George Wipes The Floor With David Gregory!
Bush: “I must say, having gone through those gyrations, you’re looking beautiful today, Dave.” (Laughter.)
Gregory: “Mr. President, critics of your proposed bill on interrogation rules say there’s another important test — these critics include John McCain, who you’ve mentioned several times this morning — and that test is this: If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea, and they were roughed up, and those governments said, well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, and then they were put on trial and they were convicted based on secret evidence that they were not able to see, how would you react to that, as Commander-in-Chief?”
Bush: “David, my reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you named, adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better. That’s my reaction. We’re trying to clarify law. We’re trying to set high standards, not ambiguous standards.
“And let me just repeat, Dave, we can debate this issue all we want, but the practical matter is, if our professionals don’t have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward. You cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law. And they’re not going to. They — let me finish, please — they will not violate the law. You can ask this question all you want, but the bottom line is — and the American people have got to understand this — that this program won’t go forward; if there is vague standards applied, like those in Common Article III from the Geneva Convention, it’s just not going to go forward. You can’t ask a young professional on the front line of protecting this country to violate law.
“Now, I know they said they’re not going to prosecute them. Think about that: Go ahead and violate it, we won’t prosecute you. These people aren’t going to do that, Dave. Now, we can justify anything you want and bring up this example or that example, I’m just telling you the bottom line, and that’s why this debate is important, and it’s a vital debate.
“Now, perhaps some in Congress don’t think the program is important. That’s fine. I don’t know if they do or don’t. I think it’s vital, and I have the obligation to make sure that our professionals who I would ask to go conduct interrogations to find out what might be happening or who might be coming to this country, I got to give them the tools they need. And that is clear law.
Gregory (first interruption/follow-up): “But sir, this is an important point, and I think it depends –”
Bush: “The point I just made is the most important point.”
Gregory: “Okay.”
Bush: “And that is the program is not going forward. David, you can give a hypothetical about North Korea, or any other country, the point is that the program is not going to go forward if our professionals do not have clarity in the law. And the best way to provide clarity in the law is to make sure the Detainee Treatment Act is the crux of the law. That’s how we define Common Article III, and it sets a good standard for the countries that you just talked about. Next man.”
Gregory (second): “No, but wait a second, I think this is an important point –”
Bush: “I know you think it’s an important point.” (Laughter.)
Gregory (third): “Sir, with respect, if other countries interpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit — as they see fit — you’re saying that you’d be okay with that?”
Bush: “I am saying that I would hope that they would adopt the same standards we adopt; and that by clarifying Article III, we make it stronger, we make it clearer, we make it definite. And I will tell you again, David, you can ask every hypothetical you want, but the American people have got to know the facts. And the bottom line is simple: If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the rules, if they do not do that, the program is not going forward.”
Gregory (fourth): “This will not endanger U.S. troops, in your — ”
Bush: “Next man.”
Gregory (fifth): This will not endanger U.S. troops —
Bush: “David, next man, please. Thank you. It took you a long time to unravel, and it took you a long time to ask your question.”
I happen to agree with the POTUS on this. From what I understand, common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is rather unclear…I believe that GWB wants to take the McCain Amendment(Torture rules) and apply it to the way we define our rules of engagement. I guess I am not seeing why we are not all operating under the same rules. What would the reason be for wanting the rules to be ambiguous?
September 16, 2006 - 03:58 AM on September 16th, 2006
You mean “wipe” don’t you? Yes, he did an amazing job1
September 16, 2006 - 08:08 AM on September 16th, 2006
September 16, 2006 - 09:31 AM on September 16th, 2006
Why all the worry about how our captured soldiers will be treated. Are the captured soldiers not tortured and then killed? Some are left with their heads still attached, but not many. So if the terrorists adhere to the new policy that means an improvement, right?
Excellent blog. Have been reading it for several months now on a daily basis. Good opinions and coverage of the important happenings. Thanks.
September 16, 2006 - 10:09 PM on September 16th, 2006
There is a HUGE difference between uniformed soldiers and terrorists. Geneva Conventions protections apply to UNIFORMED SOLDIERS. They DO NOT apply to nonuniformed combatants. Nonuniformed combatants (terrorists, saboteurs, and spies) may be tried by military tribunal and executed without any of the protections afforded to uniformed personnel. The conventions are set up that way specifically to limit the number of combatants from running around dressed like civilians. It protects the uniformed soldiers AND the civilians by reducing the chances of civilians being mistaken for combatants.
