Risk

Felix Salmon says that "you can’t simply look at Madoff’s astonishingly regular returns and conclude that he was stealing money. In fact, it’s quite easy to replicate those returns entirely legitimately." He concludes:

If Madoff is causing a crisis of confidence in the markets, it might be for this reason: that he’s driven home the fact that you can never know for sure that your money is safe and that it will be there tomorrow. That’s always a good reason not to invest in hedge funds, even when fraud isn’t a problem at all. And it’s a problem which even the most perspicacious fund-of-fund manager can’t get around.

Ross On Torture I

Padillagoggles

A reader writes:

I would agree with Ross Douthat’s point that the difference between the theory of "stress positions" and the reality of their systematic application is a distinction that is easier to maintain in the abstract than in the real world. The problem is that the actual visualization of "enhanced interrogation techniques" takes a kind of difficult, forced empathy that is very easy to glide over unless you sit still mentally and actually take your mind to the circumstances, the conditions, the minutes of what that experience might be like.  And if you don’t do that, it becomes that much easier to rationalize the behavior.

In some horrific way, Abu Ghraib removed the last excuse to rationalize it. And that is why I find the over-reach of the Bush-Cheney administration more explicable early on, and utterly indefensible thereafter. To persist in the policy even after Abu Ghraib, and to insist that the right to torture anyone is a permanent power inherent in the American executive is simply unforgivable. I cannot imagine any founding father agreeing that the constitution allows an American president to name anyone he wants an "enemy combatant" and to seize him indefinitely and torture him at will to procure confessions to justfy the seizure in the first place.

Now look again at the photograph of US citizen Jose Padilla above. Again: it’s just a glimpse of the hell Cheney created. Padilla was charged with planning to detonate a dirty bomb in a major city, picked up on American soil, and thrown into a torture chamber until he was made insane. The original charges were dropped and the ones he was convicted on relatively trivial. He’s no angel — but Americans do not need to be angels to be free of this kind of brutality.

Now look at the manacles on hands and feet; and look at the goggles; and the ear-muffs; and the armed guards – as if he were any threat. Why is he wearing those goggles and ear-muffs? To sustain an environment of total human isolation and sensory deprivation, to maintain the endless torture (that would still leave no permanent physical marks) that eventually broke his body and his soul and his mind:

"During questioning, he often exhibits facial tics, unusual eye movements and contortions of his body," Mr. Patel said. "The contortions are particularly poignant since he is usually manacled and bound by a belly chain when he has meetings with counsel."

This is an American citizen to whom all this was done by the American government before he ever got a day in court.

A plea to my fellow conservatives: a government that has the inherent power to do this to an American citizen is the effective abolition of America. Now you no longer have to defend the Bush administration, please think about this; and what it means for all of us.

Engagement, Please

Ross wants:

"a defender of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld approach to interrogation to write an extended review of Mayer’s The Dark Side – as a joint review with Jack Goldsmith’s The Terror Presidency, perhaps, or with any other book or report that seems relevant – and respond directly and in detail to the narrative she’s pieced together, and to the direct and circumstantial evidence she marshals for a connection between the decisions made in the White House and the abuses that happened on the ground."

That would be a start.

Poison Penn, Ctd

Packer tackles Penn:

Why does someone like Penn think he can do this job, which isn’t his job? Perhaps because he can write down and relay the words of famous people to whom his own fame gives him access, and because certain thoughts pass through his mind while he’s writing them down. Penn’s moonlighting shows a kind of contempt for journalism, which turns out to be rather difficult to do well. It also shows that he’s missed one of the main points of Obama’s election, which has Penn shedding tears at the end of his dispatch. Obama is the splendid fruit of a meritocracy. In a meritocracy, actors who act well get good roles. They don’t get to be journalists, too—a job that, in a meritocracy, should go to those who do journalism well. Nor should any journalist, however accomplished, expect to land a leading part in Penn’s next movie.

Then: Caroline Kennedy. I mean seriously: get a throne or something.

“What Counts”

Defending the Warren pick, Damon Linker says that the Democrats are better on gay rights, so we should roll over:

Andrew might be right that Obama will not prove to be a champion of gay civil rights (at least when it comes to the issue of marriage). But we can be absolutely sure that no presidential candidate of the current Republican Party would be anything other than a rabid opponent of these rights. And that means: What benefits Obama and the Democrats — and what harms the Republicans — contributes (if perhaps only negatively) to Andrew’s cause. And that should be what counts.

