?) and no matter what we do, some despot or other is going to accuse us of horrible things, regardless of what he is doing in his own back yard; so we should try to clarify the rules before we continue throwing our own to the wolves.
If something was allowed yesterday and is in practice and then today a senator declares it is torture, our people should know. If we had Osama bin Laden and al Zawahiri in a room, our people need to know what we can ask them, how, and how comfortable we have to make them. If anything less than a tempurpedic mattress, room service, and a daily massage constitutes torture, we need to know. Because it is we on the "action" end of things that will be held accountable for whatever rules capitol hill applies.
John P.

 

[JohnP]

In a nutshell I guess we actually kindof agree about many of our problems, just not always on the solutions.
John P.

 

[Joe Lerch]

I still believe enstating a law or some sort of official policy over what is or is not torture, and who it applies to, is a good idea. It might not matter a lot on capitol hill but down in the trenches with enlisted like myself or the junior officers having to actually apply these rules it would be a great asset. We are all given some training in the Geneva conventions, but many of the "gray" areas are often up to interpretation. Too many people in modern times do not fit the 1949 mold nor the one used for the protocols of 1977. For instance, who is or is not protected, and what tactics can be used in either case.

I don't know if I said this, but you can't do it if it conflicts with the Geneva Conventions or dilutes them in any way. Our treaties are the law of the land. If we were going to do that we would have to withdraw from the treaty. I'm afraid this is what Bush is asking for. I believe there are training materials and limited interpetations. This has never been an issue for us because we have always been ahead of the curve. I really believe the administration is looking for cover for the things that have already been done. The Red Cross is in the picture and we'll find out soon.

By the letter of the law, as I understand it most of the "insurgents" by way of their tactics, are not protected, and NO captives combatant or otherwise who admit being part of Al Qaeda(or any other internationally recognized terrorist organization) are protected.

Insurgents may very well be covered, for example the Taliban, if they fight in the open and are identifyable (and by custom even if they're not). Terrorists are not combatants, but criminals. There are international standards about their treatment, and torture is not allowed. What's also in Geneva and other treaties is the requirement for a certain amount of judicial protection before you're executed or imprisoned. Things like coming before a judge and knowing what you're charged with and who your accusers are. Bushes military commissions operating in secrecy are an outright violation of this.

Protected persons are not allowed to be tortured, beaten, etc. So for starters, what is "torture"? It needs to be defined in terms usable at the "working" end of the equation. If making an admitted Al Qaeda leader (terrorists are not protected remember) listen to music he does not like is considered "torture" then we need to think about this. While his status as a known terrorist denies him any protections, the principle of the thing still applies. I feel there is a difference in making someone uncomfortable (next they will complain about metal toilets or uncomfortable beds in US prison here!) and torture.

From what I've said above, they would be entitled to certain humane treatment in any case, and ythat excludes torture. We've been working with the Geneva Conventions and others for a long time now, and we never needed an explanation of what was torture. That's not changed by the nature of the prisoner. The fact that we suddenly need a definition should set off an alarm. I think of the many times I've seen Americans and others confess to crimes in recordings and have swift justice (beheading) administered. Experts say that forced confessions are unreliable, and I always believe that's what happened. So, if we go that route, how far away are we from what we despise, and aren't we giving a nod to the very people we're trying to defeat that it's OK? No, our creed is not like that. It's unconstitutional, and that's not only our law, but our model for humanity. You may not think they don't deserve it, but they do, because our political and social "religion" says they do. For our founding fathers it was an amazingly liberal idea, but for us it is actually very onservative, "strict construction." It's what Hugo Black would do. THe Republicans opposing Bush are conservatives, real conservatives, and it's time they drew a line in the sand. Going the other way is radical and reactionary. I feel very strongly that if we compromise our creed because of those monstors, they win. What they can't get by fighting us they'll get by twisting us to the dark side.

You mention Abu Ghraib. I still don't think we know everything about that one, but at the very least it was a national embarrassment. Some of the things happening seemed to be humiliation for the personal amusement of some of the personnel, which is unacceptable. Were the individuals protected by the conventions? I don't know, but even if they were not I see a difference in questioning someone or making them uncomfortable(NOT injuring or humiliating them) until they hopefully give good intelligence, and sadistic humiliation of prisoners for personal amusement, which is what it looked like to me, and apparently everyone else.

Well, that sort of humiliation, whether for pleasurer or purpose is what we're talking about, and you had no problem realizing that it's wrong. So many of those prisoners were untried. They could be people unfortunate to get be swept up during a raid somewhere or because of error or bad information. That makes it even worse. When you think that there hasn't been a single conviction out of Guatanamo, it kind of makes you wonder. What about this Canadian who was picked up at our airport? He's suing, and what a case he has! I predict we'll never hear anything in that case, because it will be settled.

I also think it was good that the network receiving these images went to the administration and gave them the time to prepare; get everyone into custody, investigate, file charges, prepare for hearings, etc. before the blow up in the media would destroy any chance of a fair trial these people may have had. They did not have to and it was big of them to wait.

That's good and bad. It gave time for a cover up, and that may be part of the reason why only low level people got convicted.

We do not get the same rights in a military trial as civilians do, but the convictions hold the same weight even after we are out. A conviction at court martial is a felony conviction, even if something done is not illegal in the civilian world; nor is there any "double jeopardy" protection, so the odds are already stacked against the accused from the get go.

There must be something on double jeopardy, because the constitution requires it. It may jus be in a different form. The military courts follow all the constitutional guidelines, and they have had their own guidelines against forced confessions for a long time, as wellas how to handle classified information. The comission which Bush wants to use does not, and that's what the court found objectionable. A trial based on secret information is a non-starter. It's not an option, and only a person who doesn't understand our creed would propose it. I never would have believed that there could be this kind of deterioration.

Regardless, I think these juvenile actions of some sick individuals have harmed our image worldwide more than perhaps anything in the last 50 years. If making someone sleep on a hard bed, or listen to music they don't like, even if they are protected, is torture, we need to re write the definition of torture, so our interrogators can do their jobs and know they are not breaking the law; and if we are going to apply the Geneva conventions to terrorists, then that needs to be clarified also, because in conventional worldwide practice, no one else applies it to them. If we are going to be the first, it should be clarified. I feel there is a lot of resentment against America if only because of the power we are able to wield. We are never going to win the popularity fight while we are the pre-eminent military power (perhaps next to China?) and no matter what we do, some despot or other is going to accuse us of horrible things, regardless of what he is doing in his own back yard; so we should try to clarify the rules before we continue throwing our own to the wolves.

I'm not convinced that it was all juvenile actions. We won't know until there are some real investigations, and it's not going to happen with the present Congress. I insist that we already know what's right, and the standards haven't changed. As far as I know the Abu Graib people were not charged with Geneva violations, but militery ones. Our popularity has not declined because of our power, bu the way we've been using it. We always had a high standard that we stuck to and nobody expected that from the Soviets or Chinese. Now we don't, and that's why we lost popularity. I can tell you from personal experience that right after 9/11 we had the sympathy and love of the entire world. Our allies would have done anything for us, and they did. It was a base from which we could have done great things if we acted properly, but it was foolishly squandered. If we compromise our standards, we'll still hold all that powere, but we won't be a leader. Leadership requires more respect than power.

If something was allowed yesterday and is in practice and then today a senator declares it is torture, our people should know. If we had Osama bin Laden and al Zawahiri in a room, our people need to know what we can ask them, how, and how comfortable we have to make them. If anything less than a tempurpedic mattress, room service, and a daily massage constitutes torture, we need to know. Because it is we on the "action" end of things that will be held accountable for whatever rules capitol hill applies.

This is what the administration would like us to believe, but there's no truth to it. Nobody has CHANGED the standards. They're the same as they were on day one. It is they who are trying to change things. Now why would that be? Even in the best scenario, they're trying to walk a gray line. That's why this was the last straw. It's only OK if you don't believe what we've always said we stand for.

 

[Joe Lerch]

In a nutshell I guess we actually kindof agree about many of our problems, just not always on the solutions.
John P.

When it comes to the Geneva Convention issue, I don't think we agree on what thew problem is. You think it's that they're unclear and I believe they've been inderstood for a long time, and the attempt at interpretation is just an effort at diluting them.

