Have Republicans run out of people to fight, or has personal integrity finally won out over… Have Republicans run out of people to fight, or has personal integrity finally won out over blindly following the ideology of their party?

Last week, Republican Sens. John Warner (Va.), John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsay Graham (S.C.) spoke out against President Bush on the subject of military tribunals. It turns out that not all Republicans are on board with Bush’s special brand of justice, especially people like McCain, who was tortured in a Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp.

McCain isn’t the only Republican who feels that these special tribunals aren’t exactly the American way. Colin Powell also stepped up and criticized the Bush administration for the plan to re-interpret the Geneva Conventions. Powell believes that a clarification of the codes would only encourage the world to “doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.”

But perhaps the most influential member of this rebel band is Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee and a former Navy secretary. Warner is a well-respected and well-connected military resource in the Senate, and his strong opposition to the White House is a blow to the legitimacy of their proposal.

So what exactly is the White House trying to do now? Well, according to President Bush, he’s just trying to make it easier for interrogators to do their job. By re-interpreting Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, Bush says, “we’ll give our folks the tools necessary to protect the country. It’s a debate that, that really is going to define whether or not we can protect ourselves.”

No, that’s not quite right, Mr. President.

The Supreme Court already ruled that Article 3 applies to terror suspects and by re-interpreting the article — which forbids “outrages upon personal dignity” — we’re just opening the door for other nations to do the same. And how would we feel if an American was put to death because he was not able to see any evidence against him in his trial?

But that’s exactly what President Bush is asking us to do. Never mind that in doing so we would abandon the beliefs this country is based on. Sure we’d probably get the information we needed in the short-term, but what would we be faced with in the future?

“Weakening the Geneva protections is not only unnecessary, but would set an example to other countries, with less respect for basic human rights, that they could issue their own legislative re- interpretations,” McCain said in a New York Times article.

We also have to wonder that if the Conventions have to be re-interpreted to help make convictions, was there really enough evidence to convict in the first place? Bush’s plan would allow things like hearsay and evidence collected by force to be used in the secret trials.

“Where in American jurisprudence do you find support for the concept that a person accused can be tried and convicted on evidence which that person has no opportunity to see, confront or rebut?” asked Sen. Graham in a letter to Condoleezza Rice last week.

We’re wondering that, too.

The Republicans are split on this issue at a time — midterm elections — when the party needs to solidify. This gives us renewed faith that politics are still guided by personal integrity and some Republicans haven’t lost track of the bigger picture. Perhaps we’re over simplifying here, but hasn’t your mom ever told you to “treat others as you wish to be treated?” Just think about that, Mr. President, when you’re making suggestions that could come back to bite us later.