Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 09/21/2006 View Wed 09/20/2006 View Tue 09/19/2006 View Mon 09/18/2006 View Sun 09/17/2006 View Sat 09/16/2006 View Fri 09/15/2006
1
2006-09-21 Home Front: Politix
Are Videotaped Beheadings Covered by Geneva?
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Fred 2006-09-21 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 What? On Monday, Ann Coulter attended an Oval Office meeting in which the President stressed that the GWOT was not between Muslims and others, but a matter of "right and wrong." If that's all it is, then be-heading is merely criminal.

Anyone who believes that we are at war with Muslims, is at odds with President Bush.

Law enforcement officers are duty bound to examine motive, means and opportunity, as part of a criminal investigation. If Koran dictate cannot be treated as a motivating force then jihad incitement is legal. Why? The Koran tells Muslims, "Jihad is prescribed to you."

Until Western Civilization wages direct war on all terrorists - including Saudi/Pakistan harbored groups and Hamas, and Hizbollah and all their supporters - then we are spinning our wheels.

Posted by Snease Shaiting3550 2006-09-21 01:09||   2006-09-21 01:09|| Front Page Top

#2 Bush is going whimpy again
Posted by Captain America 2006-09-21 01:38||   2006-09-21 01:38|| Front Page Top

#3 Bush is trying to win elections.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-21 06:50||   2006-09-21 06:50|| Front Page Top

#4 And judging by the polls this week, he's doing a pretty good job. Fox News Britt Hume said last night (paraphrasing) that the Dems hopes are diminishing.

I'm looking forward to after the elections. Everybody registered to vote?
Posted by Bobby 2006-09-21 06:56||   2006-09-21 06:56|| Front Page Top

#5 In the most current measurement (the war in Iraq), have the Geneva Conventions protected the US and coalition prisoners? Daniel Pearl? Nick Berg? Fabrizio Quattrocci? Kim Sun-Il? Have they protected our soldiers mutilated and hung from the bridge in Fallujah? Have they protected Iraqis themselves found this week tortured to death (real torture) with power drills?

Why can't these grown men and women in Congress come up with a reasonable and clear definition of torture? John McCain, of anyone, ought to know better. And we owe it to our soldiers to clearly define for them what is and isn't allowed.
Posted by Jules 2006-09-21 07:54||   2006-09-21 07:54|| Front Page Top

#6 Grrrr...

The SCOTUS decision to extend Geneva coverage to terrorists, in spite of the fact that they are specifically excluded by the conventions, is where the problem lies. That bit of faux "international law" tranzi-ism opened this never-ending can of worms. Now we must dance to a tune that has no point, no purpose, and no practical end. No US service personnel will ever be "protected" by this idiocy - they're Goddamn terrorists you SCOTUS morons. Correct this incredibly flawed decision, by whatever means necessary - and I mean whatever, and this self-destructive jerking off would disappear. Hmmm... Is it okay to pray for heart attacks? Several at once? I have 3 or 4 in mind...

Graham is a political grandstander whose JAG "expertise" is close to non-existent. I invite ex-JAG to weigh in on this topic. Graham has gotten a lot of mileage from his supposed experience, but my contacts tell me he was an insignificant clerk during his tour, not some vaunted expert, much less any sacred Voice of Conscience as he portrays himself to be. He's just decided to position himself as McCain's running mate, it seems... one dickhead from the West, one dickhead from the East. Dickhead balance.

McCain. Spit. He knows far less about torture than anyone else who resided at the Hanoi Hilton, despite all of his posturing and preaching. I'd love to see Bud Day or any of the others open up on this phoney... but they probably won't, dammit. I credit him with flying combat - enough to tolerate the political gambit - but he has abused that honorable act for self-gain and promotion, so he has flushed his honor down the drain and is now no different from Kerry or Murtha in my estimation.

McCain received special hands-off treatment from his first day when the zipperheads discovered he was that McCain - whose Daddy was an Admiral. Just as with Kerry and Murtha, so much of McCain's political persona is based on bullshit that he should be hounded out of politics by the POW equivalent of the SwiftBoat Vets.

As for the terrorists, why are we even discussing their treatment? Ah, of course: politics. If they still breathe, then they've received far more than is their due. Grill them, squeeze them, rip their toenails out one by one. Get whatever you think they have... Then snuff them with extreme prejudice.
Posted by Speater Flump2829 2006-09-21 08:26||   2006-09-21 08:26|| Front Page Top

#7 Damn, lost the italics close tag which should have been after "excluded"... Shit.
Posted by Speater Flump2829 2006-09-21 08:28||   2006-09-21 08:28|| Front Page Top

#8 This is so stupid. Not enforcing the GC - by giving illegal combatants legal rights (Miranda rights??) will destroy the GC.

Nobody will follow it because it doesn't cost them anything. Why should China or Pakistan in some future war treat american prisoners well? It doesn't cost them anything if they don't.
Posted by CrazyFool 2006-09-21 08:35||   2006-09-21 08:35|| Front Page Top

#9 Okay, let me ask something - if the terrs are covered by the GC, does that not also mean they are liable to punishment under those international treaties and agreemenst that cover such things? In other words, fine - if these clowns want to cover the terrs, fine - but they had better DEMAND, PUBLICLY AND IMMEDIATELY, that al-Q's boys are committing war crimes and should be charged as such.
I know....but I can dream.

