Finally. The press see's my point: Bush's administration = War Criminals

[Crazy Cooter]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6315313/

Just like I said in another thread.  The US is breaking Geveva Conventions.  My example was how the US refused German courts access to Binalshibh and they had to release Motassadeq (the dude that had been convicted of helping the 9/11 terrorists).

Nice administration.  Time for a change.

"El Motassadeq's lawyers asked the appeals court for acquittal or a retrial, alleging their client was wrongly convicted because the United States refused to allow court testimony by Ramzi Binalshibh, thought to be the Hamburg cell's key contact with al Qaeda.

Binalshibh was captured in Pakistan on the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks and is in U.S. custody.

The appeals court agreed that el Motassadeq was denied a fair trial because the United State refused to provide access to Binalshibh."
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/09/germany.911/

[Grasshopper]

I can't wait to see Drew's response to this...

[shmokes]

I'm more excited for Dartful's inciteful one-liner on the subject.  Something to the effect of:

Finally we have an administration that realizes how ridiculous it is to abide by the rules and wishes of a bunch of countries we could blow off the face of the planet if we wanted to.

[Grasshopper]

Finally we have an administration that realizes how ridiculous it is to abide by the rules and wishes of a bunch of countries we could blow off the face of the planet if we wanted to.

Yee Haw!!!

[Crazy Cooter]

I can't wait to see Drew's response to this...

Heheh, I thought of him and TA right when I saw it.  I had to put a link up.

[DrewKaree]

Finally we have an administration that realizes how ridiculous it is to abide by the rules and wishes of a bunch of countries we could blow off the face of the planet if we wanted to.

[shmokes]

Touche  

LMAO

[TA Pilot]

Lets see...

-Comply with the geneva Convention
-Keep a nuclear weapon from detonating in Manhattan

As much as I would like to see there be fewer liberals in the US, I'd have to argue that the former is a far lower priority than the latter.

[abrannan]

Lets see...

-Comply with the geneva Convention
-Keep a nuclear weapon from detonating in Manhattan

As much as I would like to see there be fewer liberals in the US, I'd have to argue that the former is a far lower priority than the latter.

Not in Manhattan, huh?  How about Queens?  The Bronx, perhaps?  How about this, we comply with the Geneva convention, and the terrorists agree to only target Hoboken, NJ with the Nuclear device.  There's got to be a compromise here, right?  Plus, think of all the job opportunities that would arise if a Briefcase Nuke detonated anywhere in the U.S.  There's decontamination, demolition, waste disposal, the whole florist industry from all the mass graves and , reconstruction, etc.  Not to mention that a commission will be formed to determine that we need to start yet another government agency with the job of coordinating the information gathered by all of the other law-enforcement agencies.  

Absurdity breeds absurdity.

[Santoro]

Lets see...

-Comply with the geneva Convention
-Keep a nuclear weapon from detonating in Manhattan

...have to argue that the former is a far lower priority than the latter.

Amen brother.  It is amazing how others are able to go down rat holes in order to to divert attention away from the overall common sense concepts such as this.  

This is not WWII where we are fighting other troops.  We are fighting savage animal sub-human filth who strive to murder women, children, and other innocents by the thousands.  I am really not so concerned about their rights in custody.   (Oh and I wouldn't have been worried about Hitler's treatment either.)

I understand the world should not be lawless.  But there is a gray area and we should be as lax as possible with regards to the treatment of these animals.

(I don't advocate nuking liberals though...)

[fredster]

It's not even worth debating.

Bush is doing what he must do in order to protect the US.  

He didn't line them up on a wall and shoot them.  The Press is reacting to nothing.

[abrannan]

It's not even worth debating.

Bush is doing what he must do in order to protect the US.  

So, he's letting a terrorist supporter, an individual who most likely provided support to Mohammed Atta, get a new trial, and possibly go free because he won't provide Binalshibh to testify.

Wow!  Thanks for all that protection!

[Santoro]

There are likely very strong national security reasons for not allowing him to testify.   We and the media only know a fraction of what the decisionmakers in Washington know.

{edit - not that I am advocating being sheep and blindly following the gov't.... But there will be times when secrecy is warranted.  The Bush Adminstration has at all times acted in a way that is consistient with protecting our nation.  Based on that I trust that they are acting that way in this instance.  If they had a record of acting against the interest of the USA, I would have instead been skeptical.}

[DarkKobold]

W00t. I love it.  Let me know when my newspeak dictionary is ready.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " - Ben Franklin

[TA Pilot]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " - Ben Franklin

Probably one of the best statements that could be made regarding gun control.

[Santoro]

"A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him. "
-Winston Churchill

{oh, and this is the last post I will make on the topic, lest I begin to break my own rule about not trying to force my views on others.  We can disagree, that is just fine with me.  The world would be a pretty boring place if we all agreed all the time, no?}

[abrannan]

The world would be a pretty boring place if we all agreed all the time, no?

Yeah, it would be...  But my blood pressure would be a lot lower.  

[Grasshopper]

Finally we have an administration that realizes how ridiculous it is to abide by the rules and wishes of a bunch of countries we could blow off the face of the planet if we wanted to.

