Defending the Truth

CNN.com has just posted the following:

The Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday voted 15-9 to recommend a bill -- over the objections of the Bush administration -- that would authorize tribunals for terror suspects in a way that it says would protect suspects' rights.

More...

"It differs from the administration's proposal in two major ways: It would permit terror suspects to view classified evidence against them and does not include a proposal that critics say reinterprets a Geneva Conventions rule that prohibits cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees.

In a decision earlier this summer, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration must meet Article 3 standards in its treatment of detainees.

Article 3 prohibits nations engaged in combat not of "an international character" from, among other things, "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment."

...
But critics, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell and top Republican senators, oppose reinterpretation of the Geneva Conventions rule.

Powell expressed his opposition in a letter to McCain that was released Thursday.

Warner, Graham, and McCain, a former Vietnam POW -- along with Powell -- oppose any changes to the U.S. interpretation of Article 3, arguing that it could adversely affect enemies' treatment of captured U.S. service members.

"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," Powell, a retired Army four-star general, wrote in his letter to McCain, whose amendment last year opposed the use of torture.

"To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts," Powell said. "Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

McCain also has issued a letter from retired Army Gen. John Vessey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Reagan administration, opposing the administration bill.
CNN.com - GOP split as Senate panel bucks Bush on terror tribunals - Sep 15, 2006


This "cowboy diplomacy" whereby we ignore the rules is pretty damn unnerving considering the things that have come to light regarding Gitmo and wire-tapping American citizens without a warrant.
I remember when Bush was talking about the "collateral" he had earned earlier this election term. It's interesting to note that he isn't talking about that anymore...

Why does this administration have such a difficult time following the rules?

Where is the rule saying the terrorists have to stop slicing people's heads off? Where is the rule saying the terrorists have to stop using children as weapons of war? Where is the rule saying the terrorists have to stop firing missles from behind schools and hospitals?

Those rules are there. They just aren't following them.
Just because the enemy stops acting in accordance with the rules doesn't mean we should.
Morality in the face of adversity.
Not looking for just an excuse to throw the rules out the window.

Moral concepts I doubt you'll ever grasp.

When my enemy follows the rules, then I will follow the rules. The moral concept is to defeat the enemy who wants to kill me. Self-preservation is my morality.

Seriously. If that is the "morality" that is ruling you, then I really think it's a poor one.
I am frequently interested by people who claim to follow the Bible, yet continually make up their own morality without regard to what the bible says.

Has it ever occurred to you that you can "preserve" yourself, WITHOUT violating these other issues of morality?
Or are you more of a "whatever it takes to make you feel safe" type of guy...

You damn right I'm a "whatever it takes to make me feel safe" type of guy. I don't really care what you or anyone thinks of my morality. I will kill the SOB who wants to kill me or my family so my family can live free to worship the way they want to. If you find that immoral because you disagree with it because of your idea of my religious beliefs, I really could care less. My family is more important to me than how you percieve me.

Again, you resort to hyperbole to distort the true disagreement.
We both agree that if some "SOB" is trying to kill you or your family, that you are typically justified in killing him first.

The disagreement is over whether or not you have the right to listen in on the private conversations of American citizens without a warrant to check if they want to kill you.

The disagreement is over what should happen to these "SOBs" once they are caught and in jail.


Actually, it's more that your PERSONAL FEELINGS OF WHETHER YOU ARE SAFE are more important to you than other people's rights...