Are Democrat Judiciary Committee Members acting like a Public Defender for al-Qaida?
When questioning Alberto Gonzales, President Bush's nominee for Attorney General, why is it that the Democrat Senators on the Judiciary Committee seem to be acting as defense attorneys for the Taliban and al-Qaida?
What we saw was an attempt by the Democrats on the committee to attach the Abu Ghraib prison incident to Alberto Gonzales. That didn't work, but that was not all either.
The memos in question were concerning just where the boundaries are as it pertains to torture. And also just how, if at all, the Geneva Conventions may apply.
You have to know that the Geneva Convention does not apply to the prisoners at Gitmo and most who are in Abu Ghraib. So when Ted Kennedy says the "legal positions that you have supported have been used by the administration, the military and the CIA to justify torture and Geneva Convention violations by military and civilian personnel," you will know that he is lying, err, spinning. Under the Geneva Convention there is no provision for questioning or obtaining any information other than a name, rank, and serial number of a prisoner, and that prisoners cannot be held apart from each another. They must be allowed to interact with each other. You know, like, 'hey, they want to know about an attack, let's make up a good one and give it to them. Those stupid infidels.' The enemy combatants are not covered by it. Not only because they are not signatories to it, but also because they are not part of a governmental uniformed armed service, which are ALL the Geneva Convention covers.
For the democrats to say that the enemy combatants at Gitmo should be held under Geneva Convention rules is to insure that we will never get any intelligence out of them that could and would save lives of our soldiers and citizens at home and abroad.
It should be obvious, even to these Democrats on the committee, that the terrorists/murderers who only want us dead, would not likely succumb from questioning by Chris Matthews, Larry King, Dr. Phil, or Oprah. The obvious need for such knowledge is totally missed by these Democrats.
By the tone and direction of their questioning, they are making perfect defense attorneys for the enemy, knowing full well that we would most likely never get actionable intelligence from them IF the Geneva Convention protocols were afforded to this (our) enemy. They, instead, are characterizing the memos and their questions as something tantamount to a 'how can we torture them and get away with it' mindset within the administration.
Not long ago, one of our heroes saved a couple dozen of his soldiers' lives by scaring info out of a captured terrorist by shooting his pistol into the ground or near his head, whatever. I think that soldier was reprimanded or something for it, if not court-martialed, when what he deserves is a medal for saving the lives of his men. Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden would rather sacrifice the lives of our soldiers than make our enemy a little uncomfortable. Make that a lot uncomfortable.
It is the intent of these Democrats to criminalize interrogation techniques that are not torture, so as to take down this administration and the whole war on terror as it involves Iraq. They are tied to the notion that Iraq is Bush's sideshow, which, in and of itself shows you they don't understand the threats that we face in the war on terror. Having the Geneva Convention protocols apply to this enemy is but an extension of their belief that the war in Iraq is unnecessary.
Time was, when we were at war, even this one for about 4 months, that we were all on the same side. But driven by their singular focus of impeding Bush in all aspects possible, the Democrats are hurting our efforts in the war, and they don't seem to care.
3:01:53 AM 
|
