The real problem with the new detainee treatment bill:

[originalpckelly]

A man could be charged, tried, convicted, and executed without seeing any of the evidence against him.

Would you allow that to happen to an American soldier? I know I wouldn't.

Imagine if Iran were to abduct a US soldier, or somehow capture him, and then they set about holding a trial in this manner. I am quite sure that most moral Americans would agree this is totally unacceptable. That door is opened when the United States begins doing these types of things, because if the "moral force" of the world allows it, it must be ok.

Of course it does not extend to this alone, there have already been numerous offensive and precedent setting actions. Imagine if another US soldier were to be captured, again by Iran, and the Iranians decided to hold him in a secret prison and prevent the International Red Cross from ensuring he was not being tortured.

This is in fact what the President admitted this country, the United States of America, has been doing for a period of nearly five years. Obviously, because these prisons were secret and remained completely unknown to most of the world for nearly four years, the Red Cross never had access to the prisoners detained there. Again, if our country the "moral force" can do this, then it must be ok.

The way we treat other people can have a significant impact upon the way that our own brave soldiers are treated. Yes, al-Qaeda may not play by the laws of war, but many other potential adversaries do, and if we alter our policy now, if we should ever need to fight them, they could do the very same.

This is THE problem with all of this, you don't have to care about the terrorists to want our country to uphold the Geneva Conventions. (specifically article III)

[Justitia]

1. Up next: Bringing back "spectral evidence"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_evidence

All that is old is new again, apparently.

[Why Syzygy]

2. I just had an Epiphany!

And I'm going to spread it around. Bush wants permission to deny freedoms, while he hoots "freedom". He wants a war against "Terror", while he seeks permission to torture (terrorize) according to his law. In other words, he wants full control and license to rule according to George. Does this sound like anything we, as Americans, are familiar with for our Nation?

Let us please point out these strays from logic to all that will hear.

He truly rules from insanity. He is NOT King. Taxpayers pay good money to avoid this kind of corruption. I call for our legal system to deal with this cancer. Now.

[Stalwart]

3. A Signing Statment?

From the conference today:

"And my assurance to people is that we can pass law here in the United States that helps define our treaty _ international treaty obligations. We have done that in the past. It is not the first time that we have done this."

Might the law he wants be viewed as a "signing statement" to the Geneva Convention Article 3?

[Why Syzygy]

4. Did you read Condi's

statement on this? I don't have that page open, but it was a mouth full of confusion, of how, yes, participating nations can go about making adjustments as they see fit. Treaties haven't changed much for the white guys, have they?