They Just Don't Get It
That's my first reaction in reading the opening paragraph of
Harold Myerson's Washington Post article titled "GOP Conundrum".
Furthermore, calling the Convention "quaint" and "obsolete" is accurate in that instance. Some synonyms for quaint are: bizarre, eccentric, erratic, outlandish, peculiar and perplexing. I'd suggest that that's exactly what Stevens ruling is with regards to the Geneva Convention and terrorists. Obsolete would also be accurate for the same reasons I outlined earlier.
Posted Thursday, July 6, 2006 2:51 AM
June 2006 Posts
No comments.
If Democrats are divided, as Republicans gleefully note, about what to do in Iraq, Republicans have reacted to last week's Supreme Court decision striking down the administration's military tribunals in a way that makes clear that they themselves are divided about the rule of law in America. The majority and concurring opinions in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld told the Bush administration in no uncertain terms that if it wanted to establish some distinct procedures for trying the kinds of prisoners interned at Guantanamo Bay, Congress had to stipulate what those procedures should be.What Mr. Myerson thinks is a GOP conundrum is actually quite easily solved. In fact, it's in the process of getting solved, thanks to legislation that's being put together by Sens. Graham, Cornyn & Kyl. Congress will pass legislation that will establish military tribunals, thereby resolving the issue. Furthermore, Mr. Myerson doesn't note that the ruling said that President Bush didn't have to try the terrorists being held at Gitmo. He can just hold them if he so chooses.
In February 2002, President Bush signed an order saying that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to our war on terrorism, since it was not a war against a nation as such. A memo from the White House counsel one month before had called the Conventions "quaint" and "obsolete."President Bush was right in saying that the Geneva Convention didn't apply to terrorists we were detaining. Only 5 liberal idiots would say that people who weren't signatories to a treaty were to be accorded the rights of said treaty. President Bush will comply with the ruling but only until such time as he replaces one of these idiots with someone who actually believes that treaties are to be literally interpreted.
Furthermore, calling the Convention "quaint" and "obsolete" is accurate in that instance. Some synonyms for quaint are: bizarre, eccentric, erratic, outlandish, peculiar and perplexing. I'd suggest that that's exactly what Stevens ruling is with regards to the Geneva Convention and terrorists. Obsolete would also be accurate for the same reasons I outlined earlier.
But the court ruled flatly that Bush's order was wrong. Article 3, Stevens noted, explicitly says that its terms apply even in a "conflict not of an international character." Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his concurring opinion, even had the bad manners to point out that violations of Article 3 were war crimes subject to severe punishment under statutes passed by Congress.Justice Stevens' opinion is warped as usual. Terrorists from several Middle Eastern countries who were part of an organization that hijacked planes that toppled the Twin Towers and crashed into the Pentagon in an act of war are by definition part of a war that is "of an international character." For Justice Kennedy to concur with Stevens is absurd.
When Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi had the temerity to welcome the court's decision, Republican House leader John Boehner responded with a press release that attacked her for advocating "special privileges for terrorists." Echoing Boehner, the talk-radio thugocracy could speak of little else.The reason why the Right Blogosphere was all over Nancy Pelosi's statement is because of the hypocritical nature of her statement. When she said that the right of due process was "among our most cherished liberties", it was viewed with great skepticism since she was nowhere to be found fighting for the Marines' due process rights when John Murtha 'convicted' them of cold-blooded murder before the Marines' investigation was complete. You can hardly blame people for savaging Ms. Pelosi for such a transparently political cheapshot as that.
Working with the Democrats, they could craft a legislative response that incorporates both halves of the court's decision, guaranteeing the legality of the new procedures, but forfeiting a major opportunity to demagogue against Democrats between now and November.What they'll choose to do is anybody's guess, though I suspect they'll craft legislation that will meet the 5 liberal idiots' demands. It isn't like passing that legislation will make Democrats any less weak on protecting us from terrorists. Reasonable people can disagree on what's the best strategy to win the GWOT. Reasonable people can't disagree, though, that you can't win the GWOT if you choose to not fight it. (Or if you choose to fight it with a 'rapid response force' anchored in Okinawa.)
Posted Thursday, July 6, 2006 2:51 AM
June 2006 Posts
No comments.
