BUFDRVR sends:

George Z. Bush wrote:

From the beginning of the conflict captured Iraqis (including Saddam
Hussain)
were accorded everything due them in the Geneva convention.

If that were the case, why did the International Red Cross repeatedly advise
us
both verbally and in writing since
February 2004 that there were systemic
failures in the treatment of detainees in Iraq

You're not following the argument George. I agree, this winter when things
started to turn into a full blown insurgency, our jailors began to act
unlawfully. What "Walt" is arguing is that since the beginning (March 2003)
of
OIF, Iraqi PWs have been abused.

I don't recall saying that. I've been wondering that as things have gotten
worse and worse, and their November 2 drubbing draws closer and closer, that
the Bushies haven't ramped up the pressure. But it doesn't seem to have started
out this bad, this pressure on the detanees. Don't forget -- the Bushies
-expected- a walk over.

You do have to wonder how they could let the prisoner abse thing bite them in
the butt so badly. Hopefully, it will precipitate a Watergate-like fall. It
would be nice to see Bush and Rumsfeld given criminal indictments.

According to Walt, its because Bush ordered
it, or somehow (through his "behavior") condoned it.

Bush is ultimately responsible.

I'm not arguing with
what
happened this winter, but if you and Walt believe that this was the standard
since combat ops began, you're ignoring facts.

I don't recall ever saying anything like that.

The Red Cross had access to
Iraqi PWs since April 2003, they didn't report abuses until this past winter.

Fine with me.



Why did nobody in
our government pay attention, or investigate, or do anything about cleaning
up
the mess until a couple of weeks ago, when the stuff hit the fan and became
public knowledge?

Investigations were begun before this became public a few weeks ago.

And yet the president first saw the pictures of the abuse on "60 Minutes II"

Why was
no
immediate action taken as soon as the Red Cross report was provided? My guess
is because those who read the report didn't believe it. Prior to seeing the
pictures I wouldn't have believed it either.

I don't know why that would surprise anyone. The Bush administartion has kept
a U.S. citizen in jail for over two years with no charges, no trial and no
access to lawyers. That's Jose Padilla.

Now we recently see the heretofore unbelieveable spectacle of the Solicitor
General of the United States going before the Supreme Court to argue that an
American citizen should not be granted the protections of the sixth amendment.

The prisoner abuse episode was not the first time the Bushies have tossed out
the law.


A captured Saudi is
*not* afforded protection under the Geneva convention for fighting
Americans
in
Iraq.

If he's a detainee, he certainly is.

You'll have to point out where Geneva states that a third party national
conducting military operations in a foreign country is a "detainee" and not
an
unlawful combatant.

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities

While there were some "suspects" in Abu Gharib, most were captured unlawful
combatants.

That's not true. In fact, you're lying, as it's been reported that 60-70% were
essentially picked up at random.


To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
and
in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life...snip

Once again George, you aren't following my argument. I'm not trying to
justify
these horrible acts.

You lied and you got caught. Does that Bush re-election campaign have a shill
telling lies on every newsgroup?

I am making two points. First, while we choose to follow
the Geneva convention for *all* combatants, both lawful and unlawful

We haven't done that. We've done just the opposite.

, it does
not mean that all our prisoners are automatically entitled this protection.

The ones held in Iraq a

"Rumsfeld replied that the Geneva Conventions applied to all prisoners held in
Iraq but not to those held in Guantanamo Bay, where detainees captured in the
global war on terror are held."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4855930

But the POW's in Iraq didn't get those protections, did they?

Second, this abhorant behavior is not a reflection of anyone other than those
immediately involved.

Of couse it is. Where were the lieutenants and captains? These soldiers were
put in a permssive situation, given a wink and a nod from the MI or whomever,
and it was off to the races. And the Red Cross report said such abuses were
widespread and systemic. An Afghani has also come forward to tell how -he- was
abused in similar ways.

If you listen to our resident leftist troll Walt, Bush
ordered or at least condoned these abuses and should be held accountable.

Bush is ultimately responsble, yes. And he should be held accountable. He
may be worried about winding up in the dock next to Slobodan Milosovic.

Walt
attempts to prove Bush's direct involvement

I never said that. I said he is ultimately responsible. You're missing my
take on GWB. I think he's a puppet. He sounds like a retard to me.

Why did he have it leaked last Thursday or Friday that he had "admonished" the
SecDef, and then this Monday say he was doing a "superb" job? Maybe Cheney
crossed his signals.


by claiming U.S. forces, since
combat operations began, have never afforded Iraq PWs the treatment due the
under Geneva.

I never said anything like that. I said that Bush was ultimately responsible
for what happens or fails to happens -- the concept that was drilled into me in
the Marine Corps.


If they're Iraqis and in uniform they have Geneva convention rights.
Remove
either of the two and they are not protected under Geneva.

You obviously haven't read the Geneva Convention....

Sorry George, every year we were required to take a test on the Geneva
Convention articles during our "Laws of Armed Conflict" training.

Then you are lying. George -did- quote it after all, and as the SedDef's
testimony I quote above shows, he knew he was obligated to make sure that the
detainees in Iraq were not sodomized, or threatened with attack dogs and all
the rest.

You seem to be forgetting also, that the SecDef has -taken- responsibility. He
-said- he was responsible. Of course he reports to GWB.


I'm sure
I've
either read or been briefed them many more times than you.

take another look - if they
were not fighting while taken prisoner, they're covered, whether or not they
were soldiers.

Who has said anything about non-combatants? This is the first introduction of
non-combatants into the issue. Do you have a point to make about
non-combatants?

You got caught lying. Well, it's not the first time.

Walt