Mike
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2006-09-21 09:48||   2006-09-21 09:48|| Front Page Top

#10 These misinformed senators suffer from daily MSM viewing. They have blinded themselves and they cannot be saved from political decline. This is a free country, and if politicians want to disappear, then they can, without malice, and I defend their right to do so.
Posted by wxjames 2006-09-21 09:59||   2006-09-21 09:59|| Front Page Top

#11 Anyone who believes that we are at war with Muslims, is at odds with President Bush.

Anyone who doesn't is at odds with reality.
Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford  2006-09-21 11:36|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2006-09-21 11:36|| Front Page Top

#12 “…and the four pathetic Republicans angling to be called "mavericks" by the New York Times…”

As per usual, Coulter offers a valid opinion then hurls incendiary bombs to get attention. Who could blame her really? Actually it’s an old media-whore tactic. But you have to admit she really has perfected her craft. Of course if she is called on it, as always, she will roll her eyes and smugly look into the camera and say… Someone has to agree with me…after all…my books are on NYT Best sellers list. And who could argue with that logic. But on this topic whose opinion is more valid? Is it a US Senator who is a veteran naval aviator of twenty-two years and former Prisoner of war of five and a half years whose naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross? Is it a US Senator who is a veteran and former JAG officer? Is it a US Senator that is currently the Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee? Is it a US Senator who is a veteran of both the Navy and Marines, former assistant US attorney, and was was appointed to both Undersecretary and Secratary of the Navy, who currently sits on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and is Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee?
Or is it a talk-show jockey that hawks her books in a black cocktail dress?
What’s the word I’m searching for? Oh...it’s right there… “pathetic”.
Posted by DepotGuy 2006-09-21 11:46||   2006-09-21 11:46|| Front Page Top

#13 Depot Guy, don't forget that McCain's missle hit another jet fighter and started the Forrestal fire...list it under loose cannon identification.
Shit like that doesn't happen for no reason, it's God's way of fingering an idiot.
Posted by wxjames 2006-09-21 13:59||   2006-09-21 13:59|| Front Page Top

#14 Didn't happen that way Mr. James.
Posted by 6 2006-09-21 14:22||   2006-09-21 14:22|| Front Page Top

#15 a Zuni rocket fired from an F-4 Phantom II by an electrical power surge hit an A-4 Skyhawk getting ready to launch with Lt. Cmdr. John McCain as the pilot. The missile struck and knocked off the aircraft's fuel tank and started a fire. His aircraft surrounded by flames, John McCain escaped from his jet by climbing out of the cockpit, walking down to the nose of the plane, and jumping off the refueling probe.

I ain't voting for 'em tho. He's crazy.
Posted by 6 2006-09-21 14:25||   2006-09-21 14:25|| Front Page Top

#16 "It's all about the United States of America and what is going to happen to Americans who are taken prisoner in future wars."

-what future wars? China, Syria, Iran, N.Kor, Saudi?? Do these idiots in the senate honestly f*cking believe any of those countries are going to abide by Geneva if we get into a donnybrook w/them? Does any other country except some of those homos in the EU really give a sh*t what we do or not wrt signing this law?

Trust me Sen McCain, we in the mil today know full well if captured we are prolly going to have the sh*t beat out of us repeatedly. In GW1 how many American prisoners got beat? The answer is quite a few. I do not know if Iraq was a GC signer prior to that war but it doesn't really matter. We need latitude to fight the muslims, not some legal hand cuffs on our interrogators. BTW - if every fricken' sand clown gave up good info for a tuna sub I'd be the first in line in agreement w/McCain, but that's not reality. I know for a fact some under handed sh*t (that would be according to most of the pussies in the senate) my bro's had to pull in Al Anbar to crack terrorists. Try banging pots & pans together next to some jihadi ringleader's head every couple of minutes for 16 hours straight & intimating to him that the Marines outside in the hall will slit his throat after shooting him w/porkfat greased bullets if given the oppotunity when you know he's bluffing - eventually the puke gave up accurate and timely gouge. I bet that would put ole Lynsey's panties in a wad. JHC, let the professional interrogators do their job. Let the tactic match the terrorist, not the tactic based off some law from folks who ain't been in the fight in 40 f*cking years. I only see more red tape & more bad unintended consequences from this.

I know McCain's service history real well (as everyone on here does, but I feel because of that distinguished service he gets a pass from the general public when he does other really stupid things) but he is way off on this one - just like he is on immigration. I pray the man doesn't run for pres - I'd prolly have to vote Libertarian or for Perot again.
Posted by Broadhead6 2006-09-21 23:04||   2006-09-21 23:04|| Front Page Top

23:57 trailing wife
23:49 Texas Redneck
23:47 Frank G
23:45 Texas Redneck
23:44 Thoth
23:43 ex-lib
23:42 .com
23:41 trailing wife
23:41 .com
23:40 Thoth
23:39 Rafael
23:39 .com
23:38 Abdominal Snowman
23:37 Thoth
23:33 Thoth
23:33 trailing wife
23:31 .com
23:31 Thoth
23:27 Thoth
23:26 trailing wife
23:25 Grolurt Hupising1286
23:23 Broadhead6
23:20 Grolurt Hupising1286
23:20 Zenster









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com