Does this mean that immigration reform is dead?  No, and it shouldn’t be.  There is a need to fix the system that we currently have.  It has huge problems and needs to be fixed, but this was not the proper fix.  First off, one of the biggest problems with the current bill was the automatic granting of effectively permanent legal work status to anyone.  When Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) attempted to attach an amendment to block convicted felons from being granted permanent temporary work status (and eventually the ability to apply for citizenship) it was defeated.  When Senator Coburn (R-OK) brought up an amendment that would have reaffirmed the commitment of the US government to enforce existing immigration laws, it also was defeated 54-42.  I called Senator Hutchison (R-TX) to try and find out why she voted against it, but her office said that she had not commented on why she would oppose enforcing our laws.

Immigration reform is complex, but not impossible.  What might make it impossible is that you have various groups that all want something very different.  You have the free marketers (usually Republicans) who want open borders so that they can get cheap labor, you have the labor unions (usually Democrats) who foresee a huge influx of new members.  Both sides want this Z visa to be created thinking it will benefit them without realizing that it benefits neither in its current form.  They say that politics makes for strange bedfellows…but immigration reform has made for some of the strangest.

One of the main complaints with the Bush-Kennedy bill is that it further emasculates the fence that was provided for last year.  Congress authorized 700 miles of fence, then failed to fund it.  Then the funded 375 miles of it…and now with only a few score miles actually under construction, this bill would reduce that number even further.  But the fence, and with that the enforcement of border security so that thousands of illegals from terrorist nations are not able to enter into our country.  The other reason that enforcing our own border makes sense is that we make it hard to enter illegally to encourage people to enter legally.

So, once we have a legitimate border, how can we encourage people to enter legally?  Well, they have to have the ability to do so.  This will require an overhaul of the immigration system as we know it.  We can certainly handle more immigrants coming into the US.  If we are dealing with roughly a million illegals each year, then we can certainly deal with a million legals instead.  One big reason for opening up our visa levels is to allow for people from countries other them just Mexico and Central America to enter the US and work here.  There are certainly lots of people from Africa, Asia, or Eastern Europe who would love the opportunity to come to the US and work.  Right now the Mexican immigrants are getting all the press because they, much like squatters, can get here first and easily.  There are significant advantages to pushing for immigrants from other parts of the world and we are missing the boat by not allowing them entry.

Then there is the problem of the 12-22 million already here.  What do we do with them?  My response is nothing.  We don’t give them free schooling, we don’t give them public assistance, and we don’t give them work.  Get much tougher about penalizing employers that hire illegals.  It means that we need a tamper resistant ID card, and yes that means that we likely end up with a national ID.  Then, that ID is used, along with a database, to validate employment status.  When an employer knowingly hires illegals, then we hammer them.  Without work, there is little incentive to stay.  With a nice fence, entering illegally becomes harder then entering legally.  And then, if we are feeling generous, and I am today, we go ahead and provide anyone who requests it a free ticket home.  So, when an illegal can’t find a job, and can’t get welfare, they can get a free ticket back to their country of origin, heck we can even throw in a few hundred dollars for spending money.

Once we can make the border hard to cross,  make it easy to enter the US legally to work,  ensure that only those here legally can actually work, and provide a route home for those here illegally of their own volition will we have finally reformed immigration.  Of course all of that is incumbent upon an Executive Branch that will actually enforce the laws, which every administration since Ronald Reagan has been evidently unable to do.  This is one big plus that Rudy G has going for him.  Even laws he claims to not agree with he enforces.

You can read the transcript instead, but here are the important parts.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East — I think Reagan was right.

We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, “I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.” They have already now since that time — (bell rings) — have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that. (Applause.)

One thing that the transcript doesn’t do is show the level of applause.  It lists that Rep. Paul was applauded for his statement,  It then lists Rudy G as getting Applause, and Cheers for his statement.  You can hear some applause for Rep. Paul, but it is tepid and very limited.  Rudy’s applause stopped the debate to runs its course.

