is this clear enough?

in my last 2 posts i assumed king georgie was using one phrase from common article 3 as an example of what he thinks is "vague" in the article, not as the only vague part, but maybe i was wrong.

here, you decide:

THE PRESIDENT: This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article III of the Geneva Convention. And that Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's very vague. What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation. And what I'm proposing is that there be clarity in the law so that our professionals will have no doubt that that which they are doing is legal. You know, it's—and so the piece of legislation I sent up there provides our professionals that which is needed to go forward. [full text]

so, ok. i'll assume only that one phrase concerns him.

geez! maybe it really is reading comprehension: article 3 doesn't say "outrages upon human dignity" at all. it says "personal," not "human."

granted, it's got to be human to be personal, but the two words are nowhere near interchangeable.

let's give him the benefit of the doubt tho. let's assume it was just a trick of memory. that leaves us with another question: what's so vague? "outrage," "upon," "human/personal," or "dignity"?

you really don't need to be a lawyer to grasp this stuff, folks. it just ain't all that hard. takes a little common sense, ya know?

maybe he just doesn't know the meaning of the word "dignity...."

well try this, your majesty: the golden rule! ever hear of it?

don't do it if you wouldn't want it done to you, [expletive deleted]!