What Fresh Hell Is This?

January 20, 2010

More Lousy "Research" At The Tribune-Review

From today's Midweek Briefing, we see, yet again, that Richard Mellon Scaife's editorial board doesn't really care about the truth. Take a look:
Human Events reminds that Attorney General Eric Holder, who wants to afford the Christmas Day jetliner bomber all the rights and privileges of an American citizen in our civilian courts, once thought such terrorists -- enemy combatants -- should enjoy no such consideration. Mr. "Holder puts political convenience above common sense, military tradition and concern for the safety of American citizens," the newspaper notes in an editorial. So much for Eric Holder sticking to his principles.
And from the Human Events editorial they reference:
The American people overwhelmingly think that the Christmas Day airplane bomber, not to mention 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, should be treated as enemy combatants, not common criminals or Prisoners of War afforded protections under the Geneva Conventions.

Interestingly enough, Attorney General Eric Holder agrees -- at least, he did back in 2002. Here’s what he said when discussing the 9/11 terrorists: “One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located.…It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves,…that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not.”
B-u-u-u-u-u-t when you go find the entire quotation, it turns out that both Human Events and by extension Scaife's brain trust have it, well, wrong. And they should have known this because this smear was debunked almost a year ago at mediamatters.

You'd think they'd find some new smear to use. Here's the reality. Holder was being interviewed by Paula Zahn. And she asks:
The president will be meeting with his National Security team this morning to talk about, well, the apparent discord here. Give us a preview of what this discussion might entail. When you have Secretary of State Powell saying, "Let's abide by the Geneva Convention," and then folks on the other side, we are told, saying "Wait a minute. If we hold them to that kind of status, then all they'll be required to give us is their name, rank and file number."
So she's looking for Holder to map out both sides of a discussion. Right after the part quoted by Human Events, he answers:
And yet, I understand what Secretary Powell is concerned about, and that is we're going to be fighting this war with people who are special forces, not people who are generally in uniform. And if unfortunately they somehow become detained, we would want them to be treated in an appropriate way consistent with the Geneva Convention.[emphasis added]
And when he's asked how he would resolve the issue, Holder ultimately says:
I can understand the tensions that exist, but I think the way to resolve it is, in fact, the way Secretary Powell has proposed, which is to say these are not people who are prisoners of war as that has been defined, but who are entitled to, in our own interests, entitled to be treated in a very humane way and almost consistent with all of the dictates of the Geneva Convention. [emphasis added]
So what about a "flip-flop"?

I think this would constitute a lie. By Human Events and by the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. They should know better. It took me all of 10 minutes to find the truth. It should not have taken them any longer.

Looks like they're the ones putting political considerations above common sense (and reality).


Heir to the Throne said...

who are entitled to, in our own interests, entitled to be treated in a very humane way and almost consistent with all of the dictates of the Geneva Convention.
Holder is full of it. Those who do not follow the Geneva Conventions are not entitled to the protections in it.
Progressives have been using Geneva Conventions as an excuse and it gets destroyed by quoting the Geneva Conventions.

One of the reasons why…well, You quoted this bit, but apparently, didn’t catch it:

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

If the party does NOT accept and apply the conventions, the other parties are not bound by them. Convention protections are reciprocal.

So much for that argument.

BTW I never got a answer to my comment.
Rep. Alan Grayson and Dayvoe wants to send Angie Langley to prison for 5 years for making a mistake/misinformation on her FEC paperwork.

Same standard for Martha Coakley?
‘Honest mistakes’: Martha Coakley failed to disclose all assets

"Attorney General Martha Coakley acknowledged yesterday she overlooked more than $200,000 in savings when she mistakenly claimed to have zero personal assets in a financial disclosure required of candidates for U.S. Senate.

Coakley’s filing with the Senate Committee on Ethics will be corrected to include overlooked accounts, including a savings account in her husband’s name with more than $200,000 and a personal IRA containing roughly $12,000, said campaign spokesman Corey Welford"

EdHeath said...

HTTT, Dayvoe's point was that the Trib did not publish all of Holder's 2002 opinion, distorting what he actually said. You certainly are entitled to your opinion that Holder's 2002 opinion and current stance is full of it. I would disagree, not on legal grounds, but on political grounds. Terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda (and also insurgent groups) are not political states, they have no official status, as compared to the PLO, for example. Al Qaeda literally could not and almost certainly would not sign the Geneva Convention. But it's members are citizens of countries (perhaps including our own). The effectiveness of torture as an interrogation technique has come into question, and we have been told that some people in the Middle East are joining either Al Qaeda or insurgent groups at least in part because we are torturing detainees. So to me it really makes sense to treat our prisoners better than we did during the Bush administration (and possibly better than we are now). Doing might decrease the ability of Al Qaeda to recruit, might make other countries feel better about helping us, and using different interrogation techniques might yield more and better information.

As for Angie Langley, I can’t necessarily speak for Dayvoe, but my impression was he didn’t care that much, he was mostly correcting Conservative misinformation about the affair. Grayson was (is?) calling for an investigation into what seemed like some technical violations of campaign or tax rules by Ms. Langley’s particular group. I don’t know if the FEC responded or not.

The way the Coakley issue was presented, it appears to already be resolved, as far as the Senate Ethics Committee is concerned. I don’t know if there are any other agencies involved, if so, they may take action. Since this is out in the open, it seems like calling for further investigation is pretty silly.