After The 'Spinal Cord-ectomy'

What sort of press coverage might a person expect if they show no sign at all of possessing a backbone?  If you are a Senate Democrat, the NY Times will be kind - here we go with the Times coverage of Bush's push to pass legislation to allow warrantless eavesdropping and to create new military tribunals for terrorists.

Panel in Senate Backs Bush Plan for Eavesdropping

By ERIC LICHTBLAU  and KATE ZERNIKE

WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 — The White House took a critical step on Wednesday in its effort to get Congressional blessing for President Bush’s domestic eavesdropping program, but it ran into increasingly fierce resistance from leading Republicans over its plan to try terror suspects being held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The mixed results signaled the tough road the White House faces in trying to sell the two key planks in its national security agenda to sometimes skeptical Congressional Republicans less than two months before the midterm elections.

Democrats have allowed Republicans to fight among themselves over the issues, and appear willing to allow the issues to come to a vote rather than risk charges of political obstructionism in an election season.

    So, Democrats finally appear in the third paragraph, with a bold strategy for demonstrating their readiness to lead the nation in war-time - let the Republicans sort it out.  We get more after a big skip:

But negotiations between Capitol Hill and the White House [on the military tribunals] broke down as three Republican senators crucial to passage of the legislation hardened their stance against a White House plan that would reinterpret a main provision of the Geneva Conventions.

...

The White House political strategy in the past week has been twofold: first, putting Mr. Bush in the public spotlight with a string of national security speeches, and now, trying to put Democrats in a box by forcing them to take a stand and vote on Mr. Bush’s authority to run two of his most controversial antiterror programs.

But Senators Warner, McCain and Graham appeared to be providing cover for the Democrats, allowing them to stay on the sidelines while the three senators, respected Republicans with distinguished military records, take on the White House.

“We think that this is a sincere effort, based on principle, by Senators Warner, McCain and Graham, to come up with the best legislation they can,” said Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Asked whether Democrats were worried that the Republicans might yield to the White House, Mr. Reed said: “I haven’t seen any evidence of that yet. What I’ve seen is that they’re approaching this looking at the substance, not just over weeks and months, but what’s in the best interests of the United States, what’s in the best interests of American military personnel who might years from now be held.”

That is a strong message from Mr. Reed - Democrats are willing to be led by these Republicans but not those Republicans.

The administration had also faced resistance over the N.S.A. wiretapping program. The Democrats had bottled up the administration’s proposals, saying Congress was being forced to legislate “in the dark” about a secret program that few members had been briefed on. They have repeatedly used procedural maneuvers to block the proposals from coming to a vote in the Judiciary Committee, drawing accusations of obstructionism from Republicans.

But Democrats, who appeared to realize the risk of being accused of thwarting debate on national security matters, did not stand in the way of the committee vote on Wednesday.

There may have been a deal here, although the Times does not state that:

Democrats claimed a partial victory on the wiretapping issue when they won Judiciary Committee approval of another measure that could effectively ban the security agency’s eavesdropping program.

That plan, drafted by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, would affirm that the foreign intelligence law passed by Congress in 1978, requiring court approval for eavesdropping, as the “exclusive” means of authorizing wiretaps in the United States against suspected terrorists and spies.

Democrats succeeded in getting two Republican moderates, Mr. Specter and Mr. Graham, both of whom had voiced concerns over the legal aspects of the wiretapping program, to vote in favor of the proposal and send it to the full Senate.

That set the stage for the unusual spectacle of the Judiciary Committee — and its chairman — supporting two proposals that many lawmakers said would effectively nullify each other if passed.

The fundamental problem faced by the Dems is obvious - their base supports positions that are not electable, or at least, the Dems are afraid to find out.

Evidently, Reps are not concerned that support for warrantless eavesdropping will carry an electoral penalty.

Comments

[boris]

Those who would rather fight Bush and the Republicans than terrorism should not be suprised that Bush and the Republicans don't take their terror fighting talk seriously.

