Gen. Powell opposes Bush tribunals

Human Rights First (formerly Lawyers Committee for Human Rights) website has the full text of another letter sent to the Hill signed by 29 retired top Pentagon officials/officers who are concerned for active military personnel who may find themselves captured:

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/etn/2006/alert/259/

(click for the full text on the lower part of the page)

Worth a read.

I have a strong inclination to send "thank yous" to John Warner, John McCain, Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham today.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/sns-ap-bush-congress,1,7591162.story

It really is to bad that the moderate Republicans could not convince Colin Powell to run for President.
I truly beleive that with Colin Powell as President we would NOT be in Iraq right now,and I feel bad for him that he was used by the Bush administration,and the Bush buddy CIA director to present false evidence to the United Nations on Saddam's non-exsistent WMD's programm.

I did a little research on George W. Bush's Yale days,and I found these statements from some of his Yale classmates:

Jacques Leslie - Yale class of 68 - "The war in Iraq was unwarranted and promoted deceptively,his environmental policies are disastorous,and his attack on legal rights is frightening.I would not be able to shake his hand without showing hostility."

Deng Xiaoping - Yale class of 68 - "During a visit to China I had shaken the hand of the Butcher of Tiananmen Square,so shaking George W. Bush's hand couldn't take me any lower."

Mark Soler - Yale class of 68 - "When we were in college,we thought we would change things for the better when it came time for our generation to step forward.We thought nobody among us could ever make the mistake of getting in a ground war with no exit strategy,and no clearly defined goals.We thought that would be impossible because we,the class of 68,had learned the lessons of Vietnam.Now look what's happening in Iraq,and to think it was brought on by one of our own.Supposedly George was a history major;he should have learned at the very least that "the past is prologue."

Bill,doesn't it feel good to side with the good guys?

End of power for the Neo Cons is coming soon.

Moderate R's are beginning to see the light,great for America.

Bill, I noticed in your referenced article ,The Snowman has already started swifting Colin Powell.

Where are all the wingers on this one? Hellooooooooo. I'll help you out:

Colin Powell's a traitor. More interested in protecting the terrorists than Americans. John McCain's an appeasing coward. Only George the Brave can save this great land from the evil doers and suiciders. It's a great thing that God put him in office in order to save America (by slaughtering thousands of God's other creatures, who did not merit the Divine Providence to born into America).

---

The fact is that we systemically put U.S. citizen murderers on trial with full procedural protections -- lawyers, evidence, rules of evidence, etc. -- and, guess what, death row is full of convicted murderes. The Bushies want to keep the proceedings secret because they're worried they have no case to put on.

Man, they think they're SO slick. They keep saying "all we want to do is clarify, we just want to know exactly what article 3 means." And then they go on to say that section 6 of the administration's bill clarifies "US obligations under article 3." Meaning that no matter how article 3 is clarified, our "obligations under it" are subjective, so BushCo can still ignore it if they want to, just like his signing statements have accomplished over 800 times, more than all previous presidents combined. Doesn't that mean anything to you Bush supporters? How can you support this guy?

The worst decision Bush ever made was hiring Powell...the best decision was firing Colon.

Bush will get his way on his terror bill, no matter how many pro-terrorist Dems fight it. And the GOP with pick up seats in the House and Senate this November. Get ready.

Why do you hate this country so much?
If the terrorists come again,hold you hostage and get the video ready for the filming of your throat being sliced,your head being lopped off....ask them for a lawyer....you do have rights!....just as they will....will they listen?
Paulo

John Warner, Colin Powell, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain all must be confused about who the enemy is right? They must be more concerned w/ protecting terrorists. Next thing you know they will want to read terrorists their Miranda rights on the battlefield. Did I sum up the RNC talking points against those who disagree w/ the Republo-fascist administration?

If Dubya really thinks Common Article 3 needs "clarifying" then it needs to be done in negotiations with the Geneva Conventions' signatories.

Unless and until they do so, the emperor with contiue to be sans clothing.

For Tony Snow to call Gen. Colin Powell confused and then "retract it" is just wrong.

Where does a sit-in for Rush Limbaugh come off calling a retired 4 Star General, retired Chief of Staff, retired Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, and retired Sec. of State at the time of war, confused?

Are we really going to sit by and allow the administration to "swift boat" this man?

