The Dish

Watching the Daily Show and Colbert last night, I felt for the first time that the plain fact of one party supporting war crimes is now on the radar screen. Most Americans don’t want to discuss this, know about it, or think about it. But increasingly, the explicitly pro-torture position of the GOP will define their party. And it should define their party. The attempt to hide behind the ludicrously Orwellian term "enhanced interrogation techniques" won’t work if it’s properly challenged. The picture above is of an "enhanced interrogation technique". Romney’s and Giuliani’s position that they don’t favor "torture" but would support any method necessary to extract information – like the above – is transparently absurd. The simple legal definition of torture must be thrown in their faces at every opportunity. These people do not get to define torture in a country under the rule of law. We are not in a Lewis Carroll novel. The law and our treaty obligations define torture. And its definition is clear in the UN Convention to which the U.S. is a signatory:

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession."

Does Rudy really believe that techniques that he supports and were deployed and finessed by Stalin and Pol Pot do not fall into this category? Does he really believe that waterboarding does not qualify under this plain legal definition? If Giuliani and Romney intend to withdraw the U.S. from the U.N. Convention against torture, as they declared on Tuesday night, then they must be asked to say so clearly and explicitly. If they believe that a president is above the law on these matters, then they should be forced to say so. They cannot be allowed to support violation of the rule of law and violation of international treaties on the down-low. If they want to get electoral dividends from a Republican base in love with torture, they must also face the consequences of supporting withdrawal from the U.N. treaty against torture. They must place America formally and legally on the side of countries and regimes that torture prisoners. Morally, they’ve already done so.

The GOP leadership moves swiftly to prevent any actual debate about the course of the party over the last ten years. They will ban such debate to their long-term detriment. The GOP increasingly seems like a church enforcing orthodoxy and loyalty, not a party welcoming diversity and discussion.

A fitting tribute:

I don’t know what history will deem to be Falwell’s greatest legacy. For me, it will always be his Institute of Biblical Studies — a videotape home Bible college he touted as the "finest biblical studies program ever developed." Years ago, I bought the video course — "just four easy payments, all major credit cards accepted" — and, for fun, I completed it, earning the diploma.

The many biblical lessons I learned included: 1) there were dinosaurs on Noah’s ark and they "took up as much space as they wanted"; and 2) Jesus advocated the death penalty: "If ever there was a platform to cry out against capital punishment, our Lord had it on the cross." No kidding.

Hitch says what a Christian cannot here.

Here’s the video of James Comey, former deputy attorney general, testifying to the utter lawlessness of this president and his pliant creature, Gonzales. I never thought I’d say this but in comparison with his successor, John Ashcroft is an honorable man.

And "cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs". That’s the line now being deployed against the valid critique of the current Republican orthodoxy by Ron Paul. But insults are not arguments. And they are a function of fear – not political fear, because Paul doesn’t have a chance. I mean: intellectual fear. That a real debate about the future of conservatism after the Bush disaster might be gaining traction. A reader comments:

At the Republican debate, Rep. Paul tried to express what I consider to be a basic tenet of strategic thinking.  I don’t think that Mr. Paul truly believes that  we caused 9/11, or that we "invited" it.  He is just pointing out that our actions have repercussions, and that recently, the Republican Party (and the nation generally) have refused to consider those repercussions when formulating foreign policy.

That the United States should: (i) consider how its actions will be interpreted by others;  (ii) predict what actions others are likely to take as a result; and (iii) adjust our actions accordingly is not an invitation to be attacked, but the most basic form of strategic analysis, familiar to every chess and World-of-Warcraft player the world over.

The most appalling moment of the debate for me was Mr. Guilani’s reaction to Mr. Paul.  Rather than acknowledging the need for strategic thinking in our foreign policy, but then disagreeing with Mr. Paul’s conclusions, Mr. Guilani chose a crass, politically-motivated, and mean-spirited sound-bite. Apparently to Mr. Guilani and the rest of the Republican hopefuls, trying to understand our enemies, how they view us, how they will interpret our actions, and how our actions should change as a result, is a sign of cowardice.

It is, of course, a sign of reason. But the Republican party has not been very keen on reason these past few years. What matters is faith in a leader and unremitting violence in accomplishing goals. Whatever else this is, it isn’t conservatism as I have come to understand it.

This discussion of various photographic similarities across cultures and time is a real thought-provoker. Palestinians and the KKK? Abu Ghraib and anti-Nazi posters. It’s a rich stew at McSweeney’s.

Some people are taking the metaphor literally – as a way to stay in shape.

An economic analysis:

Using publicly available numbers, one can calculate that the U.S. government values an innocent civilian slaughtered by al-Qaeda terrorists on September 11, 2001 at $1.8 million, and an Iraqi civilian killed by Marines at $2,000.

Rod Dreher ponders their points of agreement.

Not my cup of cha, but healthy nonetheless.