Comments on: McCain & Graham Surrender: We Can Interrogate Terrorists

By: For Enforcement

For Enforcement — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 01:10:30 +0000

Owl, you did a great job in answering your own question about who is the referee.
We don’t need McCain, Graham, Warner, et. al. as our referee? , they couldn’t even find the ring, they’re too busy tooting their horn.

By: Barbara

Barbara — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:40:40 +0000

This is win-win for McCain/Graham. Their names have been front and center in the media. As has been said, there is no bad publicity. However, as far as I am concerned all this brouhaha is an infringement by the legislative branch on the executive. Congress has no say in what goes on out of this country in time of war. The founding fathers were explicit that congress could have no hand in running a war.

By: Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense

Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:54:05 +0000

Detainee Deal – A significant win for our security…

You can tell that the Bush/McCain deal is a win for Bush’s efforts at protecting the Country. Just read the news stories in the NY Times A Bad Bargin and Washington Post (The abuse can continue), along a perusal of the left wing blog sites like …

By: owl

owl — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:38:34 +0000

Enforcement…The refereee has to determine any question of the rules in their favor.

And the referee is….?

I agree (AJ) that Bush has allowed this trio to gently walk backwards and the truth is what is seeping out. The NYT and Dems are beginning to fight today since their shield trio has been removed.

And the referee is…? Since I no longer trust the trio to share my views on this subject, and they all reside on the Armed Service Committee as our representatives, it is very important that this little problem be solved before the election. If we should lose……this goes down the drain. If we win…..we find ourselves with McCain as head honcho referee. With trusty sidekick Graham. Now don’t we all feel better…..especially since we have witnessed what losing does to McCain? Watch out internet and be verrrry afraid if your name happens to be Rummy.

By: patrick neid

patrick neid — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:46:45 +0000

yes….all the earmarks of another fabled Rove “bait and switch”. this guy knows how to put the worm on the hook!

By: For Enforcement

For Enforcement — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:31:54 +0000

We have somehow tried to take war down to Marquis of Queensberry rules.

BUT,,, with important limitations, the US has to keep one hand behind it’s back, can’t block their punches, and can’t hit back. We especially aren’t allowed to HURT THEIR FEELINGS, for God’s sake.

and they are allowed to use a sword, cut our neck, cut off our head, spit in our face and hit below our belts with no penalties.
The refereee has to determine any question of the rules in their favor. The only thing they are absolutely required to do is refer to us as the NICE guys.

By: MerlinOS2

MerlinOS2 — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 07:04:57 +0000

In war, you kill people and break things until you get your enemy to submit. If you try to play half measures, you only prolong the conflict and by way of that encourage more damage to those innocents where the conflict is taking place.

We have somehow tried to take war down to Marquis of Queensberry rules.

Can someone tell me how this is a workable altenative rather than just a PC alternative. It may sound nice but it clearly isn’t workable as evidenced by our situation in Iraq.

Yes encouraging the locals to realize the possibilities after the war is over is a good thing, but it is counterproductive before the war is won, especially if the best you can do is aim for a stalemate.

By: MerlinOS2

MerlinOS2 — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 06:52:58 +0000

MerryJ1

Thanks for your acknowledgment.

I have personally been on the front lines in my past and I realize my position.

It is not a quaint observation, it is a reality check.

Thanks for yer support, like the Snapple commercials used to say.

By: MerryJ1

MerryJ1 — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 06:13:18 +0000

“It is very hard to unleash the dogs of war if you have to be committed to only using nerfbats.”

What a great line! kudos, Merlin!

By: MerlinOS2

MerlinOS2 — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 06:02:54 +0000

To follow up, if certain tactics are not defined as unacceptable and can result with responses that justify taking out the violaters despite the collateral damage, we will forever committed to damnation of having to deal with asymetrical responses.

At some point we have to say enough is enough. This is not an acceptable alternative, and if you choose it you bear the responsibility, then you are responsible for the consquences.

You don’t get a free pass because of unacceptable tactics needs to be codified.

It is very hard to unleash the dogs of war if you have to be committed to only using nerfbats.

And so it goes!

By: MerlinOS2

MerlinOS2 — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 05:40:50 +0000

So if this is true, we have defined our position.

The logical followup is the EU or others will interpret a differential opinion.

In my opinion what is needed is another convention beyond the Geneva Conventions that defines and codifies, with clarity the world view that insurgent actions resulting in deaths to innocent civilian non combatants is not considered an acceptable tactic, as well as human shields.

Both of these should be held with all the respect they deserve.

Perhaps then, we can believe the world stage has resulted in humane progress.

But I will not hold my breath.