Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Did Terrorists Win The War???
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tonyexpress" data-source="post: 121256" data-attributes="member: 1940"><p><strong><a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008986" target="_blank"><span style="color: black">Who said anything about torture</span></a>??<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/confused1.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":confused:" title="Confused :confused:" data-shortname=":confused:" />1</strong></p><p> </p><p>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]<span style="font-size: 10px">[FONT=Verdana, Times]<span style="font-size: 10px">This is not about "torture" or even "abuse," as some Administration critics dishonestly charge, but about being able to make life uncomfortable for al Qaeda prisoners who have been trained to resist milder forms of interrogation.</span>[/FONT]</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span>[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]<span style="font-size: 10px">[FONT=Verdana, Times]<span style="font-size: 10px">The CIA program was thrown into legal limbo by the Supreme Court's June ruling in <em>Hamdan v. Rumsfeld</em>, which said that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to our conflict with al Qaeda. It was a bad ruling, since Article 3 is intended to apply to civil wars. But its vague prohibitions against "humiliating" and "degrading" treatment nonetheless became the law of the land, exposing CIA interrogators to potential legal jeopardy for conduct as benign as using women to question Muslim detainees.</span>[/FONT]</span>[/FONT]</p><p>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]<span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span>[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]<span style="font-size: 10px">[FONT=Verdana, Times]<span style="font-size: 10px">The White House went to Congress asking, among other things, for help in clarifying what terms like "humiliating" and "degrading" actually mean. Senator McCain and his allies objected that this would be tantamount to "rewriting" the Geneva Conventions. But their objection wasn't very convincing, since every country in the world already interprets Article 3 and somebody in the U.S. has to do so in real-world situations; legal clarity is better than leaving that job to activist judges and lawyers. In the end, the Senators came most of the way toward the White House position.</span>[/FONT]</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span>[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]<span style="font-size: 10px">[FONT=Verdana, Times]<span style="font-size: 10px">Soon it will be up to the White House to follow through and figuer out the legal details. This won't be a politically easy task because the ACLU and media liberals are already attacking the deal and will look for ways to block it. But President Bush understands the need for legal clarity, and we can trust he'll see that the job gets done. </span>[/FONT]</span>[/FONT]</p><p>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]<span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-size: 10px">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]This will be a service to the American public and to future Presidents of both parties--perhaps even to Mr. McCain. No matter their rhetoric now, they will surely be glad to have aggressive interrogations as one antiterror tool. [/FONT]</span></span>[/FONT]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tonyexpress, post: 121256, member: 1940"] [B][URL="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008986"][COLOR=black]Who said anything about torture[/COLOR][/URL]??:confused1[/B] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][SIZE=2][FONT=Verdana, Times][SIZE=2]This is not about "torture" or even "abuse," as some Administration critics dishonestly charge, but about being able to make life uncomfortable for al Qaeda prisoners who have been trained to resist milder forms of interrogation.[/SIZE][/FONT] [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][SIZE=2][FONT=Verdana, Times][SIZE=2]The CIA program was thrown into legal limbo by the Supreme Court's June ruling in [I]Hamdan v. Rumsfeld[/I], which said that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to our conflict with al Qaeda. It was a bad ruling, since Article 3 is intended to apply to civil wars. But its vague prohibitions against "humiliating" and "degrading" treatment nonetheless became the law of the land, exposing CIA interrogators to potential legal jeopardy for conduct as benign as using women to question Muslim detainees.[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][SIZE=2][FONT=Verdana, Times][SIZE=2]The White House went to Congress asking, among other things, for help in clarifying what terms like "humiliating" and "degrading" actually mean. Senator McCain and his allies objected that this would be tantamount to "rewriting" the Geneva Conventions. But their objection wasn't very convincing, since every country in the world already interprets Article 3 and somebody in the U.S. has to do so in real-world situations; legal clarity is better than leaving that job to activist judges and lawyers. In the end, the Senators came most of the way toward the White House position.[/SIZE][/FONT] [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][SIZE=2][FONT=Verdana, Times][SIZE=2]Soon it will be up to the White House to follow through and figuer out the legal details. This won't be a politically easy task because the ACLU and media liberals are already attacking the deal and will look for ways to block it. But President Bush understands the need for legal clarity, and we can trust he'll see that the job gets done. [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][SIZE=2] [SIZE=2][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]This will be a service to the American public and to future Presidents of both parties--perhaps even to Mr. McCain. No matter their rhetoric now, they will surely be glad to have aggressive interrogations as one antiterror tool. [/FONT][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Did Terrorists Win The War???
Top