Does the "compromise" adhere to the Geneva Convention Rules?

[kentuck]

If not, no Democrat should support it. We cannot as a nation condone torture of any sort, regardless of what Bush, McCain, Graham and the Republicans say. We cannot support it. Period.

If there ever was a time to filibuster, this would be it. Let them call it what they want. They are good at clouding the truth with words and PR. However, torture is torture no matter what they call it. Let the Democrat Party stand up for our country and for human rights. As a Democrat, I cannot support torture in any form. I hope my Party will stand by the same principles.

[wtmusic]

1. No. The GC are explicit.

Article 17:

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."


What is it about "no coercion, no disadvantageous treatment" that these people don't understand? :shrug:

[rustydog]

2. Of course not..there would not be any comrpomise

or revision of anything if it follows Geneva!
This gutless coward (rivalling Hitler in hypocrisy) is beginning to fear war crimes trials after he is out of office and is trying to post-date legislation to save his gutless ass.
of course it won't follow Geneva, Bush has failed to follow Geneva 30-seconds after taking the oath of office.

[kaneko]

3. I totally agree,

share your hope and definitely do not want to be disappointed again. This is a question of principle and humanity and the justified feear that it would be used against American prisoners is a secondary consideration.

[LynnTheDem]

4. No. America; war criminal regime.

And that's just a fact, sad as it is.

[endarkenment]

5. The compromise abolishes, unilaterally, our participation

in the GC. The USSC already ruled that what we are doing is a clear violation of GC Article 3. Passing laws to legalize these actions makes what the criminal cabal is up to legal, but it does so by superseding the GC, by abolishing the contradictory sections.

No human being with any moral fiber at all ought to support this outrage, this collective war crime being committed in our name.

We must ask ourselves if we are the good germans of our time.

[lawladyprof]

6. The problem seems to be

That the administration wants to treat these people like prisoners of war (this is a WAR) when it wants to and judicial system prisoners (some sorts of disadvantageous treatment permitted by US law) when it wants to (but not, of course, when it doesn't want to--admit hearsay evidence, access to all evidence against you, etc.).

[kentuck]

7. Excellent point !

If we are "at war", then it would necessarily follow that they would be "prisoners of war". Right?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Were the prisoners consulted for input on the "compromise"?

Or, was the "compromise" left up to the torturers?

I wonder how it much feel sitting in a cell somewhere and having some bigshots thousands of miles away deciding that throwing buckets of cold water on you and putting you in a refrigerator is more "humane" than pulling your fingernails out?

Even worse, the people doing so being praised for their "courage".

[gulliver]

9. I think they are leaving it debateable so we will keep debating it.

They've got their photo op, plus a couple of downstream dog and pony shows when the legislation passes the House and Senate. Then need to stretch this or people will start to look at Iraq again.