I vaguely remember a time I vaguely remember a time in the dim past when, whatever I
thought of her politics, Molly Ivins could get a chuckle out of me. But
lately
she's writing like someone with just about nothing of substance left to
say and the compulsion to say it at length, repeatedly. For example, this
tired slander and hebetudinous failure of logic:

We go along for months having a war -- the war in Afghanistan,
the war on terrorism, the war to get Osama bin Laden dead or alive, troops
on the ground, bombs in the air ... in other words, war. Those of us who
suggested that maybe war was not the right rhetoric for this situation were
booed down for being insufficiently bloodthirsty, and the caissons went rolling
along. Now we've won the war It's not clear what we've won, but we've definitely
won, which is better than losing. So we take the prisoners we've captured
off to our base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and suddenly announce that they
are not prisoners of war after all, because this isn't really a war we've
been fighting. Therefore the prisoners are "illegal combatants," and we don't
have to treat them in accord with the Geneva Convention on POWs.

This rationale for why they are not being classified as prisoners of war
exists only in Ms. Ivins' head. Elsewhere in the article she again displays
her confusion by admitting that "[i]n fact, these prisoners are anomalous
and do not meet the convention's standards for prisoners of war -- but we're
the ones who keep claiming this is a war". One can only imagine how Ms.
Ivins arrived at the notion that, somewhere in the text of the Geneva Convention,
there is a stipulation that a designation of "war" removes all limitations
on which fighters may qualify for prisoner of war status. If she'd bothered
to peruse the document, she'd have noticed that the intent is to restrict
the qualifications of a combatant for POW status in time of war, not extend
it to anybody and everybody. Does she think the Convention rejects the idea
of an "illegal combatant"? There's intelligent discussion and disagreement
about the Geneva Convention going on now, but Ivins stumbles before crossing
the debate's asses' bridge. Then:

This is why a lot of people hate us. For the sheer bloody arrogance
of having it both ways all the time. For thinking that we are above the rules,
that we can laugh at treaties, that we can do whatever we want -- we don't
have to keep our word or behave like other civilized nations, and we can
just tell people to bugger off when they raise questions.

Oh yes indeed, the U.S. has been guilty of pursuing unfair strategies in
pursuit of its own interests. (About that Canadian timber, for example...)
But it would be helpful if Ivins could tell us who these "other civilized
nations" are, that selflessly abjure their own self-interest for the good
of the international community. Perhaps she's never pondered how the French
would be handling these prisoners, if al-Qaeda had done its work in Paris?
And the Brits, apparently, would rather not be bothered at all with handling
the prisoners who are British nationals. Too dangerous, and a legal nightmare.
She probably believes that "other civilized nations" would happily sustain
damage to their economies if it were required by the (unratified by anybody)
Kyoto protocols, or that they don't maintain advantageous (i.e., unfair)
trade practices. (I'm not sure what she's trying to say in inchoherent aside
about the WTO at the end of the article - well, aside from using any hook
to bash business and castigate the U.S. for obduracy in not changing its
internal laws to suit supranational bodies.) She also makes a statement
about which a reader may be able to enlighten me: "We claim we don't have
to allow the International Red Cross in to inspect the conditions at Guantanamo".
This may be so, but I missed any official claiming specifically that we
had a right to refuse Red Cross visits. Readers? She continues: " Nobody
has any idea if, when or how these prisoners are going to be tried." She's
partly right here, as far as I know. Got any bright ideas, Molly, on unraveling
this thorny political and legal problem? I do know that we'd like to send
most of 'em back to their home countries. Not that their home countries
are necessarily keen on that plan.

But here's a better illustration of Ivins' muddied perspective:

Retired Gen. Bernard Trainor said, "Well, they like to spend a lot of time on their knees anyway." That'll sound good on Arab TV.

Now, she's right to complain about the boorishness of the General's, er, quip. But is she really so laughably naive as to believe that if we muzzled the General Trainors, "Arab TV", or anybody else's TV (all those scrupulously neutral outlets!), would refrain from the habit of putting a negative spin on U.S. action? What kind of world does she think we live in?
Posted by Moira Breen at January 27, 2002 11:04 AM