Daily Kos apologizes, sort of

The author of the post that I linked to yesterday (I don't know if it was Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, the founder of Daily Kos or another contributor) has modified the post to remove some of the more inflammatory language and offered an explnation and an apology of sorts:

My heart is broken by the brutal and senseless murder of these two young men. The fact that they were tortured makes the grief all the more grievous. I have not a shred of doubt that the barbarians who did this to them - who alone among all humans, are 100% responsible for their actions - will pay the price for their heinous acts, whether in this life or the next. In the meantime, I pray for the souls of those killed and for the comfort of those who loved them, and for all who care about their fate.

I wrote this diary because I was enraged that our government - my government - could have taken - and repeatedly defended - a position that the provisions of the Geneva Conventions - provisions written with the understanding that war is a brutal and savage activity at its core, and that humans engaged in war often are prone to brutal and savage behaviors - are merely "quaint" anachronisms, no longer applicable to our current world situation, and that torture is an acceptable practice for our society.

I respect him for recognizing that the terrorists are responsible for their actions. This is entirely correct. He is to be credited for recognizing that the language referring to the families of Rumsfeld, Yoo, and others was over the line and retracting it.

I understand that he was angry when he heard the news. I was, too. However our big difference is how we expressed that anger. I was angry with those who murdered our soldiers and my opinion is that they would have done what they did regardless of any actions or behavior on the part of the United States and its military. The post's author believes that it is in retaliation for what he perceives as violations of the Geneva Conventions by the United States and that such violations reduce us morally to the level of our enemy.

I would like to address his statement that the administration asserts that the Geneva Conventions are quaint. The memo from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to President Bush that he cites is located here. The Justice Department had determined that the Geneva Convention III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPW) did not apply to al Qaeda and the Taliban. The President agreed with this assessment. The Secretary of State had asked the President to reconsider his decision and Attorney General Gonzales wrote this memo to support the DOJ's position. This is the relevant paragraph:

As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war. It is not the traditional clash between nations adhering to the laws of war that formed the backdrop for GPW. The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians, and the need to try terrorists for war crimes such as wantonly killing civilians. In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, scrip (i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments.

The word "quaint" here is applied to certain provisions, which he specifically names, and not the entire Convention. He does state that certain limitations on questioning prisoners are obsolete but he does not use the word "quaint" to describe them.

And of course, the last two paragraphs of the memo are overlooked:

• In the treatment of detainees, the U.S. will continue to be constrained by (i) its commitment to treat the detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of GPW, (ii) its applicable treaty obligations, (iii) minimum standards of treatment universally recognized by the nations of the world, and (iv) applicable military regulations regarding the treatment of detainees.


• Similarly, the argument based on military culture fails to recognize that our military remain bound to apply the principles of GPW because that is what you have directed them to do.

Emphasis mine -RR