Instead of drawing contrasts with Democrats, the president’s call for creating military tribunals to try terror suspects — a key substantive and political component of his fall agenda — has erupted into a remarkably intense clash pitting some of the best-known warriors in the Republican Party against Mr. Bush and the Congressional leadership....I think it is good for congressional Republicans -- however it affects them in the elections -- to think and debate independently of the President. And I wonder how much they really "concede" this is a "distraction" for them. It looked as though they wanted to spend this time distinguishing themselves from the Democrats and driving home the message that Democrats don't care enough about national defense. But if they'd all just gotten into line and done exactly what the President wants, it would firm up the Democrats argument that the congressional Republicans are just following the President, that they don't exercise any significant oversight, and that they've lost track of American values of fairness and decency.
Democrats have so far remained on the sidelines, sidestepping Republican efforts to draw them into a fight over Mr. Bush’s leadership on national security heading toward the midterm election. Democrats are rapt spectators, however, shielded by the stern opposition to the president being expressed by three Republicans with impeccable credentials on military matters: Senators John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The three were joined on Thursday by Colin L. Powell, formerly the secretary of state and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in challenging the administration’s approach....
Republicans concede that the fight among themselves is a major political distraction, particularly given the credentials of the Republican opposition, led by Mr. McCain, the former prisoner of war in Vietnam who was tortured in captivity....
House Republicans say the Senate plan is misguided and will hobble the American military. Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said it would lead to “the lawyer brigade” being attached to combat troops to counsel detainees.
Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said: “I just think John McCain is wrong on this. If we capture bin Laden tomorrow and we have to hold his head under water to find out when the next attack is going to happen, we ought to be able to do it.”
For the Republicans to debate among themselves should make a positive impression on people: it shows that they aren't mere puppets of the President, that they are taking the entire controversy seriously, and that they are not merely suckers for every national security argument that comes along but are capable of weighing the countervailing factors competently.
The Democrats, it seems to me, have to convince us that unless they gain substantial power in Congress, important values will go unserved. You know those Republicans. They'll lunge blindly forward at every mention of the phrase "national security." But if the Republicans themselves demonstrate their ability to weigh all the considerations in a sophisticated and mature fashion, there's much less reason to want to empower Democrats, who -- we may fear -- will only undervalue national security and fall prey to excessive enthusiasm for protecting the enemy.
So I think that despite the discord among the Republicans, a contrast between Republicans and Democrats is being drawn, and it may -- perhaps unintentionally -- make Republicans more palatable to moderate voters in the next election. And then there is '08... and McCain is inspiring respect right now.
ADDED: The linked article is attracting commentary, some bloggers are stating opposition to the President's proposal, and some, like me, address the political dynamics. Rightwing Nuthouse says:
[T[he fact that the debate is taking place almost solely and exclusively among Republicans and conservatives says volumes about the cynicism and lack of courage on the part of Democrats in both houses of Congress.It's hard to resists standing back and letting your opponents beat each other up, but, as I've said, you risk looking irrelevant or worse. Here's Matthew Yglesias:
[B]y relying on McCain et. al. to do the heavily lifting, Democrats are essentially denying themselves the possiblity of reaping whatever rewards may exist for standing up for basic decency and morality against Bush's depredations....There's also the fact that it means something different when Republicans stand up to the President and when they back off a step from national security. The Democrats can't do the same thing. They've been opposing Bush for everything they can think of for the longest time, and they have a reputation for undervaluing national security that they would only call more attention to. So they're keeping a low profile, and, as Yglesias says, looking pretty timid and scared.
[I]f you worry that liberals are timid and easily frightened, well, then this is some fairly timid and frightened-looking behavior....
CORRECTION NOTED: A commenter shames me out of using "forefront" as a verb, a problem I'd never given one second of thought to before. The dictionary doesn't support it, and Googling "forefronting," I get only 10 hits. But it should be a verb, and maybe if I'd left it, I'd get to be the quote in the OED for "forefront" as a verb, if the OED counted bloggers, I mean, which it'd be a fool to do. Anyway, "front" is a verb, and "forego" is a verb. QED.
