Mojo_PeiPei

My standing is if it wasn't signed into law by congress, as allowed by the constitution, then the President isn't acting in "good faith". If they are pulling narrow definitions for torture out of their ass that override the legal ones that we all know exist in law as signed by congress in both foreign treaties of war conduct and our own, then it is to be stopped. Also I could give two shits if some pinko liberals in Europe get up in arms about this unless it involves their citizens such as the case with the Britons. We had every legal and moral right to lay waste to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, they can deal with it.

I don't know enough about these torture memo's to say with any bit of certainty, so I won't try to spout like I do.

My position will change with the law yes. Personally I could give a shit if Omar Bin-Shek Mohammed (as opposed to the American Joe Sixpack) who got caught up with Al Qaeda or the Taliban or (insert terrorist group here) doesn't get afforded the same rights as me, in my country. But if congress ratifies the articles of war to include a more conclusive and precise definition, then I will accept it.

Also I'm not accepting the Bush Admin's actions or words as gospel, everything that I have put forth has happened way before anyone there was ever in the picture. I don't think that they are acting illegally in the vast majority of all of this, so in that I will defend there actions. The courts have yet to speak out and rule Gitmo illegal. I think all men held there should stand in before a tribunal, as the law properly affords them, with or without counsel (I'm not clear if they have that right under their status), and have their status challenged. But again if you are asking me if I think that someone determined to be an illegal combatant who was properly detained by our military on the field of battle should be afforded Habeas Corpus or be protected by amendments 4-6 and 8, then no absolutly not.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.