Does Dick Need to See Jane's Diversity Training Seminar?
How many people has Dick Durbin maligned in the last 2 days? Almost as many as the US Armed Services have freed in the last 2 years… /irony
What Dick said:
Dick Durbin: If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadlyno, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
What Dick says today:
A Durbin spokesman said Wednesday that the senator did not plan to apologize for the comments. The senator issued a statement saying it’s the administration that should apologize “for abandoning the Geneva Conventions and authorizing torture techniques that put our troops at risk and make Americans less secure."
1] Can’t even come out and not apologize in person, Dick?
2] Dick, Dick, Dick.... If you’d just study a little, you’d not put your foot in it so deeply, eh?
Iraq is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. The purpose of the GC is to establish rules of war. The detainees in Gitmo don’t qualify as POWs because they were not wearing uniforms. By not wearing uniforms, they were masquerading as citizens. The penalty for that is being summarily shot. Was that simple enough?
Allow me to run it by you again, quoting from the original:
Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.
Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, ***are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population***, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)
None of the detainees in Gitmo followed an of these requirements.
However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws . (Convention IV, Art. 64)
Combatant who are captured while spying do not have the right to prisoner of war status unless they were wearing their military uniforms. (Protocol I, Art. 46)
Are you arguing, Dick, that we ought to treat the detainees in accordance to Sharia law? That is the existing penal law in Afghanistan at the time of capture for many detainees.
An occupying power may sentence civilians to death only if they are guilty of spying, serious acts of sabotage, or if they murdered one or more people — but only if these offenses were punishable by death by local laws before the occupation began. (Convention IV, Art. 68)
All of the civilian contractors who have been kidnaped by the terrorists have qualified as Prisoners of War.[Art. 4 A 4] Kidnapping, torture and beheading are considered grave breeches of the Geneva Conventions, yet I hear you say nothing about how our people are treated by the Enemy, Dick.
Just a little something to think about, Dick. In 1917 when this country was at war, they passed the US Sedition Act. Modeled on the previous one [1798 - 1801] the relevant parts go sumpthin’ like this:
SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....
I’d say it’s about time we passed another, doncha think? Though $10,000 is rather too small a penalty. How about we add 2 more zeroes? Twenty years is ok by me.
More on the Geneva Conventions here.
Many feel that the Sedition Act is too vague and may be extended indefinitely, but it’s interesting how it echoes another and earlier provision:
United States Constitution .Article Three defines treason as only levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,"
...the penalty ranges from “shall suffer death” to “shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
My emphasis throughout.
The Chicago Tribune this morning suggested that depriving Durbin of his microphones would be the harshest penalty of all.
Posted by Mr.Kurtz on 06/17/05 at 07:39 AMNo need to get all quakey about a sedition law. Both previous ones were sunsetted or repealed at the end of the War. Or is this an indication of the preconscious thought that the WOT will never be won?
Treason must be legally difficult to prove since I sure see a lot of “aid and comfort” to the enemy lying around of late…
Posted by Claire on 06/17/05 at 07:58 AMWell said. I am getting seriously frustrated with the moonbats not understanding the intent of the Geneva Convention. The idea was to encourage the barbaric savages to behave a little more humanely, not to protect them from retribution.
Posted by on 06/17/05 at 01:52 PMI have no strong personal objection to a sedition law that would come into force short of treason. I do think the “debate” would be crippling, sort of like a UN confirmation hearing on meth.
Maybe I do fear that the WOT is unwinnable- due to politics. It certainly is winnable on the military, intelligence and productivity fronts.
And BTW, the text in my banner image is not a literary reference.
Posted by Mr.Kurtz on 06/17/05 at 03:29 PMthe text in my banner image is not a literary reference.
Mr Kurtz—I thought it was a logger’s reference! ROFL
Posted by Claire on 06/17/05 at 05:06 PMGot me. But no.
Posted by Mr.Kurtz on 06/18/05 at 03:39 AM
Next entry: Ok -- I got me some questions here
Previous entry: The Father of Our Country was *Not* a Committee
