"SHb" <sherb@iNO_SPAMntergate.com> wrote in message
news:12gu4iidiq7me33@corp.supernews.com...

"""What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"?"""

That is the problem.
It is open for interpretation by any country to claim things like
women interagators and guards etc, loud music and more are outrages
upon human dignity. Same point is being pushed by dems/libs in
their fight to provide protections, freedoms, rights for terrorists.

You can't possibly be this obtuse.
A sizable percentage, some say a majority, of the people rounded up by
the US were guilty only of being in the wrong place. That is to say
nothing of the time-honored tradition in US law of innocence until
guilt is proven.
You may not have the courage of any particular convictions, but decent
people actually believe in, and will defend, the principles in our
founding documents. These explicitly and unequivocally hold that
torture (and "torture" is the word for it) is to be disdained by a
people who believe sincerely in justice and human rights.

Forget the little things like cutting off limbs, penises, heads etc.
We got to stop outrages upon human dignity or we can see our
soldiers tried and the military sued for doing it.

But ma! he did it first.
When you stand for nothing, you fall for nothing.

zooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.



<wbuck@bak.rr.com> wrote in message
news:e8itg2thr0b7fif7i8niaclrid4o92855f@4ax.com...

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 03:14:32 GMT, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

During a press conference last Friday, Our Great Leader explained
that
"the nation's ability to defend itself would be undermined if
rebellious Republicans in the Senate did not come around to his
position," according to the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/us/16bush.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slog
in

At issue is Article III of the Geneva Conventions, which bans
"outrages upon personal dignity."

Essentially, Bush wants to rewrite the Geneva Conventions so that
his
torture programs can continue - and conveniently shield him
retroactively from accusations of war crimes.

John McCain, Colin Powell, John Warner, and Lindsay Graham -
military
veterans all - are leading the charge to prevent Bush from
weakening
the Geneva Conventions.

And much as I dislike these four they're dead right on this
particular
issue - which of course means that according to the president,
they're
helping the terrorists.

What's George's problem anyway?

Well, during the press conference he explained it like this:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-2.html


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"?


So to put this in a nutshell, George W. Bush doesn't know what
"human
dignity" is.

You know, I think that pretty much sums up his entire presidency.


By EarlG
Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/

Harry

When seen through the eyes of a drunken stupor, everything seems
"vague".