The Wrong War

Short, sweet and to the point:

U.S. Sen. John McCain is due in New Hampshire this weekend and we somehow don't think it is just to watch the NASCAR race in Loudon, as great an event as that surely is.
Sen. McCain comes here because he wants to be our next President. But the question is being asked, in the midst of the most difficult and challenging war we have ever faced, can the nation afford a President McCain?

No doubt his motives are pure, but McCain's current actions are blocking our ability to gain from terrorist captives the vital information we need to fight a war in which the enemy strikes us here at home from multiple locations around the world.

This is a new kind of war waged by a ruthless, extremist enemy that cares nothing for Geneva Convention niceties. The enemy is out to impose its religious views on the western world in general and the United States in particular and it attacks innocent women and children as well as our men and women in uniform. And if the latter are taken prisoner, they are burned, butchered or beheaded.

Sen. McCain is fighting the wrong war when he equates stateless Islamic jihadists with nations with whom we have fought in the past. You don't read Miranda rights to barbarians or worry about "what the world thinks'' when you are fighting an enemy that is out to destroy you. If McCain can't understand that, New Hampshire citizens must question why they should support him for President.

Protege

"Hey Moe!"

John McCain has, whether by choice or happenstance it seems, taken Senator Graham under his wing, grooming him as the next Great Conscience-driven Maverick. Graham has become familiar as a fellow traveler with McCain on subjects of import ever since the Gang of 14.

This week the dynamic duo have been joined by a somewhat unlikely partner, Virginia's John Warner:

Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the committee would vote Thursday in a closed session on an alternative that he and his two chief allies --Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona --have championed, even if the White House refuses to go along with them. The senators have said changes to the American interpretation of the provision of the Geneva Conventions, known as Common Article 3, would undermine the nation's international credibility and open the way for other countries to treat captured American troops at their whim.

"This is not about November 2006. It is not about your election. It is about those who take risks to defend America," Mr. Graham said.

The administration pushed back, convening a conference call in which John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, described the Senate alternative as unacceptable. Mr. Negroponte said the plan would impose intolerable limits on any interrogation methods American intelligence officers might use against future terror suspects held by the Central Intelligence Agency in secret overseas prisons.

The President feels this is important enough to warrant a rare trip to Capitol Hill today, where he made it abundantly clear that he will not accept this watered-down version of the bill:

The president's measure would go further than the Senate package in allowing classified evidence to be withheld from defendants in terror trials, using coerced testimony and protecting U.S. interrogators against legal prosecution for using methods that violate the Geneva Conventions.

The vote came hours after Bush made it clear he would not accept substantial changes to his version.

"I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity, the president told reporters at the White House.

So what of it? Will the President--so well-known for his reluctance to veto anything--put the kibosh on this until and unless he gets what he wants?

Over at Hugh Hewitt, we read the transcript of his interview with the McCain Protege on this and other subjects. On this issue in particular:

LG: Well, here's the reason, I think. One, I don't want to do it a third time. You've got 25-50 people down there that should have been prosecuted years ago, and we've just been screwing around with this thing, Hugh, playing cutting corners when we don't need to. 10 of the guys ready to be prosecuted will go into the court and say I did it, and look the judge in the eye. One of them's already looked the judge in the eye and said I will kill you and your family. If we enact a procedure where the jury can convict the accused on information not shared with the accused, it will fall, and we'll be setting a precedent for a trial to happen in a foreign land with one of our soldiers...

HH: Now Senator Graham, that's a different argument.

LG: The mother of the Marine...let me tell you. I don't want to legitimize a trial of her son in some foreign land where they never showed him the evidence against him, and they convict him. That is not going to happen. It need not happen. It would be a disaster.

HH: So help me out, Senator Graham. You just switched arguments on me. You supported the earlier bill struck down by the Court that provided no protections. Now you're demanding more...

LG: No, I'm saying the earlier bill did not allow this procedure. The military commission order one did not...you know, that was not part of this, that this whole thing is new and different. And the Court in Hamden said one of the flaws of military commission order one was the right of confrontation. I can't imagine a situation as a defense counsel where I'm told of something that my client allegedly did, the jury has that information that could put my client in jail forever or be executed, and I can't ask him what's your side of the story. How in the world can you represent somebody against a capital charge if you can't ask them your side of the story?

HH: And Senator Graham, the side of the story of al Qaeda, in my mind, in the President's mind, and the mind of the lawyers from the military JAG that sent you folks a letter today is you're wrong about that. My question is, will you rather have the Congress adjourn without the President's bill, because he's going to veto yours. And he's the commander-in-chief.

LG: No, I'd rather fix it, and I can tell you right now. This is not the problem. I have been told in no uncertain terms if this is the only problem, we will get this resolved. There are plenty of people who understand this is unnecessary. Having classified information protected from a fishing expedition by the terrorist lawyer is absolutely...I'm with you. Every lawyer worth their salt is going to want to know everything about the government's case, hoping they will drop it. Scooter Libby's people is doing that.

HH: But Senator, will you let the Congress go home without a bill on this? Will you stop it?

LG: I don't know. And Lindsey Graham will not be the reason we go home without a bill.

There are times when conscience does and should trump other considerations. There are times though when Loyalty is more important.

Hugh exposes weakness in Senator Graham's argument in this interview and points out explicitly, the fundamental problem with McCain, Warner and Graham's "legal-at-all-costs" approach:

Senators Graham, McCain and Warner are of the view that the tribunals and attendant procedures will expose captured American military to conditions that are not the norm among Geneva Conventions signatories if the president's proposals are adopted.

The short response is that stateless terrorists are not signatories to the Conventions, and that al Qaeda does not care one way or the other what the tribunals look like or how they operate. As Senator John Cornyn says, al Qaeda "doesn't take any prisoners. The prisoners they do take they behead."

Whatever the reason--and Hugh's callers were speculating about many--the Senators have chosen to carve out a niche for themselves, keeping the President at arm's length. I wish I could know why.

I wish also that the trio would consider it's responsibility as Republicans, as part of a majority party working with the President to get some important business done.