I heard Rep. Paul on the radio a while back (KSEV) and while I had known that he was a former Libertarian and knew that he was likely an isolationist…I had no idea he was a moonbat.  The guys on KSEV decided then and there that they would work hard to find someone to oppose Rep Paul in the CD-14 race in ‘08.  It looks like after last night someone has taken up the drive to unseat Rep. Paul.  I wish him well.  The GOP has a big tent, and I always figured that Libertarians had a place in the tent…but this kind of Republican we don’t need.  Heck this kind of Congressman we don’t need (we have enough of them…they have D’s after their names).

First, let us examine the idea that the war is lost and we should start bringing the troops home starting in October.  If this is true, then why should we wait until October?  Why should we maintain any US troop in harms way for even a single day if the war is lost and unwinnable?  Obviously it takes time to disengage from a conflict while in contact with the enemy, and it is the most difficult maneuver to accomplish successfully (to whit the withdrawal under fire from Viet Nam).  Still, one wonders why we would delay the withdrawal until October with all troops to be gone in mid 2008 if we have lost and cannot win.  What would we say to the families of those soldiers that die from now until October?  Unless of course we are waiting to see if we can turn things around, but the proposed legislation offers no way of measuring success.

Which leads to the second question that arises from Senator Reid’s remarks.  If we lose in Iraq, then who has won?  In a war there are winners and losers.  If we are the losers, then who are the winners?  Logically it would appear that the two main forces that oppose us in Iraq would be the winners.  One would be the forces of Islamic Jihad in the form of Al Qaeda, another would be the destabilizing forces in Iraq that want to grab what power they can for themselves.  Theoretically there will be regional fallout but it is very difficult to foretell what the effect on Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other countries would be from an Iraq that fell into chaos.

Coupling the two arguments and you get even more of a reason to withdraw right now.  If we have lost and cannot win, then the sooner that we get out and allow the chaos to settle into whatever form it takes afterwards the better off we will be. 

There is of course one other group that wins if the US looses in Iraq…and that would the the very group the Senator Reid speaks for. 

Then I also heard today about a Border Patrol agent that has been convicted of harboring illegal aliens.  Who was he harboring?  His legally adopted daughters.  Now he is awaiting incarceration at the Yazoo City Federal Penitentiary (the same lockup where Mexican gang members beat up Ramos a few months ago).  In the meantime, his daughters were held in a Federal facility for a year and evidently deported back to Mexico.

Throughout this there has been a cry for President Bush to change his mind on his current immigration policies.  For him to secure the border and to enforce immigration laws.  The irony of the situation is that one of the qualities of President Bush that has engendered him to the Conservative movement is that President Bush sticks to his guns and does not waver in the face of public sentiment or opinion. 

So now that President Bush has made up his mind about immigration reform (wanting to grant what amounts to amnesty to millions who have entered the country illegally) do we really think that writing letters, calling the White House, or even marching in the streets will change his mind? 

So, when Representative Rangel once again stated that he was going to introduce legislation to institute a draft, Mr. Wallace decided to ask him about it.  One of Rep. Rangel’s reasons is that he wants the draft to bring more equality into the Armed Forces.  It is his contention that the poor and minorities are disproportionately represented in the military.  This is not an uncommon feeling, Senator Kerry’s botched joke aside, it is a common belief that joining the military is a ticket out of economic privation, and the assumption that follows is that if you work hard in school and/or come from a richer/privileged background, that you will not join the military.

The odd part is that a comprehensive study of the recruiting practices of the military and the demographics of its recruits was produced by the Heritage Foundation in early November.  Who Are the Recruits? The Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Enlistment, 2003–2005 was released on October 27th and goes into extreme detail in looking at military recruiting pre and post Iraq.  The findings of this study are very interesting.  For one, the study shows that the percentage of recruits that are high school graduates is much higher then the national average.  It also shows that the percentage of the poor that join the military is decreasing (by 25% from 1999 to 2005).  In short it debunks almost every statement that Representative Rangel made.

So, Chris Matthews brings this up to Rep. Rangel directly and in his now famous response, Rep. Rangel stated:

If there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

There has been a fair amount of criticism from various groups (such as the VFW) saying that Rep. Rangel was wrong in his statement.  I actually disagree.  Today I was reading an article on National Review that summed up my view fairly well.

Rangel is flat wrong when he suggests that service in the military is not “a decent career.” He may however be right about one thing: Most people don’t want to fight for a bonus or an education opportunity, because a desire to fight for one’s country goes much deeper than that.

