THE NIGHTMARE ENDS

This is such a great, great day. Iraqis turn out in massive numbers to move their country forward; and America regains her honor by finally, unequivocally reasserting a ban on torture and adherence to the U.N. Convention on Torture. I’ll have more to say tomorrow. But the sight of so many Arab and Kurdish Muslims having a chance to actually determine their own future is inspiring. We have so much more work to do; but now we can hold our heads up in pride. The heroes within the military and CIA and diplomatic services who resisted and finally overcame the Cheney-Rumsfeld axis of brutality deserve congratulations. John McCain has served one more mission in defense of his country’s ideals. One particular vote of thanks to Ian Fishback, the young man who risked his career to end un-American abuse and torture of defenseless detainees. He’s now training for the Special Forces – to go on and fight our enemy, with dignity, humanity and honor. May God protect him and all those who are protecting us. This was a fight for their honor too. And a tribute to their service and to the men and women who preceded them.

HOMOPHOBIA IN THE GENES? Mickey and Bob debate and discuss.

A NOTE ON CHRISTMAS

I’ve just written a column on the Christmas wars. I’m as irritated as anyone by the p.c. nonsense of calling Christmas trees “holiday trees” and the like. But it does strike me as overkill that there’s a “war on Christmas,” as O’Reilly and Gibson have it. One particularly weird quote from O’Reilly is the following:

“There’s a very secret plan. And it’s a plan that nobody’s going to tell you, ‘Well, we want to diminish Christian philosophy in the U.S.A. because we want X, Y, and Z.’ They’ll never ever say that. But I’m kind of surprised they went after Christmas because it’s such an emotional issue.”

The relationship of what we call Christmas to Christianity is a very mixed one. Jesus obviously wasn’t born on December 25. That date was arrived at to coincide with the winter solstice. It was early Christianity’s smart cooptation of pagan rituals that helped it succeed as a popular faith. Moreover, the only people actually to have banned celebrating Christmas in the past were … Christians. Some early American Puritans banned it; so did Cromwell in England during his religious dictatorship. Secular societies have a much better record of protecting Christmas than explicitly Christian theocracies. I wonder if O’Reilly has even heard of this history. Or cares.

EMAIL OF THE DAY

A reader writes:

One point on the Solzhenitsyn quote. The method you describe — one of over 30 he describes that were used to break prisoners but did not leave permanent marks on them so are OK, according to the Right these days. These methods were not used to extract information from prisoners. When the Soviets wanted intelligence, they would treat prisoners humanely, even well, making the comfortable and trying to persuade them to talk voluntarily. The idea was to get the prisoner to let down his guard, to trust you and then to let something slip. They did this for a variety of reasons, the biggest being that you never know what a prisoner might say that will turn out to be useful. We ape-folk like to talk. And when we’re doing wrong or secretive, our urge to confess to someone is very strong. The important thing was just to get the prisoner talking. Human nature would take care of the rest.

No, these techniques were used to extract confessions. The Organs would write up a confession to various crimes against the state and use these methods until the prisoner signed. They would use them until the prisoner named names — any names would do. Most of them had quotas for the number of political dissidents they needed to arrest. Forced confessions was a good way of getting a quota. But even the Commies realized that intelligence acquired that way was next to useless.

We’ve become dumber than the Soviets and in some cases just as cruel. Thank God this shameful era appears to be coming to an end.

THE ABOLITION OF TORTURE

I’m told a White House statement is imminent on the McCain Amendent. I’m told the White House has embraced the amendment, with no changes. If true, this is a huge step forward for the president, the war and American honor. It also has, I think, implications for McCain’s possible succession to Bush as president. Developing …

TORTURED EVIDENCE

The latest twist in the torture end-game is a new Graham-Levin-Kyl initiative that would allow evidence procured by torture to be admissable in the military justice system. The proposed language is as follows:

Consideration of statements derived with coercion —

(1) Assessment — The procedures submitted to Congress pursuant to subsection
(a)(1(A) shall ensure that a CSRT, ARB or any similar or successor administrative tribunal or board, in making a determination of status or disposition of any detainee under such procedures, shall to the extent practicable assess —
(A) whether any statement derived from or relating to such detainee was obtained as a result of coercion; and
(B) the probative value (if any) of such statement.

Allowing evidence procured by torture to be admissable is exactly the question recently addressed by the British law lords, and they emphatically rejected it as alien to centuries of English common law. If Congress were to pass this wording, it would be the first time in the history of the United States that torture-produced evidence was legally admissable. That’s a big deal. Scott Horton has more analysis here.

