so, basically, he wants a post facto justification for the attack on iraq, the upcoming attack on iran, gitmo, abu ghraib, etc.He warned legal grounds for mounting pre-emptive strikes or intervening to stop genocide were no longer adequate.
Mr Reid also called for a review of the Geneva Conventions, signed in 1949, governing the treatment of prisoners of war.
"We now have to cope with a deliberate regression towards barbaric terrorism by our opponents," he said.
so, when exactly did osama bin laden demand our scrupulous adherence to the geneva convention? i must have missed that."The legal constraints upon us have to be set against an enemy that adheres no constraints whatsoever, but an enemy so swift to insist that we do in every particular, and that makes life very difficult for the forces of democracy."
however the true comedy in this ridiculous claim lies in the fact that 'our side' appears not to recognise any constraints, and acts with far greater destructiveness that 'their side' (100k+ killed in iraq vs 3000 on 9/11, for example). i don't see life being made difficult for the "forces of democracy" (or, translated from doublespeak, 'warmonger') - on the contrary: they appear to having it easy. no serious military opposition of any kind, plus a weak and nebulous political opposition at home