Category: The Dish

Tomorrow, I’m going to detail the major lies in the president’s speech today. Tonight, it’s worth reflecting on the real point of the address. The president knows he and his party are in deep trouble this November. So he needs a real Hail Mary pass to avoid a crushing defeat. Power Line understands what was going on as well as Josh Marshall:

The real news that came out of the speech was that the 14 high-ranking terrorists now in CIA custody will be transferred to Guantanamo for criminal prosecution, and that the administration is asking Congress to pass comprehensive legislation authorizing military tribunals and protecting American servicemen and CIA employees from prosecution or lawsuits arising out of their interrogations of captured terrorists.

This is, in large part, a response to the unfortunate Hamdan decision. From a political standpoint, though, the Left won’t be happy about the return of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, Zubaydah, et al. to the front pages; nor will Democrats in Congress relish having to vote on a vital issue of national security between now and November.

Here’s the money quote of the speech:

We’re now approaching the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks – and the families of those murdered that day have waited patiently for justice. Some of the families are with us today – they should have to wait no longer. So I’m announcing today that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, and 11 other terrorists in CIA custody have been transferred to the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. They are being held in the custody of the Department of Defense. As soon as Congress acts to authorize the military commissions I have proposed, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on September the 11th, 2001, can face justice.

This is the Rove gambit: make this election a choice between legalizing torture or enabling the murderers of 9/11 to escape justice. The timing is deliberate; the exploitation of 9/11 gob-smacking; the cynicism fathomless. There is only one response: call them on it and vote for their opponents in November. And pray that in the meantime, John McCain won’t lose his nerve or his integrity.

A reader writes:

"Rich is absolutely right. Pull their fingernails out if it helps, then shoot them."

Now that’s the spirit of today’s conservatism. And we can be sure a lot of liberals oppose that as well. Somehow I think we just heard the early themes of the Republicans’ fall campaign. KSM will be center-stage. Josh Marshall thinks the same.

This simple one-sentence post makes one heartsick:

Whatever those secret CIA interrogation methods are that apparently helped save U.S. lives, we can be sure that a lot of liberals oppose them…

It’s from National Review’s editor, Rich Lowry. Notice he has no idea what these "interrogation methods" are; but wants to use them to smear "liberals" nonetheless. Notice that it appears perfectly clear that waterboarding and hypothermia are indeed among such authorized methods, and yet Lowry thinks it somehow scores a point to say that "liberals" oppose such things. Well, yes, plenty of liberals do oppose such things. So do plenty of conservatives. Does Lowry? Does he favor the United States using techniques, like the "cold cell", finessed by Stalin and documented by Solzhenitsyn in the "Gulag Archipelago"? Does he favor water-boarding? This is not a liberal-conservative issue. Plenty of conservatives oppose torture and the unbounded power of an untrammeled executive to detain and torture whomever he designates an "enemy combatant" at will. This is an issue about the core meaning of the West – and this president’s relentless attack upon that inheritance.

New Canaan, CT, 2 pm.

Marty Lederman examines the military detention bill the White House has offered to the Congress. And, yes, it actually includes a formal legalization of cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation techniques – some of which were innovated by Stalin’s KGB – to be used by the CIA. That includes "waterboarding." Here is the formal CIA definition, as laid out in my forthcoming book:

"The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt."

When will the press ask the president straight up whether he approves of this practice; whether he believes it’s torture; and whether he has personally authorized it? The headlines are that the U.S. is finally complying with Geneva. The truth is that the administration is asking the Congress to legislate our renunciation of them. Marty predicted such a maneuver a while back. Sources tell me that McCain sees the ruse, but Graham may take the Cambone bait.

So Bush admits he ran a secret gulag of extra-judicial black sites where the CIA tortured detainees. And now he’s sending some of the victims to Gitmo. Why? It’s 9/11 week in the Congressional campaign and Khalid Sheik Muhammad is one terror detainee who should indeed be detained and interrogated as a prisoner of war. But Spencer Ackerman has some further thoughts:

Look deeper and not only is the White House not giving an inch in the debate, the KSM Shift of 2006 actually takes a mile. That’s because, to be blunt, we have tortured the dickens (to use a Rumsfeldian locution) out of KSM. All Guant√°namo detainees, according to the Supreme Court, have the right to at least some access to the U.S. legal system. KSM, therefore, will pose an interesting test: Should his probable trial reflect the legal doctrine of the "fruit of the poisoned tree" – that is, will evidence obtained through torture be admissible in the military tribunals or not? McCain’s Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 says "of course not!" but Bush indicated in his infamous "signing statement" that he thinks he has the right to torture whoever he pleases.

Now Congress will face a very unpleasant question: Unless it rejiggers the military tribunals to bless torture/coercion, KSM and other Al Qaeda figures might in fact be set free by the courts. Is Bush so cynical as to force Congress into the odious position of either setting the stage for murderers to walk out of Gitmo or blessing torture? Of course he is!

I’ve learned through bitter experience that almost every time the Bush administration announces what appears to be a relaxation of its illegal and unconstitutional torture and detention policies, it’s usually part of a gambit to retain and expand them. More on this later. I need some time to analyze and scrutinize the announcements.

Two small but telling examples of Ramesh Ponnuru’s intellectual slipperiness. Here’s his convoluted attempt to explain why he won’t be explicit on how banning all abortions for all reasons will actually be enforced. There is one huge reason: if he did, the debate would instantly enter territory he wants to avoid: the practical impact on women, doctors, families, and individual freedom. Jon Rauch is a fair reviewer, and his point is a fair one. Ponnuru’s fundamental objective, of course, is advancing Republican power. Being explicit about the implications of the GOP’s support for a total ban on all abortion would not be politically prudent. On a minor note, Ponnuru says my criticism of Mark Steyn’s review of my book was hypocritical. Didn’t I criticize Ponnuru’s book without reading it? Au contraire. See the original post for yourself. I criticized the title and the Coulter cover-blurb – not the contents, which I said I hadn’t read and might even, in part, agree with.

David Lat has fun with a recent Washington Post headline.

They’d do well to listen more to John Tierney.

A reader suggests an alternative take on Karl Rove’s bank-rolling of Joe Lieberman:

What Rove presumably wanted was for Lieberman to lose the primary but  by a relatively small margin (which he did)–thereby insuring that he in fact activate his independent candidacy and that it be plausible. The GOP money achieved just that. At the same time, Rove undertook the seduction of Lieberman by supporting him as a Democrat before the primary defeat. As in: ‘We love you, Joe, whatever kind of banner you fly under.’ So the White House has now achieved its optimal situation. Joe‚Äôs beholden to it for the narrowness of his loss, and has been made to feel loved in a ‘nonpartisan’ way. And the more the Democrats distance themselves from him (as they must), the closer he feels to the Republicans. Niccol√≤ couldn‚Äôt have arranged it better.