I've made no secret that James Taranto is my favorite blogger, because he seems to be the quickest at understanding the foolishness of certain political positions. I could almost link to him everyday, but that might get might old, I suspect. I'll take my monthly allowance and let Taranto explain the folly of McCain's latest crusade.
The argument is that unless we interpret the Geneva Convention as providing maximal protections to terrorists, our enemies will mistreat U.S. soldiers in their captivity. Assume for the sake of argument that this is true. If the restrictions on interrogations that Powell and McCain advocate result in another 9/11, then they will have sacrificed the lives of women and children in order to protect soldiers. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?
Further, McCain's personal experiences--which lead people to be skittish about criticizing him on this subject--actually argue against his position. As a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, McCain suffered actual, brutal torture--not just aggressive questioning of the sort that the Bush administration seeks to legalize. America's adherence to the Geneva Conventions did not protect McCain--even though he, unlike the al Qaeda detainees, was a legitimate prisoner of war; and Hanoi, unlike al Qaeda, had ratified the Geneva Conventions and thus was legally bound by them.
The whole point of the Geneva Conventions is reciprocity: Nations agree that when they fight wars, they will do so in accordance with some civilized rules. Extending the conventions' protection to terrorists, who reject those rules, transforms Geneva into a suicide pact. John McCain is one of the Senate's true war heroes, but in this area his personal experience seems to be clouding, rather than clarifying, his views.
McCain's supposed independent streak always seems to coincide with the New York Times editorial board position. Take a page from Guiliani. He lives in the same city as the New York Times and doesn't give one little red rat's tail.
No comments:
Post a Comment