What is 'bull' about the LOGICAL FACT that if WE try to wiggle around treaty obligations by using weasel words and 'redefining' what the treaty words 'mean' ("depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"... :-), then OTHER COUNTRIES will do EXACTLY the SAME THING... and that will put our OWN TROOPS at risk of being TORTURED and subjected to phony SHOW TRIALS in any future conflicts we may have.
What about plain English don't you understand??????????
You don't *believe* our military's top lawyers when they say this?????? Why not??????????????
(You've drunk *that much* cool aid?)
FACE IT: If Bush didn't LIKE the treaty restrictions... he could simply move to have the U.S. WITHDRAW from the treaty.
That would be the HONEST thing to do.
But, he wants to PRETEND that we still uphold the treaty... (while actually IGNORING the plain language of the treaty --- as the Supreme Court found).
All this will result in is the LOSS OF RESPECT for the U.S. of A., and in future wars (Hell... even in *this one*) enemies will be able to capture and torture our guys, (waterboatdering, hanging from hooks in the ceiling, starvation, cold, heat, etc.), convict them in Soviet-style show trials, using SECRET EVIDENCE that they are not allowed to see to 'convict' them --- and they can all point to Bush's weasel words for their *justification* of the abhorant practices.
"See", they will say, "if it's good enough for the U.S., it's good enough for us!". Only, they may use even WORSE tortures. (After all: who's to know?) |
