Sadly pulled from the "it's come to this" file, a dozen retired military commanders have signed a letter to the Senate (.pdf) essentially to oppose the nomination of Al "the Geneva Conventions are Quaint" Gonzales for AG:
Before Mr. Gonzales assumes the position of Attorney General, it is critical to understand whether he intends to adhere to the positions [on the legality of torture as a tool of U.S. military personnel] he adopted as White House Counsel, or chart a revised course more consistent with fulfilling our nation’s complex security interests, and maintaining a military that operates within the rule of law...
Mr. Gonzales’ reasoning [in the torture memos (.pdf)] was also on the wrong side of history. Repeatedly in our past, the United States has confronted foes that, at the time they emerged, posed threats of a scope or nature unlike any we had previously faced. But we have been far more steadfast in the past in keeping faith with our national commitment to the rule of law. During the Second World War, General Dwight D. Eisenhower explained that the allies adhered to the law of war in their treatment of prisoners because "the Germans had some thousands of American and British prisoners and I did not want to give Hitler the excuse or justification for treating our prisoners more harshly than he already was doing." In Vietnam, U.S. policy required that the Geneva Conventions be observed for all enemy prisoners of war – both North Vietnamese regulars and Viet Cong – even though the Viet Cong denied our own prisoners of war the same protections. And in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the United States afforded Geneva Convention protections to more than 86,000 Iraqi prisoners of war held in U.S. custody. The threats we face today – while grave and complex – no more warrant abandoning these basic principles than did the threats of enemies past.
Good stuff, that.
Comments