The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 7 of 10)

: /p>

In Mr. Homnick's essay entitled "An Unconventional View," he admits to being a humorist. Having read the essay three times, twice more than I wanted, I concur that Mr. Homnick is both unconventional and humorous. That being said, his perspectives echo the casual glibness emanating from the likes of Messrs. McCain, Powell and Graham. With all due respect to these American political giants, their political gamesmanship and grandstanding is nothing short of complete moral and intellectual abdication. Let's start with the straw dog of Bush's attempt to alter the Geneva Convention by legislation.

As Mr. Homnick so casually reminded us, the Supreme Court, in Hamdan (a truly remarkable decision, surfeit with sloppy and poor reasoning), implied that non-uniformed terrorists, caught on the battle field, were subject to the protections of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. Article 3, in a classic example of diplo-speak gibberish, prohibits the use of interrogation methods that are "humiliating and degrading." Oh, ok, that's real clear isn't it? I think it was Justice Potter Stewart who opined in one of the obscenity cases in the '70s, "I know it when I see it." So is it now with torture. Thanks to the Supreme Court and Messrs. McCain and Powell, their fecklessness have led us into this brave new world that subjects CIA agents and our military to American and International tribunals for violations of Article 3. President Bush, in an attempt at sanity, seeks clear definitions of the above in order to protect those aforementioned agents from prosecution. In return, we get more wailing from the likes of Mr. Homnick, et al., bemoaning this attempt by the president. Apparently, five liberal members of the Supreme Court along with Messrs, McCain and Powell are more concerned with limiting the president's war powers and his proposed call for legislation that clarifies Article 3, than protecting Americans. No other explanation rationally flows, given these facts. If Mr. Homnick doesn't think that our military and CIA need these guidelines, let me quote from Justice John Paul Steven's majority decision in Santa Fe Ind. School District v. Doe, the recent student led prayer at a high school game decision..."We are nonetheless persuaded that the delivery of a pre-game prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship." Is that the same as humiliating and degrading?

p>Just asking. br> -- A. DiPentima /p>

Mr. Homnick's position and his apparent reasoning is disturbing. His opposition to the proposed "special" rules for captured terrorists is claimed to be based on an aversion to altering established conventions. These terrorists are clearly "unlawful combatants" by existing norms established by the Geneva Convention, Contemplating the Bush Administration proposal, he writes, "However, short-circuiting the system in this way must be reserved for special circumstances of immediate, definable danger. It cannot become a new norm."

Transnational terrorist cells stimulated by the same ideology, able to afford and deploy weapons ranging from car bombs to WMD, supported by patrons such as Iran, seems like a fine example of "immediate, definable danger."

I think Mr. Homnick is in fact advocating a new and far more dangerous norm than the one he opposes: accepting the status, behavior, and tactics of terrorists as acceptable modes of combat, in contradiction of the Geneva Convention.

Following the desires of Senators McCain, Grapham, and Warner would tacitly do just that. The thought that our adversaries are more likely to treat U.S. prisoners according to the Geneva Convention should we do so is wishful fantasy. The only reason U.S. prisoners might get decent treatment is fear of retribution or the tactical advantage of live U.S. hostages. The U.S. is broadly considered a pariah and we should have no illusions that being nice will win us any points anywhere.

If aggressive interrogation doesn't provide vital intelligence, why would the Bush Administration want to pursue it? Casual cruelty might be offered by the moonbats of the left: any takers in this forum? If aggressive interrogation is torture, and it provides vital intelligence, then those who claim that torture is useless contradict themselves. Perhaps the Bush Administration is correct, and aggressive interrogation is not torture and does in fact provide better intelligence.

If terrorists have no fear of aggressive interrogation and harsh punishment, then we have removed significant deterrents to people becoming terrorists in the first place. Just how do we "drain the swamp" if those so tempted can be credibly assured that if they don't get sent to Allah, they can spend years well-fed, well-housed, comfortably clothed, and well-represented by ACLU lawyers acting pro bono?

p>Finally, put yourself in the place of a CIA interrogator. Messrs McCain, Graham, and Warner's desires are now law. You've got a real bad guy in front of you, and the bidding is that this individual knows something that might save a lot of lives. Do you want to be remembered as the war criminal who saved millions of U.S. citizens or do you want to be remembered as the consummate professional who played it absolutely by the book?

topics:
Bill Clinton, Television, Islam, Books, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, Iran, NATO, Socialism, Communism, Conservatism, Energy