Redstate

on how Murtha is voting?

and for discussion, what is Red State's view on proposed amnesty for terrorists who may have attacked or killed our troops?

Its an Iraqui issue - let them decide.

For people that hadn't actually participated in violence. If you want a really good opinion about that type of deal I suggest reading Lincolns plans for reconstruction.

In case you don't know, I'm a Dem. And I'm just noting so you know in advance who you're dealing with.

What immediately jumped to my mind when I heard about a proposal by Republican Senators to offer amnesty was not that "This doesn't support the troops." or "This offers a deal to terrorists," etc...

What bothers me, and I find to be somewhat of a contradiction to the whole war on terror is this.

At the onset, we on the left argued that those held in detention centers, suspected of ties to terrorism, al-qaeda, etc, weren't given rights guaranteed under the Geneva Conventions based mainly on the premise that they don't "wear distinctive uniforms and conduct military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.". They aren't members of an organized, recognized military force.

That article specifically seemed to address Taliban fighters, and I don't know if insurgents/terrorists in Iraq also don't receive Geneva Conventions protections based on the above criteria. Based on the reasons given by the adminstration, and also read here in the past about why they shouldn't be subject to the GC, I have a hard time not seeing a problem now offering amnesty to those same people whom we would've stripped of any international protective rights to begin with.

Thoughts?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060615-4.html

MR. SNOW: Yes, it's an important question, I'm glad you asked it. Mowaffak Rubaie, who is the National Security Advisor for Prime Minister Maliki has just been on international TV in the last couple of minutes. And he said that there's no amnesty for anybody who kills Iraqis or Americans. That's the first thing. Because I know there's been a lot of reaction on Capitol Hill.

Why are you bringing up an offtopic, inflammatory question as a Democrat on a Republican site?

And this surprises us... why?  The only surprise is Byrd, who is up for re-election... hopefully this comes back to haunt him.

Didn't this come up during the debate today? I'm just trying to see where conservatives stand on the idea of an amnesty program for possible terrorists?

He has gotten the Senate, on a massively bipartisan basis, to vote against him.

http://hunter.redstate.com/story/2006/6/15/14562/0600

...I'd like to point out that I didn't vote for either of those Klowns.

the Imperial Buffon, Sen. Byrd... essentially signs his political death warrant. One fewer cat for McConnell to herd when he replaces Frist.

He's all talk, just like the rest of them.  Just look at the vote in the senate and what has been said in the past year by those same dem's who voted against the pull out.  What Reid, Reed, Feinstein, Cantwell, Levin, etc. have said is for a time table.  BS talking points is just that and the public could care less, a vote is something that could hang them.  Just look at the "I actually voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it" from Kerry.

exclusively an Iraqi issue; those are our countrymen we are talking about so I'd appreciate it if you would not toss it off so casually.

That said, if the Iraqis truly believe that this is the way to reconciliation then we may have to hold back the bile and accept it. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

will be 'seared into his memory'

What's the most that could move? 5 points? Bah.

Ya never know what else Ole Sheets will do between now and Election Day.  While I doubt Raese will explicitly say "He's a doddering old fool who's lost his mind," I'm sure there will be hints that Byrd is too old to do the job.  And this is just one more vote for the "what is he thinking" category.

Besides, most people probably don't know three things about Raese.  Byrd's been in Congress for 60 years and in the Senate as long as half the voters in West Virginia have been alive.  What's surprising is that even with all that, he's still only at 57%.

For comparison, Byrd won 78% in 2000.  And even in the very good GOP year of 1994 he got 69%.  Looks like the apple's losing its shine.

First off, legally, only nations that have signed on to the GC are part of it.  Not only are terrorists in the Middle East not part of a nation state signed on, but they do not fight within the laws of armed conflict by brandishing their weapons, wearing uniforms and targeting only military targets, which you acknowledge.  

The purpose of the GC is to ensure those caught up in conflicts bigger than themselves who fight honorably are treated honorably, to the extent they not even be questioned about their side's operations period.  They're pawns in a larger conflict so it's nothing but name, rank and serial number.  If you give terrorists GC, which legally we do not have to but you seem to favor, you CAN NOT ask them a single question about their operations.  

As for amnesty, it's probably common in all wars.  I'm not sure we hunted down and dealt with every Nazi that killed a U.S. troop.  The war and the oath has always been about things bigger than ourselves, and if saying "done" going forward finishes the stabilization of Iraq, so be it.  It's not personal in the military, it's for the U.S. and a greater good.

Byrd ranked #1 on a list of congressman who stuff pet projects into any and all legislation.

doing this while holding the constitution in his other hand.

He's probably arranged for every single one of his constituents to receive a hand out.

If you never get to take a drive through WVA, nearly half of all public roadways and buildings

are adorned with his name.

Ever wonder where all the fingerprint cards that are sent to the FBI for safekeeping are stored?

they never throw them away, you know.  They go into a warehouse so large that the lanes in the building could have passing zones for the golf carts they use to get around the place in. It's in WVA, and I believe THAT building has his name on it. ---See any pattern?  

to excrete these 6.

The guy is pandering to the left but will never be as appealing to the moonbats as Feingold. At least Feingold voted against the initial use of force.

Kerry is just blowing in the wind.

It's gotta be tough (being normal in an abnormal state.)

Kerry intended to grandstand on this issue for weeks, or at least days. But the Republicans yanked the rug out from under him by bringing it up for vote so soon.

His was such a good proposal that he was able to convince a whopping 5 of his fellow Senators to vote with him. TGIB as president and not Kerry.