Fisking The So-Called Blog of the Year

Oh boy. The guys over at Powerline are getting a little worked up because someone (in an editorial) called the "war on terror" the "so-called war on terror". But it's a real war! Now watch how far they run with it . . .

The revealing part of Herbert's diatribe occurs early on when he writes that Gonzales' "judgment regarding the detention and treatment of prisoners in Iraq and the so-called war on terror have been both unsound and shameful." It is the left's normally unstated view that the war on terror is not real that serves as the predicate for its complaints about the way suspected terrorists are being treated.

Yep. Nailed us. If the war on terror were only real, then "the left" would have no problem with the real suspects who are really being beaten and really being sodomized and really being tortured to death in the name of the United States. PL's argument is miserably flawed on its face, but for a quick coup de grace, consider the following: Yes, many (me included) question the boundaries of Bush's vaguely defined "war on terror". On the other hand, no one disputes that the Iraq War is a real war. The majority of Americans agree that it was a mistake, but it sure as hell is real. So, according to PL's premise, the left really has no beef with the abuses at Abu Graib.

If you think we really are at war with terrorists, then you react one way when our intelligence and/or military officers ask you how far they can go in trying to obtain information from terror suspects. If you think the war is a phony, you react differently. In the former instance, you're inclined, I hope, to keep on the table for consideration (though not necessarily implementation) any approach that we hadn't agreed not to use prior to 9/11. After all, why should we become more solicitous of the rights of our enemies in war time? But if we're only in a so-called war, the standard I've suggested makes much less sense.

What standard has PL suggested exactly? It's hard to tell. As with most of that faction of the right wing that flirts with stamping "USA APPROVED" on the torture of people suspected of ties to terrorism, PL can't quite bring itself to approve of "torture" in public. Instead PL calls it an "approach that we hadn't agreed not to use prior to 9/11". Wait a minute. We had not agreed not to use torture? What about the Geneva Conventions? Oh right, according to the Bush Administration those protections don't apply to Guantanamo prisoners because this is not a real war. Do you follow so far?

Democratic Senators (along, unfortunately, with Republican Lindsay Graham) kept arguing that our use of debatable interrogation tactics puts our soldiers in harm's way because it means that when they are captured they are more likely to be tortured. There is some truth to this argument, but it would have been nice if one of these Senators had acknowledged that our actual enemies will behead any American (soldier or not) that they capture regardless of what interrogations tactics we use. It would also have been edifying if Gonzales' opponents had recognized the possibility that information obtained through aggressive interrogation can save lives. But, again, if you don't think the war on terror is real, this point is easier to lose sight of.

Whew, the war is real again.

PL's description of our Senators as "Gonzales' opponents" is revealing. If you have a problem with torture, you're an opponent. If you are concerned about the treatment not only of other human beings generally, but also American troops, you're an opponent. If a Republican Senator has these concerns, it is "unfortunate". They've got some tough guys over there at PL.

As a final embarassment, Time Magazine's "blog of the year" dredges up a midieval argument that torture ... sorry, ahem, "aggressive interrogation" ... will yield trustworthy information we can use in the so-called war on terror. Yeah, I said it. So-called. As any first-year law student will tell you, our American system of justice refuses to recognize the validity or trustworthiness of any information obtained through abuse. It's sort of part of the foundation of who we are as Americans. It's sort of what separates us from the head-chopping demons.

Come on, Powerline. Join us and the rest of the civilized world in roundly condemning torture. You'll feel like you've just taken a shower.