Posts
30 comments:
For the Republicans to debate among themselves should make a positive impression on people
Funny, internal disagreement never seems to play well in the MSM for Democrats.
Whether or not it's good for the Republicans' midterm outlook, it is a most welcome sign that our country may not go completely off the rails yet.
I typically ignore any statement, such as Peter King's, that starts "If we capture bin Laden tomorrow..." as capturing him clearly is not a priority of the US, and my opinion is that he's already dead. It is a little alarming that a Representative thinks torture is a-ok and worse, that he thinks any information gained through torture is credible.
Yeah, I think King comes across as a bit of an idiot. Let's ignore everything else because wouldn't you really love to put bin Laden's head in a bucket (and oh of course he'd have undisclosed info that would be the only way we could stop the next attack and putting his head underwater would work and would also be the only way to get it out of him)? Is that a hyper-constrained hypothetical or a childish statement of how much he'd like to torment bin Laden or just a cheap political ploy by someone who assumes we have a childish urge to put bin Laden's head in a bucket of water)?
With the understanding that this was not the crux of the posting, I wonder what the unintended consequences would be if McCain, et al had their way. Is a "take no prisoners" strategy based on "better dead than suing me" really that much better?
The opposition from McCain and Powell is fascinating, and makes me wonder if we're seeing a shift in what are considered normal, acceptable tactics. Remember that there was a time when firing at the enemy from a position of cover or concealment was considered cowardly (maybe even criminal), and I suspect many battle veterans were appalled that their side would stoop so low.
Ann, "forefronts"? Gah.
I beleive there is some political advantage for Republicans to openly debate this issue. Much more needs to be debated, such as: "Do the articles of the Geneva Conventions apply to non-signers and what distinguishes a "covered" combatant from a terrorist?"
BTW: Where does it state in the Conventions that hijacking multiple planes and using them as weapons to attack and kill innocent civilians in a sovereign nation that HAS signed the Conventions is acceptable? Or kidnapping and beheading of non-combatant civilians for the purposes of exploitation and perverted publicity is legitimate?
Just curious.
And, oh by the way. While we debate what the proper way to write or interpret the law is, we continue to see our enemy do things like this:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Police found 30 bodies bearing signs of torture Friday, the latest in a wave of sectarian killings sweeping the Iraqi capital despite a monthlong security operation.
Let's be clear about what the Third Geneva Convention forbids.
1) The trial of captured EPW (which AQ now are) in ordinary courts of law, except for war crimes.
2) Degrading or humiliating treatment.
3) Coersion in questioning.
The first prohibition pretty much rules out sending AQ to our Article III courts. It would be a facial violation of the Conventions.
The second prohibition rules out much strenuous interrogation - mocking out the EPW for having lost, etc. One wonders too, since we have bought into the Al Qaidists broad definition of humiliating, if being shot at and captured by female soldiers and marines is not also degrading and humiliating treatment.
The third prohibition mentioned above prohibits most of our interrogation techniques - I'm not talking torture, I'm talking about the ones listed in existing field manuals.
Since the Courts and Congress have made much hay by standing up for what's right, but haven't been able to find time to say exactly what they want the executive branch to do, I would hope that Bush would punt on this. Holding captured AQ indefinitely is wrong, we're told; I'm sure the traditional and customary international law remedy for non-uniformed fighters lacking a chain of command (drum head court martial and execution) would be found unfit; and we know trying them in a regular court is wrong. So I am hoping President Bush will tell Congress, loudly and repeatedly, "I am ceasing all interrogation and military tribunals and preparing to relase captured Al Qaida, per your request, unless you spell out specifically which interrogation methods would be permissible to you, and how we are to dispose of captured AQ.
Congress, the Court, and for that matter these sanctimonious NGOs, have made a lot of profit from screaming about how everything the Administration has done is illegal, immoral, and now, has undermined our moral case against terrorism. (Thanks, General Powell! Hey, does ordering a subordinate to leak CIA arms control officials' names restore our moral authority?)
It's time these grandstanders be held accountable, and put up or shut up.
