BUFDRVR:

Actually an *editorial* in a "leading military newspaper" made that claim.

The editors at the Military Times pretty much support the same
interpretation
of command responsibility that I do.

Actually the guy that wrote the editorial believes those higher in the
command
chain are also responsible, but he does not call for Bush to take
responsibility.

I believe he used the term "highest levels of civilian control" or words to
that effect.


I read editorials every week in Air Force Times that are based on nothing
more
than the opinion of a single person.

The posts you make on this NG -- are they the opinion of a single person?


I post my own opinion, but support them with facts.

You seldom do that. See below. You posted several items that are false.

You on the other hand
just
spout your typical leftist crap supported by nothing.

Others can judge whom they find more credible.


No, "it's" right. President Bush is ultimately repsonsible for what has
happened in Iraq, which James Webb -- no leftie, he-- called the greatest
strategic failure in the last 50 years.

No comment about Webb? He's one of my heroes, and he did call the invasion of
Iraq the greatest strategic ---blunder- may have been the word he used.


Once again, you suffer from lack of knowledge. You claim Iraqi prisoners have
never been treated according to the Geneva Convention;do you have any
supporting info for this claim? No? I thought not.

I haven't said they -never- had been granted the protections of the GC. What
seems obvious is that by last fall, pressure was being put on some that was
well outside the bounds of what the GC calls for.

I think the Bushies started getting nervous as their plans disintegrated and
the election began to loom.


Many have not been.

Then prove it.

What has come out in the media in the last few days is that General Miller
was
brought in from Gitmo (I have been there too, BTW) to make all the detention
facilities into interrogation centers in direct difiance of the Geneva
Convention.

Interrogations are legal by the Geneva Convention you nit wit.

Not with attack dogs.

I remind you again that Rumsfeld testified that all prisoners in Iraq were
covered by the Geneva Convention. But not all received that protection.


It wasn't until the
introduction of foreign fighters that things got blurry.

You can try and show that.

So far all the abuse cases and even the Red Cross reports date back to this
winter, not to the beginning of the operation. The Red Cross had full access
to
Iraqi PWs from APR 03 on and they did not report any abuse cases till this
past
winter.

You haven't demonstrated your point about foreign fighters. And you won't
either. It was a lie.


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

Where do you see that?

Where do I "see" that? In the Geneva Convention you moron.

Rumsfeld this week testifed to another effect:

"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



If I decide I want
to pick up and fight for India in the Kashmir region tommorow and do so
without
becoming an Indian citizen and putting on a recognized military uniform I am
an
unlawful combatant.

Only in the Bushie world, where they flaunt any laws they don't like.

Not only does the Geneva Convention offer no protection,
it
states unlawful combatants, depending on their activity, can be considered
spies and executed.

That doesn't square with Rumsfeld's testimony.


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

Then why did Rumsfeld --say-- they were being treated in accordance with the
Geneva Conventions?

Because we have treated every captive in accordance with Geneva.

Even that poor guy threatened with attack dogs?

Even the
unlawful combatants captured in Afghanistan have been accorded the treatment
specified for legal combatants (with the exception of repatrioting them after
the conflict is over).

Flatly false.

Walt