in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000.
| Heritage | 0 | |
| Reuters | 2012 Watch: Mitt Romney’s message from GOP: Step it up |
0 |
| Fox News | Hmm: Obama to give 10 states a pass on No Child Left Behind deadline |
0 |
| CBS LA | Wha? LA County OKs $1,000 Fine For Throwing Football, Frisbee On Beaches |
0 |
| Ballot Box | AZ: Aide injured in Giffords shooting will run to replace her in House |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Gaffetastic:
Vice President Joe Biden had his “oops” moment Wednesday speaking in a 49er-crazed SF when he told a crowd at a city political fundraiser that “the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl.” - SF Chronicle, 1-18-12
Hoping against hope
Could Bush and Rumsfeld be tried for war crimes as a result of the USSC ruling on Hamden? This liberal articulates the hope that most of the Bush-hating wing of the Democratic party can’t express so eloquently:
THE SUPREME Court on Thursday dealt the Bush administration a stinging rebuke, declaring in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that military commissions for trying terrorist suspects violate both U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention.
But the real blockbuster in the Hamdan decision is the court’s holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda — a holding that makes high-ranking Bush administration officials potentially subject to prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act.
The provisions of the Geneva Convention were intended to protect noncombatants — including prisoners — in times of armed conflict. But as the administration has repeatedly noted, most of these protections apply only to conflicts between states. Because Al Qaeda is not a state, the administration argued that the Geneva Convention didn’t apply to the war on terror. These assertions gave the administration’s arguments about the legal framework for fighting terrorism a through-the-looking-glass quality. On the one hand, the administration argued that the struggle against terrorism was a war, subject only to the law of war, not U.S. criminal or constitutional law. On the other hand, the administration said the Geneva Convention didn’t apply to the war with Al Qaeda, which put the war on terror in an anything-goes legal limbo.
This novel theory served as the administration’s legal cover for a wide range of questionable tactics, ranging from the Guantanamo military tribunals to administration efforts to hold even U.S. citizens indefinitely without counsel, charge or trial.
Perhaps most troubling, it allowed the administration to claim that detained terrorism suspects could be subjected to interrogation techniques that constitute torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under international law, such as “waterboarding,” placing prisoners in painful physical positions, sexual humiliation and extreme sleep deprivation.
In the meantime, the NYTimes celebrates.
Update: Sweetness and Light provides a refresher on Ronald Reagaon’s opinions regarding the Geneva Conventions as it relates to terrorists. Make sure to read the whole thing.
Prior:
- Another disturbing thought for today
- Supremes overrule President on Gitmo
- Our Gitmo policy is right: Part 2
- How do we know our Gitmo policy is right?
- Gitmo soldiers answer criticisms
- Yes, words DO have meaning
- “Innocent” British former detainees from Gitmo aren’t so innocent afterall
- The Durbin philosophy
- Dems just keep stepping in it – Durbin’s comments on GItmo
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
7 Responses to “Hoping against hope”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Island of Misfit Bloggers
Stats
I bet this has the moonbats about ready to hyperventilate into unconciousness. There’s a BIG difference between Common Article 3 “protections” and being covered by the entire Geneva Convention. And I personally don’t think Common Article 3 even applies regardless of what the Supreme Court says.
In reality, this is a defeat for the terrorist captives in some ways. Now, they will not get a “day in court” in a military tribunal, where a sentence would be handed down, either a finite incarceration, death, or release. No, now they can be held for the duration unambiguously, which, considering how long this is likely to last, means they will be held until they probably die of old age. And now there’s more rationale than ever for handing them back to their home countries, no matter how badly they may be treated there.
I personally think we should abandon Gitmo and setup a prison for these scum in Shemya. http://www.29eagles.com/aboutme/shemya/
Which president will be the first president to release Hamdan? Kerry/Gore/Dean/Obama/Biden/Hillary
I’m not thinking George Allen will.
So the Supremes continue to cower on the Left. When will the Lefties resign?
The War on Terror is being won, despite the actions of the Leftists and the MSM, but we all must remain vigilant. Our enemies will try anything. They will never give up and neither must we.
This “waterboarding” sure sounds like fun.
Do they pull you around the lake with a Mastercraft?
Sure sounds like a lot of fun is to be had down in Club Gitmo®!!
Sev: I liked the part where she talks about airmail and directly beneath that is a picture of circling ravens, an unintended (I think) result. Shemya island seems a bit too roomy for the scum residing at club GITMO but still. Shemya could be monitored from the next island over, should rescue attempts by their buddies at the NYT be forthcoming. And a new sport could be born.
Good essay on this SCOTUS nonsense at American Thinker.