Great catch by Josh Marshall on the history of the Geneva Conventions. They were left deliberately vague because it was believed this would make their protections stronger, not weaker. Military lawyers understand this. If only the administration would listen to them.
Meanwhile, for those who missed it, Colin Powell has come out today in firm opposition to administration attempts to weaken Article 3's protections against torture. His words:
"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."
This is an argument I and many others have been making for quite some time, and it lies at the basis of the Conventions themselves. There is both a moral and practical component to this debate. How anyone can morally defend torture is just beyond me. But from a practical point of view, we must remember that these conventions protect our own soldiers as much as they protect those of our enemy. And with very rare exceptions, they operate only as a shared norm. With very few exceptions, they operate only because we have all agreed to abide by them.
Once upon a time, this nation stood at the forefront of a movement that demanded protections for human rights and human dignity. We demanded it be applied equally to all, even our worst foes. It was a noble effort, one that was won only because we were willing to defend it at all costs. It was a battle that took the better part of a century, but in the end, it was a battle we won.
And now? Now we are leading the charge to undo all that which we have accomplished. Having fought to end the use of torture by governments, we are now arguing for its use. Having fought to close secret prisons and end the use of brutal security forces, we are demanding their return. Having fought to establish the rights for every man, woman, and child to live in freedom, we are demanding the right to deny those rights to those with whom we fight.
This is not the way we will win this war. Liberty, dignity, and equality are the means by which we will win this war. Why then is this administration determined to make sure that we give up our greatest strengths? Why is this so hard for them to see?
Fortunately, and perhaps finally, it appears this administration has simply gone too far. Although it appears most Republicans are willing to simply go along with this disastrous policy, a few that matter most are not:
But negotiations between Capitol Hill and the White House broke down as three Republican senators crucial to passage of the legislation hardened their stance against a White House plan that would reinterpret a main provision of the Geneva Conventions.
Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the committee would vote Thursday in a closed session on an alternative that he and his two chief allies — Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona — have championed, even if the White House refuses to go along with them. The senators have said changes to the American interpretation of the provision of the Geneva Conventions, known as Common Article 3, would undermine the nation’s international credibility and open the way for other countries to treat captured American troops at their whim.“This is not about November 2006. It is not about your election. It is about those who take risks to defend America,” Mr. Graham said.
I have never much been a fan of Sen. Graham. Far too often he has said the right thing, but then caved under pressure from this administration. And the pressure on this issue has been intense, with the president himself heading to Capitol Hill today to lobby on behalf of the right to torture. But as of just moments ago, it appears that Graham and his cohorts have stood tall:
Hours after Mr. Bush huddled with House Republicans, he suffered a defeat on the other side of the Capitol, as the Senate Armed Services Committee endorsed legislation that would give suspected terrorists more legal protections than the president desires.
Four of the panel’s 13 Republicans joined all 11 Democrats in rejecting Mr. Bush’s proposal to keep defendants from seeing classified evidence against them. The vote came a day after the House Armed Services Committee adopted a measure that more closely parallels what the president wants[...]Mr. McCain was one of the four Armed Services Committee Republicans who voted against Mr. Bush’s proposals. The others were Senators John W. Warner of Virginia, the chairman, Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina and Susan E. Collins of Maine. The measure that the panel endorsed and sent to the Senate floor would let suspects see evidence against them and would bar statements obtained through torture or coercion.
Understand what is at stake here. The right to see the evidence presented against you is at the bedrock of both our system of government and our social order. It was against just such a policy that the men who founded this country once revolted, and it was with policies such as this that the Soviet Union once ruled. To accept what the president has proposed would be to abandon one of the defining characteristics of our society.
We are told we are fighting to protect our way of life, yet we are asked to give up the things which once made us so unique. We are told we are fighting against a new totalitarian ideology, yet are asked to grant absolute and unchecked authority and power to the state. We are told we are fighting a brutal and ruthless enemy, and yet we are asked to allow those who would defend us to engage in their own brutality.
This is not who we are. This is not what we believe. This is not the best we can do.
UPDATE: It appears Colin Powell is just the first of many. 29 retired Admirals and Generals, military leaders and former DOD officials have joined together to call on Congress to reject the president's attempts to abandon strict interpretations of the Geneva Conventions.
“This is not just a theoretical concern,” the letter signed by General John Shalikashvili, General Joseph Hoar and others, said. “We have people deployed right now in theaters where Common Article 3 is the only source of legal protection should they be captured. If we allow that standard to be eroded, we put their safety at greater risk.”
The letter concluded: “We believe – and the United States has always asserted -- that a broad interpretation of Common Article 3 is vital to the safety of U.S. personnel. But the Administration’s bill would put us on the opposite side of that argument. We urge you to consider the impact that redefining Common Article 3 would have on Americans who put their lives at risk in defense of our Nation. We believe their interests, and their safety and protection should they become prisoners, should be your highest priority as you address this issue.”
Most issues are not black and white. This one is. If we give up that which makes us civilized in an effort to save civilization, we have lost the war before we have even begun to fight.
UPDATE II: Lindsey Graham (keep in mind here that he is a Republican) is now leveling accusations that the administration strong-armed officers from the Judge Advocate General Corps into signing a letter of support for the administration. If this is true, it is almost beyond belief. Tony Snow was grilled about this today, and his answers were anything but clear. In fact, the only thing I could possibly say in his defense is that it appears he may have been caught of guard by the accusations. Not that that is much of a defense for the White House Press Secretary.
Have these people no shame? Is there nothing they won't do?
Subscribe to this blog's feed
