L.A. Times Op-Ed Editor Circulates Internal Memo Repeating the Canard that the Bush Administration Called the Geneva Convention “Quaint”
L.A. Times op-ed editor Andrés Martinez recently circulated an internal memo with the following passage (via L.A. Observed; h/t Patricia):
Michael McGough will join the Times as senior editorial writer on Nov. 1. Michael has been a visiting fellow on the editorial board since the spring, and has made himself indispensable by writing the most thoughtful editorials in the country on the wrestling between Congress and the administration over NSA wiretaps and such “quaint” matters as the Geneva Convention.
As I explained in this post, the notion that Alberto Gonzales called the Geneva Convention “quaint” is a canard, which began when NEWSWEEK mangled a Gonzales quote beyond recognition. (Specifically, NEWSWEEK “Isikoffed” the quote — meaning it removed a critical portion of the quote without even leaving an ellipsis to note what was missing. It is like a Dowdification — only less honest.) As I explain in my earlier post, Gonzales deemed “quaint” only those Geneva provisions that truly merited the label — such as provisions
requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, scrip (i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments.
For Martinez to mock the Bush Administration in the way he does in his memo reveals his utter ignorance about what Gonzales was really saying. The fact that Martinez is bold enough to do so in a widely circulated internal memo shows that Martinez believes that the paper’s staffers would be receptive to such sarcastic, ill-informed sarcasm at the expense of the Bush Adminstration.
I have every confidence that Martinez is right about this.
What does Martinez care? He has bought into the meme that his Westside readership demands and is happy having it recycled on the editorial page ad nauseam. The Times has long ago quit caring whether the sacred truths the hold are, well, true. Martinez will be out of there right after Basquet is let go anyway. Last one out please turn out the lights.
JVW (6536f4) — 10/7/2006 @ 12:22 amWhy doesn’t everyone admit the truth. The Geneva Convention is a total joke. Only the US/UK have or ever will comply with even one provision in the document. The idiots of the world only use it as a tool to bad mouth those that follow it while turning a blind eye to the rest of the world. Get rid of the U.N. and use the Geneva convention document to burn the U.N building.
Scrapiron (a90377) — 10/7/2006 @ 5:48 amPatterico, I was wondering if you could set up something on the sidebar similar to what LGF has done to keep track of IP address visits from the LA Times. I’ve always wondered if they actually continue to read your criticisms. If they did, you’d think they’d be just the slightest bit embarrassed.
thelinyguy (e32b76) — 10/7/2006 @ 6:24 amTIMES has been sinking ever since some family members got greedy, forced the sale. But the people here can’t do anything about quality, that control is in Chicago. What have you done to protest them? There’s worse problems coming up:
Poppy (856f49) — 10/7/2006 @ 7:52 am“California: Democrat or Molester?” They are debating tonight, more details: davineremedy.wordpress.com
Let’s see what Gonzales was “really saying”. From The Village Voice, with just one very small change:
“Literally, [Patterico’s] criticism is valid. But he left a few things out.
Gonzales’ January 25, 2002, memo to President Bush that contains the “quaint” reference focuses solely on Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Gonzales tells the president that “there are reasonable grounds for you to conclude that GPW [Geneva Convention III on the Treatment of Prisoners of War] does not apply” to these two groups. He adds: “I understand that you decided that GPW does not apply and, accordingly, that Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees are not prisoners of war under the GPW.”
Finally, here’s the section of the memo where “quaint” was used: “As you [the president] have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war … 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.”
Only the special privileges were labeled quaint. The heart of Geneva Convention III—the strict limitations on interrogation of prisoners—was rendered “obsolete.” Isn’t “obsolete” even stronger than “quaint”?
When you’re criticizing someone, it’s important to include the context.”
Rick (c7fbdd) — 10/7/2006 @ 9:40 amFirst: Just so everyone is clear, the Village Voice piece was talking about Okrent, not me — Rick just tossed in my name in brackets to make it sound as though the Village Voice was suggesting I didn’t include the context.