In thinking back to the time when I joined the military (Army Reserve and National Guard), the $2000 bonus that I got was nice (though I only ever got $1500 of it), but it had little to do with my desire to join.  While I was looking for an ROTC scholarship, my goal was combat arms.  I felt then that like my Father before me that the US is a country that is worth fighting for.  Its hard to put into words the feelings that motivate a person to give up their personal freedom to be a part of the military.  Reasons differ, and while economics certainly plays a part, there are better ways to make a buck then joining the armed forces.  What motivates most enlistees is a desire to be a part of the military and to serve their country.  Representative Rangel was right in that he said that its not just because of a bonus or educational benefits…its much more basic and important.  A love of the United States and a desire to serve.  That kind of dedication you cannot put a price tag on…and the insult is Representative Rangel’s disdain for those who truly want to serve.  One would think a decorated veteran would know better.

Today a friend of mine mycroftca wrote this.

George H. W. Bush sent in the troops, and followed the thought that he should give the generals what they wanted and let them do it their way, only giving them the objectives; limited and doable.

George W. Bush let his Secretary of Defense micromanage the Pentagon, only allowing them a very limited force, and then expected them to be able to do everything at a moment’s notice. No clear objectives. No point, really.

I think that he has this backwards.

Let’s look at Desert Storm in ‘91. We take about 600K coalition troops and then bomb the bejeezus out of Iraq for 60 days. Then we roll into Kuwait and a bit into Iraq and defeat them (mostly) in 100 hours. We let Saddam stay in power. We do not destroy his army. We do not support the Kurds or the Shia in the south when they rise up to overthrow Saddam. Net result. For a loss of about 1000 troops and hundreds of billions of dollars we get the status quo.

Then we get 12 years of a continual low level conflict in Iraq. Albeit only an air conflict with occasional cruise missile strikes, but still a low level conflict. In that time frame some number of Iraqis die due to Saddam’s violence, or through the negligence of his gov’t (that spent the Oil for Food money on Palaces and kickbacks to UN officials) not to mention the economic sanctions that have devastated the country. Along the way we get Saddam plotting to assassinate President Bush (41), paying $25K to every Palestinian suicide bomber. We get him giving refuge to terrorists, continually defying the UN inspection programs, and talking to terrorist groups that oppose the US.

Compare that to Iraqi Freedom in ‘03. The US takes about 200K coalition troops and builds up in half the time that Desert Storm took (3 as opposed to 6 months). Then, without the 60 days of preliminary bombardment the military rolls in on a narrow front and obliterates the opposing forces, toppling the gov’t in less then 3 weeks. It’s one of the most successful military campaigns in the history of the US Army.

Now, three years later we are struggling to rebuild the country and fighting home grown and foreign insurgents who want to destroy any chance of the country becoming a democracy? Why? Because a liberal democracy will crimp their personal plans for power.

Sure we can walk away from Iraq. I hope we do not, but we could. We could say that its too hard to instill democracy…or that the Iraqis need to learn to protect themselves and fight for their own freedoms. We could say that they weren’t ready to democracy or that you can’t impose freedom on people.  We can say any of those things, but the truth will always remain that we walked away from the best chance for freedom in the Middle East.  We walked away because we lacked the guts and determination to accomplish something worthwhile.  We walked away because it was too hard and cost too much (when defense spending as a percentage of total GDP is under 4% (about 1/10th of the spending levels in WWII, 1/4 of the level of Korea, 1/2 of the spending of Viet Nam).

That aside, what about this idea that President Bush (41) had the right idea (limited scope, overwhelming force) as opposed to President Bush (43) (nation building, limited force).  I think that an apt historical comparison would be like the end of WWI and WWII.  At the end of WWI, Germany was defeated but not conquered.  As Tom Lehrer says in one of his songs:

Once all the Germans were warlike and mean
But that couldn’t happen again.
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they’ve hardly bothered us since then.

One of the primary lessons of WWI that the Allies applied in WWII was that Germany (and Japan) must unconditionally surrender.  Then Secretary of State Marshall embarked the US on its greatest triumph of nation building.  The US invested in Germany and Japan to the tune of trillions of dollars for decades and the result is two stable liberal democracies that are the second and third most powerful economies in the world.

