"The Bush administration, called to account by Congress after the Supreme Court blocked military tribunals, said Tuesday that all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and in all other U.S. military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions."

FLIP-FLOP! FLIP-FLOP! FLIP-FLOP! FLIP-FLOP! FLIP-FLOP! FLIP-FLOP! FLIP-FLOP! FLIP-FLOP!

Just typical polititions.

They all do it.

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)

Don't complain Pacman. It's either a sign that A) Some of the Republican leadership are growing some brains/balls, or 😎 some aspect of our legal justice system is coming to bear on these psychos, forcing them to straighten up and fly right. Either way it's a step in the right direction.

Well, it just bugs me that the very thing they accused Kerry of doing before the last pres. election is something they engage in...and then claim it's not a reversal.

This administration is so hypocritical. I wish the dems could muster the huevos to put up a good candidate every four years. Not that I vote dem, I'm just tired of watching this idjit making so many poor decisions.

Yea but Homebrew's right, they all do it, and at every opportunity they get; there's a certain equanimity to that charge: heck we all do it, editing our scripts and changing on the fly. The important thing is that somewhere, somehow, noticable fire is being held to the administration's feet, or this wouldn't be happening; remember, these dudes stay the course.

Between the turture issue, the absurd premise for the war (with Iraq, not Afghanistant), constitutional issues, the gay amendment, diminished women's rights, corrupt lobbying & gerrymandering, and offshoring of natural American resources, we need stronger political leadership, and responsibility in the judiciary more than ever. This is a tiny step in the right direction. Somebody somewhere's saying listen up fellas, and they listened this time. Probably not strictly domestic pressure either, likely international pressures coming to bear on this issue.

Perhaps he is just amending the pleadings to fit the evidence, Counselor.

But...but...HE CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Thank goodness I'm smart enough to stay out of politics. I would probably make Ann Coulter look like Pollyanna.

Yes Lets Enforce Our United States Constitutional Rights on everyone on the face of this Earth and grant them the same Eh??

Like the Judge on the Fox news said.. this isn't to good of deal for newly captured SOB's... you'll have a couple soldiers thinking... hmmmm do we lock him up as a POW and he gets more and better rights then we do? or do we waist his ass and not report he did/was surrenduring?

Sad day in the world of sports...

Hog

Wait...it's bad policy because it will encourage our soldiers to execute prisoners once captured? OMG, please tell me someone didn't seriously proffer that argument.

I haven't read all of Article 3 of the GC, but I'm pretty sure "thou shalt not kill prisoners" is at least implicitly prohibited.

Yes, and this from a man of "true character." In a pig's eye.

Yes, lets give these terrorist that would kill women and children all the rights they "deserve".....NOT.

Charlie

pacman, et al.:

I'm a Bush supporter (of sorts). You're right - it's a flip-flop. Frankly, the Ganeva Convention is quite clear: the terrorists are on the same par as spies. And as far as I'me concerned, Bush should stand up for this.

However, some of you might be kinda being a little to quick to criticize. Perhaps they are already being treated as Prisoners of War. Or, better yet, their Geneva Convention classification might make it difficult for any in the Congress to claim that our military actions are not related to a war.

He's done this kind of stuff before...

libertarian lawyer my ass.

Why do liberals try to pretend they're not?

Libertarians are the new version of classical liberals: strong on individual freedoms, against large government intervention: sort of states rights types.

Liberal, on the other hand, is an general adjective of a less clear semantic specification, and requires a noun in order to make sense. Conservative is too a general, ainherently ambiguous adjective. One needs to specify (X) liberal or (Y) conservative to make any tangible sense. For example, I'm a fiscal conservative, and I assume Bush supporters are fiscal liberals based on the administration's historical record.

the same reason dimwits pretend they're not, is what you're showing us peeps??

good doggie.

No Rug, it has nothing to do with that. It's a matter of understanding basic political terms as they apply to American history, and the casual and misdirected use of the general terms liberal and conservative. For example, as a Bush supporter, you're a fiscal liberal are you not?

Docpep,

quit arguing with Rug. Have you not noticed that he hasn't stated any opinion on the issue or the thread, but rather just went on with his typical BS?

1. Liberals suck

2. You suck

3. You aren't smart and therefore I win

Go back to the topic of the thread DrPep. You're a smart dude.

Charlie,

Is it your opinion that EVERY single person captured and put into Gitmo is in fact a terrorist? What is your reasoning for this?

Hog,

Professing that soldiers should commit murder is a bit over the top don't you think? Next you'll be comparing them to Wal-mart clerks.

Well thanks for your vote of confidence Adroomi, but I thought by ddressing the administration in my last post I was staying on the topic of the Bush administration; tangentially, but on topic.

Prisoners of war must be humanely treated at all times. Any unlawful act which causes death or seriously endangers the health of a prisoner of war is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. In particular, prisoners must not be subject to physical mutilation>, biological experiments, violence, intimidation, insults, and public curiosity. (Convention III, Art. 13)

Maybe someone should contact the other side on this????