Come on Drew you're not really trying, we want links and we want lots of  'em!

There must surely be some obscure corner of the web that provides conclusive 'proof' that Bush is not a war criminal, but is in fact a cross between the Dalai Lama and Gandhi!

[Grasshopper]

Lets see...

-Comply with the geneva Convention
-Keep a nuclear weapon from detonating in Manhattan

As much as I would like to see there be fewer liberals in the US, I'd have to argue that the former is a far lower priority than the latter.

Ahh, this is more like it, I knew TA wouldn't let us down!

Err, TA what precisely has this false choice you've presented us with got to do with Crazy Cooters original post?

[Crazy Cooter]

What ever happened to "lead by example"?  We've pulled out of nuclear proliferation agreements, we've alienated ourselves in the UN, we break Geneva Conventions, what else can we do to show our "good will" towards humanity?  Bush isn't living up to what I expect out of a leader of this country.

How is his actions by breaking Geneva Conventions helping?  I doubt having him testify to keep a terrorist behind bars would cause a Nuke to go off anywhere.

"So, he's letting a terrorist supporter, an individual who most likely provided support to Mohammed Atta, get a new trial, and possibly go free because he won't provide Binalshibh to testify."

Possibly?  He is free while the new trial is set up.

[abrannan]

"So, he's letting a terrorist supporter, an individual who most likely provided support to Mohammed Atta, get a new trial, and possibly go free because he won't provide Binalshibh to testify."

Possibly?  He is free while the new trial is set up.

RTFA (that *you* posted I might add)

"This process will take some time, she said, adding it was "highly unlikely" that a decision on whether he will be released from custody would come this week."

He had a mistrial declared, it doesn't mean he automatically gets set free.  It just means he gets a new trial.  And they can still hold him until that new trial takes place, if they so choose.  I'd classify him as a pretty big flight risk.

[TA Pilot]

Err, TA what precisely has this false choice you've presented us with got to do with Crazy Cooters original post?

Simple enough:

Plainly, his premise is that the US should be held to the standards of the Geneva Conventions.

Just as plainly, these standards would and should apply to everyone we "detain", not just the people in question.

Its perfectly withn the realm of possibility that -someone- we capture and 'detain' will indeed have working knowledge of an active plot to detonate a nuclear weapon somewhere in the United States.

Unde these circumstances, do we worry more about:
-Compliance with the Geneva Conventions
-Keeping a nuclear weapon from detonating in Manhattan

As much as I would like to see there be fewer liberals in the US, I'd have to argue that the former is a far lower priority than the latter.

[TA Pilot]

Bush isn't living up to what I expect out of a leader of this country.

Thats funny...  because I expect a CinC to do whatever is necessary to defend the United States.

Let me repeat that:
...whatever is necessary to defend the United States...

If this means pulling out of treaties and/or violating a few agreements that may or may not actually apply, then he damn well better do it.

[Crazy Cooter]

"RTFA (that *you* posted I might add)

He had a mistrial declared, it doesn't mean he automatically gets set free.  It just means he gets a new trial.  And they can still hold him until that new trial takes place, if they so choose.  I'd classify him as a pretty big flight risk."

Yeah, that's an older link (March) used just to show how Bush & company wouldn't let Binalshibh and other witnesses testify.  Since then, Motassadeq has been released.
"He won a retrial in March, however, after appeals judges ruled he was unfairly denied testimony from Binalshibh, a Yemeni in U.S. custody who is believed to have been the Hamburg cell's key contact with al-Qaeda. Judges then freed el Motassadeq from prison, saying there was no longer enough evidence to hold him pending his retrial."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-08-04-germany-trial_x.htm

So he's out & about.

TA, the question is if this is really necessary.  Ever since the first Geneva Convention we as a Nation have stood and said how nobody should be doing this thing or the other for any reason.  Now suddenly it doesn't apply to us.  What gives?  It's not a matter of security, it's a matter of what is right and what is wrong.  The world didn't change because of 9/11, America did.  That's just what the terrorists wanted to happen.  We're no longer standing up against bullies, we are the bully.  All in the name of "Security".  Bush has had three years to beefen security and all he talks about is how much danger we're in.  And that's with him breaking international treaties and laws.  How is that a good job?  I'm just glad that the press is finally calling him on it.

[DrewKaree]

Come on Drew you're not really trying, we want links and we want lots of  'em!

There must surely be some obscure corner of the web that provides conclusive 'proof' that Bush is not a war criminal, but is in fact a cross between the Dalai Lama and Gandhi!

Aw SHUCKS...*insert Sally Field voice*  You like me...you REALLY like me!

See how TA and I tag team you guys?  When he needs a rest, I come in and shoot my mouth off.  When I'm out of breath, he picks me up.

I'm actually working on my wife's friend.  She's under the impression that the conservatives will come in and steal her Social Security check and take away her Medicare and jack up her prescription prices, and I'm trying to ensure her that, in fact, we ARE going to do all those things and more, including giving UZI's to criminals to come into her house and steal anything left that the conservative administration isn't taking from her.  

