Great Letter:

The General's Ethics

Monday, January 17, 2005, The Washington Post

To the Editor:

As the White House and Defense Department staffs tried to define away the Geneva Conventions' strictures on the treatment of prisoners of war ["Gonzales Defends His White House Record; Nominee Questioned on Detainee Policies," front page, Jan. 7] they could have asked themselves what George Washington would have done.

As David Hackett Fischer notes in his fascinating book, "Washington's Crossing," America's initial victories in the American Revolution at Trenton and Princeton presented the army command with serious moral problems concerning the treatment of British prisoners. During the occupation of New Jersey, the countryside had been outraged by the British army's killing and mistreatment of American prisoners and their plundering and raping of noncombatants.

Yet, as Mr. Fischer wrote, Washington "often reminded his men that they were an army of liberty and freedom, and that the rights of humanity for which they were fighting should extend even to their enemies. Washington and his officers were keenly aware that the war was a contest for popular opinion. . . . The esteem of others was more important to them mainly because they believed that victory would come only if they deserved to win. Even in the most urgent moments of the war, these men were concerned about ethical questions in the Revolution."

CHARLES B. SAUNDERS JR.
Bethesda [Maryland]

Alberto "Rasputin" Gonzales and his boys found the Geneva Conventions "quaint." He's now set to be the chief lawyer of the nation. I thought no one could be worse than Ashcroft. Hah!