From: "Gary Britt" 

Its about the CIA interrogators and you know it.

I've got know problem with shipping the enemy off to other locations for
additional questioning.  I'm sure Syria is a party to the Geneva
conventions and the anti-torture treaties.

Gary

"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:452405c4{at}w3.nls.net...
> This has nothing to do with service prsonnel and you know it. It's about
> Bush, Cheney and their flunkies who authorized the torture. Bushie logic -
> Hey Syria is our enemy but they really tortue well - let's just send a few
> of the people we don't like to them
>
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:452402ff$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Because the language being dealt with is so vague as to be subject to
>> interpretation by others in ridiculous ways.  So congress defines what's
>> covered so our service men and women can't be bound by some eurotrash
>> idiot prosecutor's decision that a woman questioning a terrorist is an
>> affront to his personal dignity and is therefore a war crime violation of
>> common article 3.  It was needed because of the recent, previously
>> unprecedented decision in the Hamdan case.  Surely you know all of this
>> so stop pretending to be unaware of the facts.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>> news:4523317b$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> So why the need for a retroactive pardon?
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>>> news:452328b9$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>I don't recall anyone authorizing torture Rich, though I realize it's
>>>>popular on the left to call it the "torture bill."
>>>>
>>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote
in message
>>>> news:4522f101$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> My mistake on the prior to 9/11.
>>>>>
>>>>> When has there ever been any legislation in our
country retroactively
>>>>> protecting anyone from war crimes? Also I very much
doubt that this
>>>>> portion of the legislation was written to protect the service
>>>>> men/women. This was written to protect Bush, Cheney and their
>>>>> appointees who authorized torture ignoring international law.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:4522ea05$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>> Cafferty is an ass of the first order.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prior to 9/11?  Shouldn't that be after 9/11??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The legislation is needed to protect our service
men and women and
>>>>>> CIA personnel from being hauled into court by some
eurotrash idiot
>>>>>> like Phil or Adam in the job of local prosecutor
or judge.  You know
>>>>>> sort of like what has happened to Tom Delay and
the local idiot
>>>>>> prosecutor from Travis County, Austin, Texas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4522e1bb{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>> Deep inside the legislation is a provision to
pardon Bush and his
>>>>>>> administration for any crimes ( torture etc ) 
to detainees prior to
>>>>>>> 9/11/2001. But if Bush says there was no
torture then why did he
>>>>>>> need this retroactive immunity for possible war crimes?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CNN Cafferty report at
>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ&eurl=
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5