Post-Gazette Editorial – 9/23/06

This page was last updated on September 23, 2006.

Tortured moment / Congress should stand up for American decency; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; September 23, 2006.

I believe this editorial is a combination of misleading statements and outright lies. You’ll see what I mean below.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The agreement Thursday between the Bush administration and several Republican senators on a bill to set the rules for U.S. treatment of prisoners of war is more in line with American principles, but still troubling.

“President Bush’s efforts to get the bill he wanted included the astonishing picture of him on Capitol Hill trying to get Congress to authorize past and future torture by American officers and a resultant fracturing of his own Republican Party on the issue.”

[RWC] “Fracturing of his own Republican Party?” The handful of Senate Republicans to which the editorial refers are the usual suspects when it comes to opposing President Bush.

“What the administration wanted basically was blanket advance approval of the use of torture in interrogations by CIA and Defense Department personnel without reference to U.S. courts, as well as retroactive approval of previous torture. The spectacle of an American president asking for such authority, as usual in the name of post-9/11 national security, was appalling.”

[RWC] The idea the administration was asking for “blanket advance approval of the use of torture” is an outright lie. Read my critique of the Beaver County Times editorial “The road to perdition” to see what I mean.

“The administration’s bill would have had the United States abandoning its 51 years of respect for the Geneva Conventions Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, including during the Vietnam War. U.S. repudiation of these international rules would have sent a message to any government or combatants who took American soldiers prisoner that they, too, no longer needed to observe international rules in their treatment of American prisoners. That is the crux of opposition by the U.S. military to Mr. Bush’s proposal.”

[RWC] BS again!

“Opposition by the U.S. military?” 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. The letter is in the aforementioned BC Times editorial critique.

“Experienced intelligence officers posit their opposition to it on the inefficacy of torture in interrogation. Anyone will confess to or ‘reveal’ almost anything -- true or false -- if tortured with enough vigor and imagination.”

[RWC] More BS! While I don’t approve of true torture, even St. John McCain conceded it worked on him when held prisoner by North Vietnam.

“Then there is the question of U.S. values. How can it be that, despite America’s centuries-long reputation for respect of human rights, the president was seeking to establish the right of U.S. authorities to apprehend, hold indefinitely -- without respect to habeas corpus and due process -- and torture prisoners. It would be bad enough if the prisoners held had done something; however, the number of detainees released from Guantanamo in Cuba, Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Bagram in Afghanistan without charge, and the number still held with no accounting would indicate that some of them have done nothing.”

[RWC] Again with the claim the administration wanted permission to torture.

As far as holding indefinitely, don’t you hold prisoners of war for the duration of the war? If not, when did this change?

“If they committed a crime they should have been tried long ago before a court of law. Whatever intelligence value they had has long since gone stale. Holding people in indefinite detention is the sort of act that, prior to the Bush administration, was a hallmark only of dictatorial, outlaw regimes, not the United States of America. Fortunately, senior Republican senators, in particular those with combat experience like Sen. John McCain, who was tortured by the North Vietnamese, opposed Mr. Bush’s approach. The House of Representatives, including some Republican members, fragmented when asked to pass it.”

[RWC] This is an outright lie. The House Armed Services Committee approved President Bush’s version of the legislation 52-8. For the skeptics, there are 28 Democrats on the committee so it was not a party line vote.

The House Judiciary Committee approved the bill 20-19. All 17 Democrats on the committee voted against it while Republicans voted 20-2 in favor.

Since when did two Republicans out of 22 translate to “fragmented?”

“The compromise that has emerged maintains general U.S. observance of the Geneva Conventions, but remains vague enough to cast doubt on a firm U.S. commitment to the correct treatment of war prisoners. It also leaves considerable lack of clarity with respect to the procedures by which the United States will put prisoners on trial. Whether more wrangling between the president and Congress will fill these troublesome gaps in a way that upholds American principles remains to be seen.

“The compromise is better than what the administration sought, but it still falls short of the rules that should be adopted by an America that stands for justice and the rule of law. The bill is nothing for Americans to be proud of, for its lack of clarity and for the lack of a spirit of justice in it.

“Although Americans accept that protection of national security might justify extraordinary measures in urgent circumstances, it is nonetheless true that they consider torture of prisoners and sham trials to be degrading and immoral, whether practiced against them or against others.”

[RWC] Based on the BS put forth by this editorial, it’s clear the PG hopes you don’t do your research. Read the bill (a link is in the BC Times editorial critique) and check the Congressional Record for votes and make up you own mind.

The PG appears worried more about feeling and looking good than in defending the citizens of the U.S.

Here are some rules the PG would probably like the U.S. to employ.

· When faced with an enemy combatant, a U.S. soldier should assess how the enemy is armed. If the enemy has only a knife, the U.S. soldier may not use his firearms.

· When the enemy is unarmed, the U.S. soldier must drop his arms and attempt to take the enemy prisoner. The enemy must consent to being taken prisoner; i.e., the U.S. soldier may not use force to take the enemy prisoner.

· If the U.S. soldier gets involved in hand-to-hand combat, he must not kick the enemy when he is down. The enemy must be allowed to regain his feet.

· If the enemy is losing hand-to-hand combat, the enemy must be allowed to use a weapon to even the odds.

· When the enemy is outnumbered, the “excess” U.S. soldiers must retreat.

· A captured enemy must be read the Miranda statement.

What’s missing? Any concern about how our own soldiers are treated when taken prisoner.

I believe this editorial is yet one more indication the PG suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome. As a result, I’m not sure the PG even understands some of the positions it takes.