The "war on terrorism" is so different from any war or enemy we have faced before, we absolutely have to reassess how we fight and win.
But our leaders should never lose the moral high ground, ignore the Constitution or violate our international treaty obligations, or we become what we have spent two centuries fighting against.
Since 9/11, this administration has used the pretext of terrorism for dozens of actions it has taken domestically and internationally and many people across the political spectrum have questioned the morality and/or legality of those actions. That doesnt make them terrorist appeasers or less committed to winning.
The greatest danger we face in a free society is when cititzens feel threatened, or even worse, are threatened, for questioning our leaders.
I, for one, believe we have headed down that road since 9/11 and the buck stops in the Oval Office.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShaniFaye
can I ask a question? just to clarify in my mind what I may be under a misconception about.
Can't you be court marshalled (sp?) for going against a superiors orders if you are in the military?
|
ShaniFaye...absolutely, you can and should be court martialed for not following orders, even if you are morally opposed to the order. Otherwise, we would have chaos in the military. The one exception, I believe (but Im no expert on military law) is if you know with a high degree of certainty that the order is illegal.
The latest issue goes beyond that. Bush, in effect, wants to exempt the CIA from the same standards of treatment of prisoners as the military must follow. There is strong opposition to this, led by John McCain, who knows firsthand about torture, and has an alternative bill with bi-partisan support:
Responding to Bush, McCain rejected the president's assertion that an alternative bill approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee dealing with the trial and interrogation of terror suspects would require the closure of the CIA's detainee program.
McCain said his alternative bill would protect agents from criminal and civil liability and, by not reinterpreting the meaning of the Geneva Conventions, uphold the nation's obligations.
"To do any less risks our reputation, our moral standing and the lives of those Americans who risk everything to defend our country," the senator said.
And as Host noted, Colin Powell has a similar assessment:
Powell said Bush's plan to redefine the Geneva Conventions would cause the world "to doubt the moral basis" of the fight against terror and "put our own troops at risk.
Skirting the law and treaty obligations, no matter how well intended, is another step down that slippery slope that Bush seems intent on taking.