The Trappings of George W. Bush

George W. Bush plays with the following as if it were a shell game.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights "affords due process protections to everyone here in the United States irrespective of their citizenship" (United States is a party to this covenant treaty)

3rd & 4th Geneva Conventions of 1949 "basic requirements of due process of law set forth in both of these treaties must be applied. Failures to apply these treaties would constitute war crimes."


The above-mentioned protects al queda members and guarantees fair trials.

Professor Phillip Heyman of Harvard Law School states "The tribunal idea looks to me like a way of dealing with a fear that we lack the evidence to convict these people."

On January 15, 2001 Bush said of John Ashcroft (Ashcroft's father was the president of one of the Assembles of God Church run-univeristies in Springfield, Missouri. Ashcroft does not drink, smoke or dance in accordance with his religious beliefs) "He will be faithful to the law, pursuing justice without favor. He will enforce the law and he will follow the truth." In turn, Ashcroft said, "strive to be a guardian of liberty and justice."


Yeah Right!

Bush the war criminal. Bush and Ashcroft never followed justice and truth.

Enjoy the Magic Lantern techonology, the FBI Project "Cyber Knight" and the Key Logger System as we ride the wave that Bush created while he was choking on pretzels and beer. Oops, my head hurts.

Right Bush...keep thinking this way or else...

...you could wind up like John F. Kennedy, nothing but a chunk of meat on a slab, brought down by your own masters.

Anyway, thought you'd like to see what Bush had in mind before 9/11/2001 and how swell he stuck to his principles after 9/11/2001.

Bush, what a beauty!

You called?
Seriously, can you reference the specific articles in the 3rd and 4th Conventions that apply? Isn't there a distinction between what is owed to members in uniform of an army and a ragtag coalition of civilian criminal/terrorists captured overseas? Just asking.

So Ashcroft doesn't dance (or smoke or drink)? As interesting a mental picture as that conjures up (shake your groove thang, Johnny), why is that relevant? Once you start quoting Harvard law professors, you lose me.

Articles 3rd & 4th can be found in the following link (unsure if the link works, you may need to type it into your search engine):

www.unchr.ch...


As regards Ashcroft's religious practices, I placed that in there because, beings Bush and (former) Ashcroft were/are so concerned about women in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how they ought to conduct themselves, in as much an open way as they should, it is interesting to note, that even Ashcroft does not dance. But that is really here nor there.

Yeah, tend to agree, I do not care for anything Harvard, Yale or Oxford, but I liked his line because it makes sense in and of itself. Like, if I just decided to use that line as my own, someone reading it would/could say, yeah, that makes sense or true, that can be applied in a situation as this.

Anyway, thanks for your time, Edward

As we all have seen by now, BushCo. lives in a bizarre parallel universe. White is black and night is day. That's a useful guide in decoding Bushspeak.

Let's be real. The reason they've thrown the Geneva conventions out the window is b/c - as you posited - they know they don't have near enuff evidence to convict the vast majority of prisoners they have collected. I'll go one further, this whole al-Qaeda thing is a figment of the military/industrial complex's fertile imagination.. well.. let me recalibrate what I said.. it is largely a fiction, but a true and growing threat thanks particularly to BushCon/PNACers care and feeding along the way.

Osama bin Laden could never recruit the amount of angry jihadists as Dim Son (Bush) has. So, if you look at it from the PNAC view, Bush's war(s) have been a total success.

...you could wind up like John F. Kennedy, nothing but a chunk of meat on a slab, brought down by your own masters.

Things aren't looking so good for the organization now with Plamegate boiling over, among other scandals. I wouldn't put it past this administration to allow another terrorist attack to happen sometime very soon. And just remember, for what its worth, Tecumseh's curse is still in effect. Being BushCo's weakest link, if not a downright liability, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they liquidated Dubya. Cheney would recluctantly assume leadership and the coup would be complete.

Originally posted by yeahright
You called?
Seriously, can you reference the specific articles in the 3rd and 4th Conventions that apply? Isn't there a distinction between what is owed to members in uniform of an army and a ragtag coalition of civilian criminal/terrorists captured overseas? Just asking.

But what if the army can't afford a "uniform"? what is classed as a "uniform"?

There are a number of problems with the BuchCo loop-holes.

If America was invaded, and several people took up armes in say Texas (invaded from the South). Would they not be classed as soldiers fighting to protect their country even if they were not in uniform?

yeahright, you are correct that the Geneva Convention does not apply to the terrorists or insurgents.
As far as an International Covenant, I have no idea about that, and am not inclined to read up on it as my reading plate is full. I would be inclined to take his word on it were it not for the misrepresentation of the Genevas Convention, which tells me that the other document might be misrepresented as well.

I hate it for Bush, though. We'd all like to cuss him out good and proper and we all have so many diverse reason! Poor guy's ears would be bleeding by the time we got through taking turns!!

Of course there are a number of problems. For one, the war on terror is no more a conventional war than the war on crime, drugs, poverty, illiteracy, or any number of other things administrations have delared war on. It's a police action against a band of criminal terrorists.

One big problem is that since it's not a conventional war, how do you apply "rules" of conventional war to it? Personally, I believe we're going above and beyond to be as fair as possible, given the circumstances. The very fact that there are prisoners at least proves we're not executing everyone in the field and leaving them in a ditch somewhere.

You know anyone in harm's way over there? Think the majority of them are not operating as ethically as possible given the situation? The people I've talked with who are in a position to know tell me that the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population is thrilled that we came and hope we don't leave until the situation stabilizes. And this is from grunts in the field that interact with the population directly.

To compare our liberating action in Iraq and the capture of murderous terrorists with a hypothetical invasion of the US and conjecture about the defense of same, is in my view, preposterous.