In A Word - Insidious: President Bush makes a statement one day but has another agenda in mind.
Gerald Eisman
July 13, 2006
Insidious: Working or spreading harmfully in a subtle or stealthy manner: Intended to entrap; treacherous. Beguiling but harmful; alluring:
Yesterday, July 12, marked the use of another in the long list of machinations (A crafty scheme or cunning design for the accomplishment of a sinister end) resorted to by our current administration. After asserting terror suspects have the right to protections under the Geneva Conventions, the administration made it clear that it wanted Congress to legislate limitations on the rights given.
The statement issued by George Bush, given just the day before, that had widely been interpreted as a retreat, suddenly emerged as a declaration of non-fact and a desire for quasi-compliance. Administration lawyers made it plain that the picture was more complicated. Their argument is, the words "judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" opened the way to problems.
What has emerged from the opaque statement is a mélange of maneuvering, prompted by the Supreme Court decision, which struck down the tribunals established by the administration for the Guantanamo detainees. The court has deferred to Congress the manner in which trials will be conducted and what protections the detainees will be afforded and how interrogations will be conducted prior to trials. This is like requesting a fox to stand guard in a henhouse.
Considering the fact that the Congress has been a Republican rubber-stamp for the past five and a half years, it would be hard to conceive of that body enacting logical or humane legislation. The lawyers are suggesting an objective solution would be for Congress to pass a law that would give the go ahead for tribunals (something the Supreme Court has declared the president cannot do unilaterally.) The proceedings would also grant absolute minimum protections for the detainees.
Steven G Bradbury, an acting attorney general, told the House Armed Services Committee, "Congress needs to do something to bring clarity and certainty to Common Article Three." He also told the Senate Judiciary Committee, "We just think as you approach these issues, you should give definition and certainty to these issues."
Common Article three of the Geneva Convention not only guarantees legal rights to detainees, it also prohibits outrages perpetrated on the personal dignity of prisoners and, specifically, humiliating and degrading treatment. In their usual devious manner, administration lawyers argued that Common Article three was too vague and failure to comply (their thrust was toward interpretation) would be a violation of the war crimes act. That being the case, they argued, our forces in Iraq could be accused or committing felonies were their interrogation methods to be brought under serious scrutiny.
It is the opinion of several scholars and military lawyers that the most appropriate means of complying with the courts requirements for providing legal and human rights to detainees would be to begin with standard court-marshal procedures as described in the Military Code of Justice and then make modifications. Several lawmakers have stated their belief that only a solution that extended Geneva protections to detainees would survive another court challenge.
Senator John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee said: "I wouldn't say that that testimony would set the final parameters of where the administration will go on this. It's got to be dealt with so that we do not face a future court challenge, and also so that the international community recognizes our credibility in dealing with these things."
It seems military lawyers, human rights groups and some lawmakers are warning that any attempt by Congress to abridge or limit rights given to detainees under the Geneva Conventions would sully the reputation of the United States internationally. They went on to theorize such actions by the legislature would announce to the world that, though we trumpet our views of humanity to all nations while demanding they comply with existing regulations, we were, as a nation, reneging on a fundamental, commonly held notion of those same human rights.
In a statement issued by Rear Adm. John D Hutson, former judge advocate of the navy (retired) to the Armed Service Committee, "We should embrace Common Article Three and sing its praises from the rooftops. To avoid it or try to draft our way out of it is unbecoming the United States."
Once again, the Bush administration has made conflicting statements and engaged in actions that obfuscate his true intentions and, in doing so, has added another bruise on the already over beaten body of the nation. His actions are certain to increase the distrust other nations have in the United States and make it more difficult for whomever follows him into the oval office to regain the trust other nations once had in us. His tendency toward the insidious has become unbearable to the world and untenable to this nation.
Yesterday, July 12, marked the use of another in the long list of machinations (A crafty scheme or cunning design for the accomplishment of a sinister end) resorted to by our current administration. After asserting terror suspects have the right to protections under the Geneva Conventions, the administration made it clear that it wanted Congress to legislate limitations on the rights given.
The statement issued by George Bush, given just the day before, that had widely been interpreted as a retreat, suddenly emerged as a declaration of non-fact and a desire for quasi-compliance. Administration lawyers made it plain that the picture was more complicated. Their argument is, the words "judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" opened the way to problems.
What has emerged from the opaque statement is a mélange of maneuvering, prompted by the Supreme Court decision, which struck down the tribunals established by the administration for the Guantanamo detainees. The court has deferred to Congress the manner in which trials will be conducted and what protections the detainees will be afforded and how interrogations will be conducted prior to trials. This is like requesting a fox to stand guard in a henhouse.
Considering the fact that the Congress has been a Republican rubber-stamp for the past five and a half years, it would be hard to conceive of that body enacting logical or humane legislation. The lawyers are suggesting an objective solution would be for Congress to pass a law that would give the go ahead for tribunals (something the Supreme Court has declared the president cannot do unilaterally.) The proceedings would also grant absolute minimum protections for the detainees.
Steven G Bradbury, an acting attorney general, told the House Armed Services Committee, "Congress needs to do something to bring clarity and certainty to Common Article Three." He also told the Senate Judiciary Committee, "We just think as you approach these issues, you should give definition and certainty to these issues."
Common Article three of the Geneva Convention not only guarantees legal rights to detainees, it also prohibits outrages perpetrated on the personal dignity of prisoners and, specifically, humiliating and degrading treatment. In their usual devious manner, administration lawyers argued that Common Article three was too vague and failure to comply (their thrust was toward interpretation) would be a violation of the war crimes act. That being the case, they argued, our forces in Iraq could be accused or committing felonies were their interrogation methods to be brought under serious scrutiny.
It is the opinion of several scholars and military lawyers that the most appropriate means of complying with the courts requirements for providing legal and human rights to detainees would be to begin with standard court-marshal procedures as described in the Military Code of Justice and then make modifications. Several lawmakers have stated their belief that only a solution that extended Geneva protections to detainees would survive another court challenge.
Senator John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee said: "I wouldn't say that that testimony would set the final parameters of where the administration will go on this. It's got to be dealt with so that we do not face a future court challenge, and also so that the international community recognizes our credibility in dealing with these things."
It seems military lawyers, human rights groups and some lawmakers are warning that any attempt by Congress to abridge or limit rights given to detainees under the Geneva Conventions would sully the reputation of the United States internationally. They went on to theorize such actions by the legislature would announce to the world that, though we trumpet our views of humanity to all nations while demanding they comply with existing regulations, we were, as a nation, reneging on a fundamental, commonly held notion of those same human rights.
In a statement issued by Rear Adm. John D Hutson, former judge advocate of the navy (retired) to the Armed Service Committee, "We should embrace Common Article Three and sing its praises from the rooftops. To avoid it or try to draft our way out of it is unbecoming the United States."
Once again, the Bush administration has made conflicting statements and engaged in actions that obfuscate his true intentions and, in doing so, has added another bruise on the already over beaten body of the nation. His actions are certain to increase the distrust other nations have in the United States and make it more difficult for whomever follows him into the oval office to regain the trust other nations once had in us. His tendency toward the insidious has become unbearable to the world and untenable to this nation.
Print
Email
