Did anyone see his press conference? He seemed pretty pissed.

My favorite part:

Quote :

"This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. And that Common Article 3 says that, you know, There will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's like - it's very vague. What does that mean, outrages upon human dignity? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation. "

transcript: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6083135,00.html

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 3:29 PM. Reason : We have to know exactly how many naked men we can pile n each other before we're doing something bad]

9/15/2006 3:22:56 PM

i would love it if in the middle of a press conference he just stopped talking, waved his arms in a threatening manner, and said "RAAAAAAWR!!!!" and maybe knocked some stuff over

9/15/2006 3:26:34 PM

Quote :

"It's like - it's very vague. What does that mean"

its like i'm the president but i dont have a fucking clue whats going on

9/15/2006 3:44:37 PM

Quote :

"We have to know exactly how many naked men we can pile n each other before we're doing something bad"

Completely unrelated: I read the other day that one of the men in the naked dog pile picture went on to join the Iraqi police.

9/15/2006 3:47:31 PM

Well, "There will be no outrages upon human dignity" is a pretty subjective measure. He's looking for something a bit more objective.

9/15/2006 3:48:16 PM

I'm pretty sure by anyone's standard a naked dog pile of men would be considered a human outrage

9/15/2006 3:52:21 PM

^ Except for pledges.

9/15/2006 3:54:34 PM

^^good point

9/15/2006 3:55:04 PM

Yes, we all agree that naked a dog pile of men is an outrage. Is playing loud music? Is questioning someone for more than 4 hours?

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 3:57 PM. Reason : ]

9/15/2006 3:57:20 PM

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter091506_bush.rm

you can open it in real player. . .

9/15/2006 4:05:04 PM

so bush is the first prez to need this clarifyed right?

9/15/2006 4:10:47 PM

he's inept. simple and plain. inept. and the christians made him president. blind faith my friends

9/15/2006 4:14:37 PM

how come terrorist arent allowed to have evidence put forth even if its classified?

ARE THESE GOING TO BE PUBLIC TRIALS?

terry quoted colin powel, saying people dont believe his bullshit. so his response was, 'youre either on our side, or your with the terrorists'.

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 4:21 PM. Reason : 4]

9/15/2006 4:16:32 PM

Quote :

"no outrages upon human dignity"

why dont some of you geniuses on TWW that know so much more than Bush explain how specifically this is to be interpreted? Why don't you quantify and qualify it since you guys are so smart

9/15/2006 4:47:02 PM

Quote :

"why dont some of you geniuses on TWW that know so much more than Bush explain how specifically this is to be interpreted? Why don't you quantify and qualify it since you guys are so smart "

why dont some of you explain how specifically this is to be interpreted?

9/15/2006 4:54:29 PM

^^it's common sense you dumbfuck

human dignity is not a vague term, ESPECIALLY when you talk about the standard of human dignity america has

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 4:55 PM. Reason : jank]

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 4:56 PM. Reason : jank]

9/15/2006 4:54:44 PM

common sense huh? then why dont you qualify it? is waterboarding an outrage on human dignity? how about playing red hot chili peppers? bamboo under the fingernails? sensory deprivation? come on mr common sense

9/15/2006 4:57:42 PM

yes
no
yes
yes

9/15/2006 5:00:21 PM

Quote :

"how about playing red hot chili peppers"

are you serious??

it's the social contention of our society. you cannot seriously think that's vague when it comes to torture. they are NOT talking about sensory deprivation or water boarding, they are talking about torture and stuff like those naked pictures. those are violations of human dignity

9/15/2006 5:00:38 PM

ok

how about if we are at war and US soldiers get captured

do we use american common sense to decide what are outrages upon human dignity? or perhaps if hezbollah or al queda captured a US soldier, would they use their own "common sense" as far as how to treat american soldiers? you dont think its important to SPECIFY what that vague, broad, general, easily misinterpretable phrase should actually mean so our enemies wouldnt say "we are going to modify the geneva convention ourselves to make it worse on americans"? no i guess not...its more fun to make fun of bush...haha he is dumb lollers

Quote :

"they are NOT talking about sensory deprivation or water boarding"

really? josh just said those WERE outrages...i guess one of you doesnt have common sense

9/15/2006 5:02:17 PM

Youre saying terrorist check the geneva convention before they torture us?

9/15/2006 5:03:51 PM

by terrorists you mean US republicans right

9/15/2006 5:04:33 PM

yea, them and al quada.

9/15/2006 5:05:33 PM

Quote :

"Bush said CIA interrogators should have wide latitude when questioning terrorists, as long as they don’t use torture. The Senate bill would ban abusive techniques that the Bush administration doesn’t consider torture, such as "water-boarding," which simulates drowning."

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/national-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/09/15/20060915-A1-02.html

They are talking about waterboarding.

