Petraeus Says U.S. Violated Geneva Conventions

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,757
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
And he did it on FOX news!.....During the Bush?Cheney regime General Petraeus could do and say no wrong. Hell, his name has been floated as a Presidential candidate for the Repubs in 2012. It seems he has gone "off script"

"A couple of days ago, I chronicled the quickening departure of some big military names from the Republican party, those concerned about the party moving even farther to the right a number of issues, including torture. What struck me at the time is that General David Petraeus came out against torture and for closing Guantanamo.
I was stunned, however, when he admitted today that the United States has violated the Geneva Conventions. Without saying specifically how we did (though it doesn't take much imagination to figure it out), Petraeus said on FOX News:"
Question: So is sending this signal that we're not going to use these kind of techniques anymore, what kind of impact does this have on people who do us harm in the field that you operate in?
Gen. Petraeus: Well, actually what I would ask is, "Does that not take away from our enemies a tool which again have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion?" When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it's important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those.
Jon Soltz: Petraeus Says U.S. Violated Geneva Conventions - What Will Cheney and Rush Say?
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,757
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Yeah, but according to you... FOX news is not a news network, is Faux News, and manufacturers everything to make ratings. So how can even believe what you are seeing.

Knew you were a closet Republican. It's ok.
No you can comment on the SUBSTANCE of what the General had to say.
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
277
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
No you can comment on the SUBSTANCE of what the General had to say.


Lordy... with you... I just stopped reminding you ad hominem to reply to the topic and challenge the premise laid by the OP. By the Industrials, PYMs, VinylBoys, and esp Houtx69 or whatever.

In the interim, you can deftly backpeddle on your ...now taking Fox News seriously, once the opinion tilts your way.
 

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
And he did it on FOX news!.....During the Bush?Cheney regime General Petraeus could do and say no wrong. Hell, his name has been floated as a Presidential candidate for the Repubs in 2012. It seems he has gone "off script"

"A couple of days ago, I chronicled the quickening departure of some big military names from the Republican party, those concerned about the party moving even farther to the right a number of issues, including torture. What struck me at the time is that General David Petraeus came out against torture and for closing Guantanamo.
I was stunned, however, when he admitted today that the United States has violated the Geneva Conventions. Without saying specifically how we did (though it doesn't take much imagination to figure it out), Petraeus said on FOX News:"
Question: So is sending this signal that we're not going to use these kind of techniques anymore, what kind of impact does this have on people who do us harm in the field that you operate in?
Gen. Petraeus: Well, actually what I would ask is, "Does that not take away from our enemies a tool which again have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion?" When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it's important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those.
Jon Soltz: Petraeus Says U.S. Violated Geneva Conventions - What Will Cheney and Rush Say?

What will Cheney and Rush Say?

I imagine they will say Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder didn't think we were violating the Geneva Conventions:

One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.

It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohammed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not. - Eric Holder, Former Deputy Attorney General in 2002
(You may need to see and hear Holder say this himself...)​

 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,757
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Wow... just wow. On both levels.
For Petraeus having the nerve to go to the Lion's Den with his statements, and for some of our dissenters for stretching rhetoric to the highest level to not draw a difference between a news organization and the people who do the taking.
 

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
Then Cheney and Rush would say:

Congress approved into law the suspension of habeas corpus and the detention of detainees in Guantanomo Bay in the Military Commissions Act.

Democrats did not object and 12 Dems voted to pass it:
When the White House proposed this bill, Democrats were as meek and as silent as could be. They literally disappeared from the debate, allowing the illusion of "negotiations" between the White House on the one hand, and a handful of allegedly principled and independent Republican Senators (McCain, Warner and Graham) on the other.
When -- as was both painfully predictable and predicted -- those Republican Senators capitulated almost in full to the White House, "winning" only the most meaninglessly symbolic linguistic changes to the bill while acquiescing to its most Draconian provisions, the fate of the bill was sealed because Democrats had ceded their authority to those "rebel" GOP Senators. - Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com

 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,757
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Then Cheney and Rush would say:

Congress approved into law the suspension of habeas corpus and the detention of detainees in Guantanomo Bay in the Military Commissions Act.

Democrats did not object and 12 Dems voted to pass it:
When the White House proposed this bill, Democrats were as meek and as silent as could be. They literally disappeared from the debate, allowing the illusion of "negotiations" between the White House on the one hand, and a handful of allegedly principled and independent Republican Senators (McCain, Warner and Graham) on the other.
When -- as was both painfully predictable and predicted -- those Republican Senators capitulated almost in full to the White House, "winning" only the most meaninglessly symbolic linguistic changes to the bill while acquiescing to its most Draconian provisions, the fate of the bill was sealed because Democrats had ceded their authority to those "rebel" GOP Senators. - Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com

um.......the topic is Torture and that thing called the Geneva Convention.
 

