![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Color me simple
Sep. 26th, 2005 01:51 pmI'm a simple guy. I figure the law is the law. When a law is bad, one ought to advocate for it's abolition, rather than just ignoring it. Certainly I think as a matter of official policy this is the way to go about things. When the Gov't goes about playing scofflaw, well the social contract is then in some jeopardy.
Which is part of my annoyance at the present administration's cavalier attitude toward the Geneva Conventions(anyone who's been around, or seen me in other places knows I have strong feelings about them for other reasons to, but that's not the issue at present; recent allegations of more widespread abuse than was previously admitted notwithstanding).
Because, you see, the Conventions are the law of the land. Gonzales saying some of them are quaint is amusing, perhaps, but ought not be relevant, because a previous president signed them and a previous senate ratified them. The only piece of law which can trump them is the Constitution.
The UCMJ doesn't have a magic code-phrase which lets soldiers ignore treaties, nor does the US Code say... "treaties only count when the next administration likes them."
So John McCain finally gettting religion and putting an amendment to a defense bill which says we have to, wonder of wonders, obey the extant law, well it ought to mean as much as the President making a proclamation that he'll be upholding anf defending the Constitution while he's in office. Nice to know and all, but it's one of those things he has to do, and if he doesn't we get to impeach, try, remove and imprison him for failing to do.
So far so good. McCain wants (because it's hurting our image) to pass this bit of lily-painting, who am I to complain?
Well, you see the White House says it'll veto any such bill which crosses the desk in the Oval Office. Not only is that apalling (after all, this is already the law of the land, signing it won't change a damn thing, but if Bush does veto it, this will be his first use of that power), but (and here's the kicker) McCain says he doesn't think he has the votes to overide a veto.
What the Fuck? If I were a Senator, even a Republican senator of the Frist and Lott stripe, I'd be all over this. Because this is a treaty. Bush is saying, because the background on this has been the Conventions don't apply; that he refuses to let the White House be held to the law. That's the first thing, as a Senator, I'd want to nip in the bud. The second is he's saying none of the treaties we've signed are worth more than snot-rags. He isn't willing to repudiate it, no, he's trying a pocket-veto trick ("Mr Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it). It isn't that this hasn't happened already, and it isn't as if he's the first president to do this. But the blatantness of it.
McCain, sadly, is a day late and a dollar short. He abnegated his responsibilty in this matter when he said yea to the nomination of the Attorney General. Having approved the present holder of that office, knowing what he'd written; and having heard his non-answers on the question of his present opinions on torture, he lost his moral standing.
The rest of the Senate... they were once players in the political scene. Now they have become pawns, simulacra of real actors; whipping boys and lackeys of the White House.
Which is part of my annoyance at the present administration's cavalier attitude toward the Geneva Conventions(anyone who's been around, or seen me in other places knows I have strong feelings about them for other reasons to, but that's not the issue at present; recent allegations of more widespread abuse than was previously admitted notwithstanding).
Because, you see, the Conventions are the law of the land. Gonzales saying some of them are quaint is amusing, perhaps, but ought not be relevant, because a previous president signed them and a previous senate ratified them. The only piece of law which can trump them is the Constitution.
The UCMJ doesn't have a magic code-phrase which lets soldiers ignore treaties, nor does the US Code say... "treaties only count when the next administration likes them."
So John McCain finally gettting religion and putting an amendment to a defense bill which says we have to, wonder of wonders, obey the extant law, well it ought to mean as much as the President making a proclamation that he'll be upholding anf defending the Constitution while he's in office. Nice to know and all, but it's one of those things he has to do, and if he doesn't we get to impeach, try, remove and imprison him for failing to do.
So far so good. McCain wants (because it's hurting our image) to pass this bit of lily-painting, who am I to complain?
Well, you see the White House says it'll veto any such bill which crosses the desk in the Oval Office. Not only is that apalling (after all, this is already the law of the land, signing it won't change a damn thing, but if Bush does veto it, this will be his first use of that power), but (and here's the kicker) McCain says he doesn't think he has the votes to overide a veto.
What the Fuck? If I were a Senator, even a Republican senator of the Frist and Lott stripe, I'd be all over this. Because this is a treaty. Bush is saying, because the background on this has been the Conventions don't apply; that he refuses to let the White House be held to the law. That's the first thing, as a Senator, I'd want to nip in the bud. The second is he's saying none of the treaties we've signed are worth more than snot-rags. He isn't willing to repudiate it, no, he's trying a pocket-veto trick ("Mr Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it). It isn't that this hasn't happened already, and it isn't as if he's the first president to do this. But the blatantness of it.
McCain, sadly, is a day late and a dollar short. He abnegated his responsibilty in this matter when he said yea to the nomination of the Attorney General. Having approved the present holder of that office, knowing what he'd written; and having heard his non-answers on the question of his present opinions on torture, he lost his moral standing.
The rest of the Senate... they were once players in the political scene. Now they have become pawns, simulacra of real actors; whipping boys and lackeys of the White House.