I guess I come back to the view that the job of a civil rights movement is to make our case and take on the administration, whichever party controls it, if they’re doing or saying things we disagree with. Sure, being part of a broader coalition in both parties means sacrifices – and the sacrifices gay Democrats now have to make are nothing compared with those of gay Republicans. But what the gay rights movement must never do, in my view, is become a sub-group of any single party. Look where that got African-Americans.

Stand up. Make our case. Engage our opponents. Refuse to be rolled by our allies.

Prosecute Them

The NYT takes a stand, the only credible legal stand, given where we now are:

A prosecutor should be appointed to consider criminal charges against top officials at the Pentagon and others involved in planning the abuse.

That must include the commander-in-chief and his vice-president. This is where the criminality came from and it’s unjust to punish people down the line more than those at the very top. If Obama wants to avoid even the appearance of retribution, he should first appoint a Truth Commission of independent, outside but experienced public officials from both parties – along the lines of the 9/11 Commission – to establish the full facts of the past seven years. In my view, it should be restricted to war crimes alone – far graver than the question of warrantless wire-tapping.

Freedom or Marriage?

Conor Friedersdorf and Joe Carter are bickering over marriage equality. Here’s Joe:

The choice Conor and other conservatives will have to make is whether, when forced to choose, they will defend religious liberty or side with the imposition of judicially imposed same-sex marriage. Many conservatives — including cultural conservatives like me — have proposed an alternative: legal recognition of civil unions. The fact that this option is unpalatable to same-sex marriage advocates like Andrew Sullivan shows that it isn’t simply a matter of legal recognition but of shutting down any opposition to the normalization of homosexual relationships.

The last thing I would ever want to do is shut down any opposition. Anyone who knows my work knows it’s driven by a love of debate and constitutionally inviolable free exchange of ideas. And there is no conflict whatever between religious liberty and civil same-sex marriage. To make the case even faintly plausible, Carter is reduced to this:

Ministers and preachers could conceivably face conspiracy or incitement suits under these laws if, after hearing a preacher’s strongly-worded sermon against same-sex marriage, a congregant commits a hate crime against a person or business.

Yes and conceivably, all Christians will be marched into police stations for preaching Leviticus. But really: this is such patent paranoid nonsense. You won’t find many people as opposed to hate crimes laws as yours truly (see my extended and passionate case against them here), but even I can see a clear distinction between extra punishment for an actual crime based on bias and prosecuting religious speech from the pulpit. And I know no-one – even on the fringes of the furthest left – who would want to see such a thing. The whole idea is beyond paranoid – and civil equality and religious difference, strongly expressed, are completely compatible in a diverse America. And I, for one, would go to the barricades to defend the right of Christianists to denounce me and my marriage in the strongest terms imaginable.

But to see why Carter is wrong, take the existence of civil divorce.

The biggest single denomination in America – Catholicism – denies the existence of divorce, does not recognize the sacred status of re-married couples, and has life-long marriage at the core of its definition of the institution. Has the Catholic church’s religious liberty been infringed by the ubiquity of divorced couples? Are Catholic priests denied their First Amendment rights because they occasionally have to interact in the civil sphere with married couples whose marriages they deem invalid? Was the late Archbishop O’Connor of New York giving up the First Amendment by treating Ronald and Nancy Reagan’s marriage as a precious thing?

Or take the Catholic church’s insane position on the ordination of women. Gender equality is much more deeply embedded in the law than orientation equality. Has anyone actually sought to prosecute the church for being a deeply sexist institution? Have women brought lawsuits against priests because a parishioner went out and raped someone – or discriminated against them in employment? I mean: please. The whole idea is fueled by pure panic at the thought of having to live in a society in which gay citizens are treated like everyone else.

By the way, if Carter does indeed support civil unions with all the state and federal rights and responsibilities of civil marriage, it’s news to me. Does he? Or was this rhetoric? And maybe he could provide a list of his fellow evangelicals and cultural conservatives who support such an idea. It would make for fascinating reading.