Considering the political funk the US is in, the War of Independence may have been a mistake and you might have rather enjoyed giving Tony Blair a bloody nose last week instead, had you stayed a colony. :)

"Is this guy the greatest threat to the American Republic and democracy since his namesake King George or what?"

Yup.

This preznit is held accountable for what he says only by the American Taliban, and only if he deviates from what they expect of him. I just hope his plummeting popularity means that more people who struggle to get by are starting, just starting, to understand how horrible a job of preznit'n the Colossus Of Crawford is guilty of.

Levity alert: OT, but Jen Sorenson is a great cartoonist I thought I'd hip you to if you don't know her already. This is a corker:

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jls6c/strips/then-now.gif

Her site is www.slowpokecomics.com -- really good.

It's called plausible deniability. The president can always claim he had no idea what Gonzales' views on torture were...

I assume you're referring to the Geneva Conventions, at least in part. They don't apply in the present circumstances in Iraq, for very clear reasons. You can look it up. Beyond that, the U.S. and a few of its allies, such as the British, are among a handful of nations who by and large observe and in many cases go beyond the requirements of the Geneva Conventions in all wars. That can't be said of the adversaries we've faced.

Abu Ghraib was, in fact, an aberration. War of any variety is a brutal, confusing, extremely complicated undertaking in which, as they say, stuff happens. What's remarkable about the U.S. military is the extent to which we successfully avoid such aberrations and the fact that we take corrective action when they occur. You, of all people, should know that.

I can understand your political orientation and your opposition to President Bush. He goes off in lots of directions I don't much like, either. But our criticisms, to have any weight, should be fact-based and reasoned.

Aberration? Who whispered that eighth-grade word into the earpiece of preznit mongoloid? If only HE were the aberration. But I fear Jeb and his son the beaner are next in line.

Mr Carter, where can I "look it up" to find how we are exempt from the Geneva Convention?
Perhaps you read it in Alberto(just leave the pliars next to the blowtorches and close the door on your way out) Gonzales'playbook?

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross - the ICRC, "The Geneva Conventions require the States to ensure that all persons who have violated international humanitarian law are held accountable for their actions. This rule also applies to anyone currently held in Iraq as a prisoner of war and therefore protected by the Third Geneva Convention, or as a civilian internee or detainee and thus protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Any serious violation of international humanitarian law must be properly investigated. Those allegedly responsible must be prosecuted before an impartial and independent court affording all judicial guarantees stipulated by international humanitarian law. ( GC does apply)
"...contrary to certain media reports – the ICRC has never called for all Iraqi prisoners of war to be released."
--Liberals, Democrats, Progressives as a whole have never demanded that legititmate prisoners of war be released, only that they receive do process.

The law of belligerent occupation is perhaps one of the oldest and today the most developed branch of international humanitarian law (IHL). It is codified in particular in Arts. 42-56 of the 1907 Hague Regulations and in Arts. 47-78 of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention , which are generally accepted as customary international law.
If civilians commit hostile acts, they may be punished ( torture is not to be considered appropriate punishment per IHL) under legislation introduced by the occupying power, but do not lose their civilian status. They may however lose their communication rights (See article 5(2) of Convention IV). Unless they directly participate in hostilities, they benefit from the protection of civilians against effects of hostilities (See article 51(3) of Protocol I.)

In no case may a civilian be deported outside the occupied territory (see Article 49 (1) of Fourth Geneva Convention;)"

I assume you're referring to the Geneva Conventions, at least in part. They don't apply in the present circumstances in Iraq, for very clear reasons. [...] Abu Ghraib was, in fact, an aberration. -- Tom Carter

I'd like to see someone higher up the food chain take some heat for the whole mess, myself. The claim that Geneva "doesn't apply" is exactly what paved the way for that so-called "aberration" to occur. When it was also happening in Gitmo and Afghanistan, it can't honestly be called an "aberration;" at that point it looks systemic. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law...

This so-called ill treatment and torture in detention centers, stories of which were spread everywhere among the people, and later by the prisoners who were freed … were not, as some assumed, inflicted methodically, but were excesses committed by individual prison guards, their deputies, and men who laid violent hands on the detainees. -- Rudolf Hoess, SS commandant of Auschwitz

Looks like that slope can get pretty slippery if you don't watch your step.

And to think, one of the guys at GITMO, under whose watch these reported Koran flushings occurred, then was sent by the Bush administration over to Abu Ghraib in Iraq to improve conditions there.

But, of course, we all know he'll get a promotion or have the Medal of Freedom pinned on his proudly thrust-out chest by Bush. At least, (and this is the only positive thing I can think of), the Wackos in the White House are consistent in their wackiness.

1. Timely
   
2. Strategery
   
3. Webb wins
   
4. Huh?
   
5. Bunnypants in Bagdad
   
6. Outage
   
7. Filthy Lucre Watch
   
8. Playing the numbers
   
9. My letter to Countdown
   
10. Jefferson's Nigerian Scams