This is the rare newspaper editorial (as opposed to Op-Ed) that pulls no punches, and gets it exactly right:
THE HORRIFIC abuses by American interrogators and guards at the Abu Ghraib prison and at other facilities maintained by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan can be traced, in part, to policy decisions and public statements of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld….
The lawlessness began in January 2002 when Mr. Rumsfeld publicly declared that hundreds of people detained by U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan “do not have any rights” under the Geneva Conventions. That was not the case: At a minimum, all those arrested in the war zone were entitled under the conventions to a formal hearing to determine whether they were prisoners of war or unlawful combatants. No such hearings were held, but then Mr. Rumsfeld made clear that U.S. observance of the convention was now optional. Prisoners, he said, would be treated “for the most part” in “a manner that is reasonably consistent” with the conventions — which, the secretary breezily suggested, was outdated.
Note that the Post accepts the administration’s view that Al Qaeda terrorists can be legitimately held and interrogated without the protections of the Geneva convention. They are okay with that, as long as there’s an initial hearing to determine that this is really an Al Qaeda terrorist and not a Taliban conscript; as long as we have procedures that ensure that the Convention Against Torture is not violated; and as long as it is reserved for extraoardinary cases.
(This will surprise many readers, but I think I am okay with that too. I would add that indefinite detention without a real hearing–probably not an ordinary criminal trial, but a real hearing with real representation for the accused that goes beyond the original POW/enemy combatant distinction–should not be an option.)
Of course, none of that is relevant in Iraq, a country which we chose to invade, where the few Al Qaeda and Ba’athist terrorists are scattered among many ordinary guerillas and even more innocent civilians we’ve captured by mistake. Yet Rumsfeld still says the Geneva Convention is optional:
On Monday Mr. Rumsfeld’s spokesman said that the secretary had not read Mr. Taguba’s report, which was completed in early March. Yesterday Mr. Rumsfeld told a television interviewer that he still hadn’t finished reading it, and he repeated his view that the Geneva Conventions “did not precisely apply” but were only “basic rules” for handling prisoners.
Even if you don’t care about the Iraqis, this is not doing our own troops any favors. It’s obvious to almost everyone that Abu Ghraib is a practical as well as a moral disaster. And even if our success in Iraq didn’t depend so heavily on the general population’s trust; even if it were a simpler and more purely military struggle; even if those pictures weren’t the world’s best ad campaign for Osama bin Laden….we didn’t sign the Geneva Convention because we were goody-two-shoes. It’s in our interest to treat captives decently. It encourages the enemy to surrender instead of fighting to the death, and it increases the chances that our own soldiers will be treated decently when they’re captured.
I like his poetry as much as the next girl. But as far as I’m concerned, Rumsfeld has joined Ashcroft and Tenet and whoever ratted out Valerie Plame in the “should be SO fired” club. Read the whole Washington Post editorial and tell me you disagree.
(via commenter otmar at Tacitus)