Bush is flatly not going to release the bulk of the Gitmo detainees. The vast majority of the not very dangerous ones have already been released or sent elsewhere. And we are left with the more hard core elements, including some very hard core terrorists. Add to this the results of an early experiment that resulted in some dozen or so former detainees showing up again in Afganistan either to be killed or captured.
The problem is that if you don't keep them, then what do you do with them? In a lot of cases, it would be nice to send them back to their home country, but for most of these remaining detainees, either their home country doesn't want them back, or is a human rights violator likely to do much worse to them.
The final solution though, should the choice be between releasing them and sending them somewhere, is going to be to send them back to where they were caught (mostly Afghanistan) and let the authorities there handle the problem. Yes, there is a likelyhood of torture. And, of death. But given the choice of finding them again on the other side of a battle, and that, this Administration is likely to go with sending them back. Not pretty, but that is war.
The moral high ground of the Geneva Conventions is a suicide pact in the current war!
Geez, the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions... What were we thinking signing all these suicide pacts?
Do you have any examples of such left wing Democrats? Or was that just the broadest brush you could get your hands on?
Allowing the president to violate any laws he deems necessary in order to Protect the Nation is not what I call a "living Constitution." That is a dead Constitution.
"To use a myth that "firing at the enemy from a position of cover or concealment was considered cowardly (maybe even criminal)" at some time in the past (because I assume you remember from elementary school history you learned the British thought the Americans were cowardly and ungentlemanly in the Revolution because they fought from behind walls and trees) displays a shocking ignorance of history or deliberate dishonesty"
To pretend that Napoleonic tactics didn't endure into WWI -http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWinfantry.htm - diplays a shocking ignorance of history or deliberate dishonesty. Or maybe you were taught in elementary school that military commanders see every threat coming and adjust long before what they used to do has stopped working. Those bayonets worked real good against machine guns and flame throwers.
Just a comment on McCain's "impeccable credentials." I tend to think that Democrats believe it and believe that Republicans believe it. But I don't think Republicans believe that McCain's credentials entitle him to anything more than a pension check. I think a lot of Republicans have had about enough of McCain.
For any of you who think that Gitmo is that autrocious, here is the DoD's recent "Ten Facts about Guantanamo".
Sounds good to me! Do they take reservations?
"Guantanamo Estates: Come for the cuisine. Stay for the ping pong!"
Actually, no, Ann, you can't get the OED cite for first using "forefront" as a verb.
To quote the OED-n-CD-ROM:
Hence 'forefront v. trans., to build a (new) forefront to.
1761 Sterne Tr. Shandy IV. xxxi, He would new fore~front his house, and add a new wing to make it even.
Or the president could just quit his grandstanding and announce the CIA will adhere to the Army Field Manual which explicitly rejects techniques that he apparently believes are effective and necessary.
I'm calling bullsh1t on you Freder. Are you comfortable with the "fear up" approach detailed in the FM? How about "fear up harsh"? How is that not coercive or humiliating to captured EPW, in contravention of the letter of the Conventions?
Second, why are you opposed to Bush asking Congress to tell him precisely what they think is permissible? Seems to me, it's very democratic to ask Congress to vote on something right around election time, and to let the people take a vote on Congress shortly thereafter. Or are you one of the Dems Against Democracy?
Third, are you comfortable with trying AQ under the Uniform Code of Military Justice? You do realize that constitutional standards apply in courts martial under the UCMJ, right? That means no evidence without search warrants (except in the absence of a reasonable expectation of privacy); no coerced confessions; no interrogation following a request for an attorney - and I presume most intelligence collected regarding AQ would be inadmissible due to the methods or the inability to produce eyewitnesses to authenticate it, either for practical (soldiers PCS'ed, sources dead, disappeared; inability to compromise sigint/imint systems to terrorists in court) reasons. Are you really comfortable with granting AQ full constitutional rights just like our troops? Because that's what trying AQ under the UCMJ means. Or do you just throw around words like "Geneva Conventions" and "court martial" without knowing exactly what they entail? I'm beginning to supect the latter.
And truly, if Congress likes the FM, what's wrong with asking them to encode it? The damn thing doesn't even rise to the level of a regulation, it's just a policy that isn't even signed off on by civilian authority, the intel school and one of the major commands publish the thing. It's really funny seeing a pink striped liberal teeing off on Bush for consulting congress on an important issue. Very entertaining indeed.
