President Bush talks to reporters in on Capitol Hill Washington,
Thursday, Sept. 14, 2006, following a closed-door meeting with House
Republicans on national security issues.
(AP Photo/Dennis Cook)
The Senate Armed Services Committee has voted against President Bush's proposals for how detainees in the War on Terror are to be questioned and prosecuted. The President wanted better definitions that take the ambiguities out of the rather vague requirements in the Common Article 3 sections of the Geneva Conventions. The Trifecta of Graham, McCain and Warner do not want these ambiguities defined but left in their vague form that leaves those in the field able to give wide interpretation and face potential after action criminal charges if they interpret wrongly. AJ Strata frames the argument this way:
Sen Lindsay Graham is one of those lawyers who is too literal and who thinks in simple terms, and apparently cannot envision context when assessing law. The man is trying to literally interpret Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, which is insane on the face of it:
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
Graham and others are afraid if we do not follow this vague and stupid condition of the convention we will be seen as pulling out of the conventions.
The problem with this is that one man's interpretation is another man's torture. Remember the anti-Bush faction thinks playing The Red Hot Chile Pepper music is over the line and considered torture.
Warner believes the administration proposal would lower the standard for the treatment of prisoners, potentially putting U.S. troops at risk should other countries retaliate.
McCain and Graham have joined Warner in opposing Bush's bill.
I would say to these three ... hogwash when it comes to the War on Terror. First of all, we are not fighting against another government who has signed on to any treaties. That should be enough all by itself. And then I would ask them what could happen to our troops that is any worse than having their heads cut off on video tape or being set on fire and hung from a bridge? The House bill is much more sensible for our needs today, so we'll have to see what happens in Conference, but the President has said that if the bill comes to him in the Senate form, he will veto it.
"I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity," Bush said at the White House after his meeting with lawmakers.
I realize that John McCain understands horrible and painful torture up close and personal. I can understand why he would be on a crusade to protect the troops from anything that might subject them to that kind of fate. What I don't understand is McCain's obtuseness in not understanding that the worst thing we can do is become a "paper tiger" again and this Senate bill is well on the way to making that happen. Mr. McCain, this is not Vietnam, this is not the Hanoi Hilton. Our enemy does not look at those they've captured and kidnapped as bargaining chips at the diplomatic table. These are vicious, evil fanatics who kill for sport, who kill to prove they can, who use their kills as a way not to open diplomatic channels but to rile up other killer-types, none who give even one iota of value to human life or dignity. And most assuredly, they are not going to think we are noble or pure because we make our intelligence operatives and military troops fight this war as if it were a high school debate. As far as I'm concerned, enemy combatants should feel lucky they weren't killed when they were captured and consider themselves damn lucky they get hot meals, clean linens, prayer mats, Korans, and accomodations far better than most of them have ever seen in their pathetic, deluded, evil lives.
Comments