They all went along after 911 when the country was angry. Unserious. Then changed back when the going got tough. Unserious. Then having voted, unserious, for the policy they now renege, they lie about what they knew when they voted and falsely blame somebody else for lying to them. Un-fraken-serious. When that didn't work they undermine the war effort they initially pretended to support and sabotage any way possible it's success in perception and execution.

Oh but if only they could run things their way those bad ol' terrorists wouldn't know what hit them! (basically nothing)

[lurker]

"Oh just go all the way Lurker. Start spreading the news.

Al Qaeda gave advance warning to its Democratic allies to not go to work on 9-11.

That's why no Democrats got killed that day."

You are the one that's starting this conspiracy.

The facts show that many killed on 9/11 came from many countries, regardless of political affiliation. Some democrats were killed on that day. Some republicans were killed on that day. Some were jews. Some were muslims. Some were catholics. Some were episcopalian. Some were presbyterians. Some were gays. Some were athiests. Some were agnostic. So?

It does not matter whether Ground Zero is in the middle of Kansas or New York or Las Vegas and who the representatives and senators are.

PUK is right, your handle deserves to be changed to offensive and stupid freaknik.

[Jane]

Don't think you really do.

That's exactly how Rumsfeld gets blamed for Abu Graib.

Actually I do.

The problem with what happened at Abu Graib is that it was against the Geneva conventions AND it wasn't designed to lead to information. Some people were getting their jollies off, in a way that some people would pay to have done to them. It was stupid and personal misconduct.

The fact that it escalated to Rumsfeld is dumb-ass liberal politics. It has nothing, nada, zilch to do with getting terrorists to talk. If Rumsfeld ordered it, it should rise to his level. We all know he didn't and it was another stupid leftist political ploy.

If torture is required, I'm all for it; but I'm not against responsibility being accorded at the highest level - which if I recall correctly is McCain's position. I'm also not against trying my damndest to make sure no one finds out.

Some lefty once told me that if it was between saving his family or committing torture, his family would die. Now that's just stupid, and typical of today's PC mindset.

And here is what else I'd do. I'd take away the prayer rugs and the koran and the good food and the health care. None of that is against the geneva conventions, and I'd make it suck to be in a military prison.

[boris]

The fact that it escalated to Rumsfeld is dumb-ass liberal politics

You'e still missing the point.

If the "ambiguous" policy is say one thing and do another, then it is PERFECTLY LOGICAL to blame Rumsfeld for Abu Graib.

[Cecil Turner]

Cecil, how much of the classified documents were kept from the Nazis during the Nuremburg trials?

Not much of it, AFAICT. The rules for the tribunals are here. But those trials were held post-war, with accordingly fewer security concerns. Many of the wartime tribunals were held secretly, but that's not quite the same thing. However, I suspect that's the weakest of the Administration's proposed rules, and wouldn't be at all surprised (nor terribly dismayed) to see it go by the wayside when Congress finally gets around to codifying them.

[lurker]

So, boris, are you saying that the common GC Article III should be clarified to keep from being accorded at the highest level?

[clarice]

Oh CRAP! Vicious Sid Blumenthal in full spin mode is on Fox fighting against the President's move to resolve this.
What a snaky, lying creep like this is doing on TV as a legal expert is beyond me?

[PeterUK]

"Some lefty once told me that if it was between saving his family or committing torture, his family would die. Now that's just stupid, and typical of today's PC mindset."

They all say this when,in fact,they will not have to make the choice.
I'll bet his wife was pleased,was it in the pre-nuptial agreement,everything but my principles.Novel way of getting a divorce.

[boris]

saying that the common GC Article III should be clarified to keep from being accorded at the highest level?

The interpretation should not be left to the left.

[lurker]

Ah...I see. Several posts in the last hour made it very clear, huh?

Clarice, I had Fox News on but wasn't paying attention to the Sid Blumenthal talk. Probably wouldn't want to watch it.

