It is no secret that Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, and President George W. Bush do not quite get along. McCain has always cherished his reputation as a maverick, and he certainly has not minded wearing that mantle since President Bush slung a little mud his way in South Carolina before going on to win the nomination and the presidency in 2000. Most of the time, however, the White House could deal with McCain's independent voice, but now he is really starting to anger the Crawford Cabal.
In early October, McCain added S.A.1977 - which passed 90-9 - to H.R.2863, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. This amendment mandates that the Department of Defense use the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for interrogating detainees and prohibits the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of people in the detention of the federal government. McCain argues that adopting this uniform standard would eliminate any confusion on the part of U.S. troops as to how they should treat captured terrorists and that banning the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees would help the United States win the war for the hearts and minds of people around the world.
Ahem. Point of order, Senator.
On the subject of interrogations, the Army Field Manual says little more than that "no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind." Fair enough. No torturing POWs. Hua? Hua. But wait. The Army Field Manual also states that enemy soldiers "lose their right to be treated as prisoners of war whenever they deliberately conceal their status in order to pass behind the military lines of the enemy for the purpose of gathering military information or for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property."
That is exactly how terrorists operate.
The problem that U.S. troops face is that there are no set standards for interrogating captured terrorists because they are not POWs because they do not wear uniforms. Troops must wear uniforms so that their enemies can distinguish them from civilians. The rules of war require this distinction in order to protect civilians whenever possible, and they encourage obedience by offering the protected status of prisoners of war to those who obey should they be captured. Since terrorists do not obey these fundamental rules of war, not even the Army Field Manual affords them that protected status should they be captured. Terrorists are enemy combatants and the Army Field Manual offers no clarification whatsoever as to how to treat them.
But I digress.
The real reason that the administration is throwing darts at pictures of McCain is the second part of his amendment, the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees. Vice President Dick Cheney has been lobbying members of Congress and the White House has even gone so far as to threaten a presidential veto - something President Bush has never used - if McCain's amendment makes it through the conference committee, and for good reason. Any restrictions on the interrogation of captured terrorists could limit the President's ability to prevent another terrorist attack.
As National Security Advisor Steven Hadley wondered on CNN's "Late Edition," what would have happened had one of the hijackers been captured just prior to the September 11 attacks? In the face of such a clear and present danger, I would expect my government to do everything in its power to protect me. According to McCain on CBS' "Face the Nation," however, "If we are viewed as a country that engages in torture, [...] any possible information we might be able to gain is far counterbalanced by [the negative] effect of public opinion."
Funny, Senator, but if the rest of the world objects to our torturing a terrorist to save even one American life, then it will not cost me one wink of sleep.
Everyone knows that the United States is a nation of rights and a nation of laws that protect those rights. The question at issue here is whether those rights and the laws that guarantee them should extend beyond American citizens and beyond American shores to cover terrorists in foreign countries who want to kill American citizens. Call me crazy, but I do not think so. Our Constitution and our laws demand that the government respect our rights all the time. This is as it should be. Our Constitution and our laws do not demand that the government respect the presumed rights of foreign nationals, let alone terrorists. This, too, is as it should be. Can we extend some basic rights to our enemies when it suits our prerogative? Sure. Should we extend to captured terrorists the full rights enjoyed by American citizens even when we do so at our own peril? Never.
Jonathan D. McPike is a sophomore in the School of Public Affairs and the College of Arts & Sciences, and the Eagle's moderate columnist.
