Third Party & Independents: Archives

I certainly hope they come out, Stephen. The investigations have lost public interest. If they do come out, the public will reinvolve itself with this issue.

The Whitehouse’s directives to ignore Geneva Conventions was a direct assualt on the safety and treatment of our own soldiers who become POW’s. This kind of witless Commander in Chief, who in desperation to bolster his public support for the war on anyone who looks suspicious, should be impeached for breaching his duty to our armed forces.

It will be interesting to see if calls for impeachment rise to Clintonian levels. I just can’t see it going as far in the process, though. It would only be necessary if GW is re-elected anyway. And if he is re-elected, isn’t that a major strike against impeachment? Unless the case becomes overtly damning, impeachment would seem unlikely. Two impeached presidents in a row would not be palatable to anyone in DC. But resignation wouldn’t be out of the question. That creates a whole slew of other problems though. President Hastert anyone?

Oh please…it’s the only thing the Demoncrats have going for them this election season. I expect they’ll try to turn this into a Saddam-like scandal of genocidal proportions before November.

If any more photos or video come to light, it’ll be of the same vintage as the rest. The media is withholding and metering the coverage for maximum negative impact on the President. Pure and simple.

Demoncrats?

-Cf

It’s just like the liberal democratic party to try to turn this ordeal into a political issue, as if our President and Vice President were actually at the prison conducting this “torture”, which of course, amounts to little more than juvenile prankings. With the aid of their chief rival, the news media, the marxist Dems have managed to make this an issue, masking the fact that virtualy all of our objectives in this war have been met.

Sadaam is out of power and his brutal sons are dead. No longer will ordinary Americans like myself have to worry about Sadaam’s links to terrorism, specifically the (very real) possibility that if he would have been allowed continue building Weapons of Mass Destruction, he might have shared them with his allies, including Osama Bin Laden. You Liberals can cling to your pathetic little “United Nations” all you want; the truth is that you won’t admit threats exist until a building is on the ground….or worse. If Clinton had been able to pull his pants up and recognize Al Qaeda for the threat that it was, perhaps 3000 American lives might have been spared.

Yep, Demoncrats. That wasn’t an error or typo.

Demoncrats are those, within the Democratic Party, that are willing to forego all shred of decency, reverence, and civility in order to get their agenda, of a socialist America (with them as the elites), forwarded. They are willing to do absolutely anything, say absolutely anything, and assassinate absolutely anyone’s character in pursuit of the White House and Congress.

Hillary Clinton is the Chief Demoncrat.

They are completely separate and apart from the wrong-minded idealogues of the Liberal Left Democratic Party.

Fisk, if you hadn’t noticed, this is the Third Party column representing views of Libertarians, Green Party folks, and Independents.

Have you not been following the investigations on this? apparently not. Gen. Sanchez, commander in Iraq has already asked to step down in order to respond to the investigations. It is political when the Commander In Chief announces to the world that he will not be constrained to follow the Geneva Conventions WHICH SERVE TO PROTECT OUR OWN POW’s as well as enemy POW’s. A Commander in Chief who has no regard for how our POW’s are treated has no business being Commander in Chief.

“No longer will ordinary Americans like myself have to worry about Sadaam’s links to terrorism”

no fisk, now we have to worry about a COUNTRY, that has no real leaders, links to terrorism. Do you think that ther are more terrorists in Iraq now or before we invaded? I think there are more now and you can bet we will be feeling there wrath soon, or already, ‘member Nick Berg? didn’t that happen after we “won” the 2nd Iraq war? I don’t remember any terrorist from 9/11 being Iraqi, do you?

fisk we are more at risk from Iraq today than ever before.

So who’s the Chief of the “wrong-minded idealogues of the Liberal Left Democratic Party”, then?

-Cf

Oh, I think that’s run by inept committee with a rotating chair. Right now, it appears John Kerry is in the hot seat.

Look, there are no guarantees with Kerry, just as there were no guarantees with Bush Jr. Bush had an opportunity to unite the country behind him an carry a decisive majority in November. He blew it. In our two party duopoly, when a candidate an incumbent from one party blows, one has two choices, reelect him so he can blow it some more, or take a chance that the opposing party’s candidate will at least handle a lot of it better.

Given a choice like, that, it is reasonable NOT to choose a guaranteed performance loser, and Do take a chance on possibly a better candidate from the opposing party. For most of Americans, the two parties don’t act that much different from each other so choosing another parties candidate in the face of an incumbent who has already demonstrated incompetence, and failure, is a relatively easy choice.

C. Fahey asked “Demoncrats”?

They are the opposite of Repugnantcans.

The Geneva convention regarding treatment of prisoners was originally signed in 1949 with World War II in mind. Prisoners of war
were assumed to be conscripts caught up in a war by no fault of their own, and therefore entitled not just to humane treatment, but to
“country club” treatment.

Your absurd reinterpretation of the Geneva Convention to protect terrorists is a huge concession to al-Qaida.

The Pentagon and the White House discovered and investigated the incidents months before the story broke in the world press. People are being
tried and the guilty punished. Aren’t you glad that the wheels of justice slowly and deliberately? Obviously the Democrat Party is throwing [expletive deleted] into the fan hoping to gain some political advantage in November regardless of the consequences to the war effort and the safety of the American people. Fortunately, as always, the [expletive deleted] is flying back at them. Will they ever learn that honesty is the best policy? Probably not until Chicago is reduced to a pile of rubble.

Another conservative who believes we should lead by bad example. Incomprehensible!

as if our President and Vice President were actually at the prison conducting this “torture”

I find it hard to believe, Fisk, that you don’t understand how culpability in a hierarchical command structure works. If Bush had direct influence over the detainment policy which detailed or induced treatment that might include “murder and rape” then Bush would be quite guilty regardless of his proximity to the acts.

which of course, amounts to little more than juvenile prankings

The humiliations were specifically crafted for their culture. If you gave MI a couple of hours, I’m sure they could come up with some novel methods for Americans - methods certain not to cause organ failure or chronic neuroses. And I think the point of the article is that we haven’t seen the worst yet.

all of our objectives in this war have been met

WMD? Connections to al Qaeda? Humanitarian need? Decrease in terrorist activities? Stability of the Middle East? Justice for 911? And the elections in Iraq aren’t until 2005.

No longer will ordinary Americans like myself have to worry about Saddam’s links to terrorism… the (very real) possibility that if he would have been allowed continue building Weapons of Mass Destruction, he might have shared them with his allies, including Osama Bin Laden.

You never had to worry about this. The administration knew there weren’t any links to al Qaeda before the war. They also realized that Saddam would be putting himself at great risk by giving WMD to al Qaeda. And, of course, their weapons programs were held together with tape and staples.

You Liberals can cling to your pathetic little “United Nations” all you want

Thank you, I will. I believe it honorable and noble to participate in the global cause for peace and law through a recognized authority. If you find the UN pathetic, it might be because it’s authority is most often undermined by the US. Check the UN voting records and see how many anti-terrorist and anti-chemical/biological weapons resolutions the US has vetoed.

the truth is that you won’t admit threats exist

You can try to dodge the issue with the false assertion that Clinton didn’t recognize terrorism as a primary threat but it won’t help. You can’t mask the facts with yet another regurgitation of the neocon talking points. Democrats acknowledge and have acknowledged a threat exists.

> all of our objectives in this war have been met

That’s hilarious. Besides the capture of Saddam, what objective that we set out to accomplish before the war has been met?

Which actually brings up the first half of the “Powell Doctrine” question: What was the objective anyway? (The other half of the Powell Doctrine, “What is the exit strategy”, is equally unanswerable).

-Cf

Here is the general definition of POW treatment in the Geneva Convention:

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

The specifics are covered in Section II. Here’s some of that country club living it espouses:

The basic daily food rations shall be sufficient in quantity, quality and variety to keep prisoners of war in good health and to prevent loss of weight or the development of nutritional deficiencies. Account shall also be taken of the habitual diet of the prisoners.

The Detaining Power shall supply prisoners of war who work with such additional rations as are necessary for the labour on which they are employed.

Sufficient drinking water shall be supplied to prisoners of war. The use of tobacco shall be permitted…

Collective disciplinary measures affecting food are prohibited.

And there are the luxuries of Article 29:

The Detaining Power shall be bound to take all sanitary measures necessary to ensure the cleanliness and healthfulness of camps and to prevent epidemics.

Prisoners of war shall have for their use, day and night, conveniences which conform to the rules of hygiene and are maintained in a constant state of cleanliness. In any camps in which women prisoners of war are accommodated, separate conveniences shall be provided for them.

Also, apart from the baths and showers with which the camps shall be furnished, prisoners of war shall be provided with sufficient water and soap for their personal toilet and for washing their personal laundry; the necessary installations, facilities and time shall be granted them for that purpose.

Fink, I agree that what the public has seen so far is more of an issue of following either the spirit of the law or the letter of the law (food and water deprivation are viable charges and I will, for now, assume the homicide and rape charges as isolated events), but this is only for what the public has seen. Even Rumsfeld admits what has yet to be released is far worse. And you might also want to consider that provisions against sexually perverse acts perpetrated against POWs weren’t included in the GC not because they thought it would be fine but because they didn’t think of it. It might be naive but it’s not an endorsement.

