"Pooh thought about this for a long time. Once, after accidentally eating all the honey in the house, he had decided it was a good time to see if his paw could fit inside a jar of raspberry jam. The jar and Pooh had begun a Serious Discussion of the question, but just when Pooh felt the first bits of jam with the tip of his paw, he also discovered that his paw was stuck in the jar. The Discussion had thus been inconclusive, and Pooh had been left knowing a great deal about the feel of raspberry jam, but not nearly enough about the taste. Remembering this, Pooh remarked to himself that being Red-Handed was not always such a bad thing, but being Caught made it rather difficult to enjoy.

After Christopher Robin had listened to Owl explain the importance of "Maintaining Deniability," and after Rabbit had assured Pooh that there was absolutely no honey or condensed milk anywhere in the house (Rabbit had maintained deniability by keeping all his food at the hole of one of his Friends and Relations), the three set out again, to find out how the rest of the Hundred Acre Wood was facing up to the prospect of a Meateater Frenzy."

By Jed Miller

Meateaters, indeed!

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

No? Then you’ve gone through this whole thread without reading it. To deny seeing the very words in front of you is not a debating tactic.

“And on Jan. 9, 2002, John Yoo of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel coauthored a sweeping 42-page memo concluding that neither the Geneva Conventions nor any of the laws of war applied to the conflict in Afghanistan”.

Can you see anywhere on this thread where it was stated that Bushes policies specifically stated that torture is OK? Please point it out to me. Why do you argue against an assertion that was never made in the first place? And you make the argument over and over.






You assertion here is confusing. If you’re saying that defining terrorists as soldiers is a bogus attempt to include them under Geneva conventions then you’re in trouble. Why are we arresting interrogators or investigating interrogators and guards on abuse charges at Gitmo if the Geneva convention and international law don’t apply to terrorists and suspected terrorists Also explain this, why did the State dept under Collin Powel strenuously object to the Bush policies on interrogations against terrorists? Even the Defense depts. legal staff strenuously objected to Bush’s policies on interrogation until Rumsfeld signed off on them.

“Gonzales also argued that dropping Geneva would allow the president to "preserve his flexibility" in the war on terror. His reasoning? That U.S. officials might otherwise be subject to war-crimes prosecutions under the Geneva Conventions.”


No, but I can claim that ambiguous policies can absolutely lead to torture. If a policy leaves the rules wide open enough any individual can misinterpret them as he pleases.

Wrong, even if your policies about torture never specify torture as an option they can open the door for it. If you actually believe that in politics elected officials always spell out exactly what they mean you have a long way to go. If you’re saying that elected officials throughout history have been scrupulously honest you really shouldn’t be debating on this web site. If you actually believe that policies never have unintended consequences you’re living out a fantasy. The world my friend is not black and white. But it may take you a while to learn that.

Let's see. "Torture policies." Wouldn't that indicate that the policy was torture? Are you trying to say that Bush's "torture policies" do not give the OK to torture? Then, why do you call them "torture policies"?


If the terms of the Geneva Convention is applied to these detainees, then they are NOT protected as my previous post clearly point out. It's plain English.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

Not necessarily. You can have policies that can lead to torture without ever mentioning the word torture in it. . You can even write policies about torture that never actually command anyone to commit torture.

If the dictator of a country began establishing laws that commanded all goods and services be distributed equally among the citizens of said country you would consider his policies to be communist. But the word communism might never appear in his directives. In fact the dictator himself could even deny his policies were communist.

But don’t tell me that you would give him that luxury.

But in every case that involves policy directives that lead to disaster, you give Bush the benefit of the doubt.

First this is not just about the Geneva Conventions; it’s also about international agreements that Bush felt did not apply to detainees. Second the Bush administration wouldn’t have gone out of its way to write so many memos regarding the Geneva convention if it didn’t feel that the ideas contained in that treaty weren’t fully ingrained in the American conscience. If as you say the terms of the convention don’t protect detainees why emphasize that fact in so many memos. There was a reason for writing new policy memos for old rules that were already in place.

Also why did the Bush administration modify its rules after the Abu Graib atrocity? Why change a policy that was perfectly good to begin with.

By the way, you were the one who went to great lengths to tell me how many military officials were punished after Abu Graib. Bush’s policy created confusion and unintended consequences.

Geneva Convention or not, we don’t like the world to think of us as a nation that commits prisoner abuse. And the last thing we need is to look like abusers in the eyes of the country we now occupy.

I’ve posted and others have posted other abuse incidents that the government is attempting to keep in a low profile status.

No. Please read your own quote carefully. Note the bold text.

You may notice that no one is saying the conventions should be suspended in that sentence. They are saying they should not be applied in a particular case.

So the accusations that Bush wants to suspend the conventions are simply wrong (assuming they are not a deliberate lie).

And I STILL do not see anywhere in that sentence where they are encouraging torture, nevermind openly authorizing it. Do we have a policy of torture in the absence of the Geneva conventions? My impression was that torture was against US law as well.

Yes. It has been claimed that Bush has a policy of torture. Please read carefully:

Are you now withdrawing these accusations?

But that is not what you said. See above.

He cannot be held responsible for things he never said IMO. You may feel he should have been less vague, but either way that does not absolve the people who committed those acts. They are equivilant to traitors IMO.

There is nothing to misinterpret. He did not order them to torture, nor did he explictly say it was authorized. Tehrefore, and "interpretation" they do is at their own risk.

It works the same in the civilian sector. We dont get to "misinterpret" laws in our favor when we feel like it and get away with it.

So you believe implications = policy?

Exactly at what point do you hold people responsible for their own actions?

Glad to hear it. Next time I go to the grocery store, I will be sure to pick up the items they have on display outside the door without paying for them. After all, I can "misinterpret" that they intended them to be free right? Why else would they display them where anyone can run off with them?

Those soldiers were not obligated to follow "implied" instructions. We have laws for a reason.

I dont agree with you that we can creatively re-interpret laws as we see fit. They are laws, not suggestions.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

more ambiguous and hypocritical policy: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0929/dailyUpdate.html

Luis Posada is accused of masterminding the '76 bombing of a Cuban passenger jet that killed 73. The Dept. of Homeland Security was supposed to be arguing for his extradition to Venezuela but instead virtually collaberated with Posada. Extradition was denied on the basis that he MIGHT BE TORTURED! As a U.S. official said, "It's bad enough when the world knows that we're rendering suspected Islamic terrorists to countries that routinely use terror, but here we have someone who we know is a terrorist, and its clear that we are actively protecting him from facing justice."

You may have also noticed I stated what that particular case was early on What is the difference between not being applied in a particular case and suspended in a particular case? Below I stated what that particular case was.


I doubt if you would try it, you’d be arrested if caught. And the law is clear and precise about this.

But suppose a local government came up with rules about taking things without paying for them. What if laws were passed that stated in certain specific cases something can be removed from off the store shelf without being paid for? Suppose during certain personal emergencies it was allowable to remove over the counter medications or other items without paying for them.

If I observed this I would call it a theft policy even if the word theft had never been contained in the policy. Also I would call it irresponsible and reckless.

That policy would lead to an increase of theft due to confusion and misinterpretation.

But I guess you would say that the lawmakers did not create a theft policy because the word theft was never used and they never directly told anyone to steel anything. They only allowed removing store items in specific cases.

And you would blame the statistical increase of theft in general not on the lawmakers but on the citizens who took too many liberties. Even if the statistics clearly showed more theft after policy implementation than before. You still wouldn’t blame the policy.