I have voted Republican all my life, but I would be hard pressed to vote that way again as long as I draw a natural breath.

by the way, there are 2 purple hearts in this household. mick michlsen, roanoke, VA

As by now you know I am a veteran. I feel the only court these terrorist should and must face is a military court.Our Jag Officers can and will give these people a fair trail. Now as for our President wanting more power to change Article 3 or reword it. This would open up our military if captured to unspeakable torture. We are above torture and always have been. Plus the ones we have now have no usable information its way to late. And if we do capture new terorist we should use only the Genvva Convention.

George Bush deserves a fair trial...
FOR WAR CRIMES!

Maria,

If by "pro-terrorist Dems" you mean the 29 retired top Pentagon officials/officers who signed the letter linked by Kenny Bunkport, well, I guess your definition of "pro-terrorist Dems" is the only liberal thing about you.

By the way, it's Colin Powell, not Colon, unless that's your subtle way of calling the man an a------.

Paulo,

Your blind devotion to the current administration and the ease in which you're willing to drag this country down to the terrorists' level is what's really hurting this country. And to label those who disagree wtih you with "hating this country", you should be ashamed.

Janet, here's a questions.

Your unit has encountered an enemy fortification which is stopping the entire unit from reaching it's objective and you have taken casualties. Your commander have ordered you to poison the stream from which the enemy fortification gets it's water supply. What do you do? Better think quick.

To those who are saying "pro-terrorist" democrats want to give more rights to terrorists while our own people will not be given those rights when captured by the enemy:

I don't agree with your point of view, therefore you are a terrorist. You say you're not? Sorry, there's no one to complain to from your secret prison. Anyway, I can get you to confess with this cattle prod.

Just in case someone later gets wind that I've tortured you, I'll add a provision that says I'm immune to prosecution...

Loon, I'm on the same side as you are. My own. This issue has to do with the safety of our troops and supersedes any trivial arguments about political party, tribe or membership. McCain, Warner, Powell and the rest understand that.

I don't doubt Bush's veracity in saying he only wants to clarify Article III to reflect how times have changed since its inception, but I don't think opening it up to a political revision process will achieve that, the same as Powell said in his letter. They'll end up with a weaker article three and more torture for our captured service men and women.

Powell and McCain (who was ruthlessly tortured by the Vietnamese for three years even to the point that he nearly took his own life) know the stakes our soldiers face better than anyone. Their opinions should be considered sacrosanct.

If terrorists capture our soldiers they WILL get no rights and face beheading and other barbarism. But, unfortunately, changing article III won't change any of that. All it will do is allow rogue regimes like Iran to have a say (and therefore wiggle room in implementation) in writing the terms of the new regulations. That would be a disaster.

Paulo,

Do you honestly think that combatting the enemy's barbaric hostage-taking tactics with equally barbaric tactics for captured enemy combatants is the answer?

While many people may want to take an "eye for an eye" approach, we are Americans, and America is (supposed to be) a civilized society.

Treating our prisoners with the respect and dignity that a human being deserves (no matter how callous and miserable they may be) will show the world who the true terrorists are.

I guess when God talks directly to you then you can make all the rules you want. I wonder if "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is still appropriate.

I might imagine some of those blows to th head McCain received while the NVN operated under the POW rules contained in the Geneva Convention are what motivate his bizaaro behavior in matters of this sort. That automatically qualifies him as a front runner for the Presidency, doesn't it? The only people to have even come close to behaving humanely toward POW's in time of war other than than the U.S. and it's allies were the german's during WWII and that was th Luftwaffe. No one else gives a rats A$$ about the rules. Morons, the whole bunch of them, particularly the the Dems.

Having spent 23 years in the Army before retiring in 1980 I am appalled that ANYONE would wish to "reinterpret" the common article 3.

If you distinguish between those who are on the side of NOT going along with the bush team are all almost all retired or not in the administration. Those that do, are presently serving or IN the administration.

With this administration if you disagree with the cabal of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld you are GONE. You may not look forward to promotions or better jobs.

Maria and Paulo, what are your credentials?

