Bush tries to pardon himself and his administration for war crimes...

TheTruth

BabyFuck fan since day 1
Jun 27, 2006
866
0
0
North Jersey
#2
Who cares, those savages should be tortured, the Genieva convention should not apply to Al Quieda and Terrorists.
 

UCFGavin

Registered User
Feb 25, 2006
2,061
0
0
#3
Who cares, those savages should be tortured, the Genieva convention should not apply to Al Quieda and Terrorists.
well unfortunately for you, the supreme court disagrees.
 

Cromwell

Registered User
Sep 28, 2004
8,981
0
0
Westbury, Long Island
#5
Who cares, those savages should be tortured, the Genieva convention should not apply to Al Quieda and Terrorists.
Agreed.


Jack Cafferty?

Seriously, this is like asking me to trust Rush Limbaugh's opinion on what crimes the Clintons may or may not have committed.
And agreed!
 

Razor Roman

Save the USH!
Aug 27, 2002
10,393
0
366
Sayreville NJ
#6
Wasn't Geneva a treaty? Don't you have to SIGN a treaty to be covered by it?

And, seriously, I understand the need to want to hold ourselves to higher standards, etc, but how can people feel safe by taking any option off the table when dealing with these savages? I'm not saying we should waterboard as a matter of procedure, for example, but to make it so that if there was a nuke hidden in NYC and the president could be impeached for ordering the waterboarding of the animal who hid it there is just naive.
 

UCFGavin

Registered User
Feb 25, 2006
2,061
0
0
#7
cafferty is reporting on a piece of legislation, he isn't just making shit up. if you guys want to attack it, why not pull up the piece of legislation and find out exactly what it says?

maybe if it was reported by hannity it would be taken as actual truth then?
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#8
well unfortunately for you, the supreme court disagrees.
Unfortunately for you, I'm pretty sure you're talking out your ass on this one.

The Supreme Court has ruled against the administration's actions towards foreign fighters on a few occasions, but I don't think they've ruled that the Geneva Conventions apply to terrorists.

Because they don't.

The Geneva Conventions are very, very clear with regard to POWs: to be a POW, you have to be in uniform. Your uniform must have the flag of your nation of origin and who you're representing.

There are 4 Geneva Conventions. The first covered the treatment of wounded and sick soldiers in the field, the second covered the treatment of wounded and sick sailors at sea, the third covered the treatment of prisoners of war, and the fourth covered the treatment of civilians caught up in war.

The thing is, between the third and the fourth Conventions, there's a loophole big enough to drive a herd of elephants through. To qualify as a POW under the third Convention, you have to be wearing a uniform and it must display the flag of your nation of origin. To qualify as a civilian under the fourth Convention, you must be a civilian: you're not involved in the fighting.

So, if you're a camel-fucking savage who isn't wearing a uniform with a tiny flag from your country of origin, and you're carrying AK-47 and shooting at other people, the Geneva Conventions don't apply to your sorry ass.

I'm pretty sure we've been over this before. If you want the protections of civilized society, you have to fight in the fashion of civilized society. If you don't fight according to those rules, you don't get the protections, despite what suicidal, "they don't really mean to hurt us" dippy cocksuckers think.

Edit: Whoops, hadn't seen that the SC had ruled that the GC applied to foreign fighters. My bad.

I won't know until I slog through the briefs, but I really don't see how they got there within the GC. The GC has always been VERY clear that you had to provide certain things in order to be within its umbrella.
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#9
Ok, after a quick read-through, and as usual the press dummied it down a LOT for the general public.

The Supreme Court didn't actually rule that the Geneva Conventions applied to foreign fighters.

What the Supreme Court ruled (at least as far as the Geneva Conventions were concerned- leaving out the UCMJ implications) was that Hamdan and his ilk needed to have a quick trial TO DETERMINE whether or not they deserved Geneva Convention protections. Two of the five judges who ruled in the majority on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld clearly stated they thought Hamdan didn't qualify for Geneva Convention protections with regard to the treatment of prisoners of war, but that you couldn't simply point to a guy on the street and say, "he's a foreign fighter, and doesn't qualify under the Geneva Conventions."

Saying the Supreme Court ruled that the GC applied to foreign fighters is like saying Furman v. Georgia ruled the Death Penalty was unconstitutional: it struck down some death penalty laws and clarified some things, but it very clearly didn't declare the DP unconstitutional.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld was ruled (at least as far as the GC was concerned) on procedural issues, not whether or not the GC applied to Hamdan.
 

