A few days ago, Craig and I were discussing the various woes facing Senate Democrats as a result of the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. While I may write about the actual content of that conversation, what I actually want to talk about here is of a more tangential nature.
Part of what we were discussing is what would constitute the Democrats’ best strategic response to the President’s nominee to replace O’Connor, and how such strategies might be received by liberals and progressives at large. Convential wisdom currently points to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez as being at the top of the White House list, and I suggested that liberal and progressive groups would immediately begin screaming about Gonzalez’s signature of the oft-discussed “Torture Memo.”
Here is where the tangential part comes in, as it occurred to me that while I had heard plenty about this memo, I had never actually read it myself. So I did.
Not being a lawyer, I can’t really speak to whether or not the memo actually condones torture—it seems like it does, but the language is rather dense legalese, so it’s hard to say for sure. However, what did intrigue me is that despite all the commentary on the Left about how Gonzalez had referred to the Geneva Conventions as being “quaint,” this is not exactly what the memo says, and I would go so far as to say that it’s a mischaracterization.
What the memo does say is that certain aspects of the Geneva Conventions are quaint, specifically, those guaranteeing prisoners commissary privileges, athletic uniforms, scrip, and access to scientific instruments. I have to agree—that’s some pretty quaint stuff.
Maybe I’m going too far with the benefit of the doubt, here. Nonetheless, I think it’s important that when we toss out accusations such as the ones that are being lobbed from our side of the aisle at Gonzalez, we ought to make sure that they’re accurate. Maybe the guy really does support torturing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other “detention facilities.” Maybe he supports torturing puppies and kittens, too. My point is that liberals look really stupid when they make claims such as these that can be easily discredited/turned aside by conservatives.