Meet Andrew Sullivan (and his husband -- little Andrew is on the left):
Andrew Sullivan and Aaron Tone to Marry
Posted on 04/28/2008 2:00:25 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The manner in which free societies lose their moral compass is always incremental. Step by step by step, certain core values are whittled away. There is rarely a moment at which a government stands up, and asks its people if they wish to abandon such "quaint" notions as the Geneva Conventions, the rule of law, humane interrogation or habeas corpus. These things are abandoned incrementally or secretly, slice by slice, euphemism by euphemism, the chronology always clearer in retrospect than at the time. And each incremental step is always portrayed as a small but essential temporary sacrifice for the sake of security in a time of great and imminent peril.
And so defenders of torture have long argued that is is essential to make torture legal - but only in the ticking time bomb scenario. And yet, such a scenario has not yet happened and the United States has still indisputably abused and dehumanized thousands of prisoners in its custody, "disappeared" and tortured hundreds, and seen more than a dozen die in "interrogation". We now know, moreover, the following undisputed facts: the president of the United States and his closest advisers devised, orchestrated and monitored interrogation methods banned by the Geneva Conventions at Guantanamo Bay and subsequently in every theater of combat; these techniques were used not only in the extra-legal no-man's land of Guantanamo Bay but also at the prison at Abu Ghraib where photographic evidence of many of the actual techniques explicitly authorized by the president - stress positions, hoods, mock-executions, etc. - was incontrovertible. We now know that those techniques that the president expressed "shock" at were already explicitly authorized for use by other agents by him long before Abu Ghraib was exposed.
(Excerpt) Read more at andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com ...
Isn't this guy a British subject? Why doesn't he pack his suitcase and go back there if he doesn't like it here?
Let’s make Randy Andy’s day and let him spend a weekend at Club Gitmo. Then he will learn what they do to people of his ilk.
Self-righteous wanker
People that write horse$hit like this have never been in a combat zone where either they, people under them or unarmed, innocent civilians they are sworn to protect are in imminent danger. I learned a long damn time ago that you do what you have to do sometimes to protect the afformentioned people from harm or death. And if you have to bend a few rules to do it, well, that’s the price of war and as the saying goes “$hit happens”.
Yea well and I *sure* don’t see anything about the torture houses Al-Qaeda was running in Iraq. Recently got a first hand story from a Marine buddy fresh back... absolutely horrifying. How could anyone have anything but disdain for the sub-humans these... animals... are, I am at a loss.
Meet Andrew Sullivan (and his husband -- little Andrew is on the left):
Andrew Sullivan and Aaron Tone to Marry
You have to pity him - he’s just upset that we DON’T torture.
You know, the kind with the nipple clips, genital shocks and warm oil enemas....
“And if you have to bend a few rules to do it, well, that’s the price of war...”
Agreed, but these people are even worse than that. This man, whoever he is, is simply lying about Geneva. Under the first Geneva, which the US signed up for a long time ago, these out of uniform combatents are eligable for a summary trial and execution. Under the “rule of law” he is citing, these people have no Geneva protection.
Remember, you must wear a uniform identifiable at a specified range, carry your arms openly, and have an identifiable command structure to be eligable for Geneva protection - something none of these terrorists do. You must also extend Geneva rights to be eligable for Geneva rights. Period.
Secondly, the Geneva this author is citing is a later version (circa 1976, I want to say) that the United States never signed or ratified via the Senate. It has no force of law in the US despite any assertion of any of these leftist writers. This is simply more revisionism from the left.
Hi, I’m Andrew Sullivan and I don’t know the difference between a ligitimate combatant of a recognized nation, and a terrorist.
Hi Andrew. Only eleven more steps to go.
Since we signed that worthless scrap of paper in 1947, when has it protected OUR POWs?
Korea-no.
Vietnam-no.
Gulf War-no.
Afghanistan?-no.
Iraq?-no. Our last two Army POWs were tortured and mutilated. A third was found floating in a canal. And after four years, Matt Maupin was found in a grave. He was just buried Saturday in Ohio.
Yeah, that Geneva Convention really accomplished something.
If you’re captured on a field of battle as a combatant with no uniform, you have the right to one thing—summary execution. Period.
It’s about time, we reached down and located our collective testicles as a country and tell the rest of the world to buzz off. No country in history has freed more people and protected more peopl than this one.
