SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: boris_a who wrote (132325)5/9/2004 10:12:24 AM
From: jttmab  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
I think Alastair uses a different definition of "opposite". I don't know exactly what the definition is, but conservatives appear to have an ideological definition of "opposite" that doesn't appear in the dictionary. For example, when talking about imminent threat... ~"Bush said the exact opposite". My understanding of the word "opposite" would interpret Bush's position as equivalent to ~"There is no absolutely no threat." But that doesn't seem to be what they mean. Then again maybe it does, it doesn't appear that Iraq was a threat. Maybe it's conservative policy that we attack countries that are absolutely no threat. Conservatives are very hard to understand.

jttmab



To: boris_a who wrote (132325)5/9/2004 10:46:03 AM
From: Alastair McIntosh  Respond to of 281500
 
I was aware of Rumsfeld's earlier comments regarding the Geneva Conventions and Guantanamo. The MSNBC article you posted also states: Rumsfeld initially fought both the uniformed military and Colin Powell, who urged that prisoners in Guantanamo be accorded rights under the conventions. Eventually he gave in on the matter but continued to suggest that the protocols were antiquated.

Anyhow, my initial comment was about the situation at Abu Ghraib. At last week's hearing Rumsfeld did testify that the Geneva Conventions were to be followed at Abu Ghraib. Clearly they were not always followed.