Second, I did. In my original post on this issue, linked above, I provide the entire context, which is this passage:
You might want to go ahead and read that post, which you clearly have not done yet. The link is right there above; all you have to do is scroll up and click.
There’s no need to say it all again; it’s there in the original post, just one click away.
The point is not whether “obsolete” is worse than “quaint,” but that it is inaccurate to say the Bush Administration has called the Geneva Conventions “quaint” — a very dismissive word.
Yet the canard has spread among liberals, like those at the L.A. Times.
Patterico (de0616) — 10/7/2006 @ 10:02 am“Why doesn’t everyone admit the truth. The Geneva Convention is a total joke.
Comment by Scrapiron — 10/7/2006 @ 5:48 am”
We differentiate ourselves from other societies how? By insisting human rights are an inherent, god-given right, and by doing the the right thing regardless of whether others do or not.
mmm...lemonheads (a960c9) — 10/7/2006 @ 12:04 pmYou may want to stoop to their level but I won’t. Ever.
It’s not that the Generva Convention is “quaint” or a joke, it’s that the enforcement of it’s provisions is a joke, or worse a travesty.
Some soldiers in Iraq committed war crimes, and are tried and convicted in a speedy fashion. Fine. But why do the people who cheer that, and offer it up as proof of American evil, have such a problem with also trying, convicting, and hanging those on the other side who’ve done far worse?
After all, more US soldiers have been tried for actions in 2005 than al Qaeda thugs for actions dating back years.
So, not only are we the only ones to follow it, we are also the only ones we prosecute under it. And that is one sick joke.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 10/7/2006 @ 12:15 pmOne should always strive to be honest and truthful, especially when critiquing or supporting another’s position. In his memo, Gonzales opined that under the “new paradigm”, certain aspects of the Geneva Conventions pertaining to the treatment of captured enemies were “obsolete” while others were “quaint”. It is dishonest to twist or misrepresent Gonzales’s words regardless of whether the manipulator is a liberal or a conservative. While it is, as Patterico says,
…it is also inaccurate to ignore Gonzales intent in calling certain sections pertaining to the treatment of captured enemies “obsolete“
Rick (c7fbdd) — 10/7/2006 @ 12:17 pmFor a guy who preens as being ultra-civil, you are pretty free with accusations of dishonesty and inaccuracy, Rick.
I’m going to explain to you how blogs work, Rick. There are these things called links. You can click on them. They give you information. They keep you from having to repeat everything and making each post thousands of words long.
If you are too lazy to click on a link, Rick, that’s not my problem. It’s yours.
Under your definition of accuracy and honesty, it is certainly inaccurate and dishonest of you to claim that I left out the full context, without mentioning that the full context is available at the link.
Rick: inaccurate and dishonest — by his own definition.
Rick, making irresponsible accusations of inaccuracy and dishonesty is not civil, so don’t pretend you’re civil, pal. I’d much rather be (and deal with) people who are blunt but honest than people like you who pretend to be civil but make B.S. accusations directed at honorable people.
Patterico (de0616) — 10/7/2006 @ 12:27 pmPatterico, I may have been mistaken in just posting a link, explicitly stating that I had made a change in the quote from the link, and then putting your name in [brackets] to show exactly where I made the change, so just to be clear: I did not intend for anyone to infer that the Village Voice was suggesting you didn’t include the context of what Gonzales wrote; I was suggesting that you didn’t include the context. I apologize if anyone got the mistaken impression that The Village Voice had anything to say about you or your blog.
Rick (c7fbdd) — 10/7/2006 @ 12:33 pmThe real problem, Rick, is that you persist in pretending that I didn’t link an earlier post of mine that sets forth the full Gonzales quote.
Kind of inaccurate and dishonest of you to omit that little detail.