Enough of all this politics: I trust that you carefully distinguish "forego" and "forgo"?
I have failed to hear an answer about what the word torture means.
Does it mean slitting open someone's throat or is locking someone in a cold cell with loud music?
Does it mean making the prisoners wear dirty clothes?
Does denial of mashed potatos meet the torture test?
What annoys me about Powell, McCain, Graham, et al. is their reasoning that we must be worried about "The world . . . doubt[ing] the moral basis of out fight against terrorism." I heard Graham on Hugh Hewitt's show yesterday and he was worried that the president's plan would result in our soldiers being abused in future wars.
That strikes me as speculative and ignores the fact that the people we're fighting are illegal combatants and have no intention of complying with the Geneva Conventions. If they had attacked the Eiffel Tower, would France care if we questioned the "moral basis" for their response?
The problem is that the terms of the convention are vague and overbroad. Graham seems to think that we should treat them as POWs to placate our future enemies. I suspect that the way things are going, the E.U. wouldn't be averse to excuse to detain and try American troops on the slightest pretext. I doubt the moral basis for their polical correctness.
I would use the World War II test for how America should treat enemy combatants who either don't wear a uniform or wear a false uniform.
During World War II, some German soldiers put on American uniforms and attacked other American soldiers. When these soldiers were captured, they were shot. They weren't sent to the United States, given legal council and trial.
Captured Japanese and German soldiers who did wear uniforms of their nation didn't get a trial by jury either.
International law should only apply when both sides of the conflict agree to comply with international law and actually make a reasonable attempt at compliance.
ast,
What annoys me about Powell, McCain, Graham, et al. is their reasoning that we must be worried about "The world . . . doubt[ing] the moral basis of out fight against terrorism."
Many people will doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism regardless of what America does.
Winning a non-binding popularity contest is of negligible importance compared to protecting classified information, obtaining information from terrorists and defeating the enemy.
Remember. America has not fought against an enemy that obeyed the "rules of war" since World War One.
So, the idea that America benefits from a "treat others the way you would like to be treated" policy goes against the last 85 years of American war history.
American policy regarding torture, treatment of detainees and civilian casualties in war should be determined on the basis of America's national interests. It should not be subject to a poll of the Arab street or even the South American street or the South Asian street.
If Colin Powell wants to win a popularity contest in the Phillipines, Egypt or Cambodia, let him apply for the job of Defense Minister of one of those nations.
The American people demand poltical leaders who are concerned about their safety, not being winning a high approval rating of people who have never set foot in the United States and would not be directly affected by a misguided national security policy.
Much of this discussion escapes me. I've served for 23 years and am a LtCol in the reserves. My understanding of the Geneva Convention is that guerillas are accorded a different status from formal military personnel.
The section below is from the Geneva Convention and would seem to exclude al-Qaeda as they don't follow the rules of warfare anyway.
Does anyone think for a second that any of our military personnel will ever be accorded Geneva Convention treatment by al-Qaeda?
BTW, if it was up to my wife (a native New Yorker) these al-Qaeda goons would have already been slowly cut to shreds as a warning to others who might have considered joining the fight.
Guerrillas
Guerrillas who follow the rules spelled out in the Geneva Conventions are considered to have combatant status and have some of the same rights as regular members of the armed forces.
In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing or engaged in an attack. At a minimum, guerrillas must carry their arms openly. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3)
Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2)
In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)
Fucking lawyers. How I wish the whole lot could be shipped to Anbar to walk a few night patrols. Would they open their mouths to offer up some clever legal logic in defense when the smiling dark fellas slid up behind them, to cut their throats and run away laughing?
I don't give a rat's ass about being "better" than my enemy. I just intend me to live and him to die.
To me, just the fact that torture is a subject of "debate" shows how far we have gone in the past five years.
I am ashamed of my fellow citizens who think it's OK.
Bruce Hayden: I read your list but I'm still not convinced. I think I'll still choose due process over high top sneakers.
Post a Comment