VETO-PROOF

By my calculations, the McCain Amendment is now veto-proof. All the more reason for McCain to hold firm.

THE CONSERVATIVE SOUL: Milton Friedman speaks of the spending explosion under the Bush Republicans:

“I’m disgusted by it. For the first time in many years Republicans have control of Congress. But once in power, the spending limits were off, and it’s disgraceful.”

Thank God someone hasn’t lost his principles.

COLD CELLS: Rich Lowry’s latest point is to ask if I object to a prisoner being grabbed by his lapels. Lapels? If one of our detainees has a suit on, and isn’t naked and hooded, I would not be outraged if a guard shook him by his lapels. Please. I’m unaware of the “belly slap” but it doesn’t sound “cruel, inhuman or degrading” to me; and it doesn’t shock the conscience. I do not believe the Army Field Manual and U.S. law would forbid it. As for cold cells, I presumed Lowry was referring to the technique of inducing hypothermia, as alleged against the Navy Seals. But he is asking about milder versions – just plain old, cold and damp cells. Maybe he means something like the following:

No matter how hard it was in the ordinary cell, the punishment cells were always worse. And on return from there the ordinary cell always seemed like paradise. In the punishment cell a human being was systematically worn down by starvation and also, usually, by cold. (In Sukhanovka Prison there were also hot punishment cells.) For example, the Lefortovo punishment cells were entirely unheated. There were radiators in the corridor only, and in this “heated” corridor the guards on duty walked in felt boots and padded jackets. The prisoner was forced to undress down to his underwear, and sometimes to his undershorts, and he was forced to spend from three to five days in the punishment cell without moving (since it was so confining). He received hot gruel on the third day only. For the first few minutes you were convinced you’d not be able to last an hour. But, by some miracle, a human being would indeed sit out his five days, perhaps acquiring in the course of it an illness that would last him the rest of his life.

There were various aspects to punishment cells – as, for instance, dampness and water. In the Chernovtsy Prison after the war, Masha G. was kept barefooted for two hours and up to her ankles in icy water -confess! (She was eighteen years old, and how she feared for her feet! She was going to have to live with them a long time.)

Gitmo? Abu Ghraib? Bagram? Camp Cropper? Nah. This passage is taken from Solzhenitsyn’s “Gulag Archipelago” on Soviet methods.

THE DEEPER POINT: The principle this series of examples illustrates is a relatively simple one. There are almost an infinite number of ways to coerce someone into some kind of confession. Differences in context, degree of violence, nature of violence, etc. can be endlessly drawn out, and opponents of torture, such as myself, can be asked to approve every single nuance, or disapprove. That’s why we have a clear standard in plain English. The standard is that torture is out of bounds, and also that “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment or treatment that “shocks the conscience” are forbidden. These are not vague standards in plain English and are actually the sharpest lines we can draw. That’s why it’s important to resist the casuistry of people who try to redefine the plain meaning of these words; and why it’s critical that interrogators do not go near “severe mental or physical pain.” Since these rules have been in place for decades, and their meaning, until the Bush administration, well-understood, I see no reason to change them. The priority has to be much smarter, more labor intensive intelligence-gathering, long-term infiltration of terror groups, and the grooming of sources embedded within communities that harbor religious terrorists but who are not terrorists themselves. This takes time; but it is infinitely more fruitful than the goonish and immoral way some have been carrying on these past few years.

EMAIL OF THE DAY

“Why do you bother with this guy, Levin? You are serving truth. He is serving politics. What good did it do Kerry to talk about facts? If he looked dangerous to the opposition (as I am sure you look to this guy), all they had to do was lie and lie louder to defeat him. I feel like you are falling into a trap. They draw you in because they know you want to talk about facts, and then they beat you up with lies. You can’t win, but they win every time you give them another opportunity to pretend to refute you. This Levin seems to be serving a higher cause in his mind. Even if it is not religious it is like a religion: justify what this administration does, no matter what.”

I disagree. I’m not up for election. And I think that all debate helps flush out the truth. Even if a majority decides to ignore the truth, in the end, it will count. Unlike Kerry, I also believe in fighting back against lies and smears. In fact, I’m delighted that the NRO-Reynolds chorus has finally decided, after months and months of pretending there was nothing to debate, that they have to deal with this question. The trouble is: their long months of denial and evasion have made them lazy and stunningly uninformed. Which is worth flushing out as well.