This is one of the times when it seems like our laws and our words don't have meaning.
The only argument I have heard publicly is that it will upset Turkey, therefore "endangering our national security interests."
Other than from Turkey (duh), I have not heard anyone in Congress or the White House say that we should not call it genocide because it wasn't genocide. The argument against the bill has nothing to do with the bill itself, but rather angering Turkey over something they not only refuse to admit, but actively deny.
So because Turkey wants to deny genocide, we should deny genocide, too. But Ahmadinejad is a bad person because he denys the Holocaust.
Best part of the WaPo article:
As a presidential candidate in 2000, George W. Bush pledged to ensure that "our nation properly recognizes" what he called "a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension."
So the President has called it "genocidal" but refuses to call it genocide and urges the House not to call it genocide either.
All good reasons to vote against this bill.
(It also says that GHWB and Pres Clinton avoided using the word, as well, but that Barack and Hillary support the legislation. I guess she's running off speakin' her own mind again!)
Interesting Slate piece titled "Getting Comfy with Genocide: is the word losing its power to shock us into action?" talking about Darfur.
If you haven't heard it before, I think the case for calling the Aremenian situation "genocide" lies in a quote that Hilter said before embarking on the Final Solution.
After all, who remembers the Armenians?"
Please call your Congressman if you can. It takes two minutes.
No comments:
Post a Comment