[Jane]

If the "ambiguous" policy is say one thing and do another, then it is PERFECTLY LOGICAL to blame Rumsfeld for Abu Graib.

It's not in the least bit logical, it is simply political. And that's the problem - and not a problem I discount in any way shape or form.

But I think when evaluating this issue, it's important to think about what the meaning of is, is, before adding the politics to the matter.

I don't like McCain particularly (altho I once did) and I'm not at all happy with the band of four providing cover for the democrats. But that's politics I'm against. I'm not at all convinced that on some level he's not right about this matter.

Leaving that aside...

What I don't think I understand at this point is how his position on the Geneva conventions impacts our ability to try the terrorists, if it does at all.

[boris]

Several here have explained why ambiguous policy is militarily undesirable, certainly Rick, Clarice and Cecil have made a compelling case.

Please try to explain how it's possible for McPain's "say one thing but do another" to possibly be right on any level.

BTW I'm not concerned with some political strategery to flummox the democrats. If anything McPain is helping them. Just looking at effective policy to win. Crybaby democrats are a separate issue AFAIC.

[clarice]

I think McCain has hurt himself terribly on this, that there will be some fluffy face saving compromise but that the President will get what he wants. I cannot imagine how much mail/calls/email is pouring into Capitol Hill today on this.

[lurker]

Quite frankly, I don't think McCain and Graham have much of a chance in winning '08.

I just emailed to both of them. Hope they reconsider their votes and help get this bill passed. I also requested Graham to reconsider his position regarding the judiciary nominees.

[Syl]

It seems "international law" has already clarified Article III and one of things you're not allowed to do is make a prisoner give you information against his will. IOW, if the prisoner talks, you've committed a war crime.

Torture doesn't even have to be involved!

So America is just supposed to roll over and accept this?

Bush is right. If this language isn't clarified by Congress we will stop interrogating prisoners. Period.

And ceasing to defend ourselves then becomes the moral highground.

Give me a break.

All this crap reminds me of the gorelick wall. Colmes will always scream that the wall wasn't defined as harshly as the right says it was, but the truth is that agencies were afriad to even give the APPPEARANCE of going through the wall. THAT's how Gorelick made the wall ten feet tall!

Here we have 'degrading treatment' and McCain and friends want to keep the language and just give interrogators immunity. Do you think the ACCUSATIONS, even with immunity, of committing a war crime will satisfy interrogators? Hell no. They'll simply stop questioning prisoners at all for fear of the APPEARANCE of impropriety.

[freaknik]

So the President wants Congressional authority for the following techniques:

1. The Attention Grab . . .
2. Attention Slap . . .
3. The Belly Slap . . .
4. Long Time Standing . . .
5. The Cold Cell . . .
6. Water Boarding . ..

And the President believes that America is now in the Third Awakening, i.e. a religious revival in this time of " confrontation between good and evil."

So, in all seriousness, of techniques 1-6:

Which would Jesus use?

[clarice]

As Milbank said the Rep message (correct in my mind) is "Vote Democratic and Die" and this plays into that in spades..The opposition is shoveling thoughtless brain pablum and no one's buying it.

[Cecil Turner]

the common GC Article III should be clarified to keep from being accorded at the highest level?

The contentious phrase of Common Article 3 is the prohibition on:

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

In Hamdan, SCOTUS determined that a tribunal wasn't a "regularly constituted court" because it departed from court-martial procedure. IMHO, that's clearly incorrect and flies in the face of centuries of precedent. Per Thomas's dissent:

In any event, Hamdan's military commission complies with the requirements of Common Article 3. It is plainly "regularly constituted" because such commissions have been employed throughout our history to try unlawful combatants for crimes against the law of war.

