The Geneva Conventions
Today is Saturday, 16 September 2006.
1.
George W.arlord Bush longs to eviscerate Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
In a ranting press conference yesterday, he claimed the prohibition against “outrages upon human dignity” is “too vague; what does that mean?”
Mr. Warlord makes a great public show of “Christian” piety, at least at election times. Perhaps he would find some guidance in Luke 6:31: “As you wish that people would do to you, do so to them”.
Now, that wasn’t hard, was it? If you wouldn’t want folks to torture you, don’t torture them. Oh, but that’s too vague, isn’t it? What does “torture” mean?
Maybe this would help: WPPWJUECPO? Whose Private Parts Would Jesus Use an Electric Cattle Prod On?
Whose Head Would Jesus Hold Under Water Until They’re Within a Split-Second of Drowning?
Whose Child of an Alleged Terrorist Would Jesus Kill, to Get Vital Information He Suspects They Might Have?
After all, Jesus wasn’t a soft-on-Nazis, Islamofascist-loving gutless wonder. He didn’t hesitate a minute to crucify those Roman and Jewish terrorists. Or was it the other way round?
2.
Further: Bush asked, If you sent a female to interrogate a male Muslim, is this an “outrage upon human dignity”?
Now, if Mr. Bush were quite so devout a Christian as he claims, he would know that the New Testament teaches, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent … the woman [Eve] was deceived and became a transgressor.” (I Timothy 2:12, 14) If this is so within the Church, must it not also be true in the wide world, which is also the Creator’s?
Your author has known many fundamentalist Christians who hold to this strict a doctrine regarding females, that only in strict and complete submission to male authority, may they be saved. (“Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” --- I Timothy 2:15)
Your author believes this is patriarchal fascist garbage, but, the point is, many males, “religious” and not, believe it, and would regard it as an “outrage upon their human dignity” to be put into a position of submission to a female in any circumstance.
Perhaps Bush should clarify this point for the electorate. Does he believe females must always be slaves to males, and lose some female voters? Does he believe that females should have authority over males, and lose the patriarchal fascist vote?
3.
Further: in that rich-kid petulance which is part of his trademark persona, Bush threatened that, if Congress failed to pass the legislation His Highness commands, he will end all CIA interrogation programs of suspected terrorists.
The day before, he said the first duty of government is “to protect the homeland”. If he believes these illegal interrogation programs are so absolutely essential, why would he end them? Why wouldn’t he exercise the authority he pretends to have as Commander-in-Chief, to supersede all laws, as he has done with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?
Is Bush not saying, that if he doesn’t get his way, he will leave the nation naked to its enemies?
On his own terms, would this not rise to the level of an impeachable offense?
4.
One reason all honest American military leaders oppose a unilateral American gutting of Common Article 3: it affords a measure of protection to every American military person.
If Bush can unilaterally order the re-definition of the Geneva Conventions, why should any other nation deny themselves the privilege?
The power of the Geneva Conventions derives primarily, not from ethics, but from fear: if we feel free to violate their prisoners, they will feel free to violate ours. We shall be humane, in hopes they shall be humane.
But your author doubts this is any great shakes to Bush, who imagines he will never be captured.
1.
George W.arlord Bush longs to eviscerate Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
In a ranting press conference yesterday, he claimed the prohibition against “outrages upon human dignity” is “too vague; what does that mean?”
Mr. Warlord makes a great public show of “Christian” piety, at least at election times. Perhaps he would find some guidance in Luke 6:31: “As you wish that people would do to you, do so to them”.
Now, that wasn’t hard, was it? If you wouldn’t want folks to torture you, don’t torture them. Oh, but that’s too vague, isn’t it? What does “torture” mean?
Maybe this would help: WPPWJUECPO? Whose Private Parts Would Jesus Use an Electric Cattle Prod On?
Whose Head Would Jesus Hold Under Water Until They’re Within a Split-Second of Drowning?
Whose Child of an Alleged Terrorist Would Jesus Kill, to Get Vital Information He Suspects They Might Have?
After all, Jesus wasn’t a soft-on-Nazis, Islamofascist-loving gutless wonder. He didn’t hesitate a minute to crucify those Roman and Jewish terrorists. Or was it the other way round?
2.
Further: Bush asked, If you sent a female to interrogate a male Muslim, is this an “outrage upon human dignity”?
Now, if Mr. Bush were quite so devout a Christian as he claims, he would know that the New Testament teaches, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent … the woman [Eve] was deceived and became a transgressor.” (I Timothy 2:12, 14) If this is so within the Church, must it not also be true in the wide world, which is also the Creator’s?
Your author has known many fundamentalist Christians who hold to this strict a doctrine regarding females, that only in strict and complete submission to male authority, may they be saved. (“Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” --- I Timothy 2:15)
Your author believes this is patriarchal fascist garbage, but, the point is, many males, “religious” and not, believe it, and would regard it as an “outrage upon their human dignity” to be put into a position of submission to a female in any circumstance.
Perhaps Bush should clarify this point for the electorate. Does he believe females must always be slaves to males, and lose some female voters? Does he believe that females should have authority over males, and lose the patriarchal fascist vote?
3.
Further: in that rich-kid petulance which is part of his trademark persona, Bush threatened that, if Congress failed to pass the legislation His Highness commands, he will end all CIA interrogation programs of suspected terrorists.
The day before, he said the first duty of government is “to protect the homeland”. If he believes these illegal interrogation programs are so absolutely essential, why would he end them? Why wouldn’t he exercise the authority he pretends to have as Commander-in-Chief, to supersede all laws, as he has done with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?
Is Bush not saying, that if he doesn’t get his way, he will leave the nation naked to its enemies?
On his own terms, would this not rise to the level of an impeachable offense?
4.
One reason all honest American military leaders oppose a unilateral American gutting of Common Article 3: it affords a measure of protection to every American military person.
If Bush can unilaterally order the re-definition of the Geneva Conventions, why should any other nation deny themselves the privilege?
The power of the Geneva Conventions derives primarily, not from ethics, but from fear: if we feel free to violate their prisoners, they will feel free to violate ours. We shall be humane, in hopes they shall be humane.
But your author doubts this is any great shakes to Bush, who imagines he will never be captured.
posted by HH at 10:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home