Bush slaps Congress

[Guest a proud american]

Pay attention, "proud" american and I'll get you squared away. The UCMJ was written with conventional warfare in mind, not for terrorism. It's not

a "one size fits all" book. Your Viet Nam experience is totally foreign to today's terrorist threat. I support water boarding if that's what it takes to get

critical information in a timely fashion. For someone with a military background, your "play nice with the bad guys" attitude just boggles my mind.

Fanatical terrorists that willingly behead civilians and blow up malls are not impressed by the UCMJ.

For reasons that you must be a bleeding heart leftist to understand, following the "rules" is more important than winning and saving american lives.

Here's the bottom line; you leftists hide under your beds and bemoan how awful we're treating terrorists and the Patriots will take care of business.

Semper Fi

Actually, the Army Field Manual, specifically out lawing water boarding was changed after 9/11, which means that it, along with other changes, were made to make it a violation of the UCMJ.

[Bryan]

Actually, the Army Field Manual, specifically out lawing water boarding was changed after 9/11, which means that it, along with other changes, were made to make it a violation of the UCMJ.

When did the UCMJ begin to apply to the CIA, by the way?

[Guest a proud american]

When did the UCMJ begin to apply to the CIA, by the way?

It doesn't, however, now that I think you understand the Army Field Manual, there is such a document called the Geneva Convention. Now, before you go into one of your long diatribes, I'll save you the time. According to the White House Press Secretary, Dana Perrino, the signators to this document can interpret it as they see fit, even though every President including Reagan, and Bush Sr. appeared to understand it.

And yes, according to the current Administration, it doesn't apply to terrorists. However, since there have never been charges brought forth against anyone, it is an unknown whether a person could use that defense successfully or not. But, there is a case in New York, where the Judge ordered the CIA to keep all records and documents to include tape recordings. The question is going to be whether he holds the CIA in contempt of Court or not for desgtroying the evidence. I believe, but am not sure but I think it is Judge Silverman of the Southern District of New York. Since you don't like using ask.com google his name and you can read the entire case.

[Bryan]

It doesn't, however, now that I think you understand the Army Field Manual, there is such a document called the Geneva Convention. Now, before you go into one of your long diatribes, I'll save you the time. According to the White House Press Secretary, Dana Perrino, the signators to this document can interpret it as they see fit, even though every President including Reagan, and Bush Sr. appeared to understand it.

What, no mention of its torture provisions as treated by the U.S. Congress?

Is it that you don't know, or are you deliberately suppressing information in your account?

And yes, according to the current Administration, it doesn't apply to terrorists. However, since there have never been charges brought forth against anyone, it is an unknown whether a person could use that defense successfully or not. But, there is a case in New York, where the Judge ordered the CIA to keep all records and documents to include tape recordings. The question is going to be whether he holds the CIA in contempt of Court or not for desgtroying the evidence. I believe, but am not sure but I think it is Judge Silverman of the Southern District of New York. Since you don't like using ask.com google his name and you can read the entire case.

Like you did?

The administration has an excellent argument regarding the Geneva Conventions. Perhaps you'll get around to answering it.