CT-Sen: Unfair Attack on Lieberman

A billboard now up in Connecticut unfairly attacks Joe Lieberman:

Weighing in on Connecticut's hotly contested congressional races, a group of religious activists have unveiled a giant billboard off busy Interstate 95 that accuses four candidates of voting to allow torture. The billboard in Stratford names Democratic U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman and Republican Reps. Christopher Shays, Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson as supporters of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

This billboard unfairly implies that Lieberman chose to support torture when he voted for the Military Commission Act of 2006. Now it is true that Lieberman is an unpincipled flip flopper, as his most recent flop on Bolton attests. But his position on torture has been consistent and steadfast -- he has always supported torture:

There is a very serious and classically American debate going on about how to handle al Qaeda and the Taliban - prisoners taken from their membership. And what is the relevance of the Geneva Convention to those people? It is the argument of a nation that cares about the rule of law.

You can agree with Judge Gonzales's position in this matter or not. I happen to agree with the ultimate decision made. And the decision was, in my opinion, a reasonable one, and ultimately a progressive one. The decision was that under the terms of the Geneva Convention, al Qaeda simply is not a state party to the Convention, is a terrorist group and as such its members were not entitled to prisoner of war status. And there's a sentence in Judge Gonzales's opinion that has been quoted with great derision, laughter, as if it was over the edge. He wrote, "The new paradigm war on terrorism renders "quaint" some of the provisions requiring that a captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, script advances of monthly pay, athletic uniforms and scientific instruments."

I think Judge Gonzales was being restrained and diplomatic in using the word "quaint" . . . .  Giving these benefits to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the attacks against us on September 11, wouldn't be quaint. It would be offensive. It would be ridiculous. It would be ultimately unjust.

A conclusion -- a different, interesting kind of conclusion was reached about the Taliban, which is, as the summary of the opinion says, "Although we never recognized the Taliban as a legitimate afghan government, Afghanistan is a party to the Geneva Convention and, therefore, the President has determined that the Taliban are covered by that Convention." But then they decided under the terms of the convention, Taliban detainees do not qualify for prisoner of war status.

On torture, on the Geneva Convention, Joe Lieberman has been remarakably consistent--he supports torture, he opposes the Geneva Convention's application to enemy combatants. To suggest that he's a Johnny-Come-Lately to this position is patently unfair.

Similarly, Lieberman has been remarkably consistent in placing his full trust in President Bush and supporting him absolutely. His vote for the Military Commissions Act is consistent on this as well:

The legislation also says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts.

After all, Lieberman believes that

It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril.

So let's be fair, Lieberman's vote in favor of the 2006 Military Commisions Act is perfectly consistent with his steadfast support of torture,  his disdain for the Geneva Conventions, his absolute trust in President Bush and his refusal to disagree with the President. There's nothing new there.