BCT Editorial – 8/7/06

This page was last updated on August 7, 2006.

‘Do unto others’; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 7, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Administration should heed top military lawyers in regard to trying terror suspects

“When it comes to the way its proposed special military courts handle suspected terrorists, the Bush administration should heed the Golden Rule.

“The White House has proposed a new system for trying terror suspects that would let prosecutors withhold classified evidence from the accused. Defendants also could be excluded from their own trials, The Washington Post reported.

“The Associated Press reported the detainee legislation also should permit hearsay and coerced testimony, if deemed ‘reliable’ by a judge.

“The Uniform Code of Military Justice that is used for military courts-martial does not permit any of that, so this draft legislation represents a major departure from present practices.”

[RWC] Duh! The UCMJ is for trying U.S. military personnel accused of crimes. It was never intended for trying POWs.

If we accept the idea that the UCMJ should be used for trying POWs, then why do we have a UCMJ at all? Shouldn’t U.S. military personnel be tried using the same rules as civilians?

When will people understand we’re at war and trying a terrorist attempting to destroy us is not the same as trying a burglar?

“Some independent experts and human rights groups have criticized the plan, and many administration supporters will no doubt attempt to dismiss their concerns as being unrealistic and politically and ideologically motivated.

“But the voices the American people should be listening to are coming from within the military.

“The AP and the Post report the military’s top uniformed lawyers have taken issue with many of the provisions the administration is proposing.

“They told the Senate Judiciary Committee they would not support passing a law that would bar defendants from accessing evidence, which is considered a fundamental right in civilian and military courts.”

[RWC] Once again, war is different. Using the “logic” of this editorial, the U.S. would have to choose which is worse, exposing national security secrets (not already exposed by the press) or letting a POW go free.

“They also raised the Golden Rule issue. They argued that weak respect for the rights of U.S.-held prisoners eventually would undermine U.S. demands for fair treatment of captured U.S. service personnel.”

[RWC] When have “U.S. demands for fair treatment of captured U.S. service personnel” ever had an effect on the behavior of our enemies?

“‘The United States should be an example to the world, sir,’ Maj. Gen. Scott Black, the Army’s top uniformed lawyer, said at the committee’s hearing last week.

“‘Reciprocity is something that weighs heavily in all of the discussions that we are undertaking as we develop the process and rules for the commissions and that’s the exact reason, sir. The treatment of soldiers who will be captured on future battlefields is of paramount concern.’

“Of course, taking the high road, as the military’s top lawyers want to do, does not guarantee Americans who are POWs will be treated according to international and military standards.”

[RWC] Is giving POWs a trial with most of the rights of Americans now the “low road?” Is it the “high road” only if we grant terrorists the same rights as defendants in a civilian criminal trial?

Wow! A little lucidity in the midst of BS, almost.

The author, however, failed to note “Americans who are POWs” historically are not “treated according to international and military standards.” Lest we forget, Americans who were POWs were abused during World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and Americans taken prisoner during the war on terror. The idea that our enemies will treat POWs humanely if we do the same is naiveté at its worst. History and current events show this position is hogwash.

“But by being an example to the world, the United States would occupy the high ground. In the court of world opinion, that is a major advantage.”

[RWC] Where’s the proof of this statement? While the U.S. is pilloried when a few rogue guards dress up prisoners in women’s underwear, terrorists who torture, mutilate, and behead Americans are glossed over.

“Wiser heads might prevail here. Two influential senators, Republicans Lindsay Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona, have expressed opposition to the administration’s proposed changes.

“Their words have weight because Graham is a reserve Air Force appellate judge and McCain was a POW during the Vietnam War.”

[RWC] Not exactly. Sen. Graham’s experience is with trying members of the U.S. military, not prisoners of war. Call me old fashioned, but I believe our military personnel deserve a few more rights than our enemies who want to destroy us.

Regarding Sen. McCain, he’s a walking example of the “do unto others” position being bogus. Despite the Geneva Conventions treatment of prisoners held by the U.S. during the Vietnam War, Sen. McCain – and his fellow POWs – were treated horribly and tortured as a matter of policy. We have to understand we and our enemies have grossly different moral views of the world and no bunch of self-imposed rules will result in better treatment of captured Americans.

“How do we want captured Americans to be treated?

“Matthew 7:12 is a good place to start and finish: ‘In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.’”

[RWC] The editorial author consumed a bunch of words to assert terrorists captured outside the U.S. should be accorded the same rights as U.S. citizens. Why was the author afraid to say that? While the author didn’t mention reading a POW his Miranda “rights,” you know that is where all of this is headed.