thinkprogress.org — Former New York Senator Al D’Amato and Bill O’Reilly debated Sen. John McCain’s insistence that the U.S. follow the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of all detainees. D’Amato said McCain should receive “a pass on this” because he was “so traumatized by the events that took place” during his captivity in the Vietnam War.
Sep 19, 2006 View in Crawl 4
natepozySep 20, 2006
@ kalisphoenix:It is my opinion that you have no hope. There is no God. (I guess your from a tad-pole then?) He does not bless anyone, (So why are you still alive?) much less the people we send to die for abstract purposes (Why did my friends and family sign up to defend this country, fight in Iraq, and die?). If you truly want those people to be safe, work toward reducing the root causes of terrorism rather than attempting to eliminate a symptom of our plutocratic bulls**t (3000+ Innocent People died in 2001) and alienating the other 6.2 billion people in the world while we're at it. (HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE TRIED TO HELP WHEN ALL OTHER NATIONS WOULDN'T?)If there were a thread of truth in that repulsive pamphlet of volcano worship that enlightened beings laughingly refer to as the Scriptures (Shows you really have never studied any of them), that omnipotent and wholly benevolent being would flood the world again at the sight of so many imbeciles spreading so much hatred and misery and justifying or excusing it in his name (AGAIN NO REAL STUDY OF THE "SCRIPTURES"). If I weren't already an atheist (Well I am not going to try and convert you, as you already have made your choice!), I'd take the enormous arrogance displayed by our country's insistence that God is on "our side" (and the lack of a subsequent apocalypse) as a sure sign that He is not here. (There is a judgement coming, your just not going to like it!)
lastvisibledogSep 20, 2006
Another Inaccurate title for a link to a left wing extremist blog Digg is becoming a home for clueless left wing extremists
anillopSep 20, 2006
My god is Bill O a Douchebag. That guy has a hell of a set of ball on him to say some of the things he does.
Closed AccountSep 20, 2006
FOX is to blame because BillO didn't follow up and let the comment stand on it's own.
nalf38Sep 20, 2006
Oooh, I can't believe I missed that comment about the British plot....these guys were caught by inter-agency cooperation and police/detective work. There was no torture involved whatsoever. That was half of the controversy of it. There was all this commentary about how Kerry was derided as a nut in the last election for saying that Patriot Act was moot because we already had the tools for catching terrorists.
bullyjackSep 20, 2006
@labmouseI couldn't have said it better, except for the part about 'bleeding heart liberals'. I refer to them as 'bed-wetters' (shorter and more to the point).
mrneutronSep 20, 2006
After checking with my friend the international human rights lawyer I need to correct my own post above, which was both inaccurate and imprecise. I'll just quote what he told me:If we go to war with a non-signatory, their soldiers and civilians are not necessarily protected. On the other hand, Common Article 2 says, in part:"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."So if for example Guam wasn't a signatory but it accepted and applied its provisions, we'd be bound. We might also be bound with respect to Guamian soldiers who were citizens of another state, or had dual-citizenship, though that's a bit more complex.There's also the issue of customary law. That also gets complicated, but the upshot is that there's a very good legal argument that the content of the conventions have become law independent of the treaties themselves.I wouldn't say "The Geneva convention governs how signatories of the Geneva convention will behave towards one another's soldiers." unless you specifically exclude Geneva IV. I, II, and III technically only apply to signatories' soldiers, except as the passage above applies. Customary law requires that states apply the Geneva provisions to everyone, signatories or not. There's also all the other governing law (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Torture Convention, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and a bunch more).
jimbo19Sep 21, 2006
I notice all you lefties demand we give Geneva convention protections to terrorists, which has been shown to be wrong. If they are not soldiers of a signatory country they should not get it. period.But do any of you know what punsihements the Geneva Conventions allow to Saboteurs and fighters not in uniform?Go back and look what both sides did to "terrorsists" during WWII.All per Geneva. So quit screwing around Bush and bring out the firing squads already. They want Geneva? Give it to them.
sunwalkerSep 22, 2006
Fox will kiss and make up with McCain now that he is back in bed with Bush.
bigkittyDec 10, 2006
McCain is a total hypocrite who is never to be trusted.The only people he is interested in protecting are Muslims. As far as he's concerned, the rest of us don't count.Back in the late 1990s, McCain was an enthusiastic booster for the Clinton Administration's totally unjustified warfare against the Christian Serbs in the Balkans. If you don't remember, then go back and research the ugly remarks that he made, egging everyone on to further bloodshed.During that time, US/NATO forces bombed the Christian Serb cemetery in Pristina FIVE TIMES. US/NATO mouthpieces claimed it was accidental. If they'd done it once, maybe they could've passed it off as an accident, but five times??? Bombing a cemetery is sick, folks! Especially considering the fact that, at the time, the only people in the cemetery were grieving Christian Serb civilians. Of course, if jihadis had been in the cemetery, the pilots would have taken care not to drop those bombs until they had left.Oh, and BY THE WAY, since that time, NO credible evidence of Serb atrocities against those poooor, innocent Muslims has come to light, despite exhaustive searches on the part of the US, NATO, and EU occupation troops in the area. The atrocities were all the other way around. But there has been no apology for the U.S. for having fought on the side of the al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadis in that war...not from McCain, not from the Clintons, not from the Bushes, not from the House or Senate, certainly not from the military. There has been no effort to undo the damage done to the Serbs, nor to dislodge the Muslim narcoterrorist jihadis from the stronghold that the the US, the UK, and NATO so stupidly gave them in the Balkans. The bottom line is that The US was, and still is, aiding and abetting the Bosnian Muslims and the KLA, who are the local branches of al-Qaeda in the Balkans, and McCain was, and is, part of the problem.Let's look at what this means. Osama's fatwa against the US was, and is, both a declaration of war and a mobilization order. Osama's henchmen have perpetrated many acts of armed aggression against the US. This makes him Osama and all branches of his organization an enemy of the US, whether Congress deigns to admit it or not. Anyone who gives aid and comfort to him or his forces, in any way, shape, or form, has committed treason! Anyone who fights on his side is, in fact, making war upon the United States, even if they are using the US military to do that! Allow me to pose an awkward question: Were the American public to demand the traditional penalty for treason, according to its Constitutional definition, how many (or how few) in Washington, DC would escape the noose?The Constitutional definition of treason requires two witnesses or an admission in open court. But these treasonable acts are committed in public, on television, and before the eyes of all the world! Just as an aside, I have to wonder whether this might be the REAL reason why the federal government continues to prohibit the cultivation of industrial hemp on American soil. Does the mere thought of hempen rope raise unacknowledged fears in the minds of those who are so egregiously guilty?This whole argument about torture is self-righteous grandstanding on McCain's part. He cares nothing about anyone else's rights, real or imagined, nor about the very real threats that we face, thanks in no small part to McCain himself. After all, how can we expect to win the "war on terror" if our own government has troops on both sides? And why aren't we demanding an explanation of why the US is keeping troops in the Balkans, where they continue to aid and abet the terrorist activities of al-Qaeda?