Anyone watch this? It was from about 1:45pm to 2:30pm today, give or take...some of the content:

- Bush is proposing legislation for Congress to use military courts to try terrorist suspects
- A number of high ranking Al Queda members have recently been moved from CIA prisons to Guantanamo Bay
- He gave a rundown of a number of the Al Queda members and how information obtained from them was used to capture other operatives and foil plots
- Re-emphasized we are at war, etc

9/6/2006 3:23:00 PM

Didn't watch, but I heard it on NPR while I was in the field today. Haven't had a real chance to digest it, yet. If you have a minute, post the transcript.

9/6/2006 3:24:33 PM

dont know if they have it up yet anywhere

whitehouse.gov doesnt have a link on the main page...might take another couple hours

9/6/2006 3:36:42 PM

Like anyone gives a shit about this.

THERE ARE NEW PICTURES OF SURI OUT!

9/6/2006 4:45:04 PM

^hahahahaha

sooooo true.....why is katie with him anyway?!!?!

9/6/2006 4:53:32 PM

- He admitted the CIA is running secret prisons in foriegn countries

9/6/2006 8:31:26 PM

poor terrorists, theyre in secret prisons not getting the rights they wished to deny to millions and millions of people.

[Edited on September 6, 2006 at 8:36 PM. Reason : .]

9/6/2006 8:36:15 PM

poor suri

9/6/2006 9:01:40 PM

Quote :

"I am asking Congress to list the specific recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act "

Translation: We're war criminals needing a ex post facto loophole.

9/6/2006 9:27:32 PM

I remember a time when pryderi at least made semi-intelligent comments.

9/6/2006 9:30:15 PM

Just keeping up with the integrity of the thread.

9/6/2006 9:32:55 PM

I remember a time when pryderi at least made semi-intelligent comments.

9/6/2006 10:57:42 PM

Transcript:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/06/news/text***.php

9/7/2006 12:29:27 AM

I'm sitting here watching the morning news (swedish news and sky news) and between the two, they are showing clips and talking about the speech non-stop.

9/7/2006 12:34:53 AM

^What's the commentary about the speech like over there?

9/7/2006 12:54:38 AM

Bush, in his speech, seemed frustrated that the US courts wouldn't allow him to hold military tribunals with these people. My question is why hold a kangaroo court where a guilty verdict is certain, when your actual goal is to keep them from getting back into the fight? Bringing a captured enemy civilian combatant to a type of trial that denies the defendant the same privileges of a regular trial makes a mockery of the justice system.

If they are declared to be enemy fighters, then shoot them or imprison them so they do not get to rejoin the fight. But putting them on trial for fighting against our country seems pointless.

9/7/2006 1:07:36 AM

Quote :

"If they are declared to be enemy fighters, then shoot them or imprison them so they do not get to rejoin the fight."

so you'd rather shoot them than put them on trial

i'm pretty sure if that was the US policy everybody would be outraged and complaining about how they didnt get a trial...

9/7/2006 9:15:09 AM

Quote :

"US Law Concerning War Crimes TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441 § 2441. War crimes (a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. (b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act). (c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct— (1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party; (2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907; (3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or (4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians. "

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html

9/7/2006 12:29:13 PM