If I can give you and example, Bush has usurped a huge part of the legislative power. He has the habit of signing legislation and adding his signing statement interpeting it. He doesn't have that power. If he doesn't like legislation he can veto it and give the Congress a chance to overide him. But what he's doing is actually rewriting the legislation and doing an endrun arond Congress and the balance of powers. He's doing the same thing with the Geneva Conventions, but now he's looking to COngress to do the interpretive statement. They can do it to define how the convention will be applied in our country if they're strickter than the convention, but they cna't do it if it's going to dilute the convention. Only the signers to the convention can do that. Under the Constitution, when we signed on to the Conventions they became the law of the land. Congress doesn't have the power to contravene the conventions, only to withdraw from them.

 

[JohnP]

I don't know if I said this, but you can't do it if it conflicts with the Geneva Conventions or dilutes them in any way. Our treaties are the law of the land. If we were going to do that we would have to withdraw from the treaty. I'm afraid this is what Bush is asking for. I believe there are training materials and limited interpetations. This has never been an issue for us because we have always been ahead of the curve. I really believe the administration is looking for cover for the things that have already been done. The Red Cross is in the picture and we'll find out soon.

Joe, I don't see how defining what is and what is not constitutes withdrawing from the conventions. With the exception of the BS at Abu Ghraib, uncomfortable rooms and music have been used by every power in the world and it was considered ok with the conventions until last week. If it had been Pres. Clinton, I would bet a case that the people screaming "torture" over this would not have uttered a word. Simply put, it is not torture, and the administration's enemies are saying it is to make them look bad for the upcoming elections. Personally I think it is a cheap shot, considering this administration has made enough LEGITIMATE foul-ups that nobody had to invent new ones.

Insurgents may very well be covered, for example the Taliban, if they fight in the open and are identifyable (and by custom even if they're not). Terrorists are not combatants, but criminals. There are international standards about their treatment, and torture is not allowed. What's also in Geneva and other treaties is the requirement for a certain amount of judicial protection before you're executed or imprisoned. Things like coming before a judge and knowing what you're charged with and who your accusers are. Bushes military commissions operating in secrecy are an outright violation of this.

AFAIK there ARE no military commissions operating in secrecy concerning this, although Pres. Bush did want to have tribunals. The Geneva conventions allow for an occupying power to try "criminals" in the occupied country and mete out sentences as well, so long as the actions of the criminals would have constituted a crime in their original country done to their own. While in a combat zone it makes sense to me that the same military law that applies to me would apply to them, if congress insists they get a jury trial then a jury trial they shall have. I just resent that a known terrorist gets better justice than our own troops.

From what I've said above, they would be entitled to certain humane treatment in any case, and ythat excludes torture. We've been working with the Geneva Conventions and others for a long time now, and we never needed an explanation of what was torture. That's not changed by the nature of the prisoner. The fact that we suddenly need a definition should set off an alarm. I think of the many times I've seen Americans and others confess to crimes in recordings and have swift justice (beheading) administered. Experts say that forced confessions are unreliable, and I always believe that's what happened. So, if we go that route, how far away are we from what we despise, and aren't we giving a nod to the very people we're trying to defeat that it's OK? No, our creed is not like that. It's unconstitutional, and that's not only our law, but our model for humanity.

Joe, perhaps I harangued too long, because you completely missed my point. I am TOTALLY against coerced confessions. It has been proven that these are useless anyway; people will admit to anything if you hurt them bad enough. I agree with you completely that such is immoral, wrong and illegal. This is not what i am talking about. I am talking about intelligence. If Mahmoud or whoever in our custody knows that Joe Blow in Manhattan is REALLY Achmed, and is going to drive a tanker truck full of anthrax into the big apple and detonate it....I want to know. And if Mahmoud is uncomfortable but not placed in pain or constant terror I do not see it as torture nor do I see anything morally wrong with pressuring him to tell us if he knows about such things. This is exactly how the Pakistanis found out about the latest plot in the UK. (although I'm sure they are a little tougher than we are) This is NOT the same thing as getting him under duress to confess to something he may or may not have done, making him subject to disciplinary action.

