'Torture' Showdown (Bring it On!)

Wall Street Journal ^ | January 6, 2005

[Niks]

The White House appears to be dreading today's confirmation hearings for Alberto Gonzales now that Democrats seem ready to blame the Attorney General nominee for Abu Ghraib and other detainee mistreatment. But this is actually a great chance for the Administration to do itself, and the cause of fighting terror, some good by forcefully repudiating all the glib and dangerous abuse of the word "torture."

For what's at stake in this controversy is nothing less than the ability of U.S. forces to interrogate enemies who want to murder innocent civilians. And the Democratic position, Mr. Gonzales shouldn't be afraid to say, amounts to a form of unilateral disarmament that is likely to do far more harm to civil liberties than anything even imagined so far.

The dispute here stems from the Bush Administration's decision, in early 2002, that Taliban and al Qaeda detainees didn't automatically qualify for prisoner of war status. This caused a fuss in some quarters. But it was in accord with the plain language of the original Geneva Conventions, which require POWs to have met certain criteria such as fighting in uniform and not attacking civilians. The Administration understood what critics don't want to admit -- namely, that POWs may not be interrogated, period. The Geneva Conventions forbid even positive reinforcement such as better rations to coax them to talk.

This interpretation of the Geneva rules was hardly novel to the Bush Administration. It was a bipartisan consensus in 1987 when Ronald Reagan repudiated a radical document called Protocol 1 -- the so-called "international law" that the International Committee of the Red Cross now says requires POW status for al Qaeda. The New York Times praised the Gipper at the time for denying "a shield for terrorists," and the Washington Post also editorialized in support.

[Niks]

Okay, how do they want us to obtain information from these guys to prevent the next 911? Senate Dems should be forced to tell us.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The New York Times praised the Gipper at the time for denying "a shield for terrorists," and the Washington Post also editorialized in support.

This was pre-Internet. How do we get a look at those Times and Post discussions - and ram them down the Democrats' throats?!

It is absurd to speak of "international law" protections for vicious murderers who use the Geneva Convention as a manual for what they will not do.

And it is absurd to speak of an "international law" binding the U.S. which no U.S. president has signed and which no U.S. Senate has ratified. It is unconstitutional for the U.S. to enforce such a "law" against itself. Anyone who thinks otherwise should be impeached from any position of public trust.

[Niks]

I'm surprised the Dems want to go down this road. Nobody cares about those thugs except Ramsey Clark.

Does anyone know what time the hearing is on?

[Miss Marple]

I see no evidence that the White House is "dreading" this hearing.

[LRS]

Okay, how do they want us to obtain information from these guys to prevent the next 911? Senate Dems should be forced to tell us.

Send the Senate Dims on a fact finding mission to Gitmo. While there, lock them up and give them first hand experience in our interration techniques: you know, deprive Robert Byrd of sleep, don't let Teddy Kennedy have a drink, take Kerry's Botox from him, etc. Who knows what bodies we could dig up in just a few days?

[jwpjr]

re: forcefully repudiating all the glib and dangerous abuse of the word "torture."

Oh, sure! The Republicans are suddenly going to grow a spine and then use it to fight back! I'll believe it when I see it. Sooner said than done. Snowball in hell. When pigs fly out of my butt. And a host of other cliches that describe the likelihood of that happening. I know you have to be 'diplomatic' in political realm, but I sure would like to hear the Right just cut loose on the people who stand up there and lie, lie, lie. Forget spin, it's pure lying!

[OldFriend]

The hearing begins 9:30 AM eastern time. There is already a live thread up and running.

Come on over!!

[Howlin]

That was going to be my question: Sez who?

[jwalsh07]

The better alternative is for Mr. Gonzales to go on offense and defend his entirely defensible actions.

Absolutely.

[Miss Marple]

I heard a guy from the Justice Department explaining this on H & C last night. (I think he was DOJ.)

Anyway, he was very articulate and easily explained both memos, and effectively shut Alan Colmes up. I imagine Gonzalez will do just fine.

I do have a question, though. What is the deal with letting the critics testify last? Is this Specter up to his old tricks? I will be plenty PO'd if those people get the last word.

[Area51]

I find it irronic that the biggest critic and probably the Loudest Democrat Senator leading this charge will be Senator Leahy.

Or should I refer to his as LEAKY LEAHY. A senator that was REMOVED from the Senate Intellegence Committee because he LEAKED classified information to the Press that may well have got Americans KILLED.

Perhaps a few Washington Freepers with Signs reminding him of that as he enters the Capital Buildings would be appropriate.

[Quilla]

A senator that was REMOVED from the Senate Intellegence Committee because he LEAKED classified information to the Press that may well have got Americans KILLED.

IMHO, the continual rehashing of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal by the mainstream media inflamed our enemies more than any other action of the US. Outraged insurgents fueled by this propaganda (the military was already investigating and handling the problem) were motivated to kill more Americans. The story remained in the headlines because the NYT, CBS, and other usual suspects hate this administration. Why nothing can be done to stop this treacherous behavior is most maddening.

Frankly, I have no problem with torture if it will save one American life. Never forget.