9/15/2006 5:05:58 PM

Quote :

"Youre saying terrorist check the geneva convention before they torture us?"

really? you dont think terrorists care about the geneva convention? yet you think we can use diplomacy to convince them not to hate us

9/15/2006 5:09:05 PM

if you don't think waterboarding is an outrage upon human dignity, then you're a fuckin idiot

9/15/2006 5:10:10 PM

Quote :

"yet you think we can use diplomacy to convince them not to hate us"

thats true, but its also true that you said bush was the son of jesus christ.

9/15/2006 5:10:23 PM

What are the precedents of the UN for interpreting the phrase? The US? Have any cases alleging specific interrogation techniques emerged with rulings on what practices are and aren't "outrages upon human dignity" as efined by the Geneva Convention?

9/15/2006 5:10:36 PM

Here's the text of the "Torture Memo"

http://www.themoderntribune.com/full_text_us_torture_policy_memo_gonzalez_bush.htm

Quote :

"Article I provides: "For the purpose of this convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him to an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consensus or acquiescence of a public official acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." SECRET/NOFORN 4; 03/06/2003 9:44 A.M. Suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; the threat of imminent death; or the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality."

Quote :

"(U) In addition to torture, the Convention prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment within territories under a Party's jurisdiction (Art 16). Primarily because the meaning of the term "degrading treatment" was vague and ambiguous, the United States imposed a Reservation on this article to the effect that it considers itself bound only to the extent that such treatment or punishment means the cruel, unusual and inhuman treatment or punishment prohibited by the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (see discussion infra, in the Domestic Law section),"

This refers to a treaty signed in 1994. Apparently, Bush is not the first to seek clarification.

Quote :

"(U) An additional treaty to which the United States is a party is the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights, ratified by the United States in 1992. Article 7 of this treaty provides that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The United States' ratification of the Covenant was subject to a Reservation that "the United States considers itself bound by Article 7 only to the extent that cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment means the cruel and unusual treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States." Under this treaty, a "human Rights Committee" may. With the consent of the Party in question, consider allegations that such Party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant. The United States has maintained consistently that the Covenant does not apply outside the United States or its special maritime and territorial jurisdiction, and that it does not apply to operations of the military during an international armed conflict."

Quote :

"(U) 18 U.S.C. § 2340 defines as torture any "act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain" The intent required is the intent to inflict severe physical or mental pain. 18 U.S.C. § 2340A requires that the offense occur "outside the United States". Jurisdiction over the offense extends to any national of the United States or any alleged offender present in the United States, and could, therefore, reach military members, civilian employees of the United States, or contractor employees. The "United States" is defined to include all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States, including the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction (SMTJ) of the United States. SMTJ is a statutory creation that extends the criminal jurisdiction of the United States for designated crimes to defined areas. The effect is to grant federal court criminal jurisdiction for the specifically identified crimes. (U) Guantanamo Bay Naval Station (GTMO) is included within the definition of the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and accordingly, is within the United States for the purposes of §2340, Thus, the Torture Statue does not apply to the conduct of U.S. personnel at GTMO. That GTMO is within the SMTJ of the United States is manifested by the prosecution of civilian dependents and employees living in GTMO in Federal District Courts based on SMTJ jurisdiction and Department of Justice opinion(11) and the clear intention of Congress as reflected in the 2001 amendment to the SMTJ. The USA Patriot Act (2001) amended § 7 to ad subsection 9, which provides:"

Quote :

"c. Severe Mental Pain or Suffering (U) Section 2340 gives further guidance as to the meaning of "severe mental pain or suffering" as distinguished from severe physical pain and suffering. The statute defines "severe mental pain or suffering" as: the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality' (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. 18 U.S.C.§ 2340(2). In order to prove "severe mental pain or suffering", the statute requires proof of "prolonged mental harm" that was caused by or resulted from one of four enumerated acts."

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 5:23 PM. Reason : ]

9/15/2006 5:10:47 PM

Quote :

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession,"

where do you draw the line between hurting someone and severely hurting someone?

is it really such a newsflash for you geniuses that laws are often written with vague phrases and terms?

no...just bash bush...that shit makes you cool

9/15/2006 5:15:54 PM

Seems pretty arbitrary to me. I'm down with objectively redefining the term.

Now the billion dollar question: Who gets to do it?

9/15/2006 5:19:13 PM

whats the difference between trolling and several trolling?

9/15/2006 5:19:21 PM

^^and thats the conflict

i think we would do a fair job of defining it, objectively, but im sure plenty of countries wouldnt want that

either way it needs clarification

9/15/2006 5:21:31 PM

bush senior didnt need it. regan didnt need it.

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 5:26 PM. Reason : 34]

9/15/2006 5:26:45 PM

And fundamentally Bush was right to seek clarification on it.