That appears to be the main bit that requires clarification (at least for the group of justices who insist on misinterpreting it). Slightly OT: as in Hamdi, in Hamdan Justice Thomas again stood out as a font of wisdom and common sense. His dissent is well worth perusing in its entirety, but this bit should be required reading for Graham, et al:

Today a plurality of this Court would hold that conspiracy to massacre innocent civilians does not violate the laws of war. This determination is unsustainable. The judgment of the political branches that Hamdan, and others like him, must be held accountable before military commissions for their involvement with and membership in an unlawful organization dedicated to inflicting massive civilian casualties is supported by virtually every relevant authority, including all of the authorities invoked by the plurality today. It is also supported by the nature of the present conflict.

The good news? Thomas was a lone dissenter in Hamdi--in Hamdan he led a threesome, and with Roberts not participating, could be expected to swing four votes on a similar future case. All we need is one more vote, and the trend is favorable.

[boris]

Which would Jesus use?

He already knows.

[lurker]

Cecil, is there a way for SCOTUS to reconsider their ruling if they realized that they erred in their decision?

This is exactly one of the few reasons why I'm voting in November with the hopes that the Republicans would retain both houses.

[lurker]

"Which would Jesus use?

He already knows."

Oh, strange that the question would refer to Jesus instead of Allah since the Islamfascists want a worldwide Islam Caliphate.

[lurker]

Cecil, Mark Levin had a few interesting posts. What do you think?

No Surprises

[PeterUK]

"Which would Jesus use?"

Well the next time is going to be The Resurection,so if you read up on Revelations,the answer is that it is going to be pretty messy.
I'll stick with not enough salad with my kebab and the lewd naked dancers if you don't mind.It's hell but somebody has to do it.

[lurker]

ROFL! Good reply!

Email about Jonathan Turley. Sounds like this guy is too much of a liberal to interpret law his own way. Let's hope he never gets nominated for Supreme Court.

ONE-SIDED GENEVA

"More for the-more-things-change-the-more-they-stay-the-same file?: This appeared on the first day here:

ONE-SIDED GENEVA: [Rich Lowry]
Good e-mail on the Geneva Convention. An argument of administration critics is that we are putting American soldiers at risk by treating al Qaeda as outside the Convention. A reader asks: "Why doesn't anyone mention the obvious? NO American adversary in war has followed the Geneva Convention in 84 years! Last night I watched Jonathan Turley portentously tell Jeff Greenfield that we dare not be legalistic in our interpretation of the Convention—after all, we needed it, our soldiers depended on it, so we should not really be too assertive or argumentative about our rights.
“But can Jonathan Turley or anyone else name one enemy of the United States in a war since 1918 (declared or not) that has followed the Geneva convention? The answer is no, because there aren't any—not Nazi Germany (see the Battle of the Bulge for starters), not Japan (which didn't even sign it), not North Korea or Red China (real undiluted torture), not the Vietcong or North Vietnam (the same), not Iran in the hostage crisis, and certainly not Iraq. Everyone of these countries egregiously violated the Convention in dealing with our soldiers and diplomats. OUR ENEMIES HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THE GENEVA CONVENTION SINCE THE KAISER. How is it possible to overlook this while piously genuflecting in the direction of Switzerland?"

[clarice]

It's a direct line to this mush brained thinking from school playgrounds where you cannot run and assemblies where you point two fingers in the air to show agreement.

[Cecil Turner]

Cecil, is there a way for SCOTUS to reconsider their ruling if they realized that they erred in their decision?

Really oughta ask Clarice (I'm a military guy, not a lawyer), but my understanding is that under the stare decisis doctrine they'd normally defer to the earlier judgment, even if they might decide it differently if viewed anew. However, there's little doubt that an act of Congress would override both the decision and any interpretation (or even a clear provision) of the GCs.

Cecil, Mark Levin had a few interesting posts. What do you think?

Spot-on, three for three.

Which would Jesus use?

Obvious: number 2

[Attention Slap] "Turn the other cheek, beyotch!" (Of course, he would do it in a loving manner to instruct . . . and would already know the answer to the interrogation questions.)

[Pofarmer]

"And here is what else I'd do. I'd take away the prayer rugs and the koran and the good food and the health care. None of that is against the geneva conventions, and I'd make it suck to be in a military prison."

I hereby nominate Jane for Secdef, or at least commandant at Gitmo!!

[PeterUK]

Worth noting that Jesus took a whip to the money changers in the Temple.So OK you can flog them.

[Rick Ballard]

Peter,

Don't forget the full immersion practice baptism's.

[PeterUK]

Rick,Yes with them both,we are getting close to flogging round the fleet.

[Jane]

Please try to explain how it's possible for McPain's "say one thing but do another" to possibly be right on any level.

That's a "when did you stop beating your wife" question. It seems to me that you are looking at the players, rather than looking at the problem.

McCain is advocating that we should not clarify the Geneva Conventions, that rather they should stay as they are without editorial. I think his reasoning is that if we ever face an enemy that actually subscribes to the Geneva conventions, that position would put our own soldiers at risk.

Now I think it is doubtful that we will ever face that sort of enemy, but clearly that analysis should fall in any sort of calculation.

The problem is that this is an issue that should never have been in the Courts, and the Courts have required this parsing, which I think has the potential to bite us in the ass.

Someone mentioned that ambiguity led to Rumsfeld being blamed for Abu Gahrab. The problem is that specificity has the same peril. If what is done/ accused is not specifically ennumerated is it now a violation, even if it wasn't before? Because that door is now opened. What about developing new techniques. Do we now have to announce that to Congress and have them voted on.

Listen I came into this conversation unsure of the position I was taking, but I've yet to see anything compelling enough to get me to abandon it.

And my question remains: Is there something in the Court decision that requires we ennumnerate with specificity what Article 3 requires? And if so (which is how I remember it) what is the upshoot of the McCain plan. Do we just hold them indefinately?

[clarice]

I'm not sure Jane, but my impression is that this is not mandated by the Court opinion but rather something that the CIA requested, because they do not want their people subject to criminal process for attempting to figure out what these vague words mean.

[boris]

we ever face an enemy that actually subscribes to the Geneva conventions

How does clarifying the treatment of illegal combatants like terrorists affect the parts of the GC that are already clarified that would apply to GC signers?

That's a very fuzzy connection. The risk for US casualties is very real. The default choice at this point is to suffer loss of intel and higher casualties unless effective clarification happens.

Status Quo is off the table.

[lurker]

Because of the SCOTUS ruling, Clarice? No wonder I've just read a few posts recently about intelligance worried about being sued for their decisions.

[clarice]

Lurker, I honestly having been paying attention. As I recall Bush announced he's not be following this portion of the Geneva Conventions with respect to the interrogation of terrorist prisoners. He said we wouldn't torture them
McCain then offered up this Amendment to the military appropriations bill and has claimed these vague words are sufficient protection to cover present practices.

[clarice]

**Haven'T been paying attention******

[SunnyDay]

I bet Libby is scratching his head wondering why terrorists are going to be allowed to see classified material used against them but Libby can't see the classified referral letter.

I just sent something to this effect to Sen Warner.

[Jane]

The risk for US casualties is very real. The default choice at this point is to suffer loss of intel and higher casualties unless effective clarification happens.

That assumes clarification works, and I have no sense that it will.

My current feeling is that Congress should pass a law saying the Court can not get involved in international law - period, the Geneva Conventions are what they are, and the President should say "We don't torture, and if anyone gets tried and convicted of torture, I will pardon them."

[boris]

President should say "We don't torture, and if anyone gets tried and convicted of torture, I will pardon them."

And then if something like Abu Graib happens?

The issue is fraught with peril. The point of elected officials setting the standards is (1) it's their constitutional job (2) voters get to pass judgement on their decision.

[Jane]

And then if something like Abu Graib happens?

What happened at Abu Graib was not torture. And it wasn't done in the line of duty.

