Posted on 09/14/2006 4:12:11 PM PDT by STARWISE
Former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell came out in opposition today to White House-sponsored legislation to create special military commissions that would try terrorist suspects, saying he rejects efforts to "redefine" a key provision of the Geneva Conventions.
Powell, a retired Army general who formerly headed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated his position in a letter to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), one of three Republican senators who are blocking President Bush's plan for military tribunals. The three -- who also include Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a member of the committee -- are advancing an alternative tribunal bill that contains more protections for defendants.
* Powell's Letter: A letter sent from General Colin Powell (Ret.) to Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) on the attempt to redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.
In defiance of the White House, Warner's committee approved the alternative bill this afternoon by a 15-9 vote, setting up a possible showdown with the Senate's Republican leadership. Warner, McCain, Graham and fellow Republican Susan M. Collins of Maine joined the committee's 11 Democrats in voting for the measure, which Bush today vowed to "resist" on grounds it would effectively scuttle a "terrorist detainee program" run by the CIA.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I think they're trying to curry favor among liberals and Europeans. Just my opinion.
Now he's acting like former President(shudder) Jimmy the Dhimmi Carter...
That cartoon just about says it all.
What I want to know: Do any other countries afford jihadists Geneva Convention protections?
They're giving democrats cover against POTUS, but more importantly, they're playing fast and loose with our national security and brave troops.
Powell and McCain, and to a lesser degree Graham and Warner are lofty names in the opinion of a lot of Americans who take the news at face value.
I like that: "jimmy the dhimmi". Well said.
I don't get this either, MizSterious. I'm completely stunned. I can't figure out the rationale and I've really tried to listen to the comments about this in the media.
Maybe tomorrow some of our conservative reporters will write things that make sense, but I doubt it.
Me too.
Your comment helps answer my question about what makes Powell tick when he's making us sick: He's the anti-Reagan. Reagan said, "It's amazing what you can accomplish in Washington if you don't care who gets the credit."
Powell's public life seems to be spent preventing anyone else from getting the credit. He takes it to the ultimate, weenie extreme, which is to get in the way if someone else seems to be accomplishing something. First Stormin' Norman, now Bush II.
He's a sick puppy, and he's waxing ambitious. Does he fancy himself a Presidential candidate for 2008? He's a legend in his own mind.
Starwise - you need to read this. The WH put out a paper on the myths surrounding Article 3:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1701690/posts
We can only wish. Applying the protections of the Conventions to people who explictly reject the Conventions and violate all its sanctions is redefining not just a key provision but the entire concept of the Geneva Conventions and the sovereignty of nations, if it comes to that.Look at Lebanon - it has Hezballah within it, functioning independently and not responsible to the government of Lebanon. Yet it has members in the Lebanese legislature, and its members are being accorded Geneva protections. According to liberals, everyone deserves Geneva protections except people who are attacked by an NGO such as al Qaeda or Hezballah. If you are captured by such, why then, that's just tough.
They did the same thing with the Judges
Since the lousy scumbags haven't signed the Geneva Convention....who cares? Why do we have to make nice?
I'm with you all on being totally mystified as to why "Republicans" are doing this. Powell may be doing it simply because it's his nature (I have always thought he was two-faced, a sort of passive-aggressive type), but I honestly don't see what political gain any of them think they're going to get out of this.
We know that's why they're doing it, but I seriously think they're misreading people's feelings. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I don't think opposing Bush on this is going to be the winning ticket they believed it would be.
But you know it won't go down like that...the President and homeland security will be blamed. We will never know what circle of information we were kept from discovering, we will only hear about some vulnerability in security which will be presented by some lowly bureaucrat who knew all along but nobody would listen.
Path to ______ date uncertain ______
O'Reilly addressing this now. He's on POTUS's side.
Let's start with running from Baghdad in the 90's and leaving the Saddam mess for GWB to clean up.
They're all "media darlings" who gauge their every move by looking at polls. They've just piled on with the rest of the left, kicking President Bush while he's down in the polls.
I give you credit, my friend. I'm too furious to even put together a cogent rant!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.