Bush the Bloviator (now w/Bonus!)

dr. elsewhere here

(Bonus Below)

The past few days, the media has actually been making much of the administration's two great pushes for legislation to erase their illegal activities detainee abuses and domestic spying. Of course, the media don't present the case quite that bluntly, but they have actually come close, to their increasing credit. The exchanges between David Gregory and both Tony Snow and the Prez have been replayed numerous times, and are notable for the bizarro Abbot and Costello confusions. "What? Oh, well, what was the question again? I'll restate, you said redefine. No, define. What? Replace? No, interpretation. Our European allies don't have an interpreation." And the like. Who's on first? Hell; who's on the waterboard? And what needs interpretation?

Though the domestic spying bill did get out of Senate committee on strictly party lines, Senator Reid has assured a group of bloggers that it will not - repeat, not - pass. Period. His message in this conversation evidently implied heavily the Dems are willing to filibuster, though the "F" word was not mentioned. Hard not to be heartened by this message.

For what it's worth (my fave phrase, in case you haven't noticed), the detainee abuse matter fares no better for Prez Brat and the Rove Rats. Georgie's performances with Matt Lauer and the general press, including David Gregory, have exposed his infamous belligerence. With Matt, he even responded to a question about his admission to the secret prisons with "So what?" Today he called a press conference and demonstrated this caustic and snide attitude yet again, becoming testy and taunting Congress to deliver his legislative demands "or else" he'll pull the program altogether. Along with his skates, one presumes.
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)


This threat represents a high stakes campaign strategy to place the Dems in a legislative double-bind, much like the one they confronted in '02 with the Iraq resolution (though this season it may well backfire). And, naturally, the law will protect our soldiers - and more importantly, their commanders and Commander-in-Chief - from prosecution for war crimes. We all recognize these as the self-serving subtext.

The more public presentation of this push appears to be Bush's intent to "clarify" the wording of the Geneva Conventions. He seems concerned that, in its present state, the vagueness jeopardizes our soldiers and CIA agents involved in these, erm, interrogations. Which is to say, or at least imply quite heavily, that they have not served us well at all these sixty years since their inception. And again, we can certainly read between these lines that the agenda is directed toward getting them off the war crimes hook.

Bush really threw down the gauntlet today, which gives me that deeply queasy feeling you get when you come within inches of getting creamed by a 4X4 in bumper to bumper traffic at breakneck speed. He wants to "clarify" these concepts, supposedly to "protect" our men in - and out of - uniform. The "quaint" Geneva Conventions no longer apply, and need to be fixed.

Let's look at the original wording of Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Now, I ask you, as one human being to another, just what about these words is unclear? What is so vague? Need we define "cruelty?" Must we explain "humiliation?" What could be more obvious than "degradation" or "dignity?"

My concern is this: If Bush gets his way and prohibited behaviors are specified, such as waterboarding or sexual taunting or religious defamation or stress positions, then these will be against the law. It will be clear and well-defined and precisely specified that these activities are against the law. That might seem good to some, but here comes the sucker punch.

With these specified actions now expressly prohibited, the law will no longer prohibit a whole host of other equally - or worse - heinous and despicable behaviors that are easily understood under the more abstract categorical wording, yet expressly excluded with the new wording. Dare we trust the interrogators, or their commanders, to suppress their imagination for more horrifying tortures that escape these specifications?

We witness here an example of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), often observed in kids who have never known constraints on or consequences to their behaviors. Teacher tells kid to behave and be good and treat others with respect. Kid responds, well, what do you mean, teach? What can I not do? Just tell me, and I won't do it.

Clearly, kid has no clue what respect or good behavior mean. So teach gives him a few examples; don't hit, don't threaten, don't tease. Kid says sure, gotcha, you're the boss, and then goes to great lengths to figure out ways to get around these specifics, pouring all his creative energies into crafting whatever he can get away with. Putting snakes in lockers, prank phone calls, tripping and shoving and spraying with paint balls; these are all ok, right? What?? They're not on the list! Nyah nyah na nyah nyah, you can't catch me.

This is the way laws get written, folks. The more specified they are, the more easily the wicked can careen around in the loopholes, leaving us blindsided in the relentless onslaught of traffic, and stunned in the wreckage.

[Bonus: Cannot believe my addled mind (more on this in the morning) left out this latest development, as it pulls all the pieces together so perfectly:
Not only is Bush ramping up the shell game of Osama's shifting importance in his campaign wars, but he has made this entire detainee abuse issue the centerpiece for his strategy for winning said war. Specifically,

"The way you win the war on terror," Bush said, "is to find people [who are terrorists] and get them to give you information about what their buddies are fixing to do."

You can almost see how they view this as a win-win for them; box in the legislation so they cannot be prosecuted for war crimes, box in the Dems with this legislation so they win the mid-terms. But you can also see, even smell their desperation, so riddled with craven cynicism and self-serving manipulation as it is.

Because, you know, these two things are so intricately and inherently intertwined, the mid-terms and the war crimes.]