If you have a company with strict guidelines against sexual harrassment, which are enforced, and updated, and one of your low level managers sexually harasses someone, the company will be sued, but the strict guidelines will protect it under the law. There must be a nexus between the harm and the company. If there isn't, then it is not liable. So the company will get dragged in much like Rumsfeld did, and it will be harmed, but it won't be convicted. You can't stop that stuff as long as you have this kind of society.

The issue is fraught with peril. The point of elected officials setting the standards is (1) it's their constitutional job (2) voters get to pass judgement on their decision.

It's Congress' job and within their purview to decline. Either way voters will pass judgment.

I'm a little disappointed that you didn't address any of the arguments against setting requirements. Rather than discussing the relevant issues, you seem to be shilling for the administration. I'm about as pro-administration as it gets, short of a rubber stamp of course, so hammering that position is really unnecessary.

[boris]

you didn't address any of the arguments against setting requirements

Must have missed them.

Checking back ... still missing those arguments against setting requirements ... oh wait, what's this ...

That assumes clarification works, and I have no sense that it will.

How on earth did I miss that ???

Don't actually see you addressing the point that without clarification the program stops. It's not like the personel at Gitmo can carry on in secret. Especially with the current leak and publish toxic atmosphere. Another point you haven't addressed.

So, basically "it might not work" hmmmm. Compelling.

[boris]

within their purview to decline

That was ok as long as congress opposition and their MSM buddies weren't taking political advantage and using Abu Graib, secret torture prisons and Gitmo to undermine support for the country during war. Once that happens the admin has no choice but to make them take a public stand on their responsibilities with respect to national security and the closer to an election the better.

[boris]

Rumsfeld being blamed for Abu Gahrab. The problem is that specificity has the same peril

Either you're missing the point or being dishonest. The actions at Abu Graib would certainly fall outside of sepcific guidelines for what's allowed regarding interrogation and who should do it. Thus Abu Graib would clearly be unsanctioned dishonorable misbehavior. Lacking the "ambiguous" connection to the hated Rummy, it would not have been a big story.

[Jane]

It's not the unsanctioned actions that made it a big story Boris, it was the desire to get Rummy, And that won't stop if there is specificity because then the left will simply argue that minutia takes it out of the realm of specificity. It's politics not policy. And frankly those two things should be separate.

I repeat. What happened at Abu Graib was not torture, it was misconduct aimed at personal gratification not at getting information. It wasn't sanctioned under anything, much less the Geneva Conventions. It's not even on the radar screen for what is covered under the Geneva Conventions. That scandel would not in any way be impacted by the current conflict with McCain, regardless of how it is settled. It's simply a non-sanctioned action by some low level military personnel. That action was seized on by the left in much of the same way they seized on frog-marching Rove from the White House. It's bullshit. And it has nothing to do with the issue I was addressing.

Take your head out of the democrat play book for awhile and look at the pro's and con's of the policy. Frankly I can think of some arguments against McCain's position, but you certainly haven't raised any.

[boris]

It's not the unsanctioned actions that made it a big story Boris, it was the desire to get Rummy

Which was my point. Lacking the "ambiguous" connection to the hated Rummy, it would not have been a big story.

It clearly had an effect on the public perception of the administration's handling of the war. "Ambiguity" makes it easier, not harder, to blame stuff like that on the people in charge.

To spell it out ...

Abu Graib was blamed on Rumsfeld.

The excuse being that torture is secretely sanctioned policy.

A specific government policy for interrogations and who could perform them would have prevented that excuse from gaining widespread traction. Your claim that this is irrelevant to the issue is simply denial. If there is a secret ambiguous policy it's not possible to claim that "action X" is not part and parcel of that policy.

When there are secret CIA interrogation prisons using secret procedures and something like Abu Graib happens, they're going to be connected in peoples minds. Human nature.