Vyce

Light-skinned, with no Negro dialect.
Feb 11, 2006
8,171
10
496
Washington D.C.
#10
cafferty is reporting on a piece of legislation, he isn't just making shit up. if you guys want to attack it, why not pull up the piece of legislation and find out exactly what it says?
You know as well as I do that media outlets can take a piece of legislation, and totally distort what it's actually about, to fit in with their own editorial agenda. CNN is certainly not above doing that. And Cafferty is as biased an individual as can be found on Fox News.

Bottom line, I'll have to research the legislation in question myself, becaue I damn sure am not going to take Jack Cafferty's interpretation of it at face value.

maybe if it was reported by hannity it would be taken as actual truth then?
Perhaps, if I fucking gave a shit about what Sean Hannity has to say. About this. Or about ANYTHING.

[He's only on my good side to the extent that he's a "friend" of the O&A show and has had Patrice on his program to discuss racial matters.]
 

Vyce

Light-skinned, with no Negro dialect.
Feb 11, 2006
8,171
10
496
Washington D.C.
#11
Ok, after a quick read-through, and as usual the press dummied it down a LOT for the general public.

The Supreme Court didn't actually rule that the Geneva Conventions applied to foreign fighters.

What the Supreme Court ruled (at least as far as the Geneva Conventions were concerned- leaving out the UCMJ implications) was that Hamdan and his ilk needed to have a quick trial TO DETERMINE whether or not they deserved Geneva Convention protections. Two of the five judges who ruled in the majority on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld clearly stated they thought Hamdan didn't qualify for Geneva Convention protections with regard to the treatment of prisoners of war, but that you couldn't simply point to a guy on the street and say, "he's a foreign fighter, and doesn't qualify under the Geneva Conventions."

Saying the Supreme Court ruled that the GC applied to foreign fighters is like saying Furman v. Georgia ruled the Death Penalty was unconstitutional: it struck down some death penalty laws and clarified some things, but it very clearly didn't declare the DP unconstitutional.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld was ruled (at least as far as the GC was concerned) on procedural issues, not whether or not the GC applied to Hamdan.
This is a correct interpretation of Hamdan. All it said was that you need to give them a trial, rather than just keep them imprisoned somewhere indefinitely. But it did not apply Geneva conventions to them.

This falls again in the territory that we discussed in the last week or so here, i.e. Americans really know precious little about what rights they do and do not have, and the shit they think they know is usually wrong. But why argue. Gavin seems the sort to believe that old crock of shit about how "Alberto Gonzalez / McBushHitlerburton destroyed habeas corpus, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnn."
 

TheTruth

BabyFuck fan since day 1
Jun 27, 2006
866
0
0
North Jersey
#12
You know as well as I do that media outlets can take a piece of legislation, and totally distort what it's actually about, to fit in with their own editorial agenda. CNN is certainly not above doing that. And Cafferty is as biased an individual as can be found on Fox News.

Bottom line, I'll have to research the legislation in question myself, becaue I damn sure am not going to take Jack Cafferty's interpretation of it at face value.
Exactly, I'm willing to bet the legislation has to do with the military as a whole. And President Bush being the Commander in Chief and those in his Administration that handle the Military is going to fall under that.

I have not and am most likely not going spend my time reading the exact bill. Just my guess on what it sounds like to me.
 

Hoagie

I suggest you tread lightly
Wackbag Staff
Mar 24, 2004
13,643
312
628
Your Mom's box
#13
I was under the impression that this bill was to set up guidelines for the military and intelligence community on how they can handle non-Geneva Convention prisoners. And that "pardon for war crimes" is just there to protect the people who may have been working outside of these guidelines before this bill was created. But I could be wrong.

If that's the case, I hope it doesn't get passed. They should be able to treat captured terrorists the same way terrorists treat captured Americans.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#14
Couldn't be any worse than pardoning convicted felons and fugitives that donate to his wife's campaign.
 

Stig

Wackbag's All-Time Greatest Heel
Jul 26, 2005
80,811
4,494
623
NH
#15
We get it: Bush = Hitler, maaaaaannnnnnn.
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#16
Exactly, I'm willing to bet the legislation has to do with the military as a whole. And President Bush being the Commander in Chief and those in his Administration that handle the Military is going to fall under that.
Ok, here's the deal:

Cafferty says that, under the War Crimes Act (an American law) violations of the Geneva Conventions is a felony that may result in executions.

The ONLY violation of the Geneva Conventions, according to the Supreme Court, was that there wasn't a predetermined process to legally determine whether a captured foreign fighter was an enemy "soldier" (and therefore under GC protections) or an "enemy combatant" (and therefore didn't have GC protections).

