Originally Posted by foundit66

The Geneva Convention applies.

Alias "pointed out" some things, but then he demonstrated that he can't even answer simple questions about what the Geneva Convention says in the first place.

These people ARE COVERED under the Geneva Convention. Even if we assume they aren't "prisoners of war", there are other aspects of the convention that DO COVER them.

And I ask you...
HOW can we declare "war" on a group, and then have ever "prisoner" that we detain in association with that war be incapable of qualifying as a "prisoner of war"?



The point being that there are multiple things that are screwed up about the Bush administration?



Have you ever listened to the man talk?
Seriously. Just LISTEN to him talk. LISTEN to his comments.
He's not a "genius". Far from it...



From my personal perspective? No. I wouldn't.
I personally supported the invasion of Iraq when it started under the belief that they had WMDs. My partner wasn't convinced, and he reminds me occasionally that he was right where I blindly believed Bush.



I have never understood the "Bush-hater" line of defense.
If ALL we were saying was "we hate Bush", then yeah. Nothing of merit.

But when YOU SUMMARIZE our arguments as just "we hate Bush", that isn't an argument...



Quite frankly, I think the point should be more along the lines that SOME THIRD PARTY SHOULD know what is going on in Gitmo.
The actions inside the walls have been soooo squirrelled away from public view that it isn't rationale. The abuse in the military of situations like this has ALREADY BEEN SEEN.

And the leader of the military is fighting to keep TORTURE LEGAL???
Come ON now.
That's gotta at least raise a modicum of concern...


To me, I think the issue shouldn't revolve around "why should we..."
The issue SHOULD revolve around "Why shouldn't Bush have to respect these simple and civilized rules of conduct?"