Sen. Bayh just said if we amend the

[bigbrother05]

War Crimes act. So our soldiers would be protected.
If our leaders do this I will never vote again, and no0 money

[eyesroll]

1. ??

What's the matter with amending the War Crimes Act so our soldiers would be protected?

(Obviously something's missing here...can you elaborate for those of us not watching whatever you are?)

[bigbrother05]

2. CNN

Do you not think our soilders are not protected now. Bush said himself he would not ask a soldier to do something illegal.
BusH is trying to protect his own ass, and be tried for War crimes.

[Cleita]

3. Bush doesn't tell the truth so his word is as useless as

his mother's pearl necklace. Time to move on.

[spanone]

4. Protected from what? Torturing? It's already Illegal.

Maybe America will let Bushco get away with ignoring OUR laws, hopefully the world will hold us to a higher standard.

[eyesroll]

10. I'm just saying...I have no idea what the OP is talking about, since I was

not watching Sen. Bayh.

"Protecting our soldiers," on its face, absent context, sounds fine -- or, at least, like a throwaway. Who doesn't want to protect our soldiers? (The way the OP phrased it, it could be protecting our soldiers from being victims of war crimes, which is good, or protecting our soldiers from being prosecuted for war crimes, which is good or bad -- probably bad, I can assume -- depending on what constitutes a war crime.)

Obviously, the OP found this bad enough to post about, but didn't post any details for those of us who are knee-deep in Crim Law homework. My post was a request (albeit a snarky one) for more information, so I could know exactly what was proposed that was so bad.

[madrchsod]

5. i take it he meant our soldiers

could do what ever as long as the "congress" says it`s ok...i think that is what the puppets in germany and italy did. oh never mind the fact that the geneva conventions are what the civilized world goes by now. although not perfect they do at least set a standard for which people and nations can be held accountable.

[intaglio]

6. Even if the War crimes act is amended

US troops would still be vulnerable to prosecution anywhere else that the Geneva accords hold. US law is NOT world law and the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague is mandated to prosecute those accused of war crimes where their country of residence is not in the process of investigating such crimes.

And so would Big W

[Uben]

7. Torture is illegal, immoral, and unexcusable...no Amendment

There should be no amendment, and all parties who have participated in such activities should stand trial and be punished according to the laws on the books, now. Period. Who do these bastards think they are trying to cover their asses for acting inhumane? Fry their asses!

[bigbrother05]

9. Thank you

First it was defining humiliation, in article 3 of the Geneva convention.
Now they are talking about War Crimes.

[NOLADEM]

8. How about we tell them to stop committing war crimes???

That would protect them too, right?

Nah, too easy. We must out-terror them.

:banghead:

:grr:

[Skidmore]

11. That performance was a good reason not to select Bayh

as the candidate to head the Dem ticket in 08. What an asinine performance. It was the best example I've seen to date of how to embrace Republican policies without changing the D behind your name to an R since Lieberman got smooched.

ANY support of legislation that even gives lip service to endorsing torture or violating human rights should be severely sanctioned by the Democratic Party and not voted for or compromised on in the Congress.