B*sh & Geneva Convention - a question.

[annabanana]

I've been watching the corpomedia fall all over itself categorizing B*sh's apparent capitulation to the Geneva Convention requirements on treatment of detainees.

Has anyone seen the text of what he actually said? Wolfie, as usual, talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, saying that B*sh is now in line in regards to the "humiliating treatment is now officially no longer an option - that's the only difference" and in the next breath saying that B*sh has been treating them humanely the whole time, this is just a "making official what was already de facto" crap..

I don't believe anything they say until I can read it myself. I expect that whatever B*shco put out, Consiglieri Gonzales kept plenty of wiggle language in there...

[UTUSN]

1. Small men live by loopholes

John YOO, one of the "brains" writing the memos that GONZALES signed off on, and their ilk relied on LITERALISM, supposedly the LETTER of the law instead of the SPIRIT:

The loopholes: 1) that terrorists are not members of nation-state signatories. 2- that they are not UNIFORMED members of armed forces of nation-states.

What would be so difficult about seeing that ALL prisoners need protections on the basis of common HUMANITY.

As somebody has posted here, we were big enough to give trials to THE WORST PEOPLE, the Nazis. Why not to THESE (or ANY OTHERS)? Clue: Because the cases against these were WEAK? Because they were rounded up on Curveball-type hearsay? Because the "evidence" would look ridiculous in a court?

[annabanana]

2. That is exactly why I'm looking for

the exact wording of this so-called agreement to adhere to the Geneva Conventions that I'm hearing so much about on the news today.

Anybody?