The confirmation of Mr. Armitage’s role, long the subject of media speculation, shows that the initial disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identify did not originate from the White House as part of a concerted political attack, but was divulged by a senior State Department official who was not regarded as a close political ally of Vice President Dick Cheney.
-- Armitage Says He the Source in CIA Leak (NYT)
To perhaps answer a question I raised, Armitage said that he did not discuss his role until now because Patrick Fitzgerald asked him not to do so. Okay. All the same, the coverage continues to be open to so much spin, and is clearly misleading. Not always quite as much as the Washington Post editorial comment on it, but misleading all the same. And, various unanswered questions remain.
For instance, consider the title of this piece. Yes, he was "the" source in respect to certain leaks, and perhaps he was the first one. I don't know ... but let's say it "originated" with him. So what? It was still used "as part of a concerted political attack" by others. In fact, Armitage appears -- questions still remain -- to have obtained the information (what is this "Ms. Wilson" business?) while reading a classified report (people share classified information, and I have been among those who said this should not be considered illicit per se, though it depends on the context) that was part of that very attack! Finally, it is unclear if the "covert" agent and the cover story company bit came from him (seems not).
[Update: The WP story clarifies: "Novak asked me, 'Hey, why did the CIA send Mr. Wilson to Niger?' I said, 'I don't know, but I think his wife worked out there,'" Armitage said. The report A. read did not discuss her "covert" status. So, that didn't come from him. Or, so is the story.]
Meanwhile, Armitage's former boss continues to try to justify human rights law lite when dealing with suspected terrorists and other assorted bad guys. Or, who we think might be bad guys ... putting aside all the mistakes and such. The discussion led to some -- including on the Slate Fray -- to consider the question. A couple people in particular argued that in effect "the enemy" and/or "terrorists" are involved in asymmetrical (to use a fancy-smancy word) warfare, not having the resources or ability to follow the rules that are presupposed when the Geneva Conventions are to be carried out. So, why should they receive its privileges? I use the word advisedly, since it is assumed that we aren't talking about basic human rights here, or even things that are required under our laws (including rules of military conduct) anyway.*
[One noted s/he supports "humane" treament without torture but would allow indefinite detainment, while disagreeing with the "Article 3" argument in Hamdan respecting peoples who breach the conventions in nations that previously signed on to them. How much does this really offer at the end of the day? See also the note.]
Such things are often phrased in such a way that annoys even before we get to the core issue. Thus, one spoke of how GCs were written for "Western" industrial nations and such, which to be fair, must have meant "First World" nations or something (you know, Japan counts). Uh huh. No sorry, it has been signed by nearly every nation in the world, though some reprobates (you know, the usual suspects) have not signed on to all of its protocols (if you missed the sarcasm, the U.S. is included here). Also, there is some general sentiment that the people we have in custody are "terrorists," when in fact, none of them has been tried and found as such. Finally, exaggerations are made. Terrorists have no base of support or reason to follow some basic rules of conduct and so forth. This is not true as a general matter; Hezbollah in fact is a prime example. I also noted the three journalists recently kidnapped and eventually released.
What confuses me, other than the idea that somehow the current conflict is totally new (no terrorism in the past? illegal attacks [civilians cannot be attacked as such, but many actions do harm civilians] on civilians?), is that the Geneva Conventions treat different groups differently. It is important to underline that BushCo has not supplied proper protections to suspected terrorists and so forth. But, going beyond that, there is this implication that terrorists under the GC have the same rights as regular combatants. Thus, they have no reason to "follow the rules." No honor among thieves.
Huh? If you are an illegal combatant (Malvo was not a murderous sniper but part of an army of two), only some minimum protections are supplied. One thinks about spies -- they have limited security because they have no uniform or mark. But, they cannot be tortured, right? Overall, I do not buy the argument. First, as suggested, the either/or situation is more messy in practice. Terrorists have reasons to limit their actions; they have a base, foreign support, and so forth. In fact, some of the insurgents in Iraq have agreed not to target civilians. Also, the GCs clearly were not written for conflicts with basically evenly matched sides -- sometimes, one side might have very limited resources. Did the people who wrote the GCs really not imagine such a situation? Worldwide anarchism, international communism, independence movements and so forth in recent memory, ongoing, or likely to arise?
Also, there are various pragmatic reasons to supply some protections to illegal combatants. [The legitimate nature of some combatants, especially among leftist theorists, is open to debate. The rules might be different in certain situations, such as the Palestinians vs. the Israelis. I put this aside.] Simply put, we look like assholes when our President offers rules of military commissions that top JAG officials tell the Congress are not proper under rules of civilized (a term of art) conduct. And, yes, potential illegal combatants/terrorists are influenced by how humane they will be treated. In positive ways, including working with their captors, and not doing some acts in the first place.
Finally, not to be naive or anything, we are a civilized nation that should follow certain rules. I am not sure what rules that apply to illegal combatants [who again are not treated the same as POWs] should not exist. And, what the limits to the argument truly might be. In various conflicts, civilians will in some fashion help insurgents. Should they too not receive GC protections? Insurgents will have some sort of medical services -- they are not all suicide bombers. Are we supposed to target these people, who in various cases might be "civilians" (sort of like Dr. Mudd helping Booth, the former probably no complete innocent) in some sense? And, simply put, we cannot trust this administration with some sort of GC-lite protections.
"Humane" treatment? Ha. There is nothing wrong with tweaking human rights law to some extent; there surely is some play in the joints if they are basically honored. But, there is no reason to re-write them here, especially given the basis offered leaves a lot to be desired.
---
* Thus, there is a "beside the point" nature to the whole debate. Some are loath to call the current conflict a "war," though I find it hard to totally take this seriously in certain respects. What is going on in Iraq certain looks like some sort of war, even if it is a quasi-war. And, the war power can be carried out in a sort of junior variety way [thus, in the late 1790s, we had a "quasi-war" with France], even if it really is a military occupation.
This is not mere semantics, but I can put it aside in most cases. Thus, the idea that treaty rights here is a sort of "contract" that need not be followed when breached. This in effect raises the rules of "reprisal," which has limits at any rate. If they torture, do we get to do the same? Honestly, I do not fully know the exact guidelines, though civilians are clearly protected. [But, "they" don't honor our civilians' rights and often have support of the general population. So, the tit for tat rules simply must have limits, right?]
But, the limits of reprisal notwithstanding, there clearly are limits on civilian conduct, limits that arise from our own laws and constitutional mandates.