July 27, 2005
Frist may be amoral but he is loyal to his President.
By delaying action on the legislation, possibly into September, Frist put off potentially embarrassing defeats for President Bush.
Maybe he'll get to sit at the head of the table at the next Crawford barbecue.
In support of his amendment, McCain read from a July 22 letter signed by 14 retired military officers, including Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar, the former commander of U.S. Central Command, and Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the Navy's judge advocate general from 1997 to 2000.
"The abuse of prisoners hurts America's cause in the war on terror, endangers U.S. service members who might be captured by the enemy and is anathema to the values Americans have held dear for generations," the letter stated.
Posted by Buck at July 27, 2005 08:48 AM
How exactly does our treatment of terrorists endanger US service members?
The underlying goal of the Geneva Conventions was to set "rules" for war (this is where these comments derive from). In any situation where only one side plays by the rules, the rules become a farce.
Did I miss something or did we start beheadings recently?
The truth is that terrorists don't play by the rules in the first place and most of the "abuse of prisoners" have been overblown -- Durbin's comparison of Guantamino to Nazi concentration camps and Russian Gulags. Please.
The idea that fundamentalist muslims hate us more due to Guantamino is interesting. Once they hate you enough that murdering innocent people is OK and that behedding prisoners is their standard resolution, can they hate you a little more? If they do, do you care?
m...Do you think we should have a clear understanding of what our acceptable treatment of prisoners should be or do you think that we would be justified if we started beheading them?
Should our enemy be labeled as "terrorists" or should we call them "enemy combatants"?
This article hints that maybe our treatment of prisioners is not as harmless as we have been led to believe.
Be nice to Sen. Frist. He may be performing surgery on a loved one in the spring of '08, after he loses (badly) in the primaries.
I think that many people are making much ado about nothing as it relates to treatment of terrorists or enemy combatants. Would playing loud music, making people wear a bra, making people dance with other people of the same sex, or making threats be over the line? In the review of Guantanimo or if you prefer "Club Gitmo" these actions were deemed not to be over the line. In fact most of the democrat party noise that was originally complaining loudest about conditions at Guantanimo Bay amazingly shut up once they visit Gitmo to do their own review.
I am ok with either term be it terrorist or enemy combatant. I suppose they'd be terrorists until you catch them. Once you've caught them they become enemy combatants. Either way it should be clear that these people are dangerous people and need to be handle appropriately -- both in the way they are treated and the way in which we go about getting information from them.
For the record, beheadings would be over the line.
Comments for this entry are closed. Please leave your notes on a more recent comment thread.