[boris]

BTW I do not claim that leaving the GC interpretation ambiguous regarding Al Qaida and the like is 100% wrong or bad. However when the opposition starts to exploit such ambiguity to undermine support for a very serious conflict, it becomes necessary to clarify or abandon that approach.

McPain advocates publicly abandoning anything resembling interrogation but says that in certain situations one does what needs to be done.

Sorry but that means a lot of intel currently being used to prevent terrorist attacks would not have been available.

[Jane]

Which was my point. Lacking the "ambiguous" connection to the hated Rummy, it would not have been a big story.

I so disagree. What I think you are saying is that if the Congress said that you couldn't put prisoners on a leash and some soldier did that, no one would have blamed Rumsfeld. Do you really believe that the left would have said - "Hey we have laws against that, and Rumsfeld obeys the laws so it had nothing to do with the Defense Department"?

If so, you and I have a very different view of the anti-war moonbats. I think they would simply say those actions were proof of Rumsfeld's incompetance and his refusal to obey the law and everything else they said this time.

When there are secret CIA interrogation prisons using secret procedures and something like Abu Graib happens, they're going to be connected in peoples minds. Human nature.

And that won't change when we outline specific procedures. In fact it will worsen. Let's say the procedures say you can use sleep deprivation. We do. Some ACLU type now says that sleep deprivation doesn't include making the subject sit at a desk. He should be lying down while being kept awake.

The battle here is not over what the Geneva Conventions mean, it's over whether we should be at war. And so none of it matters.

However when the opposition starts to exploit such ambiguity to undermine support for a very serious conflict, it becomes necessary to clarify or abandon that approach.

The problem is the opposition will exploit specificity more so, and more easily. It feels like a trap frankly.

McPain advocates publicly abandoning anything resembling interrogation but says that in certain situations one does what needs to be done.

Where does he do that?

[boris]

you really believe that the left would have said

When it's only the left who cares. It wasn't.

And that won't change when we outline specific procedures. In fact it will worsen

That's not an argument it's an assertion.

Reasonable people (again, moonbats not my concern) do not conflate illegal activity with official policy, as long as official policy is neither secret nor ambiguous.

the opposition will exploit specificity more so

They may attempt. With reasonable people they will fail. It is not unreasonable to suspect the worst of a secret ambiguous policy. It is unreasonable to spin conspiracies on a clear effective policy that has been democratically adopted.

[boris]

Clarifying my ambiguous comment ...

... you really believe that the left would have said ...

When it's only the left, who cares? It wasn't.

Who cares what the moonbats are gonna say and do? It's the rest of the reasonable people we need the support of.

[Jane]

Who cares what the moonbats are gonna say and do? It's the rest of the reasonable people we need the support of.

More reason to get off the political arguments, and address the policy arguments. What good does specifying the Geneva Conventions, now and in the future? If you aren't making them more specific for the left, why make them more specific. What does it get us.

And what is the down side. I've mentioned several, none of which you have addressed.

[boris]

I've mentioned several

No you haven't.

More reason to get off the political arguments, and address the policy arguments.

Since advocacy of ignoring leftist moonbattery and adopting democratic policy has been mine, your statement here looks like nonsense.

Where have you addressed the point that the intel we have been getting is about to dry up because of opposition from Democrats, the MSM and the McPainiacs?

Zero zip nada. You seem (hard to say given the "ambiguous" nature of your posts so far) to propose:

1. No More Interrogations;
2. No Military tribunals;
3. Full POW rights;
4. Secretly violate 1 2 and 3.

Well ???

[clarice]

Scrappleface reports a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" compromise:

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2334

[Jane]

I've mentioned several

No you haven't.

Gee I'm sure I talked about our future allies Boris. Perhaps you have only been reading what you wrote. Why not actually go back and read what I said? You, on the other hand have never addressed the policy issues. It's all about your hatred for "McPain".

Where have you addressed the point that the intel we have been getting is about to dry up because of opposition from Democrats, the MSM and the McPainiacs?