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
um.......the topic is Torture and that thing called the Geneva Convention.

Yeah I know...

Congress approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006:
Geneva Conventions
Section 5 of the MCA declares that no one may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights in a U.S. court case against the United States or one of its agents.

Torture
The MCA makes applicable to U.S. personnel accused of violating Common Article 3 between September 11, 2001 and December 30, 2005, a defense established by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), which was enacted on the latter date. Such personnel may escape criminal conviction for waterboarding and like practices if they believed in good faith that what they were doing was lawful. The relevant provision of the DTA in turn makes reliance on memos of the sort produced by the Justice Department "an important factor" in determining knowledge and good faith.

Habeas Corpus
...alien victims of torture who are declared by the executive to be enemy combatants have no ability to bring their claims to court. Section 7 of the MCA eliminates the right of habeas corpus and the right to bring a petition challenging "any other action [by] the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial or conditions of confinement of" such persons.
Why The Military Commissions Act is No Moderate Compromise- by Michael Dorf, Findlaw.com

 

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
Finally Cheney and Rush would say,

The Supreme Court had already determined that the Geneva Conventions had been violated by the Military Commissions Act, so the General was merely stating a point of fact subsequent to their ruling. The Attorney General Eric Holder disagreed in 2002 and the Supreme Court was split on the ruling 5-4.


Then...They might let Rachel Maddow close it out for them...

YouTube - Rachel Maddow: Indefinite detention? Shame on you... President Obama
 

sparky11point5

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Posts
471
Media
0
Likes
85
Points
173
Location
Boston
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
When Petraeus testified in favor of ongoing operations in Iraq, I was skeptical of his independence from political pressure. In retrospect, he was correct that the US could decrease violence in Iraq by recruiting Sunni groups against the extremists and increased patrols. This approach is what the MSM simplified as the 'surge'. Yet, I thought at the time that he was thoughtful and well-grounded in his strategy. (We were already in Iraq, so this is not about justification for the war, which I still vehemently disagree.)

I am therefore not surprised that Petraeus made these remarks. (He actually had a very similar interview on the Armed Forces network a few days before Fox.) I think most active duty military officers would take the same position. The Geneva Convention also protects our troops, and it would be dangerous to subvert it by the US ignoring it or following it only when it is convenient. Also, Petraeus seems very aware of the political nature off all conflicts, and knows that a solution in Iraq is going to depend on a political settlement. The US would be working against this by inflaming the population against any political settlement. Torture (or even just abusing) prisoners is guaranteed to encourage extremism.
 

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
The Geneva Convention also protects our troops, and it would be dangerous to subvert it by the US ignoring it or following it only when it is convenient.

Terrorists don't follow the rule of law, don't adhere to the Constitution and do not abide by the Geneva Conventions.

That statement sounds like the papers signed at the Geneva Convention can be pinned to soldiers' uniforms like a new impenetrable forcefield or body armor for the troops that simply does not exist.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Terrorists don't follow the rule of law, don't adhere to the Constitution and do not abide by the Geneva Conventions.

Apparently, certain members of the previous administration didn't care to follow any of this random stuff at all. Which is why they went to great lengths to rewrite existing laws so they can try and get away with it.

Alas, you don't want to call Cheney and company a terrorist or a war criminal. Such a double standard.
 

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
Apparently, certain members of the previous administration didn't care to follow any of this random stuff at all. Which is why they went to great lengths to rewrite existing laws so they can try and get away with it.

Alas, you don't want to call Cheney and company a terrorist or a war criminal. Such a double standard.

No, many just agree with Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder that detainees don't fall under the Geneva Conventions.

One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.


It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohammed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not. - Eric Holder, Former Deputy Attorney General in 2002

 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,757
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
No, many just agree with Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder that detainees don't fall under the Geneva Conventions.

One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.

It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohammed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not. - Eric Holder, Former Deputy Attorney General in 2002

You can keep printing that quote from Holder from 2002 til the cows come home, It doesn;t make Cheney any less of a war criminal.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...ex-rape/?cid=bs:archive15#gallery=298;page=13
 
Last edited:

houtx48

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,900
Media
0
Likes
308
Points
208
Gender
Male
hey facequeen if he said it, does not matter where he said it. could have shouted on a street corner and the message would still be the same, would it not?
 

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
You can keep printing that quote from Holder from 2002 til the cows come home, It doesn;t make Cheney any less of a war criminal.

The Bogus Torture Coverup - Page 1 - The Daily Beast

The article from the daily beast is very poignant. It can be noted that the soldiers from Abu Ghraib who acted on their own outside of interrogations and documented their abuses in photos were prosecuted.

Those abuses do not equal Cheney is a war criminal.

But if Cheney is a war criminal and guilty of war crimes, shouldn't Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congress have impeached Bush and Cheney when the charges were introduced in Congress?
 
Last edited: