Wisconsin State Journal's moral preening on torture

Uncle Jimbo | 9/29/2006 8:44 am | ...

I love the smell of coercive interrogations and tribunals in the morning, smells like......Victory.

The Wisconsin State Journal made a conscious decision to move to the left with their editorial voice. I don't know why, although perhaps being the largest paper in a very liberal town may have something to do with it. They once were considered a few steps right of center, which when translated by the progressives here made them arch-conservative, but they have never strayed very far right. Now they seem determined to prove their "moderate" stance by taking gratuitous shots at easy Republican/conservative targets like Sensenbrenner and of course W. Their recent torture editorial is a case in point. I took them partially to task here and did their editorial board the courtesy of copying them and explaining why their piece was chock full of falsehoods. I requested space on the opinion page to refute the unsupported allegations they made that the President requested authority to conduct torture. I received a response from Scott Milfred, editorial page editor, who ignored my arguments completely and reiterated his previous position that "Torture is bad mmmmkay, W asked to torture so, W is bad mmmmkay" He summed his position up thusly:

"It is a fact that the Geneva Conventions established standards of behavior in military conflicts that prohibit the use of all forms of torture. President Bush sought to escape the torture provision that bans outrages against personal dignity"

I answered him with the following and also a number of other fact-based points to rebut the moral preening of their editorial:

That is simply incorrect. The prohibition banning outrages against personal dignity is a separate provision within Common Article 3 not a "torture" provision.

"To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; taking of hostages; outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;"

He also noted that I could write a letter to the editor or submit a guest opinion piece. I took the latter route and sent them this bit, which shows categorically that the president in no way was asking for permission to torture.

From the Sunday Wisconsin State Journal

America's rejection of torture as a tool of law enforcement and military strategy is one of the many ways we distinguish ourselves from our enemies.

That is why the nation should thank dissident Republican senators for last week convincing President Bush to abandon his attempt to permit torture in the war against terrorism.

The problem is that is a complete misrepresentation of the president's position. The recent meeting with Republican Senators was prompted by two things; the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdan that extended rights under Common Article 3 (CA3) of the Geneva Conventions to Al Qaeda prisoners and the legislation President Bush proposed called the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This act contained provisions that would have clarified some extremely vague language in CA3 and ensured US law decides what constitutes a grave breach of it. This is important because the War Crimes Act makes it a felony to violate the Geneva Conventions, and once the Supreme Court extended that protection to Al Qaeda, the CIA interrogators no longer had an assurance that any of their techniques would not run afoul of CA3.

The biggest sticking point was the language noting what constitutes a grave breach of CA3:

"To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; taking of hostages; outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;"

Most of it is fairly simple, but what exactly is an "outrage against personal dignity"? I feel certain that nearly 100% of Muslim terrorists would consider being interrogated by a female an "outrage", shall we allow that interpretation? Of course not and that is what the President chose to clear up. He did so, in large part, because the CIA interrogators had basically stopped working because they were worried that they could be sued for any manner of "outrages". So the president sent the legislation forward and Sen. McCain and several others wanted to clarify what standards would be applied. As it turns out, the standard was one contained in the Detainee Treatment Act, also known as the McCain Amendment.

From the Military Commissions Act of 2006

"GENERAL., Satisfaction of the prohibitions against cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment set forth in Section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (title X of Public Law 109-148; 119 Stat. 2739; U.S.C. 2000dd) shall fully satisfy United States obligations with respect to the standards for detention and treatment established by section 1 of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions"

The WSJ claimed that the president attempted to enact legislation allowing torture which is simply wrong. The language above clearly states that existing US law, sponsored by Sen. McCain himself, would determine what breaches of CA3 are considered felonies under US law. So instead of the undefined standard of "outrages against personal dignity", free to be interpreted by any judge to mean just about anything, we would have a US law passed last year. The WSJ managed to take that common sense initiative and smear the president as a supporter of torture. That was a tremendous disservice to its readers, the president and the country over all.

Jim Hanson is a Capital Newspapers employee who writes the blog Military Matters at madison.com/post. More information on this topic is available there.

They don't seem too keen on admitting they falsely made a pretty heinous accusation about the president and in doing so very poorly served their readers, so I will help them out. The funny thing is that their editorial has gotten more traffic since I linked to it then it did when they published it, so maybe I should ignore them, but not likely.

It is no concern of mine if the WSJ feels the need to slide left to match the demographics they think makes up their readership, but I will not sit by while they use falsehoods to win points. I kinda doubt they are doing themselves any favors with this weaseling as there are plenty of folks living outside the Isthmus who enjoyed having a voice they could share common ground with. Turning the WSJ into Cap Times lite hardly seems wise.

If you wish to agree or disagree with the WSJ, Scott Milfred is the editorial page editor smilfredATmadison.com.

blog entry tag reference

go to ... | Digg this story | add to del.icio.us | print | email