Month: October 2005

Here’s a touching piece that cuts to the core of why abortion is, in my view, morally wrong. Money quote:

In ancient Greece, babies with disabilities were left out in the elements to die. We in America rely on prenatal genetic testing to make our selections in private, but the effect on society is the same.
Margaret’s old pediatrician tells me that years ago he used to have a steady stream of patients with Down syndrome. Not anymore. Where did they go, I wonder. On the west side of L.A., they aren’t being born anymore, he says.

We have real debates about sex-selection abortion; if we ever find a gay gene, you can be sure much of the next generation of homosexuals will be aborted; but today, the silent abortion of countless potential human beings who have Down Syndrome is barely discussed. It should be. Note that I’m not saying here that all abortion should be illegal. I’d vote for a law that kept it legal in the first trimester to protect a woman’s ownership of her own body and for pragmatic reasons; and I think majorities in most states would agree, if allowed a vote. But it is always wrong. How can it not be?

Here’s Senator Inhofe’s explanation of his vote to keep torture as an option for the U.S. military:

I understand your concerns and I want to make it unequivocally clear that I do not condone torture. I believe that torture is abhorrent, inexcusable, and unbecoming of a great nation such as ours. Furthermore, torturing captured enemy combatants has proven to produce intelligence that is unreliable. I believe that our soldiers should have the highest standards reasonably allowed and uphold the values that we all, as Americans, share. If any soldier does not measure up to these standards, they should be dismissed from service and anybody who tortures captives should be fully prosecuted.

I voted against Senator McCain’s amendment to the FY 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations because I believe that the amendment is a mistake. Senator McCain’s amendment would put into code our interrogation tactics. We learned from Al-Qaeda training manuals, that Al-Qaeda had learned about our interrogation tactics and were training their terrorists about how to defeat them. This makes the interrogator’s job of obtaining useful and reliable intelligence from captured terrorists much more difficult because the greatest aid to an interrogator is the fear of the unknown. This is why I believe that we should keep our interrogation tactics classified so that other groups are not able to copy what Al-Qaeda did.

Er, Senator, the Army Field Manual 34 – 52, which McCain wants to codify in law, is already public. The amendment only makes clear what is already banned and in the public domain. Nothing classified is revealed. The amendment would allow the Pentagon to improvise within these clear guidelines, and the DoD could also classify certain sections if it wanted to. But, yes, enemy combatants would know that the U.S. won’t abuse, degrade or torture them if captured. They would know that America is better than Saddam or any other Arab dictatorship. Does Inhofe have a problem with that?

“I think it’s past time for there to be a changing of the guard in black leadership in America. People like Farrakhan, Sharpton and Jackson are no better than hustlers, bigots, and crooks. There are hundreds of black leaders who believe in improving the lives of black Americans, and America in general, but the media keeps giving time to the Axis of Irrelevancy.” – Oliver Willis. I thought there had been a change in black leadership. Don’t Oprah Winfrey, Barack Obama, and Condi Rice count?

MAGGIE ON VOLOKH: Maggie Gallagher is guest-blogging about civil marriage and procreation at Volokh. Her posts start here. Dale Carpenter will follow her.

THE INSIDE STORY: Jeremy Greenstock was Britain’s U.N. ambassador during the run-up to the Iraq war. He knows a lot, which is presumably why his book has been suppressed by the British government. Somehow, I think we will find out more and more about what really went on in the coming months and years. I’m still very reluctant to believe that there was conscious pre-meditated deception by Blair or Bush on the subject of Saddam’s alleged WMD arsenal. I think they were very cautious, as any democratic leader after 9/11 should have been. Misreading intelligence is not the same as deliberate distortion. But censoring memoirs of very respected public servants is not exactly going to increase public confidence, is it?

