Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

gbaji - Break out the Thesaurus!Follow

#1 Jul 11 2006 at 12:41 PM Rating: Decent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
US detainees to get Geneva rights

Quote:
All US military detainees, including those at Guantanamo Bay, are to be treated in line with the minimum standards of the Geneva Conventions.

The White House announced the shift in policy almost two weeks after the US Supreme Court ruled that the conventions applied to detainees.

President Bush had long fought the idea that US detainees were prisoners of war entitled to Geneva Convention rights.

The Pentagon outlined the new standards to the military in a 7 July memo.

The directive says all military detainees are entitled to humane treatment and to certain basic legal standards when they come to trial, as required by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.


Oops! Looks like the Whitehouse has found its reverse gear after all.

So gbaji and other defenders of all that is White. . .

UN conspiracy?
Behind the scenes liberal takeover of the Oval office?
Hypnotist Pangolins?

I look forward to scrolling past your far-fetched and foundless diatribe of verbage to see how imaginatively this thread gets hijacked.

Have a nice day.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#2 Jul 11 2006 at 12:49 PM Rating: Good
Does this mean that the Bush administration is now guilty of "war crimes"?
#3 Jul 11 2006 at 12:54 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,128 posts
During WWII a half dozen German spys infiltrated the US with the goal of destroying rail hubs and other shennanigans. They were cuaght before achieving this, because after the sub dropped them off, one of them had a panic attack and got caught by a boy scout or someone patroling the beach and ratted out the rest. They were held prisoner and tried and executed, including the one that ratted out the others.
They were treated with Geneva Convention rights, why should not the Terrorist held at Guantanonmo bay get the same. They would still be tried by a military court, but would be entitled to POW geneva convention rights.
#4 Jul 11 2006 at 1:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's all the fault of the liberals. If they hadn't turned human rights and US treaty obligations into a God damn political issue, nothing ever would have had to change.

Damn liberals Smiley: mad
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Jul 11 2006 at 1:19 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,128 posts
one more to 24K joph!
#6 Jul 11 2006 at 1:25 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
looks like those suicide people may have been right
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#7 Jul 11 2006 at 1:37 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Well, I suppose now we wait and see if the Congressional Majority follows his lead or goes off on their own like with Immigration.
#8 Jul 11 2006 at 3:58 PM Rating: Good
***
2,453 posts
Quote:
The White House announced the shift in policy almost two weeks after the US Supreme Court ruled that the conventions applied to detainees.


It says AFTER, not BECAUSE.

Hopefully the above simple sentence will save us from having to read 50,000 pointless words from Gbaji, which, if properly filtered and distilled will say the same thing.

#9 Jul 12 2006 at 9:56 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Lol. It's a story about nothing. It basically says "we're going to treat them the way we always have". It's semantics. The author of the story implies that treating prisoners according to the "minimum standards of the Geneva Conventions" is somehow at odds with the Bush administrations disagreement that they were "prisoners of war".

Quote:
The Pentagon outlined the new standards to the military in a 7 July memo.

The directive says all military detainees are entitled to humane treatment and to certain basic legal standards when they come to trial, as required by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.



Notice the specific language from the 4th Geneva Convention (the one that's about civilians, *not* POWs).

4th Convention

Specifically Article 5, which I've quoted a freaking zillion times already:

Quote:
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.


Bolded section look familiar? It should. It's the "new policy". It's only "new" in the sense that the media is trying to make this look like a reveral of policy. This is how they've been held all along.

Pure semantics. The Bush administration is just putting into formal words the policy they've been following already. And doing so purely to satisfy those arguing that they've not following the rules of the Geneva Conventions. They are not treating them as POWs, and they are *not* giving them rights to trials or due process. They're just confirming that should a trial take place, it'll be in accordance with the terms laid out in the Geneva Conventions.

Much ado about nothing. It's political positioning so they can get Congress to pass a set of rules for military trials for those detainees. Just a step in the process. Not a reversal at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#10 Jul 12 2006 at 10:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
See? Toldja it was all the fault of the Left.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Jul 14 2006 at 4:52 AM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
See? Toldja it was all the fault of the Left.


Don't you know? It's *always* the fault of the left.

Kumquats? The Left's fault.

Asparagus? The Left's fault.

Lederhosen? Yup. All the Left's fault...


It's a conspiracy I tell ya! (or I'm just really high on alchohol and cold medication...)
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#12REDACTED, Posted: Jul 14 2006 at 8:37 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Gbaji,
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 253 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (253)