You may not think they don't deserve it, but they do, because our political and social "religion" says they do. For our founding fathers it was an amazingly liberal idea, but for us it is actually very onservative, "strict construction." It's what Hugo Black would do. THe Republicans opposing Bush are conservatives, real conservatives, and it's time they drew a line in the sand. Going the other way is radical and reactionary. I feel very strongly that if we compromise our creed because of those monstors, they win. What they can't get by fighting us they'll get by twisting us to the dark side.

Joe I think you are trying to make this a Republican/Democrat Pro-Bush/Anti-Bush thing. Nothing I have said here says I support Bush or do not support him. On this particular point, however, I agree with him. In days where combat troops are thrown into chains, solitary confinement, allowed to see the sun 1 hour a day...without trial, simply based on the word of an enemy that they (allegedly) engaged an unarmed man and planted a weapon on him, we need clarification to the point it is sickening. Pretty soon our troops will not fight because we are told to kill then tried for murder. Everyone else here who has served I am sure deep down agrees with me; there is just too much going on to have your government doubt you this way. Then when we capture someone who we know has information that could save us, or Iraqi police, or whoever....now we can't ask them questions unless they are absolutely comfortable, else the same government which TOLD us to ask these questions....calls us torturers. If I had my way, we could put those making the accusations in the same situation, so they could SHOW us the proper way. Put Sen. Kennedy in a room with Al Zawahiri or Bin Laden, knowing they have the plans to the next "9/11" and make his job depend on getting that information. Oh by the way, he can't raise his voice, he can't make them uncomfortable, and if he blinks the wrong way...his government will hang him out to dry. Don't let him leave until they tell him something of their own free will, with no pressure to tell it. See what I mean? I feel that NOT questioning these people to get such information is tantamount to negligent genocide of our own people, because if our own people die because we failed to ask in such a way as to get useful information, it is our own fault.
As Republicans go, I feel our President is severely wrong on some issues. However clarification is never a bad idea. Get it out of your head that "clarification" equals getting out of the agreement. It was never an issue before because in the past no one had the ridiculous notion that any of these techniques were "torture".

Well, that sort of humiliation, whether for pleasurer or purpose is what we're talking about, and you had no problem realizing that it's wrong. So many of those prisoners were untried. They could be people unfortunate to get be swept up during a raid somewhere or because of error or bad information. That makes it even worse. When you think that there hasn't been a single conviction out of Guatanamo, it kind of makes you wonder. What about this Canadian who was picked up at our airport? He's suing, and what a case he has! I predict we'll never hear anything in that case, because it will be settled.

I agree with you that what happened there was wrong. However it was my understanding (maybe I'm wrong?) that early in the war Abu Ghraib was reserved for people fingered by multiple Iraqi and other sources as part of Saddam's secret police or worse. Probably not technically "protected" therefore, but I agree what happened to them was wrong. The Iraqi people were coming forwards to turn in these people before knowing anything about rewards, etc. as far as the Canadian, if he can come up with a big reward out of this and if he was truly wronged, then good for him. Personally I think this is going to cause a sentiment of not wanting to fight or perhaps those that do will desire not to allow any survivors, for fear of being second guessed by the administration. Either is very bad.

That's good and bad. It gave time for a cover up, and that may be part of the reason why only low level people got convicted.

It is mixed for sure. I wouldn't want the media publishing seemingly incriminating things about me without letting the officials know first...for fear I would be tried and convicted on screen before I ever made it to trial. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a "good ol' boy" thing happening with the brass.

There must be something on double jeopardy, because the constitution requires it. It may jus be in a different form. The military courts follow all the constitutional guidelines, and they have had their own guidelines against forced confessions for a long time, as wellas how to handle classified information. The comission which Bush wants to use does not, and that's what the court found objectionable. A trial based on secret information is a non-starter. It's not an option, and only a person who doesn't understand our creed would propose it. I never would have believed that there could be this kind of deterioration.

Where the military can get around it is if you are tried in a civilian court for something, and vice versa, then the military can also try you for the same thing and administer THEIR punishment. As for the commission, its a dilemma, because if certain information gets out, people could die. It is a touchy situation, and I don't believe it should be televised. Such would be negligence on a ridiculous scale.

Leadership requires more respect than power.

This I agree with.

