I'd think of McCain and Warner as giants more if they hadn't written into their bill that following orders was a legitimate defense against war crimes. Their bill is much, much better than the administration's, but it falls far short of ideal.

Posted by: J. Michael Neal at September 15, 2006 05:04 AM | Permalink to this comment

true but the democrats are mostly AWOL, so we have to try to get the best outcome we can in these very sad times by, it appears, hitching our wagon to McCain, Warner and Graham. Later, perhaps, 'clean-up' can occur, in a future McCain Administration, say, or (if she cares about this issue), a Clinton one.

Posted by: greg at September 15, 2006 05:21 AM | Permalink to this comment

September 12, 2006

The Honorable John McCain
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Senator McCain:

Sometimes, the news is a little garbled by the time it reaches the forests of North-central Minnesota, but I call your attention to recent reports that the Congress is considering legislation which might relax the United States support for adherence to Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. It that is true, it would seem to weaken the effect of the McCain Amendment on torture of last year. If such legislation is being considered, I fear that it may weaken America in two respects. First, it would undermine the moral basis which has generally guided or conduct in war throughout our history. Second, it could give opponents a legal argument for the mistreatment of Americans being held prisoner in time of war.

In 1950, three years after the creation of the Department of Defense, the then Secretary of Defense, General George C. Marshall, issues a small book, titled The Armed Forces Officer. The book summarized the laws and traditions that governed our Armed Forces through the years. As the Senate deals with the issue it might consider a short quote from the last chapter of that book which General Marshall sent to every American Officer. The last chapter is titled "Americans in Combat" and it lists 29 general propositions which govern the conduct of Americans in war. Number XXV, which I long ago underlined in my copy, reads as follows:

"The United States abides by the laws of war. Its Armed Forces, in their dealing with all other peoples, are expected to comply with the laws of war, in the spirit and the letter. In waging war, we do not terrorize helpless non-combatants, if it is withing our power to avoid so doing. Wanton killing, torture, cruelty or the working of unusual hardship on enemy prisoners or populations is not justified in any circumstance. Likewise, respect for the reign of law, as that term is understood in the United States, is expected to follow the flag wherever it goes ..."

For the long term interest of the United States as a nation and for the safety of our own forces in battle, we should continue to maintain those principles. I continue to read and hear that we are facing a "different enemy" in the war on terror; no matter how true that may be, inhumanity and cruelty are not new to warfare nor to the enemies we have faced in the past. In my short 46 years in the Armed Forces, Americans confronted the horrors of the prison camps of the Japanese in World War II, the North Koreans in 1950-53, and the North Vietnamese in the long years of the Vietnam War, as well as knowledge of the Nazi's holocaust depredations in World War II. Through those years, we held to our own values. We should continue to do so.

Thank you for your own personal courage in maintaining those values, both in the war and on the floor of the Senate. I hope that my information about weakening American support for Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention in in error, and if not that the Senat will reject any such proposal.

Very respectfully,

[signed]

General John W. Vessey, USA (Ret.)

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/09/colin_powell_op.html

Posted by: Peter at September 15, 2006 06:10 AM | Permalink to this comment

I agree that Dems are AWOL, however, I put some of the blame on the American people. Dems know that any objections they raise to Bush's torture initiatives will be thrown back into their faces and they will be branded soft on terrorists - and the American people will agree with that assessment, thereby further emboldening the sadists at the White House. Unfortunately, it's a can't win proposition for both Dems and the United States.

Posted by: Jim at September 15, 2006 06:13 AM | Permalink to this comment

see, I think it's barely better than the administration's.

Put it this way: what I feared after Hamdan was that:

--Congress would pass clear habeas-stripping language.
--They would amend the war crimes statute so that it only forbade cruel inhuman and degrading treatment that "shocked the conscience.'

I worried about this from the day after the decision, while everyone else was celebrating. I thought I was being paranoid.

Well, I was being unduly optomistic. My fears have already come true. Those provisions are both in the Graham-Warner bill--and some others besides. The administration bill is much worse, true: it defines "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" entirely out of the war crimes statute; allows unfair tribunals--but I have to confess, the tribunals seem overblown to me considering how very, very much worse the CSRTs are.

So McCain, Graham, and Warner's rhetoric about the morality of this country and the rule of law, the news stories about their unexpected defiance...it leaves me with a taste of ashes in my mouth. From my point of view, we've already lost, and part of the reason we've lost is that the Democrats and the press fall in love with a fairy tale about the Republican moderates.

It's a fairy tale. It really is. Graham, in particular, has been hell bent on habeas stripping. If he got his way Hamdan would never have been decided. He has done more harm than good. I really believe that, and I follow this very (Very very very) closely.

I can't even say how disappointed I am in the Democrats. But while it makes a great story, the JAG and the torture victim protecting people--it's not true. Their bill may give the administration just enough breathing room to legalize waterboarding, and by stripping habeas screws over innocent people. It's better than the alternative, but that's all it is. I appreciate that they're doing more than most of the Senate but that speaks more poorly of the rest of Congress than it does on them.

I mean, Congress is about to overturn not only much of Hamdan, but Rasul. Innocent people can be detained indefinitely without charge, on secret evidence or evidence obtained under torture, without court review. That's what habeas stripping means. No one in Washington seems to even be aware of this, because they've put Saints Lindsey and John on white chargers and they won't get human rights groups or Guantanamo lawyers on the phone.