How would things have been different in 1991 if President Bush (41) had decided to “stay the course” and “finish the job” and rolled the 600K coalition troops right into Baghdad?  We will never know for certain. Likely we would have spent years rebuilding the country, fighting an insurgency, and saying that we made a mistake.

Once argument is that we could have continued to “contain” Saddam and never invaded Iraq.  While I think this is an incorrect argument it is one that is legitimate.  Still, we did have this debate.  We had it openly, publicly, and candidly.  Then our representatives voted to use military force if Saddam continued to flaunt the UN. To say that we made the wrong choice then on things we know now would be like saying that if we knew in 1919 what we knew in 1949 we should have not allowed the Armistice and continued WWI until Germany was utterly defeated.

So now we sit, the day after a change in control of the Congress and we wonder what it will mean.  Will we declare victory in Iraq and walk away?  Will we declare the Iraqis incapable of democracy and walk away?  Will we continue the hard road of nation building?  Or, will some other road present itself to us.  I am not a doom and gloom person.  I don’t forsee disaster from the Democrats.  I honestly think that every representative wants what is best for the US, we just disagree on what is best and how to achieve it.

But to say that President Bush (43) took on too much is like saying that FDR took on too much in fighting the Nazis in 1941.  The only real difference is that in 1941 people still believed in the ideal of freedom and were willing to pay almost any price, and now we only believe in our freedom and are willing to pay almost nothing.

Where does Ms Mencimer fail in her arguments?  First off she ignores the continued fall in birthrates in the US since the beginning of the 20th Century.  In short the US birthrate been cut in half since about 100 years ago.  Looking at the chart of birthrates we see a couple of trends from these graphics.

The first trend is that the overall number of births is higher today then it was at the beginning of the century while the rate is only half that of the turn of the twentieth century.  Obviously a much larger population explains that.  Still we see birth rates drop dramatically during the Great Depression and then they rise and stay relatively high just following World War II.  Then they start to drop off in the mid 60s before a small resurgence in the 80s that leads to another dip in the late 90s.

So, why ignore this statistical data?  Ms. Mencimer does at least go back to 1976 (the post WWII low of birthrates and 25 years in the past) to point out the following…

Between 1976 and 1998, the number of women between the ages of 40 and 44 who were childless doubled. Now, 20 percent of baby boomer women are childless and likely to remain so, and demographers predict that as much as a quarter of American women born between 1956 and 1972 will never have children. The numbers go up with education and income levels; fully one-third of women in their late 30’s with graduate degrees have no children. Meanwhile, the number of women with only one child has doubled since 1976, to 18 percent, and the Brady Bunch has gone on the endangered species list. In 1976, a whopping 36 percent of all women had a brood of four or more kids. Today, that number has shrunk to less than 10 percent, according to U.S. Census data.

Disregarding the obvious disparaging tone reserved for the “brood” of four or more, Ms. Mencimer tells us in this passage that the number of women who are childless is rising and get higher with more education and income.  She also tells us that family size is decreasing.  How much of that is, as she would like us to believe, a product of a conservative conspiracy to keep women at home?  It might be one factor, but economic, scientific, and social trends have a great deal more to do with it.

Look at the plummeting birth rate in the 30s during the Great Depression.  In this time birth rates and live births plummeted due to famine, lack of economic opportunity, and lack of good medical care.  Remember also that in 1910 the number of children that lived to adulthood was much lower then it was post WWII.  In the times of prosperity following WWII the birth rate increased as did the number of births until the 60s.  The 60s saw the invention of the pill and suddenly easy, cheap contraception was available to the masses.  The effects of this availability, the passage of Roe v Wade, and the recessions of the 70s, are easy to see in the plunge to births and birth rates in that time frame.  Eventually society adapted to the pill and the birth rate started to climb again.  Then we start to see the gradual (by earlier standards) decline in the birth rates (but not in the live births) in the late 90s.  Is this the dastardly conservatives doing?  Are women now eschewing families because it is too hard to work and raise a family, or is it merely a choice that they are making to delay or avoid having a family.  Ms Mencimer dismisses that theory

But the idea that mass childlessness is the product of a “lifestyle choice” or a political movement defies common sense. We are, after all, highly evolved primates. Reproductive instincts are hard wired in our brains, and historically, only events of serious magnitude—wars, depressions, famine, and seismic shifts in the economic system, such as the industrial revolution—have caused large numbers of women to forgo having children. When resources are scarce, and when they don’t have much help, women will postpone motherhood. And despite the romantic myth of the self-sacrificing mother, if given the option, most women will choose to advance their own position before bearing more children. That’s because in the long run, a woman’s improved status benefits her children. It’s a pattern replicated all over the natural world, and has been for thousands of years.