Paulo, ever asked what makes a 'terrrorist'? Funny how they just seem to be sprouting up like dandelions. I think everyone will find this article interesting...

http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html

Concerning the JAGs, here are a few interesting links you might want to look at...seems they were coerced, not willing participants.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/jag-letter/
(this is their "clarification request" letter)

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/09/coercing_the_ja.html

Leamington,

Well said, as we march into our new authoritarian future.

I want to chime in here and try to "clarify" my views on why I think it is a better idea to ensure that policies governing trials and convictions of those suspected of terrorism need more regulation than what the Bush Administration is proposing: My reasons are quite utilitarian.

First: Right or wrong, there are huge groups of people in various areas of the world that are disgusted with American "diplomacy" and foreign policy, not to mention the war in Iraq. If we make martyrs out of those that others view as heros without any sort of transparency of process, does anyone think that will help our situation abroad? Those that admire people who we make martyrs of will keep right at it, and those other countries who may have helped us out in the past may turn a blind eye. What then?

Second, America as a nation is supposed to be upholding an image of democracy, decency and propsperity (oh, and freedom), right? Operating under the very simple "do unto others" doctrine, it would not be a good idea to treat the citizens of other countries in such a manner, if we expect other countries to treat our citizens in a way we see as appropriate. Remember when we all freaked out about the American man in Singapore who was to be flogged for breaking a law there? How can we ever expect others to do unto us as we would like done, if we're so busy taking eyes? I don't wish to be insensitive to Americans who have been detained and/or tortured. However, I think that endorsing a policy creating tribunals with very little regulation that affect the lives of so many others in such a profound way because we hypothetically wouldn't get the same treatment somewhere else is positively barbaric.

Does this make me pro-terrorist? Certainly not. That's like saying I'm pro-abortion, like everyone should be getting them as they're the latest fad nowadays. Do I think that those whom we capture as terrorists should eat lobster and sleep on feather beds? No! But I'd also like to point out that we are not just talking about detaining, questioning and trying some crazy, gun-weilding madman who was caught with a bomb in his hands. "Detainee" can be a very loose term, and it gets even looser during times such as these. It talks about those who are "suspected" to have connections. Ever play 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon? This type of policy could affect far more people than the group we're all probably picturing in our heads.

No, I'm not pro-terorist - I'm suggesting that there are more countries and people watching what America does than just Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea. Other countries and cultures are looking at what we do, and how we do it. Ones who are trying to develop themselves and find their place in the global community. We are trying to show Iraq (I think) that democracy is a good idea. Why do you think Saddam Hussein is receiving a trial on crimes against humanity, when we all know he was a schmuck who ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent people? Why not just put him in front of the firing squad? It is the principle of the matter. There are many other ways America could show that it is hard on terror, but terrorizing others should not be it.

This 2004 Sidney Blumenthal article about Powell and the changeover to Condi Rice ("incompetent," but loyal) from the UK's Guardian concludes that this is a regime, not an administration, as they don't administer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1353796,00.html

And Maria Gomez, while he doesn't mention you by name, it seems Powell harbors reciprocal feelings for you as indicated in the quote of the last paragraph.

It's great to see that even some Bush supporters have a line they won't cross. The idea that we should "clarify" Geneva convention restrictions on torture to allow more "agressive" interrogation methods is simply repugnant.

Thanks to Gen. Powell for reminding Bush that we are supposed to be fighting terrorists. Not acting like them.

Sorry -- I'm missing what catching and stopping terrorist has to do with denying them basic human rights once they're caught. It's two different items entirely to me.

Whatever terrorist suspects we apprehend do NOT get uncaught because we don't torture them or allow for their entry into our legal system for some form of a fair hearing. America was and is a great country because we do not stoop to the kinds of behavior other nations do, and especially because we don't stoop to the barbaric treatment we expect from terrorists. Changing that demeans us as a nation.

And the fact that we (hopefully) treat all human beings in a humane manner doesn't mean we don't go after them when we think they're terrorists nor does it stop us from defending ourselves. Terrorists, I've read, expect that we're going to behave barbarously, that we're going to dismember them and gut them like animals. And when they find, over time, that they are NOT being treated this way, they are actually more likely to give valuable information (vs being tortured to the point where they'll say anything to get the pain to stop or where they simply refuse to say anything and let themselves by martyred). Seems to me that they aren't going to be any MORE likely to resist being taken by authorities because they DON'T expect to be torn limb from limb, and it's possible they'd be LESS likely to resist.