I think it is a huge blunder to give them haloes. We allowed it last December and we're paying the price now. I wish you would stop, Greg. Give them as much credit as they deserve, but don't traffic in fairy tales. If you want to find people to believe on in this, people fighting for the rule of law with all their strength--they exist. I've met some. But with exceptions I can count on one hand (e.g. Ed Markey of Massachusetts) they aren't in Congress.

Posted by: Katherine at September 15, 2006 08:06 AM | Permalink to this comment

It looks like right-wing Americans believe that the Geneva Conventions are only for Christian Nazis.

Go figure!

Posted by: NeoDude at September 15, 2006 02:19 PM | Permalink to this comment

Thanks very much for the comment, Katherine.

I feel like I'm in a bad existential novel, or Twilight Zone episode. I see my country slipping away from me, and 99.9% of the population acts like nothing's wrong.

Posted by: Anderson at September 15, 2006 04:24 PM | Permalink to this comment

katherine: i am very alarmed by the habeas stripping, and other matters, as well, such as so importantly the machinations surrounding the shocking the conscience standard, so as to water down or even eviscerate critical portions of Art III. but as anderson points out the country is asleep, or even worse, many actually don't mind robust "interrogation tactics" at all, indeed encourage them. we must focus on trying to gain the best result we practically can now, with the hope of effectuating real remedial clean up in a future administration. this one, however, with addington and hayes and yoo and the rest of them so grotesquely misguided, and with the democrats not convicingly getting out front on this issue at all, as they fear being tarred pussy-footed appeasing terrorist-huggers, well, all this means the best we have now is warner/mccain/graham. that's just reality. when i said "giants" i didn't mean to say these men are ghandis, or mandelas, or even in different vein world historical figures like a napoleon or alexander the great. i am speaking very relatively, in beltway terms, and comparing them to relative non-entities like press secretaries and such flotsam. but the bottom line is this, who on the Hill today, save McCain/Graham/Warner/, who is trying to at least stave the very worst of Bush's reckelessness on this issue? The answer: no one, at least no one in a position of real power to do anything, save these handful of senators.

Posted by: greg at September 15, 2006 05:10 PM | Permalink to this comment

Jim,
You're much too soft on the Democrats. If they're more worried about perceptions, and they can't stand on principle and make the case for that stand, they're worthless.

Posted by: Gus at September 15, 2006 06:47 PM | Permalink to this comment

Gus,

Yes, it was the Liberals and Social Democrats of the Weimar Republic who were to blame.

Posted by: NeoDude at September 15, 2006 07:30 PM | Permalink to this comment

I watched Tony Snow's effort on C-Span Thursday. Mr. Snow kept repeating that a former Secretary of State and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell; three Conservative U.S. Senators with a bit of knowledge about the military, John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and John Warner; and everyone in the room aside from himself and his staffers was confused about the Geneva Conventions, Article III, torture, and interrogation tactics.

Watching Mr. Snow, I half expected him to say, "The sun rises in the west and everyone's just been confused for all these centuries."

Mr. Snow's performance was simply jaw-dropping.

Posted by: Mark Raven at September 15, 2006 07:59 PM | Permalink to this comment

Katherine:
Up until the apparent bolting of party line concerning torture, I had thought Lindsay Graham was a fake. Now, thanks to your post I can see he is still a weasel.

Posted by: Russ at September 15, 2006 11:53 PM | Permalink to this comment

Torturing and brutalizing outsiders proves you cherish the fatherland.

Posted by: NeoDude at September 16, 2006 12:45 AM | Permalink to this comment

I don't disagree with that, really--but "giants" obscures it.

Posted by: Katherine at September 16, 2006 02:04 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Let's help Tony retain a smidgen of dignity up there, OK?"

Why? In any case, it's mission impossible.

Posted by: billmon at September 16, 2006 09:06 PM | Permalink to this comment

Thanks for putting these days into focus with your Twilight Zone reference. When one is in the Twlight Zone, as we surely are now ("Senate Debates Torture"), one isn't entirely sure, possibly not even aware in the least. This zone is a parallel universe--familiar on the surface, but on some other level, entirely new, a world where up is down. That's just one aspect of the experience that makes hearing national politicians debate whether to allow torture so unsettling.

Posted by: JO at September 16, 2006 09:31 PM | Permalink to this comment

Powell a giant? A giant what? His physical statue is large and so is his voice. He projects calm authority. Just like James Earl Jones in so many roles. But Powell isn't an actor, or is he?

By lending his 'giant' presence to Bush he handed the Presidency to him. Make no mistake. People knowing Powell was there was the foundation of his support for many voters. Didn't Powell know Bush would love to yuck it up about torture? Didn't Powell know Iraq was going down for sure with Bush in the White House?

For the sake of arguement let's say he was too dumb to know all that. Subsequently Cheney and Rumsfeld fought hard bureaucratic battles against Powell and State and Powell lost every time and in the process was continually humiliated in public. Then he prostituted himself before the UN to provide the final fig leaf for the inevitable war.

Strangely his aura is still intact but about the only thing giant about him, besides of course his height and girth, is his net worth.

Posted by: rapier at September 16, 2006 11:53 PM | Permalink to this comment