Post-Gazette Editorial – 7/15/06

This page was last updated on July 16, 2006.

Rules of war / The Bush administration finally does the right thing; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; July 15, 2006.

Apparently the P-G folks don’t read documents on their own website. You’ll see what I mean below. Most of this editorial is based on a misrepresentation of official government policy since at least February 2002.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Ever since the terrorists attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration has pursued a response that, in terms of public policy, has sought to have it both ways. It has wanted the American people to be aroused to action and to understand that the nation is at war. But it has also insisted that this was a different sort of war and the usual rules did not apply.

“Early on, it declared that the Geneva Conventions did not cover prisoners taken in the war on terror. In other words, while Americans were to be every bit as alarmed and vigilant as in previous wars, the international standards of decency that this nation had once taken pride in supporting need not be fully followed against the al-Qaida Islamic terrorists.”

[RWC] Here’s what the editorial failed to say.

On February 7, 2002, President Bush issued a memorandum entitled “Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees.” In addition to asserting terrorist detainees don’t meet the legal requirements for protection under the Geneva Conventions (and they don’t), President Bush also wrote, “Of course, our values as a Nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. Our Nation has been and will continue to be s strong supporter of Geneva and its principles. As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.”

If you clicked on the memo’s link, you saw it’s on the P-G website. The editorial is yet another partisan hit based on a lie.

“Recently the U.S. Supreme Court did the administration a favor by reining in this wayward and self-destructive notion -- although the administration won’t admit this. While it now concedes that part of the Geneva Conventions does apply to detainees, as the court ruled, it can’t bring itself to admit that this is a change of policy, which, of course, is absurd. In fact, this is progress of a sort.”

[RWC] I don’t know if the administration “concedes that part of the Geneva Conventions does apply to detainees.” According to CNN, Daniel Dell’Orto, principal deputy general counsel at the Pentagon, said “The memo that went out, it doesn’t indicate a shift in policy. It just announces the decision of the court.” There’s a big difference between concurring with a ruling and agreeing to abide by it.

In any case, according to the letter above published on the P-G website, adhering to the Geneva Conventions – even for those not entitled to their protection – is not a policy change.

“The legal argument for dismissing the Geneva Conventions -- there never was a moral argument -- was that terrorists did not fly under the flag of any country. Even if one allowed that this arguable debating point has some merit, the proper response would have been to obey the humane spirit of the conventions while seeking an international consensus to amend the articles to reflect a new era.”

[RWC] There’s more to the legal argument than the P-G wants to admit. To qualify for POW status, enemy fighters must meet specific requirements; not everyone qualifies. For example, the fighter must be fighting for a country that is a party to the war and that signed the Conventions. That means none of the terrorists qualify as POWs because terrorists fight only for themselves, not a country. Even Iraqis who may claim to fight for Iraq must meet requirements, such as wearing “a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance” (like a uniform) and “carrying arms openly” among others. If you don’t meet all of the relevant requirements, you don’t qualify for POW treatment.¹

The second sentence is complete BS. First, the evidence shows we obeyed “the humane spirit of the conventions.” As noted above, even the P-G itself documented this was official U.S. policy. The “new era” comment is also crap. What would amended articles say the current articles don’t? The current Conventions are clearly written and say what they mean.

Regarding the P-G position that “there never was a moral argument,” I disagree. What incentive is there for anyone to sign such an agreement if they know their fighters will be protected even if they themselves are not parties to the agreement? While unofficially treating illegal combatants as legitimate POWs can be argued, codifying that behavior in law is a huge mistake that can only embolden an enemy. What’s to discourage an enemy from all kinds of atrocities when he knows he has nothing to worry about if he himself is captured? That was the whole point of the Geneva Conventions. That is, if you want your soldiers treated humanely, you must treat our men humanely. If they didn’t already know it, the enemy now knows it can butcher our captured soldiers without fear of similar treatment should they be captured.

“But the Bush administration has cared little for the opinion of the world community. Its instinct has been to act unilaterally. So it simply declared the detainees ‘enemy combatants’ or ‘unlawful combatants’ -- as opposed to regular POWs -- and set up Guantanamo Bay to be their irregular prison.”

[RWC] What is an “irregular prison” for enemy detainees? How does Club Gitmo differ from World War II prison camps except that prisoners get better treatment?

“Having abandoned the standards that guided the nation in past wars, the administration set in train a whole string of abuses whose contagion spread to places such as Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. America’s moral standing in the world inevitably fell, even among our allies, which in turn has made the successful prosecution of the war on terror more difficult.”

[RWC] While I don’t agree with forcing detainees to wear women’s underwear on their head, I have a hard time calling isolated incidents “a whole string of abuses” when put in the context of true detainee abuse like that our men and women see when captured by the enemy. Of course, the editorial fails to note all alleged abuse incidents were uncovered by the military itself and were under investigation long before the public heard of them. Does that sound like a country trying to promote abuse?

“When the court ruled that Congress had not approved the military tribunals sought by the administration and that Geneva Convention protections applied to prisoners, fulminations were the response on the right. In an editorial, The Wall Street Journal fumed that this was ‘a major Court intrusion into executive war powers and thus a setback not just for this Presidency but, more important, for future ones.’”

[RWC] To come up with these judgments, the five justices in the majority proved they have a problem reading clear language. Don’t take my word for it; read the Geneva Conventions yourself.¹ Of course, the P-G actually believes the Constitution says the press has the right not to divulge its sources during criminal investigations.

The editorial fails to note four of the justices dissented, and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the Bush administration’s position.

Note: Though the official Supreme Court vote was 5-3, Chief Justice Roberts did not participate because he was on the DC Circuit Court when it ruled in favor of the Bush administration policy.

“It was no such thing. The Supreme Court made the United States do the right and lawful thing -- which also happens to be the smart thing geo-politically.”

[RWC] Based on what we know as fact, not some editorial author’s fantasy world, what is the U.S. doing now it didn’t do before?

So now the Supreme Court is to make decisions based on what it believes “to be the smart thing geo-politically?” The last time I checked the Constitution, the authority to make treaties rested with the President and the Senate.

“Unfortunately, the Bush administration’s grudging acceptance of the court ruling may not mean much. Are the CIA’s secret prisons for detainees in foreign countries going to abandon their presumed abusive and torturous ways because of this development? Sadly, it would be naive to think so. That is why this announcement must be greeted with only one hand clapping.”

[RWC] You have to love the left.

First, they assume we have “secret prisons for detainees in foreign countries.” I hope we do, but to date no one has presented any proof. All we have are allegations by unnamed sources. Of course, that’s the beauty of claiming the alleged prisons are secret. The accuser doesn’t have to prove they exist.

Second, if the prisons do exist, the left assumes they are operated in “abusive and torturous ways.”

Other than conveniently AWOL facts, did you notice what else is missing? Where’s the chiding of the “international community” to force the terrorists to comply with the Geneva Conventions? When terrorists come to trial, does anyone want to bet the P-G will lobby that terrorists should be not tried for war crimes because they didn’t sign the Geneva Conventions?

1. Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; United Nations; August 12, 1949.