This is what the administration would like us to believe, but there's no truth to it. Nobody has CHANGED the standards. They're the same as they were on day one. It is they who are trying to change things. Now why would that be? Even in the best scenario, they're trying to walk a gray line. That's why this was the last straw. It's only OK if you don't believe what we've always said we stand for.

Joe, they have changed the standards in this particular instance. Tactics used by police (ours and around the world) for decades, sometimes longer, which were never before called "torture" are now being called that in tirades by geriatric senators who have never even visited the camps that these supposed atrocities are happening. That's why I say the standards have been changed. The Geneva conventions have not changed, only what people say they allow or do not allow. This is why we need to make a law or procedure that defines things clearly. Because if someone is going to take everything we do and turn it into something terrible, then we need to be able to raise the B/S flag in our own defense, and point to a rule book saying, LOOK. This is what it says.

Well it's been fun, back on later.
John P.

 

[Joe Lerch]

Joe, I don't see how defining what is and what is not constitutes withdrawing from the conventions. With the exception of the BS at Abu Ghraib, uncomfortable rooms and music have been used by every power in the world and it was considered ok with the conventions until last week.

You can't define in a way that is contrary to the spirit of the treaty. That requires all the parties. If five of us enter an agreement, I'm not free to interpret it in my favor in a way that's against its intent. It requires agreement of all the parties. So, the only thing you can do is abide by a treaty or abrogate it. Uncomfortable rooms are not the issue here, although that's what they'd like you to believe. Actual ruelty and inhumane treatment are. This didn't come up now by accident. It was brought up by Bush because the Red Cross is about to interview prisoners. This one is not political. Right now only Republicans are slugging it out with Bush, and they'e the ones who are the most knowledgable about the subject. I heard on the news today that a survey shows 92% of the people opposed to torture.

AFAIK there ARE no military commissions operating in secrecy concerning this, although Pres. Bush did want to have tribunals. The Geneva conventions allow for an occupying power to try "criminals" in the occupied country

Call them what you want. The issue is that Bush wanted to try people on evidence that was to be kept secret from them. Military courts don't do that. The commissions or tribunals would. The Geneva Convention (III) requires trial by a court that would guarantee the basic rights offered by a conventional systems, like being informed of the charges and alleged facts and being able to face your accusers. The secrecyis one of the major issues. It's something military courts don't allow, and they deal with classified information regularly. There are ways to inform the accused without giving away state secrets.

I am TOTALLY against coerced confessions. It has been proven that these are useless anyway; people will admit to anything if you hurt them bad enough. I agree with you completely that such is immoral, wrong and illegal. This is not what i am talking about. I am talking about intelligence.

Coerced intelligence sufferes from the same problem. I'll tell you whatever you want to hear under torture. The vague government warnnings and fluctuating alert levels based on forced information are an example. None of it ever turned out to be true. And we don't know how much of the Pakistani intelligence came from torture and how much didn't (e.g. informants or infiltrators).

Joe I think you are trying to make this a Republican/Democrat Pro-Bush/Anti-Bush thing. Nothing I have said here says I support Bush or do not support him. On this particular point, however, I agree with him.

There's nothing to agree with or disagree with. The kinds of pressure techniques you describe are not the issue and never have been. It's a sham and a cover. Police use these kinds of techniques all the timee and get legitimate information and confessions. And Republicans are the primary opponents here. Listen to what they're saying. Graham is a veteran military lawyer and he's outraged at the secret information issue, and people are only compalining about the use of torture, not pressure. Let's wait a few days and see what kind of activity will be discovered by the Red Cross.

Where the military can get around it is if you are tried in a civilian court for something, and vice versa, then the military can also try you for the same thing and administer THEIR punishment. As for the commission, its a dilemma, because if certain information gets out, people could die. It is a touchy situation, and I don't believe it should be televised. Such would be negligence on a ridiculous scale.

It's not getting around anything. The same activity can constitute a civil offense and a military offense, and they're different (as long one isn't a lesser included offense). There is no commission dilemma. It's another sham. Military courts deal with it all the time. It only takes a judge with security clearance to review the information in private and to decide what and how it can be revealed to inform the defendant of the evidence. Even in civil trials, secret business information is handled all the time. The lawyers and trial participants are bound to secrecy by court order, the court room is cleared of everyone but the lawyers defendant and witness, and the trial proceeds in secret. Anyone who leaks is subject to contempt and imprisonment. It's not a new issue, although W would like you to believe it is.