There are no provisions for the treatment of terrorist POWs for a similar reason. Stateless terrorism wasn’t really prominent issue of the times. Guerilla and mercenary armies are specifically mentioned but POWs covered under this convention must be clearly affiliated with the enemy through insignia or some such antiquated ideal. Again, this isn’t some ringing endorsement of roughshod treatment of terrorist detainees and holding them incommunicado in perpetuity. It’s an oversight. Does this mean the US should just abandon civility in dealing with terrorist detainees? Since we aren’t specifically bound by any convention or treaty, we might as well do whatever we want? Is that it? That would be some moral high ground.

There is no concession of anything to the enemy by resisting to sink to their level. We are the greatest nation the world has known, let’s start acting like it.

We are the greatest nation the world has known, let’s start acting like it.

It’s an arrogant conceit that only if America (one democracy among many in the world) is perfect, will Arabs ever have reasons to prefer democracy themselves.

Besides the capture of Saddam, what objective that we set out to accomplish before the war has been met?

Look at Kurdistan, where seven million peoplelive under humane government with less than 300 American troops.

The administration knew there weren’t any links to al Qaeda before the war.

Another liberal (marxist) lie. Under the Clinton administration it was considered standard intelligence dogma that Osama and Saddam worked together. There’s plenty of proof in this pudding: Al Qaeda was working in Kurdistan: al Zarqawi went to Baghdad to Saddam’s doctors; there is good reason to believe that before the first World Trade Center bombing the culpable
terrorists had ties with Iraqi intelligence, and seized documents now coming to light in Iraq reveal a long history of cooperation
between Islamic terrorists and Saddam’s secret police. The only puzzle is whether Saddam contributed to the 9/11 terrorist fund or simply was apprised of al Qaeda’s general efforts.

Our very success after September 11, largely due to the Patriot Act and our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan, has prevented another catastrophe of mass murder.

The libs are trying their best to paint Iraq as some kind of defeat or quagmire. In fact, our military has done a fantastic job.

Arabs will have to find their own reasons for democracy and shape the kind of democracy they will have, if at all, amongst themselves. France did, Canada did, Britain did as did a host of other nations. The point missed by many is that democracy cannot be thrust upon a people. Democracy in order to succeed even marginally, must have the full faith and determination of its people, willing to die for it if need be, to create and sustain a democracy.

The Kurds do not want democracy if the government is going to marginalize their role in the government due to their minority numbers, neither do the Sunni’s. The warlords and poppy growers of Afghanistan don’t want democracy if it means giving up land and being forced to farm lower yield and poorer profit crops, or leaving their land to work for the boss in Karbal.

N. Viet Nam still does not want democracy in our fashion, and China and the Chinese will never want democracy like ours. Even Russia is finding democracy an elusive construct for their culture, history, and economic circumstances. The people of Russia, if they wanted democracy, would revolt against Putin who is gradually reinstating dictatorship.

It is a fallacy to presume that the U.S. can succeed in invading other nations unwelcomed and thrust democractic ideals at them and walk away and have it survive. Every democracy that works in this world has been jealously fought for, and defended from within by the people of that country, save for W. Germany and Japan. And they acceeded and developed democracy only because it was a viable alternative to the decimation of their governments, their economies, and their spirit. When you have nothing to lose, democracy can hold out hope.

Even in our own history, we saw, where the South had something to lose by staying with the democracy, and they fought a way to escape it. Fortunately for our nation, they lost.

It is kind of academic however, in Iraq, since, the people and the Iraqi government want the U.S. out as soon as possible, and that lets the U.S. off the hook for keeping its promise to bring democracy to Iraq. But, democracy will only be created in a sustainable fashion in Iraq, after the Iraqi people have fought and died for it. That means democracy will not survive in Iraq or their will be a civil war or revolution before it can take root in anykind of lasting fashion.

We are the greatest nation the world has known, let’s start acting like it.

It’s an arrogant conceit that only if America (one democracy among many in the world) is perfect, will Arabs ever have reasons to prefer democracy themselves.

I’m not saying that only saints may engage in foreign policy, I’m saying that we should engage foreign policy in a manner becoming our position as global leader.

The administration knew there weren’t any links to al Qaeda before the war.