Where is the evidence of that? And where is the cite to the other things you maintain McCain said, which I specifically requested and like my policy arguments you steadfastly ignored.

And I haven't propose one thing you suggest.
And there is no evidence that would be the result of no change in the Geneva Conventions. At least none you have come up with. Again it is clear that you are only reading your own posts. I don't think you have a clue what you are advocating or why.

[boris]

Where is the evidence of that?

That the intel we have been getting is about to dry up because of opposition from Democrats, the MSM and the McPainiacs?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjhmZGVhMWM5NmYyOTY4ZmYyZjdmN2M1MjA1ZDExOWI=" target="_blank">John Podhoretz

He [Bush] said flatly during his press conference that if Congress doesn't agree to define specifically the forms of permissible interrogation of Al-Qaeda detainees, the "program will not go forward." In other words, we won't be able to interrogate them and get useful information out of them any longer

I'm sure I talked about our future allies

You mean this ? we ever face an enemy that actually subscribes to the Geneva conventions

I addressed that here :

How does clarifying the treatment of illegal combatants like terrorists affect the parts of the GC that are already clarified that would apply to GC signers? (like us)

It doesn't. Here's what you wrote: I've mentioned several, none of which you have addressed.

As to this: And where is the cite to the other things you maintain McCain said

Here's what I found with Google: According to Newsweek, in the ticking time bomb case McCain says that the president should disobey the very law that McCain seeks to pass--under the justification that "you do what you have to do. But you take responsibility for it."

Unless you're going to challange that it's pretty much as described.

Look if you want to discuss the issue reasonably, fine. If all you want to do is issue challanges for cites on every thing I submit as relevant, you're not being serious. My memory isn't always perfect but I don't come here and make shit up.

[Jane]

Look if you want to discuss the issue reasonably, fine.

I'd say the same thing to you. I've really been fairly surprised by your response. Perhaps it is just a miscommunication, but my sense is that your hatred for McCain overwhelms any ability to actually evaluate the issue.

As I said before I came to the discussion unsure of my own position. This conversation makes me think that blanket acceptance of something because the President says it is so, without any corroboration is truly not the way to look at it. I've posed many questions and not one has been answered seriously.

Frankly I'm predisposed to side with Bush on nearly every issue, because I like him and trust him. But this conversation warns me that I should spend more time reading between the lines. I'm more convinced than I was that specificity is not the way to go, and that it may actually end up being a trap that comes back to bite us.

Perhaps someone will come along who can convince me otherwise.

[boris]

acceptance of something because the President says it is so

That's how you address the issue? Bush lies?

When the commander in chief says the program under his command will not go forward unless authorized by congress, it's not a case where one can say "What is the real truth here?".

If he means what he says that is the real truth.

Where do you get this from? your hatred for McCain overwhelms any ability to actually evaluate the issue

His position is exactly as I described it. So address it. McCain says that the president should disobey the very law that McCain seeks to pass--under the justification that "you do what you have to do. But you take responsibility for it."

How is pointing that out when challanged evidence of hatred?

[Jane]

Boris,

I managed to get the questions I had answered by watching Victoria toensing on the Journal Report. She actually addressed the issue, rather than trying to pile on manure to obscure what she didn't know.

As a result I now believe the Congress should pass a law that says the Geneva conventions only apply to nations and not to terrorists.

That seems to be the proper solution.

[Syl]

Which would Jesus use?

Immaterial.

Which would Jack Bauer use?

[boris]

the Congress should pass a law that says the Geneva conventions only apply to nations and not to terrorists

Which certainly would be one way to clarify the ambiguity. Doubt the Dems and the GOP rebels would go along with it.

Here's a bit of Tony Snow on the subject:

How do you define these vague terms? And we settled on a simple answer -- the very terms that John McCain used last year in the Detainee Treatment Act, because we think they're appropriate. So we're using the standard laid out by Senator McCain and we are now applying it to Common Article III, the Geneva Conventions.

Apparently McPain doesn't want that either.