THOSE "VAGUE STANDARDS" OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION

Today representatives on both sides of the political aisle are debating the anti-terrorism legislation which was prepared by the current administration in power in order to secure legal standing for proposed rules of a program that interrogates terrorist suspects by such controversial methods that include electric shock, forced nakedness, and water boarding i.e. the practice of making a subject think he or she is drowning.

George Bush claims the current interrogation program will not continue unless Congress creates new legal definitions for Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. Bush claims that those techniques have foiled terror plots in the past although he doesn’t mention which specific plots but after all the true believers will continue to claim that there have been no terror attacks on the homeland since 9/11 and an under educated, ill informed society can’t argue with that logic.

The modus operandi of ruling by fear was evident when Bush said "….the bottom line is -- and the American people have got to understand this -- that this program won't go forward... if there are vague standards applied like those in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It's just not going to go forward. Now, perhaps some in Congress don't think the program is important. That's fine."

The slight of hand is that the standards set forth in the Geneva Convention are “vague” merely because George Bush says they are “vague” and the implied threat of course is that without this program we can expect to be attacked again and those who voted against this legislation will be held accountable.

Along the way George Bush encountered some opposition from big names on the Republican campus i.e. former Secretary of State in the Bush Administration, Colin Powell, and Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner who consider these techniques to be a form of torture which Sen. McCain is, no pun intended, painfully aware.

In addition based on their real military experience they understand that if we accept these methods of interrogation to be legitimate we must also accept that other nations and groups will craft their own definitions of torture and apply them to our men and women in uniform placed in harms way by politicians far removed from the carnage on the front lines.

But the real onion in the room is that the anti-terrorist legislation proposed by the Bush administration is in direct response to the implications of the recent Supreme Court decision in Hamden v Rumsfeld and solely intended to protect George Bush and his co-conspirators from being charged with war crimes rather than protecting John Doe’s family against future acts of terrorism because believe it or not under the War Crimes Act, any violation of Common Article 3 is a war crime.

The essence of the proposed Bush anti-terrorism legislation is to change our War Crimes Act to exclude from prosecution those who’ve since 9/11/01 violated a section in the Act which references the language from Article 3 which prohibits “at any time and in any place whatsoever…outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatments”.

The urgency of this proposed anti-terrorist legislation is obviously prompted by the upcoming mid-term elections which just may end one party rule and result in the congressional oversight necessary to insure that we are indeed a nation of laws and not men an American value which separates us from other nations.

The following is the full language of Common Article 3 contained in the Geneva Convention which George Bush claims to be the “vague standards” which must be changed in order for his anti-terrorism program to be successful. For those who find it unambiguous the strong possibility exists that this president is trying to do nothing more and nothing less than protect his ass from the consequences of having committed war crimes.

"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."