On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 17:55 +0000, Tim Bedding wrote: > Jay > > > The bill of rights is about limiting what the government does. > > It's not conditional. > > Well said. > > > If Kerry had made his stand on that issue, which is a serious > criticism of the Bush government, then he might perhaps have commanded > more support. Certainly, if I had been eligible to vote, I might > have voted for such a position. > > As it was, the Kerry campaign seemed to focus more on the Iraq > war deception by Bush where the issues are a lot less clear to me.
Kerry's biggest problem is he had no certain stance beyond "not him". After that, everything else is pale and a result. He could not stand on what you suggest because he does not believe it. It would have been anti-PC to hold that stand in either case. his record on things such as encryption are an example of his core beliefs. His problem with the Iraq thing was that half of his base essentially thought it right and good to go into Iraq -- they agreed with his opponent. It was *his* mistake to focus on Iraq. Essentially, he made the same mistake Gore did. he believed it was his natural next step, that he'd been preparing for it his adult life and that by gosh that makes it his for the taking. As a result he failed to realize his own failure to take a certain, unequivocal stand that could be backed up by his history in public. A lifetime of flips and flops on identifiable issues did him in. The gaffes such as "I don't own any SUVS" becoming "Well my family does, not me" only reinforced the just perception of his inability to take a firm stand for the long term. This is why, IMO, historically the Republicans do better in times of crisis/war (even if only in perception) than Democrats. They produce a better image of "staying the course" over long terms. or at least historically have and since that's the issue, that's what matters. ;) Pundits like to believe it's because the Repubs always push for stronger (i.e. more costly) military budgets. But that's only a half-truth. It's that they do in times of peace or war. It's that they stick to it at least in rhetoric, just as why people hold the Republes as for small government -they've always held the rhetoric, and over the long view they've held it. That isn't to say it can't change, as it is indeed doing so. But the Dems have been rightfully shown as changing their politics to the moment. That hurt Kerry especially because he embodies the "support whatever works for me for now" method. If he had taken the "stand" you suggest, he'd have done worse. The votes to the contrary would have been even more significant and well pointed out by his opponents. > It is also worth pointing out that I have heard that a number > of individuals held in the base in Cuba may not be combatants > at all, but are merely suspected terrorists, placed there by > people working with the US security services. I would not doubt that. What is of concern is the capture origin of them. If they were captured in an AO such as Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. then there is no requirement they be kept anywhere specific. > Bush has said there is a war on terror. If so, then prisoners > of that war ought to be given the benefits of the Geneva > Convention. That would be an useful thing to do in the battle > for hearts and minds. False on a couple accounts. One, in order to be applied, there must be a declaration of hostilities against a specific entity. Second, that entity *must* be a signer to the GC. If not, the GC itself states it does not apply in the cases on non-signatories. Nor should it. > It is a surprise to me that someone like Lowell, who has struck > me as quite rational with regard to issues in general, would not > want to support human rights and the Geneva Convention. As someone who was directly impacted by it, I can tell you there are *many* things in the GC that are ridiculous and wrong. For example, officers getting better treatment than enlisted, restrictions on firing on enemy troops with certain guns, etc.. But essentially, as noted above, if your opponent is not a signatory (or it can be shown is not abiding by it), you are under no obligation to abide by it yourself. Cheers, Bill _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