Uniformed soldiers found in Iran or North Korea would be protected by the Geneva Conventions. US CIA paramilitaries, field officers and Special operations personnel who are not uniformed and carrying the appropriate ID would not. That’s why the Geneva Conventions were developed, to provide a groundwork for how warfare was to be fought while reducing collateral damage as much as possible.
September 17, 2006 - 05:53 AM on September 17th, 2006
“The president’s need for complete
candor and objectivity from advisers
calls for great deference from the courts.
However, when the privilege depends
solely on the broad, undifferentiated
claim of public interest in the
confidentiality of such conversations,
a confrontation with other values arises.â€
Warren Burger
September 17, 2006 - 06:01 AM on September 17th, 2006
of course the quote above was talking about the “United States of America vs Richard Nixon” where Nixon said, famously, it’s never illegal if the President orders it.
David Frost: You once said, “If the president orders it, that makes it legal”, Is the president in that sense”is there anything in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that suggests the president is that far of a sovereign, that far above the law?
NIXON: No, there isn’t. There’s nothing specific that the Constitution contemplates in that respect. I haven’t read every word, every jot and every title, but I do know this: That it has been, however, argued that as far as a president is concerned, that in war time, a president does have certain extraordinary powers which would make acts that would otherwise be unlawful, lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the nation and the Constitution, which is essential for the rights we’re all talking about.
& then he quit.
September 17, 2006 - 07:27 AM on September 17th, 2006
And the US V Nixon has what to do with the topic? Are you suggesting GWB has been wiretapping his political enemies? If so, it was a waste of time as I understand it. Nothing but dead air coming out of the DNC>
September 17, 2006 - 07:53 AM on September 17th, 2006
Who the hell knows who Bush is wiretapping? he said to David Gregory “If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the rules, if they do not do that, the program is not going forward.â€
Bush has put himself abpove the law many times, claiming a right to do so with signing statements.
Bush is using signing statements like line item vetoes. Yet the Supreme Court has held the line item vetoes are unconstitutional. In 1988, in Clinton v. New York, the SCOTUS said a president had to veto an entire law: Even Congress, with its Line Item Veto Act, could not permit him to veto provisions he might not like.
He has, like Nixon, abused his power & Congress has not provided any oversight.
September 17, 2006 - 01:32 PM on September 17th, 2006
Again with the signing statements shiloh, and yet you have failed to point out what law he broke in doing it. In fact, had you done your homework, you would have realized that the signing statements are nothing new.
What part of this statement are you having trouble with? “If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the rules, if they do not do that, the program is not going forward.†As it stands, common article is vague in language and leaves much room to interpratation. Why not give the boundries clearly..
September 17, 2006 - 02:42 PM on September 17th, 2006
FAO said: “They DO NOT apply to nonuniformed combatants.”
That’s not entirely true. They also apply against openly armed non-uniformed civilians, militia and the like. There are provisions in there for non-uniformed combatants, however there are NOT provisions for non-uniformed combatabts that are not openly declared. This is why spies are not covered by the Geneva Accords.
September 17, 2006 - 10:37 PM on September 17th, 2006
Convention I of the Geneva Conventions includes the following groups as combatants “…members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE CIVILIAN POPULATION, carry their arms openly, and OBEY THE LAWS OF WAR.” This is from the Society of Professional Journalists’ Reference Guide to the Geneva Conventions. It also states that ” Feigning of civilian or non-combatant status is perfidy and prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.”
Considering the terrorists, even those who are members of the assorted armed militas in Iraq fail to meet one or more of those conditions, they are NOT lawful combatants and therefore not protected by the Geneva COnventions. Hezbollah in Lebanon was actively violating one or more of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions by hiding among the civilian population and wearing civilian clothes.
September 18, 2006 - 09:35 AM on September 18th, 2006
I do not understand why it is so difficult for some to understand or acknowledge what FAO posted above. It cut and dried.
As far as Bush wiretapping his enemies, that kinda reminds me of what Klinton did. He didn’t mess around with wiretapping. His goons just stole 900 FBI files, plus used the IRS to harass his enemies. Yep, Klinton went straight to the core. He didn’t use half measures against his enemies.
