POW RULES-Conflicted?

Since the Supreme Court told President Bush that he cannot treat prisoners captured during the so called war on terror, any which way he wants (not following any laws), Bush has asked / demanded from Congress a new law giving him that power.

In the Senate committee handling this request, there appeared to be opposition to the President’s request and the opposition had some prominent Republicans in it.

First, I guess, we should know what the President is asking for. I don’t know all the specifics but he wants the CIA free to use interrogation techniques that are currently disallowed and he wants the power to suspend legalities governing prisoners when he deems necessary. In other words, he wants the rules of the Geneva Convention on how to treat prisoners of war, changed or redefined.

One of the Republicans against President Bush’s demands is John McCain, who spent 5 years as a POW in Vietnam; he still bears the physical and mental scars of that incarceration. I guess one has to respect the views of someone that actually has been a POW.

Colin Powell, another Republican objector, maintains that we must maintain a moral high ground and not descend into the same world as the terrorists. He also said that our own troops are protected by the Geneva Convention rules when they are captured.

I doubt the so called terrorists care much for the Geneva Convention or its rules but then the original rules were drawn up after WWI and specifically concerned uniformed soldiers of an established army or military force. The terrorists are part of an organization, not uniformed and not part of a recognized military force; nonetheless, they act like soldiers in everyway, but does that matter?

Bush makes a compelling argument that getting these terrorists to talk protects Americans from attack and our interrogators should have all the tools necessary to make these varmints talk! How can you argue with that?

The Europeans, as always, said that human rights and human standards have to be maintained. The question is why? The terrorists don’t maintain them by specifically targeting innocent civilians which is strictly forbidden by the rules of war even though civilians are killed as collateral damage.

Our antics at Abu Ghraib prison showed Americans violating Geneva Convention rules about treating prisoners in a big way. We said that was wrong and sentenced the U.S. soldiers responsible to prison terms. It showed the world that we can act as animals just like they can. How about the soldiers that rape and kill innocent women?

I will be honest with you and say that I am conflicted on this issue. The fact that I do not trust Bush and do not want to give him any powers he can misuse, makes me leery.

The fact that this is not a conventional war and the combatants are not regular military, gives me pause. The fact that even under Geneva Rules, a spy can be shot because he is not really a soldier in uniform, also gives me pause.

I don’t like giving carte blanche to anyone, especially our government; there have to be rules. Seeing how Americans can behave like animals even with rules in place makes a good argument for having specific rules of behavior and punishment for breaking those rules.

I am still conflicted………………………………..