Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War …the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
|
I’ll skip links to what the President is trying to do and the mild Republican revolt [finally!] against it. It’s in every newspaper. He says that the Geneva Conventions [above] aren’t clear and we need our own law – that the C.I.A. Interrogators need more specifics – like that it’s okay to use near drowning on water boards! – to do their job. At his Press Conference, he had a temper tantrum when asked simple "golden rule" questions. Truth is, he wants exoneration for what he has already allowed. This is where it needs to stop. There is absolutely no reason to clarify what’s written above. It’s absolutely clear.
- If the Interrogators are unwilling to continue to keep ignoring the Conventions. So be it.
-
If Bush has secretly allowed them, or directed them, to ignore these conventions, let his trial begin.
Enough is enough!
Kudos to Senator Lindsey Graham [Rep S.C.] for standing up for the right thing against his party, and for putting the right thing above reelection! This man is not a rebellious Republican. He’s a patriot. and he’s an expert [USAF JAG]:
Citing his twenty-two years of service in the Air Force Judge Advocate General Corps, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) offered a spirited defense of the Geneva Conventions, while disagreeing with President Bush on the approach to take with prisoner interrogations in the war on terror. Graham said he was unconcerned with the consequences in his home state as a result of his position on legislation under consideration by the Senate. "We cannot have a great nation when we start redefining who we are under the guise of redefining our law," the first term senator said.
…
Senator Graham responded, "Well, I’m getting pounded at home by some people — why can’t you work with the president? The president wants to defend us. The CIA needs to get good information. These guys are barbarians. Why are you standing in the way? I’m not standing in the way. I share the same goals, but I’m a military lawyer. Twenty-two years as a member of the Air Force JAG Corps. When I put that uniform on, I took an obligation as a military officer.
"Now I have an obligation as a senator. I admire our president, I want to help him. But the biggest risk in the world is not Lindsey Graham losing an election. We can have a good country without Lindsey Graham being in the Senate. We cannot have a great nation when we start redefining who we are under the guise of redefining our law.
"My biggest fear is that as we try to solve these complicated legal procedures and problems that we’re seen as taking shortcuts and we don’t redefine the law, we redefine America in a way so we can’t win this war. That’s what Colin Powell is saying. That’s what General Vessey’s saying. It’s not about my political career. America can do well without me, but we cannot do well if we’re seen to abandon our principles and the rule of law."
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.