Another liberal (marxist) lie. Under the Clinton administration it was considered standard intelligence dogma that Osama and Saddam worked together. There’s plenty of proof in this pudding: Al Qaeda was working in Kurdistan: al Zarqawi went to Baghdad to Saddam’s doctors; there is good reason to believe that before the first World Trade Center bombing the culpable terrorists had ties with Iraqi intelligence, and seized documents now coming to light in Iraq reveal a long history of cooperation between Islamic terrorists and Saddam’s secret police. The only puzzle is whether Saddam contributed to the 9/11 terrorist fund or simply was apprised of al Qaeda’s general efforts.

If by a connection between Saddam and Osama (or by extension Iraq and al Qaeda) you are referring to the two to five meetings over a ten year period or the circumstantial evidence of a stateless organization harboring themselves where they may, including Iraq, then you’ve got it. For me, I will wait for solid proof of collaboration before I admit that the administration’s pre-war claim of links to al Qaeda was justified. This document provides a good overview of the situation as of January 23, 2004. It addresses everything you mention except the $300,000 payment to Zawahiri. Here is a pretty good article on the case for a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda as of 2003. None of it is solid proof (though the Weekly Standard article makes the strongest case).

The libs are trying their best to paint Iraq as some kind of defeat or quagmire. In fact, our military has done a fantastic job.

I’m not trying to paint Iraq as some quagmire. I didn’t say the military has done an awful job. I think aside from the assassinations, the progress toward a new Iraqi government has been going great and I’m very happy for them. I am happy that the Afghanistan elections are coming up. I think the military has done a great job for the most part. This doesn’t change my opinion of the administration (or the Pentagon) and the quality of their choices. The prison abuse scandal is a terrible blow to our efforts because in this war against terrorism, we absolutely must maintain the moral high ground. We must blockade the enemy’s ideological supply lines or else there will be no end.

Here is a pretty good article on the case for a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda as of 2003.

Excuse me, I meant that this article describes the connection between Iraq and the 1993 WTC bombing.

Why should any government be forced to apply an international convention (the Geneva ones, for instance) to an enemy that neither possesses the civility or desire to abide by the precepts upon which said conventions were forged?

Sorry, I’m with the administration on this one. Throw out the rule books, these guys are not playing by them anyway.

Yonivore,

Since when has America’s moral strength been something that was “forced” on us by treaty? Do you think that we signed the Geneva Conventions against our will? No, we signed it because the values it contains are American values. We signed it in order to require less civilized nations to aspire to America’s high values. We are (or at least were until recently) the world’s moral leader with regards to human rights and military ethics.

How about we stick to the Geneva Conventions not because we are “forced” to but because we want to?

How about we show the world that we are more civilized than our enemies, instead of telling them that we have “thrown out the rule books” and that we are willing to sink as low as they are?

It sounds like a cliche, I know, but it appears that in your world the terrorists have already won, that they have turned the USA into a nation which has turned our backs on our own core values.

I refuse to go along with your defeatist and barbaric ideology, and I think that a majority of American voters will agree with me.

This may be news to you, but America is morally better than the terrorists and tyrants we oppose. We need to speak and act accordingly and not make excuses for abuse, torture, and invasion.

We can win this without going back on the values which (most) Americans hold most dear.

-Cf

The insurgents in Iraq are not country-less terrorists. They are organized military forces composed of native Iraqis who are trying to seize power within their homeland. Many of them are former Iraqi army units who have re-banded under new leadership. The fact that they don’t have a state isn’t their fault. They unfortunately have become our enemies, but this, too, was not of their asking. We brought the war to them - we are the aggressors. These forces are not fighting us for ideological reasons, they are fighting for the same reasons the Nazis fought Allied invasion of Germany, for the same reason the French resistance fought the Nazis, for the same reason the Afghans fought the Soviets. The insurgency in Iraq is not part of some transcontinental religious superwar - it’s just a fight to control the land on which the insurgents live.

In many ways the opposite was true of the Taliban - they may have been too poor to afford decent uniforms and a well organized army, but the Taliban fighters we were fighting in Afghanistan were, in fact, government soldiers.

By your logic, then, any time a nation is defeated then all of its soldiers become stateless combatants. Which defeats the whole purpose of the Geneva Conventions.

-Cf

Moral chernobyl? It’s a tactical chernobyl.

Torture is a guaranteed way to get bad information, which leads to car bombs not caught, and wedding parties mistaken for staging areas. I strongly believe that a 1000-ish death toll right now has a lot to do with bad intel run through the fecally-stained strainer of bad ways to extract battlefield intel.

And if it does bear out with credible evidence that this was top-down and not low-level-spontaneous “improvisation” of interrogation methods, the administration is completely cooked. Impeachment would be the best-case scenario for him at that point.