[Winstonm]

Quote

The marines storm into fallujah and capture prisoners. They have a gun battle but are not sure which houses are firing at them. They storm a house and capture someone and point a gun at him and ask who is firing at us and where are they?
Sometimes they may storm a house and find a 50 year old grandma there with no men in the house and a closet full of bombs. Must they offer the grandma a lawyer and trial if she demands one before they can ask her any questions? How much force or threat of force can they use, none? Does anyone really think that a closet full of bombs is at least some evidence against the grandma and her support/conspiracy for killing Americans?

The incredible stupidity of this is to put your soldiers in this predicament in the first place. If you cannot determine who is enemy and who is not, how can you fight a war - this is fighting blindfolded.

The blame for the deaths of over 3000 U.S. troops and over 500,000 Iraqi civilians falls squarely on the shoulders of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Kristol - in their mad rush to institute their insane global plans, proven to be real through their own published materials, they have nearly destroyed the U.S. Congress and the media share the blame for allowing it to happen.

Not only was it insane, but it may have been criminally negligent.

[mike777]

Did I hear correctly, Paris Hilton sentenced to Gitmo?

She had a trial so Peter cannot complain.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Did I hear correctly, Paris Hilton sentenced to Gitmo?

She had a trial so Peter cannot complain.

Sure I can. It'll be at least 45 days before the video hits the web

Peter

[Winstonm]

Mike, I do not find the Geneva Convention application to be complex whatsoever, as the issue is simply not about dividing soldiers from non-soldiers, terrorists from grandmas, but it is simply a question of whether or not we are at war.

If it is war, then all captured fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention. If it is not a war, the Geneva Convention does not apply.

Bush seems to want it both ways: a war concerning the executive's power but not a war when it comes to treatment of the enemy.

If it is not a war, the U.S. has been duped by the leaders of our country and those leaders should be impeached, removed from office, and then stand trial; if it is a war, then the world at large should bring charges against the administration for war crimes.

The use and debate on the word "torture" brings to mind the debate Clinton had over the word "sex" - it depends on how you define it whether or not it occured.
So when Tenet claims no one was tortured, it may have as much truth in it as Clinton's claim that "I did not have sex with that woman....."

Peter has it right. This particular group of neo-cons were students of Strauss, and what they are tying to practice is modern fascism. Whether this president attempts a lawful, fascist coup or whether it is a different president down the road somewhere is unimportant - what is cricital, though, is an understanding that the powers to do so now legally reside in the executive, thanks to Congress, a silent media, and a sleeping, trusting populace.

It's not enough to close Gitmo - we need total rescinding of the Military Commission Act, the John Warner Defense Act, and the Patriot Act, along with any other riders with similar language that accompanied other bills.

Has anyone stopped and added 2+2? We have a president who completely ignores his 28% approval rating, who ignores the sweeping loss in the last election, who ignores his generals and the public in order to stay with his plan, who ignores world opinion as if he were above it, and who clearly does not care anything about the effect of his decisions on his own party's future fate - what is the reason? He and the other neo-cons are aware that the executive now legally holds the power to do anything they desire. It would not be out of the question in my mind for a "national emergency" to occur just prior to Novemeber, 2008, requiring nationwide martial law and an executive order for the president to remain in office until order is restored.

Sound like conspiratorial paranoia? Maybe it is. But whatever happened to presidents and politicians who put the interest of the nation above their own?
George Washington would not have allowed this to happen - the nation and its laws had to be preserved at all costs. Is is only new King George and his cronies who believe the executive knows better how to lead the country than "we the people", and thus the constitution is simply in the way.