Powell v. Bush

Colin Powell wrote a letter to McCain on the administration's efforts to redefine torture. "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

In the Huffington Post, Martin Lewis picks part of one line of Bush's statement, "Article III of the Geneva Convention is hard for a lot of citizens to understand...", and compares it Powell's statement and what Bush said about Powell when appointing him Secretary of State: "I know of no better person to be the face and voice of American diplomacy than Colin L. Powell. An American hero, an American example, and a great American story. ...providing good counsel, strong leadership and an example of integrity for every one for whom he serves."

Here's the rest of Bush's statement during yesterday's press conference: "Article III of the Geneva Convention is hard for a lot of citizens to understand. Let's see if I can put it this way for people to understand -- there is a very vague standard that the Court said must kind of be the guide for our conduct in the war on terror and the detainee policy. It's so vague that it's impossible to ask anybody to participate in the program for fear -- for that person having the fear of breaking the law. That's the problem."

First off I find it hilarious that Bush is going make something complicated easier for us to understand. Aside from that, he was asked several times about this yesterday. His first statement on the topic was clearer "And that Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's very vague. What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation. And what I'm proposing is that there be clarity in the law so that our professionals will have no doubt that that which they are doing is legal."

Vague isn't as good a word to describe it as non-specific, which like many laws (e.g., "unreasonable searches and seizures", "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", "abridging the freedom of speech") it needs to be. The part he's leaving out is that in 50 years of the Geneva Conventions we have a good idea of what it means. And moreso the practices he is asking the military to perform are generally considered banned by Article III and that's why he's trying to explicitly legalize them. And he justifies not saying that because he doesn't want to describe specific techniques for fear the enemy will adopt. Of course techniques used are already public knowledge so that argument doesn't hold, nevertheless Rove or Gonzales came up with the excuse and Bush is sticking to it. Prick.