According to an article in The Sydney Morning Herald: Interrogation techniques approved by the senior US military commander in Baghdad could violate the Geneva conventions on the treatment of prisoners, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, Paul Wolfowitz, has admitted... After trying to avoid an answer by saying he had not seen the rules of interrogation, Mr Wolfowitz admitted that it "sounds to me like a violation of the Geneva convention". But he said he had no independent knowledge of what was in the rules signed by General Ricardo Sanchez in October.
So was the torture a few (or more than a few) bad apples acting roguely? Or were they committed by soldiers following established and approved but illegal practices?
**
The Washington Post ran an article headlined: Congress Hesitant to Write 'Blank Check'. According to the paper: President Bush asked Congress yesterday to approve a new $25 billion "contingency fund" for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but members of both parties in Congress indicated strong reservations about giving the Pentagon the free hand it is seeking to spend the money... But after military setbacks and recent allegations of Americans abusing Iraqi prisoners, key senators seemed far more reluctant to give the Pentagon free rein.
This is just great. For the last two years, Congress has given the administration a blank check to do whatever it wants. The administration acts repeatedly on that blank check. It sends troops to Iraq based on that blank check. Congress passes resolutions saying what a wonderful idea this is: bully for invasions! And then in mid-course, Congress suddenly decides that maybe the impardonable abdication of its constitutional responsibility wasn't such a good idea after all. If they hadn't been asleep at the wheel in the first place, we might not be in this mess. They have no one to blame but themselves. And Democratic leaders, this means you too!
No comments:
Post a Comment