It is here that Ms Mencimer and I seriously depart ways (well the brood comment was uncalled for as well).  To float the concept that resource scarcity if the reason behind the lack of children being born is idiotic.  You see the US, as a country, is insanely rich in almost every manner.  What we consider poverty is incredible wealth in almost every other country in the world.  What is wrong is our perception of what wealth really is.  Do we all need two cars?  Do we need as many clothes as we currently own?  Do we need to eat as much as we do?  Do we need to eat the type of expensive food that we eat?  Do we need computers, cell phones, broadband, cable, NFL Sunday Ticket, DVR’s, $150 tickets to sporting events, $50 haircuts, male highlights, or any of a number of “essential” items in our consumer driven culture.  That is what makes us think that we are struggling financially when in fact we are extremely wealthy.  Its a matter of perception and the perception that we are poor (created by our culture) is making people think that they need to have fewer children.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

Putting aside the leak of the classified report to the New York Times, the article is fairly plain that the report makes two assumptions.  First that Islamic radicalism is a greater threat now then before (though the before is somewhat vague).  The second is that the war in Iraq is the primary cause of the growth in Islamic radicalism.  Of course without seeing the NIE we have only the word of the reporter and his unnamed sources to go upon.  That is until President Bush directed John Negroponte to declassify the key findings summary of the NIE.

Its only four pages and a quick read.  You can read it at the government site http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE…

Just to contrast though with the start of the New York Time article however, here is the opening paragraph of the NIE key findings.

United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement—which includes al-Qa’ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells—is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.

That is quite a contrast from what the NYT portrayed the report to state.  Granted that the key findings do state:

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

But at the same time it also states the following:

Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq “jihad;” (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims—all of which jihadists exploit.

and then this as well:

If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit.

So while the New York Times is telling its readers that the Iraq War is causing jihadists to be created in droves and quotes an anonymous government official saying that the Iraq War has made the overall problem of terrorism worse, it fails to bring forth most of the key findings that undermine their goal.  In short their “news article” is not news but opinion masquerading as news, and in the worst way it is unverifiable because the NIE was classified and only the New York Times reporter had seen a copy.  Thus what they chose to reveal to us was all that we would ever get.  Until the DNI released the full set of key findings we would have thought that the NIE only painted a picture of doom and gloom where it was apparent that had we just not gone into Iraq then the war on global terror might already be won!  Thankfully we see that the report does not do that at all.  Read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions.  Most likely if you supported the war in Iraq before you still will, and if you opposed it you still will.  But at least you will have a fuller picture then what the New York Times was planning for you to have.

I was reminded of this genuinely hilarious routine when I was reading an article today by Andrew McCarthy about President Bush’s call to Congress to enact legislation to authorize the military tribunals for detainees in the War on Terror.  Currently in the GOP there are three Senators that are slowing down the process of getting this legislation passed.  They are Senator McCain (R-AZ), Senator Graham (R-SC) and Senator Warner (R-VA).  Much is made of Senator McCain’s time spent in the Hanoi Hilton, and he is a great hero for the trials and tribulations that he endured.  His desire to see the US constantly take the high moral ground is also commendable (of course his definition of high moral ground and other is debatable).  But why are these three slowing down the creation of the military tribunals?

In the recent Hamdan v Rumsfeld Supreme Court Decision the majority opinion declared that the current tribunals used by the US government to determine the status of detainees was not allowed by the AUMF that Congress had passed in 2001.  However in a concurring opinion Justice Kennedy noted that if Congress did pass legislation about the tribunals that they would then be authorized. 

