its vague

Friday October 6th 2006 04:09 PM PST

THE PRESIDENT: This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article III of the Geneva Convention. And that Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's very vague. What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation. And what I'm proposing is that there be clarity in the law so that our professionals will have no doubt that that which they are doing is legal. You know, it's -- and so the piece of legislation I sent up there provides our professionals that which is needed to go forward.

Ok, here comes the rant.

Article III is actually very specific in many ways. the specific use of the line "outrages upon human dignity" comes in art 3 section c. But that is by no means the only limitation. I think the one of the most compelling pieces of the document comes in art 13.

"Art 13. Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. 
Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing 
death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of 
war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a 
serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, 
no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation 
or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which 
are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment 
of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, 
particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and 
against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

But that again is not the only point at which torture is outlined.

in art 17...

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, 
may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them 
information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who 
refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or 
exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Now i'm just going to be clear on this one. I'M NOT A LEGAL EXPERT! But in a couple minutes of reading, i can say without a doubt this document is NOT VAGUE. To say otherwise is either an outright lie, or just an uninformed blunder.

But don't take my word for it.

Go read it for yourself

The document has nothing but good intentions to ensure the honest treatment of all human beings.

Comments:

ALL RIGHT, DAVE!!

Posted by: Anon

Yes, Dave, but remember, we have to "stay the course", and "support our troops". And by arguing against the King's wishes to be able to ...acquire information through non(really)torturous means, you're not supporting the troops. You realize that by not "supporting the troops" you are actively supporting terrorism, right? And in doing so, you're also helping to fuel the drug market. You're not a terrorist, are you?

Have you gone out and bought anything recently with your tax-break money that could help to stimulate the economy, by the way? Buying fuel would be particularly helpful, I think...Cheney says so, anyway.

Remember, "stay the course" and "support our troops" will lead us to "mission successful" (part II).

</sarcasm>

Posted by: