From: "Gary Britt" 

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