Which Is It?

[NoHitHair]

Well, I'm confused. After watching Rumsfeld's grilling yesterday at the hands of a Senate committee, two things stood out in my mind as given by Conservative analysts:

1. They claimed that the soldiers aren't subject to the agreement of the Geneva Convention because we're not at war, we're an "occupying force".

2. They claimed that we can't change our Defense Secretary, because it's a horrible idea during a war.

These comments were made within 5 minutes of each other by the same group of people. I'm confused - which is it?

[TheShrike]

*cough*bullshit*cough*

[NoHitHair]

Wait, I'm spewing bullshit, or the very idea of what they said is bullshit?

I think no.2 refers to the War On Terrorism.

Double standards? *aingery face*

[TheShrike]

Clarification:

The war was bullshit.

Thank you.

[Ben-Fox]

1. They claimed that the soldiers aren't subject to the agreement of the Geneva Convention because we're not at war, we're an "occupying force".

Copout. Anyway, the treatment was still in violation of Army regulations.

2. They claimed that we can't change our Defense Secretary, because it's a horrible idea during a war.

Hehe. I know the answer to this one. They never made the first comment. If you believe otherwise, you're taking part in revisionist history; like bringing up the fact we invaded Iraq to get WMDs, not kick Saddam out of power.

[NoHitHair]

Well, obviously, as far as the Geneva Convention goes, their intent is crystal clear. Simply because they didn't explicitly distinguish between an "occupying force" and a "war", doesn't mean it was blatantly implicit.

Even the War Powers Act of '70 tried to stem this possibility, but again, because of misuse of wording, the government gets away with war crimes again.

It reminds me of the Constitutional scholars who believe that unless the Constitution specifically states exactly everything, then it wasn't intended; i.e. privacy laws.

I think I'll go out and "take someone's life to a better paradise" instead of murdering them. That way, I won't serve any jail time, because you see - it's different.

[bumcheekcity]

At 5/10/04 03:50 AM, TheDeath wrote: Clarification:

The war was bullshit.

Good Clarification there, Shrike.

I hope they change the Defence Secretary. It'll be hard to get worse than Rumsfield...

[Der-Ubermensch]

Let me just state that if every American politician who majorly fucked up was to de destituted, the United States of America would have no form of operating government.

[ReiperX]

I can't wait till Bush's next TV interview.

Press: Mr. President, do you intend on Firing Mr. Rumsfeld?

Bush: No, I believe he's doing a great job and is the best Secretary of Defense ever

Press: Well, do you plan on keeping him with your next administration?

Bush: Yes I am

then November comes and Bush loses by a land slide.

Might be wishful thinking, but Bush isn't too bright he may actually try and keep him for another go around.

As for the we are not at war excuse is bullshit.

[Ben-Fox]

It reminds me of the Constitutional scholars who believe that unless the Constitution specifically states exactly everything, then it wasn't intended; i.e. privacy laws.

The debate about the reading of the Constitution is almost as old as the country itself, I just feel the need to point out. The 'loose' reading versus the 'strict' reading debate has been raging since the days of Jefferson.

[NoHitHair]

I know. I'm just pointing out the idiocy of that.

[Ben-Fox]

Not sure if I would call it idiocy, though. Different interpretations of the Constitution's intent has led to the Louisiana Purchase as well as the Alien and Sedition Acts, so even if it seems idiotic, it's had some pretty serious ramifications throughout history.

I personally think it was left intentionally vague to keep the debate going; in theory keeping the people in power honest so they can't twist it to abuse the powers the Constitution provides to the government.

[NoHitHair]

While I agree ongoing debate is important, that the two sides keep alive society, that doesn't mean that every argument holds water. Arguments naturally have degrees of importance and many are simply a waste of time. In my opinion, the argument concerning privacy in the Constitution is moot - it's obvious that privacy is littered all over the document in several amendments. I fail to see how someone couldn't see that.

Their argument that they take the Constitution literally and word for word is inherently flawed. Intent is the most important factor in determining what someone meant when they spoke or wrote something and if those scholars actually read the Federalist papers or the debates that raged on, they'd understand exactly what they intended - which is obvious.