But that’s okay, because he was a democrite, and he was America’s first “black president. So it’s okay…
September 18, 2006 - 04:43 PM on September 18th, 2006
11.
That is correct, which conforms exactly to what I said. However, a militia is simply an organized command of civilians. They do not need to be uniformed, unlike your statement: “Geneva Conventions protections apply to UNIFORMED SOLDIERS. They DO NOT apply to nonuniformed combatants.”
The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3). In other words, they do not have to be uniformed.
Your reference about feigning civilian or non-combatant status applies to combatants, that is a soldier can not rpretend to be a civilian while in on the battle field. In other words, a soldier can not steal civies and fiegn being a civliain in an effort to fool the enemy.
Thus the Geneva Accord can apply to noon-uniformed conbatants.
September 18, 2006 - 05:08 PM on September 18th, 2006
You are refusing to accept that combatants, uniformed or otherwise, who DO NOT OBEY the rules of war are not eligible for protection under the Geneva Conventions. You were right when you said spies are not protected. However, you’re refusing to acknowledge that the terrorists are not acting as lawful combatants, they are acting as saboteurs.
They are hiding among the civilian population (forbidden),
they are targeting mostly civilians (forbidden),
and
frequently carry their weapons concealed (also forbidden).
To claim that the terrorists are entitled to the same treatment as uniformed or even nonuniformed combatants who are abiding by the terms of the Geneva Conventions is WRONG. I have no problem with nonuniformed combatants who fight as a militia in accordance with the rules of land warfare. Those are a fact of life in this kind of situation. My problem is with people insisting that we extend to terrorists who intentionally and wantonly target innocent civilians the same protections due to uniformed soldiers who obey the laws of land warfare. They are engaging in economic and psychological sabotage. Therefore their designation would be as saboteurs which are treated the same as spies under the Geneva Conventions.
September 18, 2006 - 05:20 PM on September 18th, 2006
“DO NOT OBEY the rules of war are not eligible for protection under the Geneva Conventions.”
No, I am not. I realize this (as a note: guerilla warfare is also covered), This is not what you said.
“There is a HUGE difference between uniformed soldiers and terrorists. Geneva Conventions protections apply to UNIFORMED SOLDIERS. They DO NOT apply to nonuniformed combatants. Nonuniformed combatants (terrorists, saboteurs, and spies) may be tried by military tribunal and executed without any of the protections afforded to uniformed personnel.”
All I said that your statement regarding uniformed vs. nonuniformed combatants doesn’t always hold true as there are some nonuniformed combatants that are protected under the conventions, such as miltitias and civilian insurgencies. As stated, they must also follow the Conventions of warfare, but they ARE coverned none the less.
September 18, 2006 - 05:25 PM on September 18th, 2006
“As stated, they must also follow the Conventions of warfare, but they ARE coverned none the less.”
And when they don’t follow the “conventions of warfare” they aren’t covered, right? So what’s the problem?
September 18, 2006 - 05:50 PM on September 18th, 2006
“And when they don’t follow the “conventions of warfare”they aren’t covered, right? So what’s the problem?”
Perhaps you should read more carely. That wa not the distiction initially made. The distinction was uniformed vs. non-unifirmed combatants. There are some non-uniformed combatants that are indeed covered.
That is why I corrected him.
September 18, 2006 - 10:02 PM on September 18th, 2006
Ted, you’re just making a semantic argument. While I am certain that under certain circumstances non uniformed combatants would be covered, they have to follow the rules of warfare to be so. As the Islamofascists are NOT following them, they are not. Therefore, while you’re argument may be applicable in some instances, it is not in this one. Seeing as I was directing my comments about the terrorists that we are currently engaged with, I will stand by my statement that they are not protected by the Geneva Conventions, nor should we grant them those protections because they have not earned them. Under the terms of the Geneva Conventions, they have not earned Habeas Corpus, they have not earned a civilian trial, or access to a civilian attorney. They have earned a military attorney, a military tribunal, a blindfold and either a short rope and a long drop or a firing squad.
November 5, 2006 - 10:07 PM on November 5th, 2006
[...] “>Permanent Link to George Wipes The Floor With David Gregory! I’m a little depressed today. Weather is bad. I just hanging around net and found this: George Wipes The Floor With David Gregory! September 15, 2006 9:49 PM Posted By
eejz Filed in: National News, Liberal Media, Eye on the Left Via…It’s useful article i think.Link to original article [...]