Month: November 2005

Like many other Catholics, I was relieved last week when Cardinal Poupard insisted that there was no fundamental conflict between Catholicism and evolution: “Fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim.” This has long been the Church’s position, and its re-statement came at a moment when the loopy right is trying to undermine science education in the United States. The London Times’ Rees-Mogg even wrote:

Cardinal Poupard’s statement clarified the acceptance of Darwinism and rightly asserted that religious belief is compatible with the theory of evolution. He also gave a further indication that the mindset of Benedict XVI may be a good deal more modern than had been expected. One should have foreseen that with a German pope. The German Church has a strong tradition of theological inquiry in which Benedict XVI has been educated.

Alas, not so fast. Almost immediately, the Pope came out with a statement that clearly signals the hierarchy’s flirtation with intelligent design. Rees-Mogg argues that Benedict is an intellectual. Maybe. But he is a politician first.

The scoffing from the back row from my quoting Lincoln deserves, I guess, a response. Yes, I am, of course, well aware that he briefly suspended Habeas Corpus. It was re-reading about those years and decisions in Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book that brought me upon that quote. Lincoln’s decision is still debatable, but it was made at a time of national meltdown. My point here is that even Lincoln, in the most perilous political situation imaginable, still recognized the vital importance of defending the liberties that the Constitution is fundamentally constructed to protect. I have never heard president Bush extol the importance of civil liberties for Americans, and the need to guard against the criminal arm of government. It would be good to know that he even appreciates the trade-off. Maybe I’ve missed his defense of civil liberties for Americans. If someone finds a quote from him in that respect that isn’t pro forma boilerplate, I’ll gladly post it.

The just-passed Graham Amendment may be voided in its worst manifestations by an upcoming vote on an extra amendment, offered by Senator Bingaman next week. There may be complicated parliamentary maneuvring going on. What am I saying? May be. There is. The reasons to worry about the Graham bill are ably set out by Marty Lederman here, whose expertise vastly exceeds my own. I can see why enemy combatants might be denied the usual habeas corpus protections of citizens, if not minimal protections under Geneva. But the removal of all judicial oversight of their cases – which is what the Graham amendment would mean – leaves the entire question of detainee rights in the hands of the Pentagon. Rummy is asking us to trust him. At this point, why would any sane person do so?

“I fear you do not fully comprehend the danger of abridging the liberties of the people. Nothing but the sternest necessity can ever justify it. A government had better go to the extreme of toleration, than to do aught that could be construed into an interference with, or to jeopardize in any degree, the common rights of its citizens,” – Abraham Lincoln, in the midst of a national insurrection. It’s on page 523 of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s wonderful new book, “Team of Rivals.” The italics are in the original.

QUOTE FOR THE DAY II: “We do not torture,” – George W. Bush, earlier this week.

He’s working very, very hard to maintain the policy enabling the torture or abuse of military detainees. His latest gambit is a new DoD directive that claims to address the concerns raised by Senator McCain. Money quote from Scott Horton:

No one who has tracked this issue is misled even for a second as to the major goal of this effort: it is to preserve the CIA’s ability to use highly coercive techniques – cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and yes, torture – in their intelligence gathering process. But a careful examination of the new directive shows that it is more an effort to entrench current abusive policies than a recognition of criticisms and resolve to fairly answer them.

A full analysis here.

He doesn’t want to know:

Frist told reporters Thursday that while he believed illegal activity should not take place at detention centers, he believes the leak itself poses a greater threat to national security and is ‘not concerned about what goes on’ behind the prison walls.

Beyond belief.

The sleeping disorder can double your risk of strokes and death. And the bad news is: we have no solid data that proves that CPAP treatment make a difference in this respect. They sure do help you live a more productive and alert life, though.

I’m glad NRO’s curmudgeon just linked to an old piece of his on torture. That it was written in November 2001, at the height of our post-9/11 fears, speaks a great deal about the integrity of the argument. Torture, of course, is not restricted to cliches about finger-nails or electrodes. Derbyshire writes of one of the techniques deployed by Communist China:

Ian Buruma gives some similar pen-portraits in his new book about Chinese dissidents. Chia Thye Poh, for example, was kept in solitary confinement for twenty-six years by the Singapore authorities for having resigned his seat in parliament to protest the policies of Lee Kuan Yew. In their attempts to get him to sign a confession that he was a Communist, which he wasn’t, Chia’s jailers inflicted on him such peculiarly modern tortures as forcing him to stand naked in a freezing room with the air-conditioning going full blast, and piping loud Muzak into his cell day and night. Chia never cracked. Why not? asked Buruma, at a meeting with Chia. “He was much too polite to say so, but it was clear my question had baffled him. I wished I hadn’t asked. ‘How could I have signed?’ he said, very softly. ‘It wasn’t true.'”