Joe, they have changed the standards in this particular instance. Tactics used by police (ours and around the world) for decades, sometimes longer, which were never before called "torture" are now being called that in tirades by geriatric senators. That's why I say the standards have been changed. The Geneva conventions have not changed, only what people say they allow or do not allow. This is why we need to make a law or procedure that defines things clearly. Because if someone is going to take everything we do and turn it into something terrible, then we need to be able to raise the B/S flag in our own defense, and point to a rule book saying, LOOK. This is what it says.

You're talking about the politics and the show for the public, on both sides. I'm talking about the reality. The standards are there and have been in use for over 50 years without a problem. Changing the defendant doesn't change the standrds. Let's forget about the politics and wait and see what the accusations are. It won't be bad music or a hard bed. Abu Graib wasn't that, and we know that at leas that much was done. The there's the issue that came up for a while that the Abu Graib defendants were coached by contractors. If the same kinds of activities came up here, it sure would point towards some common training. From what I heard they were being practiced in different prisons in Iraq.

 

[JohnP]

Joe you bring up some interesting point (by the way, sorry for hijacking the "speech" thread, Mark)

You can't define in a way that is contrary to the spirit of the treaty.

This I agree with.

Uncomfortable rooms are not the issue here, although that's what they'd like you to believe. Actual ruelty and inhumane treatment are. This didn't come up now by accident. It was brought up by Bush because the Red Cross is about to interview prisoners.

Joe, actually, they are. The treatment of the last terrorist leader is public knowledge; he was put in a room just cold enough to be uncomfortable, in which RedHotChiliPeppers' music was played nonstop. I will agree that this would be very annoying, and perhaps given enough time even I would tell them what they want to know just to shut them up, but torture? come on. As far as the Red Cross, they have the right to interview prisoners from any conflict. Bring them on. If they want to interview anyone down in GITMO, I hope they take pictures. There is a state of the art facility there, unlike the years-old concertina-wire and cages temporary camp that the news loves running, and if you are going to call something "news" might as well film the one there now.

This one is not political. Right now only Republicans are slugging it out with Bush, and they'e the ones who are the most knowledgable about the subject. I heard on the news today that a survey shows 92% of the people opposed to torture.

Joe, first of all, EVERYTHING in Washington is political, no matter which party or platform you support. Secondly, EVERYONE is opposed to torture. I just have a problem with people re-defining standard interrogation tactics as torture. According to Sen. Kennedy and others, RedHotChiliPeppers is torture. That I have a problem with. If only because now, people think we are throwing folks on the rack or something. As servicemen we do not become intrinsically evil simply by putting on a uniform. As in the outside world I'm sure there are exceptions, which no doubt will have to be dealt with but...We are the same people that used to be your neighbors, so I have a hard time understanding why people think we would make standard practice something we would not condone out of uniform. Especially considering HONOR is something grilled into a recruit from the very first day. It is my personal belief that people in the administration hate the military so much that they want to flush us down the proverbial toilet, and will say anything to do so, if only to embarrass the administration. The Bush administration does not support us, and neither do the democrats. Bush lets the Marine Corps call its own "murderers" because they were doing their job, taking the word of the enemy...and then Kennedy calls us torturers. While I probably don't have ALL the facts from the previous situation, it sounds pretty far fetched to me....and calling our guys torturers most certainly is. If Sen.Kennedy (or anyone else) is so convinced that some of us are TRULY torturing people, then instead of humiliating our country on live television, why not simply level charges? His harangues are getting us killed; although I guess getting Americans killed is something he's been good at since before I was born. Instead of trying us and then executing us by proxy with an IED or enemy bullet, put some faith in the legal system he is supposedly part of.

Call them what you want. The issue is that Bush wanted to try people on evidence that was to be kept secret from them. Military courts don't do that. The commissions or tribunals would. The Geneva Convention (III) requires trial by a court that would guarantee the basic rights offered by a conventional systems, like being informed of the charges and alleged facts and being able to face your accusers. The secrecyis one of the major issues. It's something military courts don't allow, and they deal with classified information regularly. There are ways to inform the accused without giving away state secrets.

