White house seeking to make new law to sheild themselves from their war crimes! Great guys we have in the white house http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/27/AR2006072701908_pf.html Shield Sought From '96 War Crimes Act An obscure law approved by a Republican-controlled Congress a decade ago has made the Bush administration nervous that officials and troops involved in handling detainee matters might be accused of committing war crimes, and prosecuted at some point in U.S. courts. Senior officials have responded by drafting legislation that would grant U.S. personnel involved in the terrorism fight new protections against prosecution for past violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996. That law criminalizes violations of the Geneva Conventions governing conduct in war and threatens the death penalty if U.S.-held detainees die in custody from abusive treatment. In light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that the international Conventions apply to the treatment of detainees in the terrorism fight, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has spoken privately with Republican lawmakers about the need for such "protections," according to someone who heard his remarks last week. Gonzales told the lawmakers that a shield is needed for actions taken by U.S. personnel under a 2002 presidential order, which the Supreme Court declared illegal, and under Justice Department legal opinions that have been withdrawn under fire, the source said. A spokeswoman for Gonzales, Tasia Scolinos, declined to comment on Gonzales's remarks. The Justice Department's top legal adviser, Steven G. Bradbury, separately testified two weeks ago that Congress must give new "definition and certainty" to captors' risk of prosecution for coercive interrogations that fall short of outright torture. Language in the administration's draft, which Bradbury helped prepare in concert with civilian officials at the Defense Department, seeks to protect U.S. personnel by ruling out detainee lawsuits to enforce Geneva protections and by incorporating language making U.S. enforcement of the War Crimes Act subject to U.S. -- not foreign -- understandings of what the Conventions require.
And Hitler blamed the Jews The Reichstad fires anyone. 9/11 for the germans At least your smart enough to spot it. Dont let nationalisim blind you kid. Take pride in who you are and what you do. dont let your country become you. Be yourself.
That's exactly true. How the hell can you compare Bush's fight to the Nazi's "fight" against Jews? Bush is fighting because of terror. The difference is that the Nazi's didn't fight! the jews, they just killed them. They were no Jewish Suicide Bombers, and no Jewish Attacks against the Nazi's. I am not giving an opinion about US's Fight, I just couldn't see how someone would compare Bush's acts to the ones of the Nazi's. It is unhuman to say the least.
That means all Arabs are terrorists right ? well, Terrorists is a few people who hate Arab people and hate all the world because they think that everything we do is haram .. haram means not allowed by god, I am arabic I had sex I used to go out with girls I used to drink and even to smoke pot in my teenage, in fact I used to be gothic too ... arab people is not different from other people, just a few dump asses who think that god loves them more then anyone is the terrorists, I think that hasan nasr allah is not one of them, there was no Israel in the past they was a few people banned without a country, thats where they came from.... palastine, lebanon is not thier rights and they most leave the place or live in peace and that what they don't want ... I don't know why the USA president supporting them, may be they give him a fuck sometimes or he used to be one of them in the past ....
If bush is realy fighting terrorists then why isn't he sorting out the countries that realy produce terrorists like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Almost all the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi and the 7/7 London terrorists were all trained in Pakistan.
He can't touch saudi arabia, they have money and bush loves money, in fact ... OIL .... and Pakistan is very weak for war .. they are already dying each day....
But why not deal with the terrorist problem in those countries first. The reson for going to war was 'officialy' WMD, has the terrorist problem been forgotten?
Nope. In fact, the whole reason we're in Iraq is because of terrorists. 1. Saddam Hussein was biologically bombing his own people. 2. Saddam Hussein boasted about making WMDs 3. Terrorists are plentiful in the country 4. We need to get rid of the terrorists. I can't believe you don't remember the car bombings that happen EVERY DAY in Iraq... those are TERRORIST ACTS, which we're trying to get rid of. We can only do so much at once.
How many car bombings were there before the invasion? That's the problem, realy dangerous situations are starting to blow up like in Israel, Iran and North Korea and Bush has got himself involved in a couple of white elephants and looks like if things do turn bad then he's in no position to deal with them.
Terrorists attacking you because you are in thier country, they don't need your help, Iraq with Sadam was better then Iraq with Usa army ...
Wrong again. Terrorists attacking Iraqis. Those brave mujahadeen killing women and children and hiding behind them. Of course, saddam only killed about a million people, so he wasn't so bad
Good point ..... count the years ...compare them ... may be you are right ... yea Saddam is bad I didn't say something else ...but why the army still there .... drinking oil .....?
How many other countries in the world have huge death tolls, appaling human rights records and murderous dictators. Darfur, Zimbabwe, China, I don't see Bush rushing to get into any of those places.
No, I just think there are many other places that are more deserving of attention for the reasons that were "given" for the Iraq war, and are a lot more threatening to peace either on a local or global scale. The Iran problem for example. Im sure the current situation in the Middle East is indiectly stemming from Iranian influence. Basically what we have now is a war by proxy between the US and Iran fought by Israel and Hesbolah. Whatever happens at the end of it Iran will still be there and the world will still have the same problems. Iran will be closer to having nuclear weapons than Iraq ever was.
Then why raise the issue? Iran has come to the forefront long after Iraq. But if you aren't going to be happy one way or another going after those that threaten Western civiliazations, then why raise the issue?
I'm more than happy going after those that threaten western civilisation. I'm extremely sceptical that Iraq ever did though. At best it's a huge intelligence failiure on the part of the secret services not to have found out about Iran's weapons programme before and to have over estimated Iraqs. If we're going to go to war I'd hope we'd do so on some intelligence that has been a little more concrete than has emerged after the dust settled from Iraq.