I know it won't make a whit of difference to my Senators, but count me in with the many others who say No to Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General. I do not condone torture, and I do not agree with those who do. Alberto Gonzalez may have the brains, education, and experience to be the Attorney General, but he has no conscience and no morals, and as such he has no business being the nation's top law enforcer. I say No, and I hope you will join me.
Posted by Charles Kuffner on January 25, 2005 to Iraq attack | TrackBackJust curious -- do you think terrorists should be afforded treaty protections (Geneva, specifically) even though they are not a party to said treaty, and do not recognize its provisions themselves?
That's a legally interesting question, stripped of the oversimplification and emotion. Do you have an opinion on it?
Posted by: kevin whited on January 26, 2005 6:37 AMYeah, I think we should afford them Geneva protections. They may not be bound by it, but we are, and that should mean something. We're better than they are, right? That's one concrete way to demonstrate it.
In addition, once you allow an exception for "terrorists", even if you limit it to non-state actors, you open the door for an expansion of that exception. I'm not comfortable with that.
Posted by: Charles Kuffner on January 26, 2005 7:32 AMI'm no expert (and too lazy to look it up), but aren't there provisions in the conventions for parties who are NOT signatories? Also, I seem to recall that the Bush administration's insistence on the term "enemy combatants" was some kind of important distinction where Geneva was concerned, but I don't remember why. Anyone?
Posted by: CrispyShot on January 26, 2005 9:45 AM