[lit-ideas] Re: Relapsed Already
- From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:54:08 -0700
Lawrence Helm wrote:
> I can only bark up the tree you guys point me toward.
You began your post by saying you didn't trust the New York Times. One would
have thought, surely, that your demand for evidence, sources, etc., followed
from that lack of trust, i.e., of the NYT in particular.
> This sounds like
> some of the stuff that is being addressed in the new legislation Bush talked
> about in his last couple of speeches. . . You all heard those speeches,
> didn't you?
What's the referent of 'this' here?
> The President believed he had authority to determine the
> level of treatment used in questioning terrorist suspects. Previous
> presidents had that sort of latitude?
They did? Do you haved an instance in which a former president claimed that
article 3 of the Geneva Convention (1949) could be interpreted any way he
pleased _or_ that the article was so vague it couldn't be interpreted? (There
have been over 50 years of case law in which this article has been interpreted
and its meaning clarified.) But, show me an example.
> but a judge not using US precedent but
> instead the Geneva Convention said he didn't have that authority but instead
> a vague Geneva Convention requirement applied.
'Vague' is your (and the Administration's) word. Bush isn't interested in a
disinterested clarification of a treaty; he wants the treaty interpreted his
own way. This is as about as clear as things get. This article is no more vague
or contentious than any other statute. Even Somali warlords were able to
understand it and treat a US serviceman in light of it.
The judge also said that the Administration's interpretation went against the
Uniform Code of Military Justice.
> So Bush is doing two things.
> He is appealing the Judges decision and he is attempting to get legislation
> through congress defining the latitude the CIA has in interrogating
> terrorist suspects.
Previously, the US was bound by the treaties it was party to and by its own
laws. What a concept.
Robert Paul
Reed College
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