Patterico (de0616) — 10/7/2006 @ 12:36 pmPatterico, whether or not you linked to the your earlier post ignores the reality that your current post ignores the context of Gonzales’s memo.
Rick (c7fbdd) — 10/7/2006 @ 12:46 pmNo, because my current post contains the link.
Interesting that you’re ignoring my point that your previous comment did not acknowledge that.
It’s almost as if you were being inaccurate and dishonest.
How’s about admitting that?
And now, I have things to do, Rick. I’m tired of repeatedly pointing out your inaccuracy and dishonesty and having you ignore it, and of your inability to understand blogs and links. I’m bored already.
Patterico (de0616) — 10/7/2006 @ 12:51 pmThat wasn’t worded very well; what I meant to say is: Patterico, whether or not you linked to your earlier post, your current post ignores the context of Gonzales’s memo.
Rick (c7fbdd) — 10/7/2006 @ 12:55 pmI don’t think that changes the meaning of your current post; imho, if you misrepresent what someone says, posting a link to a more accurate representation doesn’t absolve you of the misrepresentation.
[Well, then, it’s a lucky thing that — unlike you — I have misrepresented nothing. — P]
Rick (c7fbdd) — 10/7/2006 @ 1:01 pm‘…it is also inaccurate to ignore Gonzales intent in calling certain sections pertaining to the treatment of captured enemies “obsolete“…
The point that is most often missed, is that the GC is neither “quaint” nor “obsolete” re its application to IslamoFascist combatants – it is not applicable! We do ourselves a serious, if not grave, dis-service by trying to apply what does not. If we survive this conflict, we can all sit down and review and re-write the rules as we believe they should be. If we do not – what does it matter? Quit argueing about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin – there are more important matters at hand.
As to the LAT: When you dig yourself into a very deep hole, why should you be surprised when crap starts to roll down on you?
Another Drew (8018ee) — 10/7/2006 @ 2:06 pmEven though Patterico quoted the relevent part of Gonzales’s memo to include the word “obsolete” in his earlier post, he all but ignores the context and meaning there as well as here. In both posts, his commentary doesn’t address how Gonzales calls certain sections pertaining to the treatment of captured enemies “obsolete“. Instead, though he supplies Gonzales’s full quote [reproduced here with the part Patterico otherwise ignores bolded], “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.”, Patterico neglects the “obsolete” section and instead pounces upon the misquotations of the “quaint” part:
What about the “obsolete” part? Patterico is correct that the “lefty” bloggers and media did not accurately quote Gonzales’s memo, but his half-truth is no better. Patterico, in his older post as well as this one, ignores the meaning and context of Gonzales’s memo and in doing so misrepresents Gonzales’s actual position. His misrepresentation is no better than the one offered by the “leftists” he criticises.
Rick (c7fbdd) — 10/7/2006 @ 3:14 pmDrew posted:
The US Supreme Court recently rendered an opinion in that regard: In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, I believe the majority held that at least Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is applicable to the detainees.
Rick (c7fbdd) — 10/7/2006 @ 3:35 pmShorter Rick: demanding accuracy in quotations is wrong — unless you make unrelated points about material that you quote and link in full. Meanwhile, falsely accusing a blogger of dishonesty, while leaving out facts that show him honest, is acceptable and even good.
Patterico (de0616) — 10/7/2006 @ 5:02 pm“The US Supreme Court recently rendered an opinion in that regard: In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, I believe the majority held that at least Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is applicable to the detainees.”
I await with great expectation YOUR interpretation of Art. 3 as it applies to non-sovereign renegade murdering thugs. No one else can do it, no one, apparently you alone have your finger on the pulse of truth.
– Take a deep breath rick. I don’t believe your sanctimonious defense of “lowering yourelf” for a second. You, like all your Leftist bretheren, are simply desperate to “be different”. Hollow, weak, and intelectually dishonest. Its a simple case of hiding behind empty rhetoric to fein substance, where there is none.
