Monday, November 07, 2005

Charitable Cheney

Thank you Mr. Cheney for your opinion.
How about we consider the opinion of soldiers that have actually been in combat and/or some of the Veterans that have been held as a prisoner of war. I guess policy doesn't work that way.

2 comments:

Jar(egg)head said...

I have a real issue with the way this article is written. In the first paragraph, the authors utilize their thematic sentence thusly:

Cheney [has tried] to stop Congress, the Pentagon and the State Department from imposing more restrictive rules on the handling of terrorist suspects

Then, in the third paragraph, we find this:

Cheney has been the force against adding safeguards to the Defense Department's rules on treatment of military prisoners

This is an example of one of two things: willful ignorance or intentionally deceptive journalism.

There is no question about the handling of military prisoners. The Geneva Convention, (we are one of the few nations on the planet who still adhere to it, by the way), is very clear: uniformed soldiers fighting in an organized army for a nation with a clear declaration of hostilities (not the same as a declaration of war) will be treated fairly and humanely.

Note that the Geneva Convention does not include protection for terrorists, either explicitly or implicitly. Cheney is simply trying to avoid extending the rights of uniformed combatants--who may have been drafted into service, remember--to encompass street thugs and religious fanatics who kill randomly and indiscriminately. That would lead to a place we don't want to go.

The authors of the article mixed two different concepts. In my opinion, and considering they are contractual writers for WaPo, it was for the sole purpose of demonizing the Vice President. But I'll be charitable and assume they are simply ignorant hacks.

mman said...

I appreciate your candor, I also appreciate your dissection of the article.
Thanks also to lass, I am not sure if that's true but I would agree that many politicians and their advisors are untrustworthy.