< PREVIOUS ] [ 2005 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Will everyone who's in favor of torture please stand up? I don't see anybody, no, wait, there's our own Sen. Wayne Allard, and he's standing next to President George W. Bush. And now there are eight other senators standing in support of torture.
Why would anybody but a sadistic thug take that stand?
On Oct. 5, the U.S. Senate considered a bill to fund American military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. John McCain, a Republican senator from Arizona, is someone who can speak with moral authority about torture during military operations -- he spent five and a half extremely unpleasant years in the custody of the North Vietnamese.
McCain attached an amendment to the defense
appropriation bill. It stated that our tax money could not
be spent for torture,and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.
Its other provision
required all American military personnel to follow the
Army's Field Manual on Interrogations.
That should be about as controversial as apple pie.
But when McCain tried to attach that amendment last summer, Vice-President Dick Cheney pressured Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to pull the bill from the floor, thus blocking the amendment. This time around, Frist backed the amendment, which also had the support of Sen. John Warner, the Virginia Republican who chairs the Armed Services Committee.
Among those speaking in support of the anti-torture
amendment were Colin Powell, former secretary of state and
former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I also
believe the world will note that America is making a clear
statement with respect to the expected future behavior of
our soldiers,
he said. Such a reaction will help
deal with the terrible public diplomacy crisis created by
Abu Ghraib.
Joining Powell in opposition to torture were 28 other senior retired military officers, including Gen. John Shalikashvili, another former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
So this isn't exactly a collection of lily-livered wimps
who stand opposed to the use of torture by the U.S.
military. As McCain put it, All of this seems to be
common sense, in accordance with longstanding American
values.
But President Bush has threatened to veto the bill,
assuming the anti-torture amendment survives a House-Senate
conference committee. His press secretary, Scott McClellan,
said the veto would come because the bill would limit
the President's ability as Commander-in-Chief to carry out
the war on terrorism.
Indeed it might. Various treaties concerning germ
warfare also limit his ability, and every so often, despite
his best efforts to ignore it, the Bill of Rights limits
his powers. There's another Constitutional limitation --
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress, not the President, the
power to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of
the land and naval Forces,
and to make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water.
Wayne Allard, a Republican and Colorado's senior
senator, voted in favor of torture. All the bill would do,
he said, is tie the hands of the Department of Defense
at a time when maximum flexibility within the boundaries of
U.S. law is needed.
The rationale for such flexibility? The one I hear most is that al Quaeda and the Iraqi insurgents are extremely vile, what with kidnappings, beheadings and worse.
But our government is not responsible for their behavior. It is responsible for how our own forces behave. In other words, this isn't about what kind of people they are. It's about what kind of people we are.
In the 2000 campaign, candidate George W. Bush said his
favorite philosopher was Jesus. The Jesus I learned about
in Sunday School spoke of turning the other cheek,
forgiving seventy times seven
and doing unto
others that which you would have them do unto you.
Perhaps Bush, who wants to be able to order humans to torture other humans, has some other Jesus in mind.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2005 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >