 |
Mark Shields is a nationally known columnist and commentator. |
Mark Shields: Who represents America?
WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- Republicans, who can be annoyingly boastful about their love of flag, country and military service, were forced to choose for their party's 2000 presidential nomination between two men who had worn the nation's uniform during the Vietnam War.
The Grand Old Party rejected a Navy combat pilot who was shot down and spent five and a half years as a POW in Hanoi in favor of his opponent, who also flew jets and was MIA (missing in action) in Alabama.
Why the GOP continues to owe a profound apology to the nation for depriving us of the chance to elect U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, president was on display, this week, in the Senate Armed Services committee in the wake of documented evidence of American soldiers' abusing Iraqi prisoners at Baghdad's infamous Abu Ghraib prison.
After his fellow committee members mostly condemned the mistreatment of Iraqi detainees, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, dissented: "I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment" of the Iraqi prisoners.
The Oklahoman had more: "I'm also outraged that we have so many humanitarian do-gooders (read the International Red Cross) right now crawling all over these prisons looking for human rights violations while our troops, our heroes, are fighting and dying."
Quietly and rationally, John McCain proceeded to expose the fatuousness of Jim Inhofe's bombast. The Arizonan asked Maj. Gen. Ronald Burgess just why the United States ought to continue to observe the Geneva Convention that defines humane treatment of prisoners.
McCain: "Why do you think we should? This keeps us from getting information that may save American lives. This is a restraint by humanitarian do-gooders. Why don't we just throw them in the trash can and do what is necessary? We have developed sophisticated techniques that we could just go after these people and get what we need and save American lives, General?"
Burgess answered: "Two things, sir. It (the Geneva Convention) applies to us, as well." To which with no detectable irony in his voice, McCain remarked, "Good point, General." And General Burgess's came back, "And we are a nation of laws, sir."
Inhofe is not alone. Conservative talk radio hosts argue, accurately, that Abu Ghraib is not nearly as bad today as it was when Saddam Hussein was torturing and murdering prisoners. That is true.
But the United States of America invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein to "bring democracy and freedom and human rights to the Iraqi people." Hussein never billed himself that way. As U.S. Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-South Carolina, explained, "When you are the good guys, you've got to act like the good guys."
Broadcast and print apologists who brush off the calculated sexual humiliation and persecution inflicted upon Iraqis by Americans and the national shame those actions have brought frequently rationalize the actions of unprofessional Army reservists. These were the actions of American soldiers. Isn't it just a little bit hypocritical to praise today's all-volunteer U.S. military as the Best Ever -- except, that is, for the reservists on active duty? Especially so when 46 percent of the American military today in Iraq is either Guard or Reserve?
Not only is torture of prisoners immoral, illegal and violative of American values, but as John McCain -- who qualifies as an expert witness on the subject -- told The New York Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg: "(T)his mistreatment of prisoners and torture is not productive. ... You don't get information that's usable from people under torture, because they tell you what you want to hear."
That's a pragmatic case against abusing detainees and violating the Geneva Convention. John McCain's most compelling argument is direct and honorable: 'We distinguish ourselves from our enemies by the treatment of our enemies." Amen.
