Lindsey Graham is contradicting himself, making case AGAINST this bill

[Atman]

He doesn't even realize he's doing it. He just pointed out that "no prisoner in history, not the Japanese, not the Germans, have had the right to habeas corpus!" Well, then, what is the concern here? The Geneva Conventions have been in place for HOW MANY YEARS? Through how many wars? And yet, despite this, as Graham points out so aptly -- "no prisoner in history, not the Japanese, not the Germans, have had the right to habeas corpus!" So what is different now, Lindsey? Why NOW do we have to spell it out for Chimpy? Why is Chimpy so fucking dense that he cannot act along the same standards which have served this country and the world just fine for so long? Are you admitting that Bush is just too stupid to understand the Conventions, or what? What was your point, Lindsey? If there has never been an issue with habeas corpus and prisoners before, why do think there will be now?

Oh, that's right...our presidents weren't committing atrocities back then, and were adhering to the full Geneva Conventions, and not torturing people.

Never mind.

.

[Hav]

1. .

Good point. And maybe it is about making something legal after you got told that it can't go on like this by the courts? What a banana republic.

[sandnsea]

2. We didn't suspend Habeas then

why do we need to now?? (We came off our chairs when he said that)

We didn't have Geneva Conventions during WWII, to the best of my recollection.

[Solly Mack]

3. He knows exactly what he is doing

He's protecting the manufactured reality...

He knows if the bill passes, the less the likelihood of anyone in Congress pointing the war crime finger

the cold hard reality is...any person that would vote for this bill will NOT...NOT EVER...hold Bush accountable

if this bill passes, the lie is on the books that America doesn't torture...that AMerica follows the GC....and they want that legal covering

Graham knows. Warner knows. McCain knows....they all know

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. Well, DUH!

We either treat them as prisoners of war - as in previous wars - and don't worry about habeus corpus, or we treat them as criminals, in which case they are entitled to habeas corpus. To treat them as neither fish nor fowl is against international law. Those who support this are, by definition, international criminals, no less than those who are interned. Period.