BCT Editorial – 9/17/06

This page was last updated on September 17, 2006.

The road to perdition; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 17, 2006.

Much of this mess is caused by the fact five members of the U.S. Supreme Court had a comprehension problem when it came to reading the Geneva Conventions. I covered that debacle in a critique of a PG editorial, though, so I won’t repeat myself here.

Before I proceed, I’ll state what should not need to be. I know of no one who believes we should abuse detainees or who believes detainees charged with war crimes should not receive fair trials. As everything, though, the devil is in the details. For example, how do we define abuse and fair?

I believe most of the current mess is the result of politics. For example, Democrats/libs – along with some “useful idiots” in the Republican Party – are setting the standards so high for detainee treatment they know any rational person will say “no way.” When that happens, the Democrats/libs then say we support torture and kangaroo courts. What’s lost in all of this, of course, is our national security.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Pennsylvania’s senators should oppose Bush’s terrorism trial proposals

[RWC] This leadoff is pretty much boilerplate for Times editorials. In the editorial template it reads, “Pennsylvania’s senators should oppose Bush’s _______________ [fill in the blank] proposals.” <g>

“‘The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.’”

[RWC] I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. We have to do what we believe is best and not worry about what others think. It’s probably useful to point out much of “the world” doubted “the moral basis of our fight against” communism.

“Thus wrote former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who also served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in regard to the Bush administration’s plans to interrogate and prosecute terrorism suspects.”

[RWC] After Plamegate, I’m not sure Mr. Powell has a “moral basis” to criticize anyone. As a reminder, during the last few weeks we learned Mr. Powell knew his deputy secretary, Richard Armitage, was the “leaker” three years ago and chose to say nothing. This was months before the appointment of a special prosecutor. Mr. Powell kept his mouth shut while Democrats/liberals and the press embarked on a witch hunt for President Bush, VP Cheney, Karl Rove, and “Scooter” Libby. Along with Mr. Armitage, Mr. Powell knew the truth but instead chose to allow the baseless allegations to continue.

While I didn’t always agree with Mr. Powell’s positions, I always considered him an honorable man. I’m not so sure anymore.

On the subject of saying nothing, the same appears to be true for the Times. While there were at least three Plamegate editorials published on the Times website since June 2005, there have been none since we learned who the true “leaker” was.

“The president wants to create military commissions to prosecute terror suspects as well as redefine acts that constitute war crimes. He’s also pushing for classified information to be withheld from defendants and to allow the use of coerced testimony.”

[RWC] Here are a couple of documents you should find useful. One is the text of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 as submitted by President Bush and the other is a fact sheet summarizing what’s in the bill.

No one is trying to “redefine acts that constitute war crimes.” What the Bush administration wants is for Congress to provide guidance regarding Article 3.1(c), which prohibits “Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.” The administration position is that the language is so vague and subject to interpretation, interrogators employing common interrogation techniques (not torture) could be tried for war crimes.

The comment about “classified information” is misleading. While “classified information [would] be withheld from defendants,” his counsel would have access to that evidence. Does the Times assert we should either give a terrorist classified information or let him go?

I believe the “coerced testimony” comment is also misleading on at least two points. First, I suspect the editorial author wants us to conflate coercion and torture. Second, we’re to believe the MCA of 2006 fosters coercion and torture of the defendant to gain testimony. That’s not true. Regarding torture, the MCA states, “A statement obtained by use of torture … whether or not under color of law, shall not be admissible against the accused.” Regarding coercion, the MCA states, “No otherwise admissible statement may be received in evidence, including statements allegedly obtained by coercion, if the military judge finds that the circumstances under which the statement was made render it unreliable or lacking in probative value.”

“Opponents of the president’s proposals believe they go too far, and that the disdain for international standards, including a radical departure from several aspects of the Geneva Convention, could be used to justify similar treatment of U.S. military personnel.

“‘I just ... learned about the debate taking place in Congress to redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. I do not support such a step…,’ Powell wrote to U.S. Sen. John McCain.”

[RWC] No one is trying “to redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.” What the Bush administration wants is for Congress to provide guidance regarding Article 3.1(c), which prohibits “Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.” The administration position is that the language is so vague and subject to interpretation, interrogators employing common interrogation techniques (not torture) could be tried for war crimes.

For example, we routinely hear how Muslim men take offense when women are treated as their equals. Since a Muslim male detainee would consider interrogation by a female to be “humiliating and degrading treatment,” could the female interrogator and her superiors be tried for a war crime? What if the interrogator insults the detainee’s family or calls him ugly?

When these scenarios are brought up, people like Sens. Graham, McCain, and Warner simply say something like, “Don’t worry about it; it’ll never happen.” I put this answer in the “famous last words” category. Whoever thought the Supreme Court would grant Geneva Conventions protection to terrorists?

Last year, “everyone” cheered Sen. McCain on when he felt it was necessary to define “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” in H.R. 2863. Why was that necessary but defining the at least equally vague “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment” is not?

There has to be something going on I don’t see.

Here’s one last point in this section. When President Bush opposed the “clarification” language in the aforementioned H.R. 2863, Democrats/libs and the press claimed that was a pro-torture position. Now, when President Bush wants clarification language, that too is presented as a pro-torture position.

“‘I have read the powerful and eloquent letter sent to you by one (of) my distinguished predecessors as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Jack Vessey. I fully endorse in tone and tint his powerful argument. The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.’”

[RWC] While I admire the service of Generals Powell & Vessey and Sen. McCain, their position that giving guidelines to our interrogators “would put our own troops at risk” makes no sense.

To give the “it would put our own troops at risk” position any credibility, you have to believe our enemies adhere to the Geneva Conventions when they capture Americans. History and current events show that’s not the case.

What good did the Geneva Conventions do the captured sailors from the USS Pueblo? As a reminder, North Korea attacked and captured the USS Pueblo in international waters during January 1968, killing one sailor and taking the 82 surviving crewmembers prisoner for 11 months. The prisoners were tortured during this period and the Pueblo remains in North Korean possession. As North Vietnam, there were no trials for the torturers and no one was punished for the behavior.

What about Sen. McCain when the North Vietnamese tortured him and his fellow prisoners? There were no war crime trials for his torturers and no one was punished for the behavior.

What about the Americans taken hostage when Iranians stormed the Tehran embassy? The Geneva Conventions prohibit hostage taking and the hostages were not treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions regarding prisoners. There were no trials for the Iranians and no one was punished for the behavior.

What about Americans captured in Afghanistan and Iraq? They are tortured, murdered by beheading, and then have their corpses desecrated.

“The Senate Armed Services Committee recognized the danger Bush’s proposals pose, voting 15-9 last week for a countermeasure that addresses those concerns.”

[RWC] What’s missing from this sentence is that the House Armed Services Committee approved President Bush’s version of the MCA 52-8. For the skeptics, there are 28 Democrats on the committee so it was not a party line vote.

Regarding the Senate ASC version of the bill, I’ve seen no detailed comparisons of it to the original so I don’t know if it addresses President Bush’s concerns or not. Based on news reports, however, I assume it does not.

“In addition to Powell and Vessey, look at some of the officials who have come out against the president on this issue: U.S. Sen. John McCain, a former POW who was tortured by the North Vietnamese; U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a former judge advocate in the Air Force Reserve; U.S. Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a Marine Corps veteran; the top legal officers in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps and Navy, who oppose some provisions of the president’s plan.”

[RWC] You probably won’t be surprised to learn the editorial failed to note high-ranking JAG lawyers from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines sent a letter to Sen. Warner (R-VA) and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) supporting the president’s proposal. Here’s the letter.

“We do not object to section 6 of the Administration proposal, which would clarify the obligations of the United States under common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and section 7 of the Administration proposal, which would address crimes under the War Crimes Act. Indeed, we think these provisions would be helpful to our fighting men and women at war on behalf of our Country.” The letter was signed by Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army, Judge Advocate General; Major General Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., U.S. Air Force, Deputy Judge Advocate General; Rear Admiral Bruce Macdonald, U.S. Navy, Judge Advocate General; Brigadier General James C. Walker, Staff Judge Advocate To The U.S. Marine Corps; and Colonel Ronald M. Reed, U.S. Air Force, Legal Counsel To The Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff.

Guys like Sen. Graham claim the above JAG lawyers had their arms twisted to sign the letter. First, I’m not sure you can twist the arms of admirals, generals, and colonels to sign a document with which they disagree. Second, it reflects testimony made by JAG lawyers before the Senate Judiciary Committee in early August.

“The Senate is expected to vote on Bush’s plan early this week. Pennsylvania’s senators - Republicans Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter - should heed Powell’s call not to cede the high moral ground. They must side with McCain, Graham and Warner to take us off of Bush’s road to perdition.”

[RWC] Earth to the Times and its fellow travelers. The U.S. could order summary executions for its detainees and we’d still have “the high moral ground” relative to our enemies.

Here’s a question. Where’s “the high moral ground” in letting known killers go because you insist on terrorists being tried as would a shoplifter?

The more of these things I read, the more I’m led to believe people who think as the Times would prefer to be dead as long as someone eulogizes they had “the high moral ground.”

Finally, during interviews with Sen. Graham et al, their concern with world opinion came up way too often. Given the history of the U.S. vs. the rest of the world, forgive me if I’m not swayed by world opinion.