Those techniques – of freezing or heating detainees into despair or pain or psychological collapse – have now become part of the U.S. government’s armory. This must end. We can win this war without destroying the very civilization we are fighting for. We can win without losing our soul. Any other kind of victory is a euphemism for defeat.

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there.” – Pat Robertson, on a school district that decided to teach science in its science curriculum. Before I get emails from conservatives saying that Robertson represents no one in the Republican coalition, let me remind you that he was one of the religious leaders phoned by Karl Rove to discuss Supreme Court nominees. My rule of thumb is that I will trust the good faith of any Republican politician who is prepared to criticize Robertson publicly. Until then, he’s their problem.

After another brutal slaying of Muslims, the Jordanian public seems to turn against al Qaeda. The one constant in this war is the evil of our enemies – and their stupidity. With any luck, enough Sunni Arabs in Iraq will look into the abyss that Zarqawi offers them, and turn back as well.

BLAIR’S CASE: It would be wonderful if the debate in the U.S. were between a 90 day detention without charge for terror-suspects and a 28-day limit. But one British reader believes that Blair is right, and that the vote yesterday is pure politics:

The strange situation here was Blair had carried the vast majority of public opinion on this issue. Regular polls, discussions and letters backed the 90 day proposal. Since the July attacks Blair had seen a rise in his standing, a strong, firm stance after the atrocities obviously the cause.
Where I disagree with you, is your assessment of the 28 day compromise as ‘sane’. The people who thought Blair was right here had listened to the security services and Met Police Chief Ian Blair. They understood the sheer mountain of work in front of those protecting us. Just off the top of my head, these people are uncovering networks that have computer set-ups with 750 gigabyte memories, and it takes more than a little time for those code crackers to find the keys and such for those sites.
This is the most painstaking, methodical, eye for detail work I can imagine. We can’t be half-arsed about this stuff.
Anti terrorist cop Andy Hayman reckons that alone takes weeks. This is why the majority here saw the news that Blair had lost from a jubilant media, but asked themselves just who exactly had won? MPs here ask why voters are apathetic, then just turn their noses up at their constituents. Make no mistake this wasn’t a victory for the mother of all Parliaments, merely a lynch mob who have been waiting to see Blair fall.
Its sad when personal vendettas and grandstanding trump a nation’s security.

Other British observers I’ve spoken with said that Blair never made a clear, convincing case for the 90 days. Like Bush and Cheney, he simply insisted that he alone knew what was right and necessary. In a democracy, that’s not good enough. With something as fundamental as habeas corpus at stake, the burden of proof must be on the executive.

QUOTE FOR THE DAY II: “I will quote to you (from memory) a talk with a Latin-American revolutionary who told me about torture in Brazil.
I asked: ‘What is wrong with torture?’ and he said:
‘What do you mean? Do you suggest it is all right? Are you justifying torture?’
And I said: ‘On the contrary, I simply ask you if you think that torture is a morally inadmissible monstrosity.’
‘Of course,’ he replied.
‘And so is torture in Cuba?’ I asked.
‘Well,’ he answered, ‘this is another thing. Cuba is a small country under the constant threat of American imperialists. They have to use all means of self-defense, however regrettable.’ Then, I said: ‘Now, you cannot have it both ways. If you believe, as I do, that torture is abominable and inadmissible on moral grounds, it is such, by definition, in all circumstances. If however there are circumstances where it can be tolerated, you can condemn no regime for applying torture, since you assume that there is nothing essentially wrong with torture itself. Either you condemn torture in Cuba in exactly the same way you do for Brazil, or you refrain from condemning the Brazilian police for torturing people. In fact, you cannot condemn torture on political grounds, because in most cases it is perfectly efficient and the torturers get what they want. You can condemn it only on moral grounds and then, necessarily, everywhere in the same way, in Batista’s Cuba, in Castro’s Cuba, in North Vietnam and in South Vietnam.'” – Leszek Kolakowski, the great critic and student of Marxism, from an exchange with leftist E. P. Thompson, in his book, “My Correct Views on Everything.”