This is not a case, then, where the Executive can assert some unilateral authority to fill a void left by congressional inaction. It is a case where Congress, in the proper exercise of its powers as an independent branch of government, and as part of along tradition of legislative involvement in matters of military justice, has considered the subject of military tribunals and set limits on the President’s authority. (Hamdan v Rumsfeld p 83)

Thus President Bush has recently asked Congress for this legislation and it is stalled (mostly due to the actions of the Democrats, but partially due to the actions of the three Senators mentioned above).  In looking over the way the commissions would work the detainees would get a good amount of rights in the trial phase, but the President’s legislation lays out some crucial points.  First it requests that the Congress define in explicit terms what the vague terms of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions requires.  This is needed mostly to delineate what would be considered cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, and humiliating or degrading treatment.  It seems that this would be easy to define, but in reality it is not.  What is an outrage on personal dignity for instance?  Does it make sense then for Congress to make sure that there are some decent guidelines that define those terms?  In the past, the Executive Branch would have interpreted how those would be implemented and that would have been the end of it.  Then again the Executive Branch looked at Common Article 3 and said that the phrase

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: (emphasis added)

should not apply to Al Qaeda terrorists because the conflict was definitely of an international nature (the purpose of Common Article 3 was the protection of forces in a civil war or other internal conflict).  However the Supreme Court in a case that they arguable should not have heard at all made one of the most blatantly political decisions of the Robert’s court and applied Common Article 3 to the people we have captured in the War on Terror.

So, with the Supreme Court’s creative interpretation of the law as a guide…President Bush has requested that Congress be much more explicit with the authorization of courts to try the detainees and to ensure that the members of the CIA and the military that are charged with interrogating and incarcerating these men are not tried either in the US or in a Foreign court for violations of Common Article 3.  Part of this language is the provision that the individuals who have been holding and questioning the detainees not be prosecuted in the future for actions that they were told were legal (and which were reasonably thought to be legal).

So, why do these three Senators oppose this legislation?  I heard Senator Graham on the radio a few days ago and his reasons were weak at best.  He first said that by adhering to higher ethical standards we protect our troops from reprisals.  This is a mistaken assumption.  One can point first to World War II where a Geneva Convention signatory (Japan) treated out soldiers with contempt and derision leading to the death of many of them in captivity.  Another Geneva Convention signatory (Germany) treated our soldiers with respect, but used Soviet prisoners as slave labor (leading to the death of 97% of the Soviet POWs) in clear violations of the Geneva Conventions.  One can also look at more recent history of two of our soldiers who were captured in Iraq and tortured to death to see that our adherence to the Geneva Conventions does not serve to protect us from reprisals or poor treatment.  This incidentally does not mean that we should not adhere to the Conventions.  We should because it is the right thing to do.  We should because we can afford to do so.  And lastly we should because we are the shining example of how to do things for the rest of the world.

Next Senator Graham said that in future wars our situation would be jeopardized if we chose to ignore the Conventions here.  This is also a poor reason.  If we fight another war against a GC signatory nation then we would expect them to adhere to the standards of conduct of a signatory nation and we would do the same.  Our treatment of illegal combatants in this conflict would have no bearing on our treatment of prisoners in a future conflict.  The best example of this would be our treatment of POWs from the Iraqi invasion.  They were legal combatants and thus were accorded the full respect of POWs by our forces and treated as such.  The legal status of the insurgents who fight us now in Iraq should fall under Common Article 3 as they are combatants in a non-international conflict (though a counter to this is their lack of uniforms and disregard for civilians which could cause them to fall into the illegal combatants category).

Lastly Senator Graham said that this is a complex issue that deserves much consideration and reflection to get it right.  That is utter crap.  Since SCOTUS has decided that these individuals are entitled to CA3 protections, then they will have to afforded them (unless SCOTUS reverses itself).  If they are entitled to the protections, then Congress has a duty to clearly delineate what an outrage on personal dignity really is.  They also have a duty to re-authorize the commissions to try the detainees quickly.  What exactly is Senator Graham balking at codifying?  Is it the definitions?  Is if the commissions?  Is it the legislation that protects the interrogators and jailers from future prosecution?  What is complex about the issue?  From my view the only complex issue is that Senator’s Graham and McCain can get a lot more face time in front of the media and appear to oppose the President on an issue that few American’s really understand.  The sound bites of opposition to torture make great news…but are far from the reality.

So, we march along in our lines of red while our enemies hide behind rocks and tress and shoot at us.  It didn’t work for England in 1776, and it won’t work for us now either.