And if I'm captured by the terrorists who are streaming into our country and held awaiting their sawing my head off with a dull, rusty bread knife, what DIFFERENCE does it make if they offer me a lawyer or not? I'll be just as dead and it'll hurt just as much one way as the other. I doubt our treatment of them assuming the situation was reversed would matter much, except I'd die knowing we're still taking the moral high ground.

Seems to me the ones who really hate this country are the ones who are eager for us to dump our stance as a place of decency and honor in favor of their bloodthirst.

What Bush, Rice, et al., are "clarifying" is that they do not in fact want good intelligence. They want to abuse the people they capture to the point that they will say whatever they want them to say. Then the neocons use this "intelligence" to support their thuggery throughout the world--and to justify it to us sappy Americans who cringe in fear whenever George wants us to be fearful.

Jack,
Just saw your earlier Q. I would not follow an illegal order. Poisoning the water supply sounds like chemical warfare to me. That was the first, or maybe the second reason we invaded Iraq, before the administration settled on bringing democracy to the Middle East.

Due Process equals support for terrorism?

This argument just gets better. Why do people bother with drugs when they can get their minds blown simply by reading the sort of gonadery spouted by Paulo and Maria?

Someone's got to stand up to the nonsense being perpetrated in the name of America. Colin Powell seems like a man not just of vision, but also of integrity and conscience: rare qualities indeed.

There are one or two in Washington - and for that matter in London - who would do well to be guided by him.

I propose a law. All registered Democrats and voters who vote Democratic should be convicted of treason and sentenced to forced labor, and all registered Republicans and Republican voters should be drafted and sent to Iraq, or as the minds Sen. Inhoffe and Speaker Hastert believe it, Paradise.

Can there be any doubt that Bush is suffering from delusions of grandeur as he rewrites the Geneva Conventions, threatens the Congress with "shutting down the program" and brushes off the criticism of dozens of retired military leaders? I am very proud that my opposition to this misbegotten war is shared with many retired military leaders and I truly appreciate that General Vessey's letter cited my alltime hero and WWII CIC, George C Marshall. I would like to recommend the 25th amendment as a solution to our national problem but that would simply put an "official" stamp on Cheney's present position. We must have regime change in Congress in November so Speaker Nancy can lead the charge to sanity in this nation.

Bush is at it again. Threatening Congress with "shutting down the program" if he doesn't get his way is a ridiculous stance by the supposedly leader of the free World. He is acting like a child, "If I don't get to play on the forward line, I am going to take my ball and go home. Of course the "shutting down the program" statement is directed at the fears of Americans. Let's hope we shut down Bush in the November elections.

Jim Lochrie

Don't know about the midwest, but I can tell you that the sentiment here on the western slope of Colorado is 100% behind General Powell.
Ray Ross
Montrose, CO

All those people who think that the Geneva convention can be weakened because Al Qaida and the current enemies of the USA do not abide by them, should keep in mind that as things stand, all those people who violate the Conventions as they, are liable to some sort of judicial prosecution as war criminals. If Bush succeeds in weakening the Conventions, the crime in violating the conventions would cease to be crimes, but actions based on the subjective interpretation of the treaties..

Lastly, why is it that these naive civilians, some of who got repeated deferrals, or were suspiciously spared deployment to Vietnam all of a sudden think they have acquired more wisdom than people who served in War?

There is no soldier in any country in the world who would advocate the anullment of the Geneva Conventions; these are like the Bill of Rights of a Soldier. You may violate them, but you become a War Criminal as a result, and if you are caught, you can be prosecuted.... If they do not exist, you would be free to live freely outside your nemesis' home country....

As I’ve said before, this sounds like desperate attempt by Bush to get the Republican led Congress to put their stamp of approval on the illegal activities (Bush, Cheney, and Rummy authorized) before the November elections. When Congress reconvenes with a Democratic majority they can be put on trial for war crimes.

Unlike on television, terrorists do not self-identify. We cannot always tell them by their country of origin, their religion, or the color of their skin. We only "know" that a tortured soul is a terrorist when they tell us something we already “know”, and torture serves to motivate them to keep talking until they do so. Torture reflects the fears and frustration of the torturer, not a search for information. As Ayn Rand put it, "you can't force a mind".