So far, I'm having a pretty easy time convincing her we're gonna do all that  

I'll work on the links proving Bush is a bigger peacenik than Ghandi and the one where Mother Theresa was caught swearing because Bush was more compassionate than she was.

I'd say it feels good to be a conservative, but we all know we don't actually have feelings.....or a heart....or a soul  

[Mameotron]

Sorry, Cooter, but that link is useless.  All American sources are partisan and biased, so you have to quote an Irish source to give your argument any credibility.

Let me restate:

[TA Pilot]

It's not a matter of security, it's a matter of what is right and what is wrong.

I'm very willing to be "wrong" and not have a  nuke go off in NYC.

How about you?

What are YOU willing to do to prevent over a million Americans from dying instantly in a brilliant flash?



The world didn't change because of 9/11, America did.  That's just what the terrorists wanted to happen.

You're right -
-because prior to 9/11, a large part of the world was as it is now - full of militant islamo-fascists that want to kill as many of us as they can.  On 9/11, a large part of our poulation woke up to that fact.

Sadly, a large part of them seem to have gone back to sleep.

You and John Kerry may want to return to that pre-9/11 world... and in that, Islamo-fascists agree with you.



We're no longer standing up against bullies, we are the bully.  All in the name of "Security".

Horseshi'ite.   If the US is the worst problem the world faces, the world is in good shape.  And if the world has a problem with us hutning down and killing thoise that want to hurt us, then the world is part of the problem, not part of the solution.



Bush has had three years to beefen security and all he talks about is how much danger we're in.  And that's with him breaking international treaties and laws.

Thats right...  because "beefing security" is a passive defense - the only way to proivde long-term protection from terrorists is to hunt them down and kill them.

Playing defense isnt going to get you a win.



How is that a good job?  I'm just glad that the press is finally calling him on it.

How many terrorist plots have we foiled?
How many have succeeded?

[Crazy Cooter]

So the Geneva Conventions mean nothing?  All in the name of security.  How sad.

[TA Pilot]

So the Geneva Conventions mean nothing?  All in the name of security.  How sad.


I'm very willing to be "wrong" and not have a  nuke go off in NYC.

How about you?

What are YOU willing to do to prevent over a million Americans from dying instantly in a brilliant flash?

[patrickl]

Such utter nonsense. If your aunt had a dick she would be your uncle. So?

The mentality is see on this thread is the stuff world wars are made off. Really scary degrees of nationalism and arrogance.

[Dartful Dodger]

So the Geneva Conventions mean nothing?  All in the name of security.  How sad.

The UN means nothing.
I'm just glad the US figured that out before Bill Clinton becomes secretary-general.

[DrewKaree]

If your aunt had a dick she would be your uncle.

Dunno why, but that struck me as pretty damn funny!  

nationalism and arrogance.

AAAAHHHHH the calling card of the conservative American!

We're also against clean air and clean water too.  

[Crazy Cooter]

We're also against clean air and clean water too.  

I wouldn't say that, didn't Bush lower the quality standards so air that used to be called dirty is now "clean"?

*POOF*  Clean Air!  

[TA Pilot]

The mentality is see on this thread is the stuff world wars are made off. Really scary degrees of nationalism and arrogance.


How about you?

What are YOU willing to do to prevent over a million Americans from dying instantly in a brilliant flash?

[Crazy Cooter]

How about you?

What are YOU willing to do to prevent over a million Americans from dying instantly in a brilliant flash?

I'm going to vote for Kerry so convicted terrorists stay in prison where they belong and the Geneva Conventions are respected.

[TA Pilot]

I'm going to vote for Kerry so convicted terrorists stay in prison where they belong and the Geneva Conventions are respected.


You're avoiding the question.  

I'll rephrease.

If the only way to keep a nuke from going off in NYC was to give an order that violates the Geneva Conventions, would you do it?

[danny_galaga]

If the only way to keep a nuke from going off in NYC was to give an order that violates the Geneva Conventions, would you do it?

if a tree falls in the forest, does anybody hear it?

[patrickl]

Good thing I frequent these boards, cause otherwise I would have never known that conventions were a triggering device on nukes.

[Dexter]

dont you know nuttin, patrickl? thats what the C stands for in E=MC2  

Really? I thought that part of the equation deals with invading a country with no WMDs and no links to Al Quaida to defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan  

Thank god I pre-emptively blew up all the scientists before they attacked my theory, which they may have intended to do at some stage in the future. I'm of course excused now of murdering them, as I ultimately did it in self defence.

[Crazy Cooter]

If the only way to keep a nuke from going off in NYC was to give an order that violates the Geneva Conventions, would you do it?

But that's not what the question was.  The question was:
If the only way to keep a convicted 9/11 terrorist was to comply with geneva Conventions, did Bush do it?

No, he didn't.  The German courts even asked if they could just get a written copy of sworn testimony.  Did Bush do it?  No, he did not.  Surely if he was concerned about security he could have offered a "black lined" version.  He didn't.  Rather than trying to justify his actions with "what if" scenarios, we should be asking why he did nothing.