What constitutes legal methods in GC and thus US law

Post #267,847 by bepatient 9/17/06 3:05:09 PM Reply	What constitutes legal methods in GC and thus US law Thats the question being asked. I've nowhere in this thread agreed or disagreed with the methods..or even promoted their use...only stated an understanding of the president's reasonong and desire to ensure that the rules are clear. So in opposition I've been given... they were unclear for 50 years before so why bother now. we shouldn't bother asking because we know we're wrong already asking means the President wants to torture people, and we shouldn't torture people. Now...picture if you will (thanks Rod)...that both sides of the congress flip in November and someone then declares treatment of alwhateverhisronjeremylookinassis uncostitutional and in violation of the "blurry" rules of interrogation. The other side only has the wmd lie as an impeachable offense at the momemt...and that cannot be proven to be a "real lie" because everyone on the hill and in several other countries believed the same thing. In this bill is pressure to legalize the wiretaps....AND to legalize the prisons. Anybody catching on yet? Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #267,853 by Another Scott 9/17/06 5:31:50 PM Reply	Have you seen the Senate Armed Services bill? My skimming of it tells me that Bush got everything he could have wanted (e.g. the Courts can't consider Habeas cases) except for the Geneva Conventions issues and the issue of using coerced testimony. [link\|http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3901:\|Senate Bill 3901]. Some of the provisions trouble me, but I don't know enough about the details to know if they represent a significant change. What are your thoughts? Or if you prefer, what do you think is an unreasonable aspect of the bill that would cause Bush to be so opposed to it? The fact that Bush is so adamant about the GC provisions tells me that Warner, Graham and McCain are right in their belief that passing Bush's version would do grave damage to our [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/washington/17cnd-detain.html?hp&ex=1158552000&en=393e8f644b2c5234&ei=5094&partner=homepage\|moral standing in the world] because it would give at minimum the appearance of authorizing torture and degrading treatment: The three senators have warned that if the United States unilaterally retreats from Geneva Convention protections, other countries could do the same, with potentially disastrous effects for Americans. \ufffdIf it seemed that our country was trying to redefine the Geneva Convention to meet the needs of the C.I.A., why can\ufffdt every other country redefine the Geneva Convention to meet the needs of their secret police?\ufffd Mr. Graham said on \ufffdFace the Nation\ufffd on CBS. \ufffdIt would be a disaster.\ufffd If an American agent were captured in Iran, tried on secret evidence and sentenced to die, Mr. Graham said, \ufffdAmericans would go crazy.\ufffd Hadley's defense of Bush's position on "This Week" on ABC struck me as extremely weak and legalistic - not based on principle. But the only principle that the Bush administration seems to fight for is "My Way or the Highway". :-/ Cheers, Scott.
Post #267,866 by bepatient 9/17/06 10:14:38 PM Reply	They shouldn't have caved there. Already said here that I don't like the evidence rules that he was fighting for. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Welcome to IWETHEY!