The Geneva Convention Compromise

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

In a recent post I addressed the opposition by some big names in the Republican Party to the Bush Administration’s proposed legislation that would in effect rewrite Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

I posted Article 3 in its entirety and read it twice to determine if George Bush had a viable basis to propose his legislation because he claimed the language of Article 3 was “vague”. When I experienced no such ambiguity resulted I considered the strong possibility that the legislation was proposed for nothing more and nothing less than covering George Bush’s ass if and when charges of war crimes are brought against the commander-in-chief and his co-conspirators.

Within the last week the opposition of Republican Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner reached a “compromise” with the White House. Once again language is abused to obscure rather than make aware for the essential parts of “compromise” were not present. There was no settlement in which each side gave up demands or made concessions.

This is what the administration did not have to concede:

1. Evidence obtained through coerces means could be used if a judge finds it to be reliable and probative.
2. Habeas corpus protections would be gutted.
3. Detainees would be barred from going before a judge to challenge their treatment and indefinite detention.

This is what the opposition did not have to concede:

The language of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention would remain intact.

The “compromise” was in fact a deal in which the “vague” language in Article 3 would remain intact but the opposition accepted that now one man, the president, would be given the explicit power to interpret Article 3 exposing Voltaire’s absurdity that now one can commit atrocities based on one man’s interpretation of “atrocity”. In essence Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention is now whatever the president says it is.

It is a sad consolation that my suspicions of Bush’s intentions were confirmed when I also read that the “compromise” legislation would retroactively excuse brutal and illegal conduct by civilian interrogators under the War Crimes Act, leaving members of the military to stand alone in answering for the abuse of prisoners and the war crimes committed by following orders from their commander-in-chief.