Joe, unless I've misunderstood something, the charges are not to be kept secret from the accused, nor is the evidence, with the exception perhaps of names of informants (for their protection). My understanding was that these were not to be published ELSEWHERE, at least the evidence, for national security reasons-how did we catch them, for instance, and who we have. It is their families' business, and perhaps the red cross, but it is no business of their buddies in Al Qaeda who we have. Still, If it is as you say, which I doubt, but if it is, I also disagree with that policy.

There's nothing to agree with or disagree with. The kinds of pressure techniques you describe are not the issue and never have been. It's a sham and a cover. Police use these kinds of techniques all the timee and get legitimate information and confessions. And Republicans are the primary opponents here. Listen to what they're saying. Graham is a veteran military lawyer and he's outraged at the secret information issue, and people are only compalining about the use of torture, not pressure. Let's wait a few days and see what kind of activity will be discovered by the Red Cross.

Joe, the kinds of pressure techniques are exactly what is called coerced interrogation; and it is EXACTLY what Sen. Kennedy and others (without any evidence so far to back it up) called torture last week. I have a problem with this. Nobody wants to think we are torturing people, but what kind of honest investigation can be run, or even fair trial, if the administration or the Senate is already pronouncing these men guilty? Might as well do away with the courts, because CNN, MSNBC and the US Senate are doing their jobs for them.
Many of our interrogators are British trained. They are experts at getting the information they want, reliable information. They are not stupid and know that under torture people will admit to anything. That is why I do not believe it happens. I can't speak for contractors, but I've seen nothing suggesting anyone in our armed forces is trained to do anything but good, simple police work when it comes to questioning these individuals.

It's not getting around anything. The same activity can constitute a civil offense and a military offense, and they're different (as long one isn't a lesser included offense). There is no commission dilemma. It's another sham. Military courts deal with it all the time. It only takes a judge with security clearance to review the information in private and to decide what and how it can be revealed to inform the defendant of the evidence. Even in civil trials, secret business information is handled all the time. The lawyers and trial participants are bound to secrecy by court order, the court room is cleared of everyone but the lawyers defendant and witness, and the trial proceeds in secret. Anyone who leaks is subject to contempt and imprisonment. It's not a new issue, although W would like you to believe it is.

Here is a problem also. I would buy off that they could do that, but just as soon as they did, the cameras would demand to come in, and if they were denied, anything happening would be lampooned in the media as "secret trials" anyway.

You're talking about the politics and the show for the public, on both sides. I'm talking about the reality. The standards are there and have been in use for over 50 years without a problem. Changing the defendant doesn't change the standrds. Let's forget about the politics and wait and see what the accusations are. It won't be bad music or a hard bed. Abu Graib wasn't that, and we know that at leas that much was done. The there's the issue that came up for a while that the Abu Graib defendants were coached by contractors. If the same kinds of activities came up here, it sure would point towards some common training. From what I heard they were being practiced in different prisons in Iraq.

Joe, at this point we can speculate anything we want. The only POW camp I saw was a simple affair, but not having been inside (and pictures are expressly forbidden also) I couldn't say. They could be forcing people into orgies with animals...in fact they probably WERE! But only after the torturers got tired of playing with their sick electrical devices and the AIDS patients got tired of gang-raping the prisoners. Come on Joe, I agree the administration likes power a bit too much, but to say torture is somehow a standard tactic in the U.S. military is ridiculous. EVERYTHING a service member learns is also in a book, somewhere. If they are being trained to TORTURE people as you say, at least if US servicemen are doing so, there will be a manual somewhere telling them in WRITING how to do it. The absence of such a manual is telling, (for crying out loud there are even manuals telling how to properly silence sentries all the way up to how to properly handle nuclear weapons...there IS a manual for it if they are doing it.) If someone is being tortured, I doubt it is being done at the hands of U.S. servicemembers, unless we are just going to continue to let alarmist senators and journalists redefine things as they wish. This redefinition for political gain is what I would like to be protected against; and if they want us to ask questions, they had better stop changing the rules mid game.
John P.