Today, Glenn Reynolds says, rather blandly, that “I’ve long been anti-torture, after all.” Back in March, he wrote the following item:
“EUGENE VOLOKH: ‘I am being perfectly serious, by the way. I like civilization, but some forms of savagery deserve to be met not just with cold, bloodless justice but with the deliberate infliction of pain, with cruel vengeance rather than with supposed humaneness or squeamishness. I think it slights the burning injustice of the murders, and the pain of the families, to react in any other way.’ The notion that civilization equals squeamishness is not supported by history.”
Volokh, who has subsequently conceded some points, was endorsing torture-and-execution by the Iranian government in his original post. Well, he was defending, to be precise, “a slow throttling … preceded by a flogging.” Reynolds seemed to me to endorse Volokh’s position. How else to interpret his last sentence? And he has steadfastly refused to cover evidence that the U.S. has indeed violated the law in condoning torture; and accused those of us who protest the record of going soft in the war, as if trying to prevent huge self-inflicted wounds is somehow going soft. It seems to me that Glenn’s position is the president’s: he’s against torture, except when it happens. Then he refuses to stop or condemn it. And in unguarded moments, he’s a real enthusiast. Or maybe I have this wrong and, like Volokh, Instapundit has changed his mind somewhat.
AGREEING WITH JOSH: Here’s an elegant argument that both decries the Democrats’ tactics against judicial nominees and yet resists the filibuster:
Under current Senate procedures, it takes 60 votes to end a debate and move to a vote. It takes 67 votes to change the procedures. Some conservatives argue that the 60-vote rule to cut off debate, when applied to judicial nominations, violates the Constitution. The “advice and consent” of the Senate, they say, implies that it should only take a majority of the Senate to confirm a judge. The use of the filibuster effectively creates a supermajority requirement, which, on this argument, is unconstitutional. It is, in our view, an implausible argument. The Constitution does not forbid the Senate from setting its own procedures.
That’s exactly Josh Marshall’s point, no? And it’s National Review’s. Oh, wait! (Hat tip, to its credit: NRO).
EMAIL OF THE DAY: “Please, get back to either supporting the war on terror or at least writing cogently. I was an interrogator with US Army Intelligence. I may or may not have desecrated the Koran and I would consider it treason for people like you to want to investigate it.”
The Dish 