Big Bang Hunter (9562fb) — 10/7/2006 @ 7:09 pmLA Times, NY Times, Aljazeera represent equal propaganda publishers. It is truely a shame that the American papers do not like America. And they are soooooooooooooo brave to not publish “the cartoons”. I spit on these papers.
krusher (936813) — 10/8/2006 @ 7:11 amBig Band Hunter posted:
I brought up Common Article 3 and the SCOTUS decision to counter a claim that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the detainees. My interpretation of Common Article 3 isn’t the issue, Big Bang Hunter, nor do I believe that my interpretation of it is even relevant. At issue is the Gonzales memo, it’s intent, and how it has been misquoted and misrepresented.
The misquoting of the Gonzales memo by Dowd and Isikoff should not be excused just because they referenced the memo; I believe that it is altogether proper to criticize them for their falsehood. In the same vein, a mischaracterization of the Gonzales memo and its intent should not be overlooked just because a link to a post with the quotation was provided. If holding bloggers and pundits to the same standards makes me “hollow, weak, and intellectually dishonest” in your eyes, I’ll just have to learn to live with that.
Rick
Rick (c7fbdd) — 10/8/2006 @ 10:40 amRick,
You might want to review this post for an object lesson in how you could have made your point without being 1) weaselly and 2) offensive.
In it, I noted Harry Shearer’s post about my “Isikoff” post. Harry said:
Well argued. Harry overstated things a tad by saying I “ignored” that passage, when in fact I had quoted it, but he managed to make his point without calling me inaccurate and dishonest. Here is how I responded in the post:
See? Harry 1) acknowledged that I had done a good job on the media criticism aspect; 2) did not level bogus accusations of dishonesty and inaccuracy at me; and 3) made a related and interesting point about the substance.
Well done. Take a lesson.
The above post, like my Isikoff post, was primarily a piece of media criticism. If my point had been to defend Gonzales by saying that he never minimized or quarreled with any part of the Geneva Convention, it would have been deceptive of me to ignore the “obsolete” comment. But my post was media criticism — noting that the media has incessantly repeated the canard that Gonzales deemed the Conventions “quaint.”
While the Village Voice said “obsolete” is worse, I think a good argument can be made that “quaint” is more dismissive — as evidenced by the fact that liberals continually harp on the world “quaint” and not the word “obsolete.” Evidently “quaint” is more mockable. Yet it was an accurate statement.
In a piece of media criticism, I am not required to make unrelated points about the substance of the matter that my opponents might want to bring up. For example, if a media outlet quotes Bill Clinton as saying:
then a blogger could rip that media outlet to shreds for misrepresenting the quote, and leave it at that. The blogger would have no ethical duty to provide “context” by noting: “Of course, he did weasel on the word ‘is’ in the Monica Lewinsky context” or “Of course, his Administration did nix plans to get Osama” — because those are not directly relevant to the narrow point he is making. If the blogger still included links to discussions of those two issues, he has done his job well — including contextualizing information in a link without burdening the post with distraction that are essentially irrelevant to the point of the post, which is media criticism.
To carry the analogy further, if the blogger included such links, and then some dishonest, sanctimonious putz came along and accused the blogger of never mentioning those contextualizing points, then the critic would be, by their own logic, dishonest and inaccurate — in a way the blogger never was. That’s because the blogger damn well did include such information, in the links — and the dishonest, inaccurate, lazy, and perhaps not very bright critic missed that, perhaps deliberately.
The blogger would be justified in saying: “Mr. Critic, are you lazy, or just highly disingenuous?”
And if such a critic couldn’t even bring themselves to admit that they were flat-out wrong to say the blogger had omitted the context, then said critic would demonstrate them to be without any shred of intellectual honesty whatsoever.
Patterico (de0616) — 10/8/2006 @ 12:09 pmCalling me names and claiming that I need to learn not to be offensive sure looks an awful lot like the pot calling the kettle black.
Rick (c7fbdd) — 10/8/2006 @ 4:10 pm