Cover-Up Part II

You know there's something rotten in the state of the U.S. (apologies to Shakespeare!) when even Republican legislators are being blocked by the White House. Just the other day, the Washington Post reported that the White House is trying to defeat a bill that would "bar the U.S. military from engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of detainees, from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and from using interrogation methods not authorized by a new Army field manual."

So essentially our administration, composed of such "compassionate conservative" people like Smirk, Scowl, Scummy, et al, have decided that human rights, the Geneva Conventions, and other rules, documents, and guidelines (our own Constitution, for example) don't apply here. The Geneva Conventions, for example, state that civilians in an occupied territory or territories aren't to be subjected to any kind of physical or moral coercion when trying to gather information (Convention IV, Article 31).

It's pretty much the same for POWs-- "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be inflicted. Prisoners who refuse to answer questions may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." (Convention III, Article 17)

The Geneva Conventions also cover relief organizations such as the Red Cross. Believe me, what Smirk and his crowd are doing is basically violating the Geneva Conventions. Even if you don't care for the Geneva Conventions and agree with Rumsfeld that it's a "quaint" document, one of the arguments that this administration has pushed to justify our being over in Iraq and Afghanistan is to promote democracy, and of course, "our way of life." Well, if I was Iraqi, I'd be pretty hard pressed to identify the kind of behavior condoned at places like Abu Ghraib as part of "our way of life" or actions that would be compatible with the Constitution, or acceptable in a democracy. So then why are the head honchos of our gummint fighting members of their own party tooth and nail over this? If anything, it'd turn me off.

The reasoning Smirk and Scowl are applying here is that the Executive Branch should not be hamstrung in its efforts to ensure the ability to "protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack." Somehow, I fail to see how torture and lying to the Red Cross protects us. If anything, it makes us look all the more like hypocrites, at the very least.

I hope legislators like John McCain fight back against this, and prevail. It'd be a very sorry day if the administration ultimately got its way on this. Of course, the subtext for all this is the scandal at Abu Ghraib. The administration wants to cover it all up, and let things go on their merry way; Congress wants to install some accountability.

I don't know if my vote counts for anything any more, but I cast it for accountability.