Why should the public be convinced that Bush's lawyers and the current Congress ought to get to redefine it? What alternatives exist? Why are those alternatives inferior ideas?

9/15/2006 5:27:04 PM

i dont know who should redefine it

whoever does, some people arent going to be happy

this thread however is mainly retarded because most people dont think it even needs clarification

9/15/2006 5:28:28 PM

Maybe if they'd take the words their leaders use as literally as they take their ideologies, that wouldn't be a problem.

9/15/2006 5:29:25 PM

explain to me why bush waited 6 years into his presidency to even think of doing this

explain to me why it's only become a huge hot-debated issue under his presidency

9/15/2006 5:41:38 PM

Yeah, let's have every country in the world redefine the Geneva Conventions, so that they can tell us where the boundaries lie when they're holding our soldiers as POWs.

OR, howabout we have a grey area that everyone agrees not to enter?

9/15/2006 7:16:50 PM

Which part of the Geneva Convention was the enemy following when they hacked away at the necks of Nick Berg, Eugene Armstrong and Paul Johnson?


"the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties."

9/15/2006 11:04:43 PM

Quote :

"OR, howabout we have a grey area that everyone agrees not to enter?"

And where do you start the grey area that no one should enter?

Quote :

"(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality'"

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure just spending some time in a jail cell would profoundly disrupt my personality. Similarly so would being questioned for information every day even if it was just 5 minutes a day. While his reasons for seeking the clarification are probably not noble, it's still a worthy point that in the age of politics such laws do indeed need clarification if we are to hold them with any wieght.

Just like you all hate that none of the laws congres has passed has defined terrorism, so should you hate that international law does not define torture.

9/15/2006 11:39:24 PM

Quote :

"And where do you start the grey area that no one should enter? "

when the black ends

Quote :

"I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure just spending some time in a jail cell would profoundly disrupt my personality."

Quote :

" or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality"

try reading, eintein.

[Edited on September 15, 2006 at 11:41 PM. Reason : 5]

9/15/2006 11:40:11 PM

There really ought to be an objective attempt to define terrorism and torture. Even if it's simply a transition from the vagueness of the Geneva Convention to less vagueness than the Geneva Convention, but not necessarily perfectly precise. Such compromises over official truth are made all the time. In an ultimately Mixed-Capitalist market of information exchange, we shouldn't fear the debate or the agendas behind them.

Clearly the Bush administration is representing one agenda in requesting a definition--limits on what its agents can carry out without being sued--and the legislators are representing another: Party politicians trying to figure out which version of the truth will best elect them or re-elect them into the House and Senate.

Viewed through that lense, I'd say the next few weeks of wrangling by administration lawyers and supporters, the usual Democratic talking heads, and a few rogue Republicans who distance themselves from the administration will be fairly predictable. A bitter angry debate over the matter, and ultimately the Bush administration will receive either the language it wants or the spirit of the language will reflect that intelligence agents won't be in trouble for following the orders of the War on Terrorism. Simple fact is that the legislators have the power on this matter, but they're more concerned with image than policy.

They will also do every type of maneuvering available to avoid even the International Criminal Court as a solution to any War on Terrorism case. That'll work its way in either directly or indirectly through whatever action they take.

I could be wrong though. That's just my impression of how these things work out.

9/16/2006 2:18:54 AM

From a practical standpoint a concrete interpretation of the law would certainly be nice. Politically, however, it's going to be an uphill battle because a concrete interpretation would aid Bush in fending off vague accusations of torture based on a non-specific definition of torture. Witness how the very people who accuse Bush of torture are now criticizing his attempts to seek clarification.

9/16/2006 8:38:31 AM

Quote :

"try reading, eintein. "

What you don't think the concept of imprisonment and the design and treatment of a prisoner is calculated to disrupt their senses or personality?

9/16/2006 10:27:21 AM

Quote :

"you don't think the concept of imprisonment and the design and treatment of a prisoner is calculated to disrupt their senses or personality?"

ITS CALLED CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

the intent is to.....PUNISH

9/16/2006 12:19:51 PM

You avoided answering the question but:

Quote :

"ITS CALLED CRIME AND PUNISHMENT the intent is to.....PUNISH"

And the purpose of punishment is............

9/16/2006 4:06:46 PM

to punish.

Quote :

"1 a : to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation b : to inflict a penalty for the commission of (an offense) in retribution or retaliation 2 a : to deal with roughly or harshly b : to inflict injury on : HURT intransitive verb : to inflict punishment "

[Edited on September 16, 2006 at 4:19 PM. Reason : 234]

9/16/2006 4:18:14 PM

Yes, that is what punishment is, very good you can read a dictionary. Now answer the question as to what the purpose of punishment is. Why do we punish? What is the goal?

9/16/2006 4:20:56 PM

i think we do it to impose a penalty

9/16/2006 4:24:09 PM