“Dear Captain Fishback,
Keep your head up, sir, and know that here’s one former airborne troop who would be proud to throw you a salute any day.
I have been ashamed of the craven conduct of those now in command of my Army and their dishonorable support and concealment of the unlawful and disgraceful conduct you are fighting to stop. I hope that the SecDef and those on down the chain of command who have shielded the troops who have broken the laws of war and the officers’ responsible for the actions of these troops are merely stupid. If they aren’t, then they will be called upon to explain themselves after the misbehavior they have encouraged has handed Osama and our jihadist enemies their greatest propaganda victory.
If we are to win our fight against Islamic terrorism it will be the actions of honorable warriors such as you, sir, that will lead us to victory. Don’t give in, don’t regret what you have done. For one thing, you have helped restore this soldier’s faith in the willingness of an Army officer to give fully of himself for Duty, Honor and Country.
All The Way, Sir!”

I’m still forwarding emails of support to Ian Fishback, who tried for months and months to get clear guidance from his superiors about treatment of military detainees, and whose letter to Senator McCain helped shift momentum to pass an amendment to codify the existing ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of any prisoners. President Bush and especially vice-president Cheney are determined to prevent the amendment from becoming law. Senator McCain is hanging tough. If you want to send a message of support to Fishback, you still can: supportfishback@aol.com.

The Onion’s on the case. And their Washington reporting is top-notch as well. (This item is just for JPod. Love you, blue eyes.)

These voting numbers are eerily close to the days of Saddam. You might expect overwhelming majorities in favor of the new charter in Shiite and Kurdish provinces, but this still looks fishy. Again: we need to wait to see the full vote count before we can say anything more. But it does look as if Sunni Arab participation was meaningful in the three provinces where Sunni Arabs predominate; and the process can therefore continue. That in itself is a victory of sorts. In how many Arab countries can we speak of anything similarly constitutional or democratic? But rumors of fraud will not exactly lower support for the insurgency, which is a key element in undermining it. Let’s hope that the re-checked results are credible. And that the extremely tough work the troops are doing over there – especially restraining violence during the vote itself – will soon reap more rewards.

“Guantanamo Bay people were implanted in the [Abu Ghraib] prison around October, and they showed up and changed everything. Things got more harsh,” – a source “with intimate knowledge of the events at Abu Ghraib” on Frontline tomorrow night. Then there’s this self-serving but accurate quote from Army Reserve Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was disciplined for allowing the abuse to continue: “They can do whatever they want; they could make it appear any way they want – I will not be silenced. I will continue to ask how they can continue to blame seven rogue soldiers on the nightshift when there is a preponderance of information right now, hard information from a variety of sources, that says otherwise.” Eventually, we’ll find out the truth.

Could it be paying off? Kos has backed Schwarzenegger’s attempt to end the partisan gerrymandering of California’s districts; now the LA Times is endorsing his bid to curtail the political clout of public sector unions.

So far, the base is evenly split between those who support her and those who don’t know enough yet to say.

Here’s Senator Wayne Allard’s explanation for why he opposes an amendment to the military appropriations bill that would codify in law the existing ban on torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of detainees:

As you know, the incidents of torture and abuse of military detainees captured in the efforts of the Global War on Terror continue to make headlines in the media. Such acts are despicable and deplorable and are not representative of our armed forces. Those who have committed such acts in the past have violated more than the Army’s regulations for interrogation, they have rejected the very values this nation holds dear.

The President and the Secretary of Defense have made it very clear to our military men and women that the United States does not condone torture, and has punished those who have committed such acts. In the wake of abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison, the Defense Department has conducted 12 major reviews into detainee operations. There have been more than 500 criminal investigations and 30 congressional hearings, resulting in career-ending actions of the commanding general and the commanding officer of the military intelligence brigade at Abu Ghraib.

Furthermore, codifying the Army field manual, as required by the McCain amendment, does not right the wrongs committed by those individuals who were clearly acting outside of the Army’s existing regulations and the laws of our country. In fact, in my mind, all it does is tie the hands of the Department of Defense at a time when maximum flexibility within the boundaries of the U.S. law is needed.

If the amendment does nothing but add legislative force behind existing administration policy, how does it “tie the hands” of the president? Why wouldn’t a president, horrified by accounts of abuse and torture, not embrace extra emphasis from the Congress on the same matter? If he wants to be “very clear,” why wouldn’t he be delighted by Congressional support?