“Law-Free America”

The truth hurts, and it hurts America most of all:

"We now fail to tell the full truth about our human rights conduct, or that of our allies in the War on Terror. Increasingly, we avoid application of universal standards: whether the rules against torture and cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. But the United States cannot lead the world with moral authority unless we hold ourselves to the same high standards that we demand from others. The U.S. has put its own human rights practices center stage by promoting double standards for our allies, and arguing in favor of ‘law-free zones’ (like Guantanamo), ‘law-free practices’ (like extraordinary rendition), ‘law-free persons’ (who are dubbed ‘enemy combatants’), and ‘law-free’ courts, (like the system of military commissions, which have failed to deliver credible justice and are currently being challenged in our courts for the recent stripping of the writ of habeas corpus). Through these misguided policies, the Administration has shifted the world’s focus from the grotesque human rights abuses of the terrorists to America’s own human rights misconduct, leaving other, equally pressing issues elsewhere ignored or unaddressed," – Harold Hongju Koh, Dean of Yale Law School, in testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mar. 29, 2007

Jonah And Conservatism

He actually seems to see my point:

Where is it written that conservatives have to have new popular ideas? If we can’t make our existing ideas popular, is it really so terrible that conservatism become unpopular? Or does conservatism have to become a de facto political party of its own, constantly churning out new ideas that will get swing voters to call themselves "conservatives" not by converting them to conservatism, but by converting conservatism into some rightwing progressive agenda? This seems like a brand of me-too conservatism. See? People who call themselves conservatives can really be progressives too! Indeed, ever since his national greatness days, I occasionally find in Brooks a desire to keep riding the label "conservative" while quietly switching horses to something very different.

I’ll respond more fully to this debate after lunch.

Quote for the Day

"I’ve had people come visit me saying "Pastor, here’s where you’re wrong." I don’t spend a lot of time trying to convince people who are resolutely skeptical. What I do is I try to tell people what I believe and why I believe it, and the people who are persuadable are usually persuaded. There have been a couple of families who have left the church, because they listen to Rush Limbaugh, or Senator Inhofe just going off on this, characterizing everybody who cares about the environment as pagans and kooks. But yet for every one of those there are at least 20 coming up and saying, "Thank you, finally." The younger generation always goes, "Well duh, what took you guys so long?" But yes, I am vilified and attacked by a few in the community, and that’s the price of any kind of leadership," – Pastor Joel Hunter, of the Evangelical Climate Initiative.

“Coercive Interrogation”

America now has a different kind of military alum:

Coercive techniques, including the use of dogs, waterboarding and prolonged stress positions were employed on the detainees, he says. Prisoners held at Al Asad Airfield, about 110 miles northwest of Baghdad, were shackled and hung from an upright bed frame welded to the wall in a room in an airplane hanger, he told me in a phone interview.

When he was having problems getting information from a detainee, he recalls, other interrogators said, "Chain him up on the bed frame and then he’ll talk to you." Lagouranis says he didn’t participate directly in hangings from the frames.

The results of the hangings, shacklings and prolonged stress positions – sometimes for hours – were devastating. "You take a healthy guy and you turn him into a cripple, at least for a period of time," Lagouranis told me. "I don’t care what Alberto Gonzales says. That’s torture."

In Front Of Our Noses

A reader writes:

In light of your Reason link, consider re-visiting George W. Bush’s 2000 convention speech. You might recall the theme from the convention: "Prosperity with a Purpose." The theme and recurring phrase of the speech was "They have not led, we will." The Brooks-Kristol argument was made to the American public, and they bought it, certainly without really understanding what they were buying:

"For eight years, the Clinton/Gore administration has coasted through prosperity. And the path of least resistance is always downhill. But America’s way is the rising road. This nation is daring and decent and ready for change.

Our current president embodied the potential of a generation. So many talents. So much charm. Such great skill. But, in the end, to what end?

So much promise, to no great purpose. Little more than a decade ago, the Cold War thawed and, with the leadership of Presidents Reagan and Bush, that wall came down. But instead of seizing this moment, the Clinton/Gore administration has squandered it. We have seen a steady erosion of American power and an unsteady exercise of American influence.

Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called on by the commander in chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report. ‘Not ready for duty, sir.’ This administration had its moment. They had their chance. They have not led. We will."

Of course, I thought it was boilerplate. Dumbass.