Category: Old Dish

Here’s a specific point of disagreement. Jonah writes:

One can make the argument that we should not torture mass murderers on moral or pragmatic grounds without elevating the moral status of mass murderers.

My argument would be that you cannot raise or lower the moral status of mass murderers with respect to torture. The only salient moral status with respect to torture is that the mass murderers are human beings. And what this hideous policy has necessarily done is to create a new class of prisoners that are regarded as sub-human, i.e., beneath the most basic of Geneva protections for even illegal combatants. My second argument would be that this is not about the moral status of terrorists or mass murderers. It’s about us, the moral status of the West, and places where as a civilization, we simply will not go as a matter of policy. I guess others will differ and I am glad at last that they are now prepared to say so. But for me, this is a clear line. And we cannot cross it, by enshrining the right to torture into law.

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.