Despite Bush’s every effort to try having the Senate enact his autocratic version of a bill for interrogating and trying terrorist suspects–even going to Capitol Hill himself yesterday–a small group of GOP Senators (Collins, Warner, Graham, McCain) is standing firm and refusing to let the administration trample the Geneva Conventions.
The issue is simple, really. Either we obey the provisions of the Geneva Convention and the rule of law, or we do not. Bush thinks that the “war on terror” gives him license to suspend just about every right that America holds dear (habeas corpus, right to speedy trial, right to know the evidence arrayed against you, right not to be tortured). It seeks to interpret the Geneva Convention in conformity with its wishes. These Senators understand that the Conventions apply to everyone, and that our failure to observe them undermines our moral high ground in the war on terror. It would also place our troops in jeopardy since our failure to adhere will give license to other countries to also not do so.
Conservative blogs such as this one are outraged at the “turncoats,” not being able to grasp why the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution might apply to terrorists.
Let’s see if we can describe it in language easy enough for them to understand: the war on terror is either a war, or it’s not. If it’s really a war, then the Geneva Conventions apply as against prisoners of war and its human rights requirements must be followed. Terrorists want to kill us no more and no less than any nation’s soldiers at war with us would want to do so, and their being terrorists does not exempt them from basic human rights accorded all prisoners of war. Spare me the blather that they’re different because they target civilians; there’s a list of of innocent women and children a mile long in Iraq who’ve been killed by American bombs (not to mention incidents like the My Lai massacre in Vietnam). We are America, not Taliban Afghanistan; we do not maim and torture regardless of the reason or intent of our enemies.
In regards to constitutional rights, not all terrorists are foreign nationals, some of them are Americans. For those that are, the Constitution does not distinguish between Americans in its granting of basic rights. All of our rights are threatened with extinction once we start to pick and choose who among us is entitled to the Constitution’s protections and who is not. Today it’s them, tomorrow it’s us–at the whim of a Chief Executive with no checks on his power. We can streamline warrant requirements, allow for better emergency response, make things faster, allow for quicker judicial review, weigh the benefits vs. burdens of intrusions on our privacy, and adopt other measures to fight terrorism…but we cannot give the president unlimited license to interpret, grant, and remove constitutional rights as he sees fit.
This is not about appeasement, not about being soft on terrorists. It’s about not forgetting we are all Americans and there are some values that cannot be given up without surrendering who we are as a nation.
No related posts.
{ 7 comments }
When all the information on the inside job of 911 becomes public, all of these antics of arrogant legal posturing on the ‘treatment’ of prisoners captured ‘on the field of battle’ or ‘snatched’ from the streets of Europe and the Middle East, read kidnapped, will be moot. Not only that, but the grieving families recently attending the 5th anniversary at Ground Zero will be redirecting their outrage at “those that brought these buildings down will soon hear from all of us.” (close enough) Then, those in office who voted for the War Powers Act, Patriot Act and funding for the preemptive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will undergo the wrath of the families of the Killed and Wounded whose loved ones suffered as a direct result of the lies and deceit of 911. Again, all this posturing for the treatment of prisoners will pale when the trials for crimes of Mass Murder and War Crimes come to fruition.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14814940/
Bests,
John McCarthy
I know a lot of people snipe at George Lucas over his recent trilogy of Star Wars movies, but I cannot help but think of the story arc in which democracy descends into totalitarianism in the name of defense. As one character says when the Chancellor appoints himself Emperor, “So this is how liberty dies. To thunderous applause.”
All heady stuff, indeed. :-O
I have a general question I’ve been wondering about. According to the Geneva Convention, if a country/organization (such as the U.S. or the CIA) were to violate Geneva Convention provisions, what happens to that country/organization?
Thanks
I don’t think anything really “happens” except to merit the condemnation of the rest of the world as a rogue nation. There have always been rules of engagement that combatants violate at their peril. For example, you don’t shoot the lone ambassador on a horse with a white flag heading towards your army. These rules ultimately benefit everyone–nobody wants their ambassador shot, especially if his message was one of surrender.
The US benefits from observing the Geneva Conventions because we have the moral right to expect opponents to do the same when they capture our soldiers. If we torture or indefinitely detain opponent POW’s then we have no moral standing upon which to demand that our soldiers not be treated equivalently.
Do terrorists follow the Conventions? No..I doubt televised beheadings fall under the provisions of humane treatment. But that barbarism on their part only lowers their standing in the eyes of the world…and it doesn’t grant the US a license to suspend the rules of war. Two wrongs don’t make a right. If we believe in the sanctity of human rights then we can’t pick and choose–we have to live by our principles even if our opponents do not.
Thanks. I’m not necessarily advocating anything in this context at this point; just looking for context and asking questions…
I do have to wonder if holding to humane limitations in fighting an enemy that clearly refuses to acknowledge or respect such limits (and in fact barges well past them on a regular basis) has the potential to be a self-defeating decision — as clearly distasteful and wrong as the alternative is…
Two wrongs don’t make a right, indeed. But when do we feel pushed to the point of instead having to choose between the lesser of two wrongs?
But when do we feel pushed to the point of instead having to choose between the lesser of two wrongs?
That’s one way to ask the question. But there’s a flipside to it. How vital are the principles we claim are dear if they can be dispensed with under any circumstansis, even the most extreme? Lots of folks love to pay lip service to the notion that our freedom and our way of life are worth dying for. But lately it seems that when this proposition is pushed to a real test, we are only too willing to abandon that which we say we hold most precious in the name of protecting our lives.
So perhaps our freedom and our ideals aren’t really worth dying for to many of us. That sounds like the greatest wrong to me.
Comments on this entry are closed.