NATO can’t even keep control in Afghanistan, and the other 200 countries on the planet can’t even take care of Sudan.
No one else does the heavy lifting America does.
And by the way, lefties, where’s my cheap oil under the “wars we have fought for oil” for the last twenty years?
Bingo. Good call.
Yes, I've seen some of al Qaeda's handiwork and if I never see any more, that's OK by me.
And this little pansy feels sorry for them.
Typical "ivory tower dweller" elitist BS.
Not true. They are not eligible for the protections of Article IV of the Third Geneva Convention (Prisoners of War), but they are entitled to the rudimentary protections of Common Article III. Basically, you can shoot them on the battlefield, but once captured, they're entitled to some very basic human rights - a fair trial, and no degrading, humiliating, or inhumane treatment.
Well, Vlad the Impaler was considered a hero among Romanians for his tenacious defense of his homeland against Ottoman/Islamist invasion, if I’m not mistaken. His enemies were terrifed. However, his supposed atrocities were greatly inflated by hist political opponents of time, mostly from the West (Germany).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_the_Impaler
British subject or not, he’s a nitwit.
Combattants who do not abide by the requirement of the Geneva Convention to carry arms openly, wear identifiable insignia, and not deliberately target civilians (among other things) are not entitled to its protections; nor are non-citizens entitled to the procedural rights guaranteed under the Constitution to citizens, save as Congress may enact to extend those procedural rights.
Close, but not quite. As I said above, Geneva III Article IV refuses protected prisoner of war status to combatants who don't have a hierarchical command structure, who don't carry arms openly, who don't have a distinct fixed insignia, and who don't respect the laws of war. Clearly, the insurgents fail the insignia and respect of laws of war requirements. They also don't qualify as a levie en masse (popular uprising) that Geneva III Article IV protects, since they don't respect the law of war.
That said, Common Article III still applies. ("Common Article" means simply that identical language is found in all the Geneva Conventions). That requires merely that anyone - even so-called unlawful combatants - be treated humanely and not be punished without the benefit of some sort of fair trial. That doesn't prohibit killing them in the battlefield - they are combatants - but it does preclude summary executions.
It should be noted that the above interpretation has been the Army's official line since the Law of Land Warfare field manual was published in the 1950's.
Secondly, the Geneva this author is citing is a later version (circa 1976, I want to say) that the United States never signed or ratified via the Senate. It has no force of law in the US despite any assertion of any of these leftist writers. This is simply more revisionism from the left.
There is an Additional Protocol 1 to Geneva III that indeed the US has not signed or ratified (the State Dept. has, however, noted that certain aspects of this Protocol are consistent with US law). It is not really relevant to this discussion, though. Common Article III is the floor of humane treatment required for all persons.
Andrew needs to read the Geneva Conventionbefore he write about it.
Since we signed that worthless scrap of paper in 1947, when has it protected OUR POWs?
What kind of unAmerican attitude is it to judge a treaty on the basis of what it does for the United States? Don't you know that treaties are only supposed to give our enemies a sporting chance to defeat us?</sarcasm>As you suggest, it is exceptional to the point of almost being impossible for the US to go to war with a regime which will actually abide by the Geneva Conventions. The only exception that comes to mind is Italy during WWII.I go so far as to say that those who criticize the US for "violating" restrictions to which the US is not a signatory are themselves attacking the Geneva Conventions. Indeed, I fault Bush for creating the atmosphere in which our servicemen are placed in a double bind - forced to choose between failing to protect their comrades and themselves on the one hand, and subjecting themselves to malicious prosecutions on the other. Far better that our servicemen should have the unambiguous support of their commanders in that sort of situation - along with post stress counseling to help them deal with the moral stresses which the violations of the Geneva Convention by terrorists (such as the use of human shields) subjects them to.
The weak political defenses which Bush has put up for his troops invites malicious prosecution in the same was as the appointment of Fitzgerald to investigate the nonissue of how good Scooter Libby's memory was invited malicious prosecution. Bush need look no further than that sort of weakness, same as the withdrawal of the "Sixteen words" which were absolutely true WRT the Hussain regime's efforts to obtain Uranium under the table.
I agree with your comments about the President setting an ambiguous tone and for not defending the truth against the media onslaught of lies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.