His Petulance vs. Geneva
At a press appearance today, Mr. Bush again demonstrated the loud, insulting, petulant attitude that is becoming his default. The opportunity this time was his response to a question by David Gregory from NBC. The video clip is available here.
Gregory had the temerity to ask him about a scenario wherein American soldiers were captured in another country, like Iran or North Korea, which chose to treat them under its own interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, just as he is proposing we do. How would he react, Gregory asked, if our men were tried and convicted based on evidence that they never saw?
The article requires that detainees
If the President is concerned about the young professionals on the front line, all he need do is tell them, "Do you think what you are doing might fairly be described as an 'outrage upon personal dignity'? Yes? Then don't do it!" Our military academies still teach about such 'vague' concepts as honor and decency, and broad terms like 'dereliction of duty'. The intent of this article isn't mysterious. There is no need for the language to be more specific, unless you are intending to get around it.
If His Petulance truly wants us to believe that, after all this time, he has stumbled upon a section of the Geneva Convention that is poorly worded or just not clear, I suggest he get the other world leaders on the phone, and hold a meeting to fix it. It is, after all, an international treaty intended to codify how all civilized nations behave, so you'd think our many allies would want to benefit from his insight about this, before they, too, end up unable to function in wartime. But has he even hinted that he might want to address this with the other signatories? No.
Alternately, if the language is broken as is, he could renounce the Geneva Convention. There is a bit of a catch there, though. Back in the days when America wanted to make sure rules were followed, we agreed to some restrictions on when and how a signatory could back out.
So he can't just back out of the Geneva Convention, and he obviously doesn't think he could get the other signatories to amend it, and he isn't strengthened by the knowledge that our forces are going to act honorably and with decency at all times. What can he do?
Cheat. Just as he has done with his numerous 'signing statements', he's trying to establish a way of saying 'Despite what all of you may think this plain language means, I interpret it to mean what I want it to mean." He wants to authorize a specific interpretation of what is forbidden, so that anything else becomes permitted.
Today's appearance made it clear that he is getting increasingly ticked off about not having his way on this. He's very angry that "the program" can't go forward without this legislation. He also said that time is running out, and it is important for Congress to pass this legislation promptly. (Odd that sense of urgency, since we've been holding and interrogating these guys for years now.)
Saying "the program" is easier for him to say than "interrogations in secret prisons run by the CIA where prisoners are kept without charges and hidden from the International Red Cross until we decide to let them go." And by time running out, I'm guessing he means that a Democratically-controlled Congress isn't likely to give him what he wants.
Though it's also possible that he may be worried that, any day now, the truth about what has already happened will be revealed. He probably wants to have some kind of retroactive legalisms in place before it's perfectly clear to the entire world that he's been in charge of systematic violations of the law for years now.
Gregory had the temerity to ask him about a scenario wherein American soldiers were captured in another country, like Iran or North Korea, which chose to treat them under its own interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, just as he is proposing we do. How would he react, Gregory asked, if our men were tried and convicted based on evidence that they never saw?
THE PRESIDENT: David, my reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you named, adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better. That's my reaction. We're trying to clarify law. We're trying to set high standards, not ambiguous standards.The President is quite forceful in his assertions that what he wants is to clarify vague language in the Geneva Convention, to get rid of ambiguity, so that "professionals" can do their work. He said:
And let me just repeat, Dave, we can debate this issue all we want, but the practical matter is, if our professionals don't have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward. You cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law. And they're not going to. They -- let me finish, please -- they will not violate the law. You can ask this question all you want, but the bottom line is -- and the American people have got to understand this -- that this program won't go forward; if there is vague standards applied, like those in Common Article III from the Geneva Convention, it's just not going to go forward. You can't ask a young professional on the front line of protecting this country to violate law.
Article III of the Geneva Convention is hard for a lot of citizens to understand. Let's see if I can put it this way for people to understand -- there is a very vague standard that the Court said must kind of be the guide for our conduct in the war on terror and the detainee policy. It's so vague that it's impossible to ask anybody to participate in the program for fear -- for that person having the fear of breaking the law. That's the problem.He seems to miss entirely the fact that the language of the Geneva Convention has been perfectly clear for nearly 60 years. For decades, decent, law-abiding individuals who wanted to behave honorably and observe what has been called the minimum civilized standard of behavior have found it quite possible to do so without the need of the 'clarification' the President is so eager for.
The article requires that detainees
shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
If the President is concerned about the young professionals on the front line, all he need do is tell them, "Do you think what you are doing might fairly be described as an 'outrage upon personal dignity'? Yes? Then don't do it!" Our military academies still teach about such 'vague' concepts as honor and decency, and broad terms like 'dereliction of duty'. The intent of this article isn't mysterious. There is no need for the language to be more specific, unless you are intending to get around it.
If His Petulance truly wants us to believe that, after all this time, he has stumbled upon a section of the Geneva Convention that is poorly worded or just not clear, I suggest he get the other world leaders on the phone, and hold a meeting to fix it. It is, after all, an international treaty intended to codify how all civilized nations behave, so you'd think our many allies would want to benefit from his insight about this, before they, too, end up unable to function in wartime. But has he even hinted that he might want to address this with the other signatories? No.
Alternately, if the language is broken as is, he could renounce the Geneva Convention. There is a bit of a catch there, though. Back in the days when America wanted to make sure rules were followed, we agreed to some restrictions on when and how a signatory could back out.
ARTICLE 142Oops. Can't decide to play by a different set of rules in the middle of a war. And the President has said this war may last for decades. So I guess we're stuck with those damn 'usages of civilized peoples, the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.' (Like that could be a bad thing.)
Each of the High Contracting Parties shall be at liberty to denounce the present Convention.
The denunciation shall be notified in writing to the Swiss Federal Council, which shall transmit it to the Governments of all the High Contracting Parties.
The denunciation shall take effect one year after the notification thereof has been made to the Swiss Federal Council. However, a denunciation of which notification has been made at a time when the denouncing Power is involved in a conflict shall not take effect until peace has been concluded, and until after operations connected with the release and repatriation of the persons protected by the present Convention have been terminated.
The denunciation shall have effect only in respect of the denouncing Power. It shall in no way impair the obligations which the Parties to the conflict shall remain bound to fulfil by virtue of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity and the dictates of the public conscience.
So he can't just back out of the Geneva Convention, and he obviously doesn't think he could get the other signatories to amend it, and he isn't strengthened by the knowledge that our forces are going to act honorably and with decency at all times. What can he do?
Cheat. Just as he has done with his numerous 'signing statements', he's trying to establish a way of saying 'Despite what all of you may think this plain language means, I interpret it to mean what I want it to mean." He wants to authorize a specific interpretation of what is forbidden, so that anything else becomes permitted.
Today's appearance made it clear that he is getting increasingly ticked off about not having his way on this. He's very angry that "the program" can't go forward without this legislation. He also said that time is running out, and it is important for Congress to pass this legislation promptly. (Odd that sense of urgency, since we've been holding and interrogating these guys for years now.)
Saying "the program" is easier for him to say than "interrogations in secret prisons run by the CIA where prisoners are kept without charges and hidden from the International Red Cross until we decide to let them go." And by time running out, I'm guessing he means that a Democratically-controlled Congress isn't likely to give him what he wants.
Though it's also possible that he may be worried that, any day now, the truth about what has already happened will be revealed. He probably wants to have some kind of retroactive legalisms in place before it's perfectly clear to the entire world that he's been in charge of systematic violations of the law for years now.
posted by Paul at 4:06 PM |
|
email this
