The Evil Empire
For an administration that trumpets words like integrity, morality, and honor, the past six weeks have been a nightmare. You'd think the indictment of a top official for lying would give BushCo pause, but apparently there is no limit to shamelessness in those quarters. The latest evidence of that is found in a NY Times article.
The Bush administration is embroiled in a sharp internal debate over whether a new set of Defense Department standards for handling terror suspects should adopt language from the Geneva Conventions prohibiting "cruel," "humiliating" and "degrading" treatment, administration officials say.
Advocates of that approach, who include some Defense and State Department officials and senior military lawyers, contend that moving the military's detention policies closer to international law would prevent further abuses and build support overseas for the fight against Islamic extremists, officials said.
Their opponents, who include aides to Vice President Dick Cheney and some senior Pentagon officials, have argued strongly that the proposed language is vague, would tie the government's hands in combating terrorists and still would not satisfy America's critics, officials said. ...
The behind-the-scenes debate over the Pentagon directive comes more than three years after President Bush decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the fight against terrorism. It mirrors a public battle between the Bush administration and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who is pressing a separate legislative effort to ban the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of any detainee in United States custody.
After a 90-to-9 vote in the Senate last month in favor of Mr. McCain's amendment to a $445 billion defense spending bill, the White House moved to exempt clandestine C.I.A. activities from the provision. A House-Senate conference committee is expected to consider the issue this week.
Mr. Cheney and some of his aides have spearheaded the administration's opposition to Senator McCain's amendment; they were also quick to oppose a draft of the detention directive, which began to circulate in the Pentagon in mid-September, officials said.
...
The administration's policies for the detention, interrogation and prosecution of terrorism suspects have long been a source of friction within the government.
Even some supporters of those policies have acknowledged thatthe tensions stem in part from the way they were pushed through after the Sept. 11 attacks, by a handful of administration lawyers who circumvented international-law experts, military lawyers and even some cabinet-level officials who might have objected. [Emphasis added]
Compliance with a treaty which it signed and ratified would seem the honorable thing for this country to do. It would show that this nation keeps its promises. Treating prisoners of this asymmetrical war in accordance with principles of fundamental decency would seem the moral thing for this country to do. It would show that we take the language of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution seriously. According these prisoners the basic rights we proclaim all individuals should have, and for which we allegedly deposed a dictator in a country which we now know posed no threat to the US would show that we have the integrity to act in the way we believe to be right.
It may be inconvenient for the US to behave in a manner consistent with its principles, just as it may be inconvenient to respect the rights of a criminal defendant. It is still the honorable, moral, and decent thing to do. To do otherwise damages the very fabric of our society.
However, just in case the Vice President, the Pentagon, and the CIA choose to ignore the history of over two hundred years in this grand experiment in democracy, I hope Senator McCain and his congressional colleagues hold firm to these principles. Somebody has to.
The Bush administration is embroiled in a sharp internal debate over whether a new set of Defense Department standards for handling terror suspects should adopt language from the Geneva Conventions prohibiting "cruel," "humiliating" and "degrading" treatment, administration officials say.
Advocates of that approach, who include some Defense and State Department officials and senior military lawyers, contend that moving the military's detention policies closer to international law would prevent further abuses and build support overseas for the fight against Islamic extremists, officials said.
Their opponents, who include aides to Vice President Dick Cheney and some senior Pentagon officials, have argued strongly that the proposed language is vague, would tie the government's hands in combating terrorists and still would not satisfy America's critics, officials said. ...
The behind-the-scenes debate over the Pentagon directive comes more than three years after President Bush decided that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the fight against terrorism. It mirrors a public battle between the Bush administration and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who is pressing a separate legislative effort to ban the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of any detainee in United States custody.
After a 90-to-9 vote in the Senate last month in favor of Mr. McCain's amendment to a $445 billion defense spending bill, the White House moved to exempt clandestine C.I.A. activities from the provision. A House-Senate conference committee is expected to consider the issue this week.
Mr. Cheney and some of his aides have spearheaded the administration's opposition to Senator McCain's amendment; they were also quick to oppose a draft of the detention directive, which began to circulate in the Pentagon in mid-September, officials said.
...
The administration's policies for the detention, interrogation and prosecution of terrorism suspects have long been a source of friction within the government.
Even some supporters of those policies have acknowledged thatthe tensions stem in part from the way they were pushed through after the Sept. 11 attacks, by a handful of administration lawyers who circumvented international-law experts, military lawyers and even some cabinet-level officials who might have objected. [Emphasis added]
Compliance with a treaty which it signed and ratified would seem the honorable thing for this country to do. It would show that this nation keeps its promises. Treating prisoners of this asymmetrical war in accordance with principles of fundamental decency would seem the moral thing for this country to do. It would show that we take the language of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution seriously. According these prisoners the basic rights we proclaim all individuals should have, and for which we allegedly deposed a dictator in a country which we now know posed no threat to the US would show that we have the integrity to act in the way we believe to be right.
It may be inconvenient for the US to behave in a manner consistent with its principles, just as it may be inconvenient to respect the rights of a criminal defendant. It is still the honorable, moral, and decent thing to do. To do otherwise damages the very fabric of our society.
However, just in case the Vice President, the Pentagon, and the CIA choose to ignore the history of over two hundred years in this grand experiment in democracy, I hope Senator McCain and his congressional colleagues hold firm to these principles. Somebody has to.
posted by Diane at 4:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home