Robert Chesney: Those crazy lefties think the Gitmo inmates are all innocent!

The Washington Post op-ed page gave space Thursday to Robert Chesney, a University of Texas law professor, to argue that the debate on detainee policy is just too polarized ("A Detention Debate in Black and White"). Oh great.

So what was Chesney's evidence that some folks on the left are just too out there and crazy? He gave two examples. First:

... critics of the government's policies promiscuously invoke the post-Sept. 11 version of the Imperial Presidency narrative, reflexively depicting security-oriented policies in terms of executive branch power aggrandizement (with de rigueur references to former vice president Dick Cheney; his chief of staff, David Addington; or Justice Department attorney John Yoo, if not all three).

Ok, a few problems here. Part of the reason many of the human rights groups don't in fact say all that much about the government structure matters here (they don't focus on the executive/legislative relationship) is that they don't all take a position on the questions of government structure or executive power. They derive their positions largely based on international human rights law.

Many folks on the left criticized the Bush Administration's moves on executive power, as we did on detainee policy. The issues were related concerns. Did anyone actually argue that the Bush Administration did its detainee policy just for the heck of expanding executive power? Chesney doesn't provide an example. Doesn't sound familiar to me.

As for Cheney, Addington and Yoo being important players, I awaited Chesney's argument to the contrary, but there was none. This isn't conspiracy theory stuff; this is the mainstream understanding of the history (see Jane Meyer's 2006 piece on Addington, Jack Goldsmith's book (not exactly a leftist!) and Barton Gellman and Jo Becker's 2007 piece on Cheney and executive power). Gellman and Becker won a Pulitzer for their full series on Cheney, which, of course, was in the Washington Post. Define irony.

On to Chesney's second (and last!) example of how the left has gone over-the-top on the detainee issue:

...individual issues in the debate over detention policy are often framed in stark and incompatible terms. Take, for example, the Guantanamo detainees, who are portrayed in some quarters as innocent bystanders to the last man and in other quarters as the "worst of the worst." While both extremes are misleading, their influence is pervasive.

Pervasive! Lots of op-eds and cable-news guests saying the Gitmo prisoners are all innocent bystanders!

No. Sorry, not true. Sure, I bet you could find a comment in a blog post somewhere saying the Gitmo prisoners are all innocent. Chesney doesn't even provide one of those.

The human rights groups, liberal members of congress, progressive magazines and progressive intellectuals have similar but not totally alike views on detainee policy. But saying the Gitmo prisoners are all "innocent bystanders" -- that I just haven't seen them say. It's a straw man.

*

What we're left with is an op-ed that fails to provide a single example of a main part of its premise. Perhaps there are some examples out there of organizations or prominent leaders on the left saying crazy things about detainee policy. Robert Chesney couldn't find any.

The Washington Post op-ed page ought to find room for better arguments.