First off, there is no Obama PLAN as of THIS date. The argument that there is a plan is speculative at best.
That stated Petraeus did not endorse ANYTHING because there is NOTHING to be endorsed. But let is examine what he DID say:
"I think, on balance, that those moves help [us]," said the chief of U.S. Central Command. "In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.
In other words, things that are in line with the GENEVA CONVENTION. But the case of the prisoners at Guantanamo are not under these conventions as they are NON-UNIFORMED ENEMY COMBATANTS. What part of this do Liberals continue to NOT understand.
Secondly, there is NOTHING in the above statement endorsing anything that hasn’t ALWAYS been endorsed and even part of the Bush Administrations guidance. This is about how the MILITARY handles prisoners of war and its detainees.
Abu Ghraib was an example how some will break this code and subsequently be prosecuted for it.
"With respect to Guantanamo," Petraeus added, "I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice -- I talked to the Attorney General the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary -- again, how to take that forward. But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."
Let’s be clear; closing it in a RESPONSIBLE manner. Nothing new here and in line with comments made by Bush during his Presidency.
But let me emphasize, Petraeus is NOT talking about the detainees when he argues for observing the Geneva Conventions. They do not represent uniformed soldiers of Governments who are “party” to the Conventions and therefore do not fall under them.
So what this article represents is an enormous red herring for the quacks hysterically trying to claim that Bush/Cheney are war criminals and that the US was criminally negligent in its use of “enhanced” interrogation methods that do NOT meet the definition of torture by the Geneva Conventions OR the United Nations.
This thread is about Petraeus's statements, and the reaction to said statements. While yes, the OP was specifically addressing Republicans, thread drift to a general "how do you think [x] people will react to this" is perfectly reasonable and NOT a derail. However, continued one line complaining of people being "off topic" simply because the thread is discussing the OP in a way you don't like IS derailing and trolling, and should not occur beyond this point.
