Impeach President Bush Now
Sep. 19th, 2006 10:34 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdPresident
Bush
Now
The part that really says "petulant jackass who doesn't actually give a rat's ass about anything other than power" is the part where he threatens to stop all CIA interrogations of suspects if he doesn't get to torture people. And the "clarity" bullshit has to stop. There's been 50 years of work on understanding, very clearly, what does and does not violate the Geneva conventions on this issue. It's very clear now. The idea that this legalisation of torture effort is some sort of attempt to "clarify" anything is a giant lie. Do not let that abuse of language, history, and American principles stand. It was torture when the Soviets did it; it was torture when the Hussein regime did it; it's torture if we do it. Period.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-09-19 06:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-19 06:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-19 07:32 pm (UTC)What I cannot for the life of me understand is your point of view: That we should treat barbarians better than we treat our own, and provide them protections they do not deserve even though it often means that many of our own will die hideous and painful deaths.
You call that 'civilized'? A 'shining example'? I'm not for anything close to what they do to us, but interrogations and the kinds of 'torture' (it really doesn't even deserve to be called that) our military wants to do works, and it saves lives. If these people followed the Geneva convention, then they would be entitled to its protections, but giving them those protections when they do not honor it are not the actions of a civilized society. They are the actions of cowards who are afraid to do the hard things that must be done to protect a civilized society.
Civilized societies do not extend the rules of civilization to those who do not honor them. Unless they no longer wish to survive. I'm not for bringing out the tools of the inquisition, but the methods being debated here are reasonable and should be allowed.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-19 07:10 pm (UTC)I do not buy that the so-called minor stuff will not lead to permanent impairments.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-19 07:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-19 07:40 pm (UTC)Um, yeah, we are. That's the kind of thing this is about.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-19 07:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-19 07:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-19 08:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 01:34 am (UTC)When it comes to saving the lives of civilians, and yes even soldiers, from the actions of terrorists and madmen, I have no problems at all with waterboarding or similar techniques that scare the living hell out of those people. Remember the people this treatment is reserved for are murders and party to future murders. They are not soldiers practicing their craft, they're cold blooded killers. How far would you go to save innocents from terrorism? While I don't think I could ever go as far as the terrorists themselves, (nor do I think we as a country should go that far), I think things like waterboarding are just fine.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 04:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 04:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 03:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-21 03:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 05:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-19 07:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-19 07:50 pm (UTC)You know, the kinds of things frats do during initiations.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-19 08:02 pm (UTC)Could you point me to a specific article that talks about what the current limits are? I'd appreciate it.
(That said, I do stand by the part where even supposedly "minor stuff" can lead to permanent impairment. Grabbing and shaking someone, particularly if they're already impaired, can lead to permanent brain damage and death. Sleep deprivation has been known to lead to psychotic breaks. And so on. It really does not compare to fraternity initiations.)
no subject
Date: 2006-09-19 07:36 pm (UTC)Bullshit.
First, it's the Geneva Conventions, plural. While the Third Convention is the one that's getting most of the attention, the Fourth Convention covers people other than traditional prisoners of war. It specifically mentions the treatment of spies, saboteurs, and other un-uniformed hostiles, and does make some exceptions for them. (Spies, for example, forfeit some of their rights of communication.) It does say, however (article 5) that "In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention."
no subject
Date: 2006-09-19 07:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-19 08:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 01:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 04:38 am (UTC)The ICRC is the organization created under the Geneva Conventions for the purpose of monitoring compliance of warring parties with the Geneva Conventions. So as far as Geneva Conventions compliance is concerned, yes, they are the police.
If you belong to a non-state organization you are not covered by them at all.
Wrong yet again! Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention extends POW protection to (4.1.3) “Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power” as well as (4.1.4) “Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof” and (4.1.6) “Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units”.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 04:53 am (UTC)Regular armed forces wear uniforms, so that one is out. Persons who accompany the armed forces do not engage in combat, they also must have armed forces i.e. a regular army, to accompany; so that one is out too. As for number 3, they have had time to organize, so that one doesn't apply, obviously. Also that rule does not apply to attacks against an occupying force.
And again, you are NOT bound by ANY articles of the Geneva convention if the enemy does not abide by it. What part of that don't you understand? That rule has been in there since day one to try and force both sides to abide, because otherwise, the side that does not abide has an advantage over the other.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 05:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 05:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 06:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-21 04:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 05:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-21 04:06 am (UTC)However, that has no bearing on their being at gitmo. They're prisoners of war, and until something can be decided on what to do with them (I personally think they should just hold military tribunals and punish the guilty and release the innocent), that is wear they are going to stay.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-21 04:07 pm (UTC)Now you're admitting that you were wrong, but stating your admission as if it were a correction of the very people who've been pointing out that your were wrong to begin with. You're just shameless.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-21 07:48 pm (UTC)So if you can show me evidence that there are people who deserve convention protections there, I'll agree that they deserve it and admit I was wrong on saying that everyone in Gitmo doesn't deserve those protections. And that's deserve it as per the treaty, not what other people or organizations claim. But by and large I think it's a safe bet that the vast majority of people in Gitmo (over 90 percent) do not fall under the convention at all.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-21 08:16 pm (UTC)Furthermore, the Geneva Convetions explicitly say that detainees are to be considered POWs until proven otherwise, not that you have to prove that they deserve it to consider them POWs.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 12:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 01:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 02:19 am (UTC)I'm too emotionally involved in this discussion. I'm stopping it here. Apologies for starting a conversation thread and then dropping it. ^_^
no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 02:40 am (UTC)Further, these people can now never be tried in a court of law (a real one anyway), and they should be. Justice should be seen to be done. I'm not gonna take a 'trust me' from our goverment on this one.
Mostly though, it's simply not as effective as other means of interrogation. And that's a fact.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-20 04:44 am (UTC)And I didn't say that, I said that you don't have to honor the convention if the enemy doesn't.
Do-It-Yourself Impeachment...
Date: 2006-09-20 07:51 am (UTC)This is much more than just a petition.
There's a little known and rarely used clause of the "Jefferson Manual" in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.
That's where we come in. In addition to the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org, part of the movement to impeach the president, has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.
STOP WAITING FOR YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO ACT FOR YOU.
You can initiate the impeachment process yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information in the blanks (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in.
http://ImpeachForPeace.org/ImpeachNow.html (http://ImpeachForPeace.org/ImpeachNow.html)
More information on the precedent for submitting an impeachment
memorial, and the House Rules on this procedure, can also be found at
the above address.
If you have any doubts that Bush has committed crimes warranting
impeachment, read this page: http://ImpeachForPeace.org/evidence/ (http://ImpeachForPeace.org/evidence/)
If you're concerned that impeachment might not be the best strategy
at this point, read the bottom of this page: http://ImpeachForPeace.org (http://ImpeachForPeace.org)
"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
Bush, June 18, 2002
"War is Peace."
Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984
The crimes of Bush
Date: 2007-03-27 08:54 pm (UTC)