Cafferty was REEEEEEEEEEEEACHING to bring the War Crimes Act into things. The War Crimes Act only applies when a "grave breach" of the Geneva Convention is found. A procedural error, basically the equivalent of a cop not reading a crook his Miranda Rights, doesn't qualify.
 

MrAbovePar

En Taro Anthony
Mar 14, 2005
13,779
3,173
678
Covington. La
#17
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld was ruled (at least as far as the GC was concerned) on procedural issues, not whether or not the GC applied to Hamdan.
Glad you caught that. your post was pretty bright. Most people are idiots and can't differentiate the two. Remember, newsmedia is written on a 10th grade level. Yea, the same level where you're told Columbus discovered America and Lincoln freed the slaves.
 

Vyce

Light-skinned, with no Negro dialect.
Feb 11, 2006
8,171
10
496
Washington D.C.
#18
Ok, here's the deal:
Cafferty was REEEEEEEEEEEEACHING to bring the War Crimes Act into things. The War Crimes Act only applies when a "grave breach" of the Geneva Convention is found. A procedural error, basically the equivalent of a cop not reading a crook his Miranda Rights, doesn't qualify.
A disingenous interpretation of the law from Jack Cafferty? The hell you say. I'm SHOCKED.

But yeah, you are pretty much entirely correct, in terms of how CNN & Cafferty presented this story. This is something that really amounts to what is basically a procedural violation, and of course that gets perverted into "the Bush Administration committed WAR CRIMES~! and are trying to get away with it!"
 

Stig

Wackbag's All-Time Greatest Heel
Jul 26, 2005
80,811
4,494
623
NH
#19
You mean Lincoln didn't go from plantation to plantation, cutting padlocks with bolt cutters and passing out deeds and mules?
 

WhiteHonkyDevil

El hombre de los moleculos!
Dec 8, 2004
10,928
959
628
Detroit, MI
#20
Glad you caught that. your post was pretty bright. Most people are idiots and can't differentiate the two. Remember, newsmedia is written on a 10th grade level. Yea, the same level where you're told Columbus discovered America and Lincoln freed the slaves.
What the fuck short-bus school did YOU go to? :action-sm
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#21
You mean Lincoln didn't go from plantation to plantation, cutting padlocks with bolt cutters and passing out deeds and mules?
Nope, and the Confederate Flag really is simply a symbol that means all white people hate all black people.
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#24
Nope, and the Confederate Flag really is simply a symbol that means all white people hate all black people.
Sorry to go Larry Literal, here, but this is a particular sore spot with me. As a Pennsylvanian born in Kentucky, raised in Tennessee and Texas, and who went to college in Virginia, you're right and you're wrong.

Symbols mean what people say they mean. If 90% of people think a symbol means one thing, good luck bro to the 10% who want it to mean something else. The historical reality is that N-O-B-O-D-Y used the Stars and Bars as any kind of a symbol from 1865 to about 1950 except the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Confederate Veterans. And they numbered maybe a few thousand during that time. The Stars and Bars flew over no statehouses, wasn't part of any state's flag, wasn't on any bumper stickers.

The Stars and Bars was, historically speaking, purposely brought back in response to desegregation, particularly school desegregation.

The Stars and Bars was effectively hijacked by Klan (who used only American flags prior to the 1950s) and similar organizations for their own use. The symbol means what THEY say it means for now. There's a pretty hard fight on the part of some to change the meaning back to a respect for the old Confederate Veterans and an appreciation for them and what they went through, but it's a hell of a long fight to change that perception. Which isn't necessarily helped by the ambiguous message sent by places like this board... :action-sm
 

UCFGavin

Registered User
Feb 25, 2006
2,061
0
0
#25
You know as well as I do that media outlets can take a piece of legislation, and totally distort what it's actually about, to fit in with their own editorial agenda. CNN is certainly not above doing that. And Cafferty is as biased an individual as can be found on Fox News.

Bottom line, I'll have to research the legislation in question myself, becaue I damn sure am not going to take Jack Cafferty's interpretation of it at face value.



Perhaps, if I fucking gave a shit about what Sean Hannity has to say. About this. Or about ANYTHING.

[He's only on my good side to the extent that he's a "friend" of the O&A show and has had Patrice on his program to discuss racial matters.]
hey, as long as you guys are going into this with an open mind. i actually made the thread because i had no idea about even being convicted of war crimes, let alone trying to pardon himself for them. i just assumed from the early posts that anything on CNN is automatically taken as bullshit even though it seemed pretty direct from the legislation.

i just got home from the gym and work and haven't actually been able to do any research on the subject, but it seems like there are a few good posts in here that i can read when i get back from my run.