The Dish

Why the latter helps prevent the spread of the former.

A few weeks ago, I predicted on the Chris Matthews Show that more photographs of the Abu Ghraib abuses and torture would be released by the end of last month. After all, a judge had ruled in favor of the ACLU’s request for the materials. The government obeys the law of the land, doesn’t it? Not in this administration, which has, by presidential memo, declared the president above the law in fighting the war on terror. Now they have deployed one last, desperate tactic to keep the real truth about Abu Ghraib from reaching the public. The Bush administration first argued that dissemination of the photos would violate the Geneva Conventions. Ahem. When that failed, they argued in a sealed brief to the court that the photos “could result in harm to individuals.” Like the soldiers and commanders responsible for abusing prisoners? Or the political masters who made such abuse legal? Look: I know we are at war and these photographs could inflame passions further. But they could also give the lie to the administration’s claim that the prison was only the site for a handful of rogue soldiers making up rules on the night shift. They could give the lie to the notion that what happened at Abu Ghraib was merely “frat-house rough-housing.” They could show rape and murder and torture – with legal cover sanctioned by White House memos. They could finally force someone to take responsibility for what happened, and for the policies that are still in place allowing for abusive treatment of prisoners. We can fight a war and remain a humane, law-abiding culture as well. We’ll soon see if we still live in a country in which the president is subject to the law.

It’s going to be a battle of wills – between decent conservatism and the lawless, government-knows-best policies of Cheney and Bush. Senator John McCain, who is an implacable foe of terrorism but also knows a thing or two about torture, wants to introduce legislation to regularize and clarify military detention policies. His proposed amendments to military appopriations bills would

set uniform standards for interrogating anyone detained by the Defense Department and would limit interrogation techniques to those listed in the Army field manual on interrogation, now being revised. Any changes to procedures would require the defense secretary to appear before Congress.

It would further require that all foreign nationals in the custody or effective control of the U.S. military must be registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross — a provision specifically meant to block the holding of “ghost detainees” in Iraq, in Afghanistan or elsewhere…

Another McCain amendment prohibits the “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” of anyone in the custody of the U.S. government. This provision, modeled after wording in the U.N. Convention Against Torture — which the United States has already ratified — is meant to overturn an administration position that the convention does not apply to foreigners outside the United States.

Why would the Bush administration want to retain the option to use “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” of detainees? They don’t support torture, do they? The amendment would simply bring order and law to what has been a free-wheeling and disastrously inept detention policy, made up by Bush officials as they went along. It beggars belief that, after Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Gitmo and the dozens of deaths in interrogation that the administration wouldn’t want some way out of its own impasse. But no: as so often, it sticks its heels in, and refuses to acknowledge an obvious and terrible mistake in the war. I look forward to the hard right describing McCain as a leftist or unpatriotic because he wants to restor America’s reputation as a country that acts ferociously but always humanely in its own defense.

The Onion was first, of course.

I knew the editor of the New Statesman at Oxford: John Kampfner. He was a no-enemies-to-the-left kind of socialist back then. Now, it appears he is a no-enemies-to-the-right kind of socialist as well. He’s an apologist for the theocratic, misogynist, homophobic, anti-semitic fascists now targeting London’s multicultural peace. Why? Because they are hostile to the West, and, especially, America. So we now have a cover-story in wake of mass murder in London called “Blair’s Bombs.” As if the bombs that blitzed London in the 1940s were Churchill’s. Oliver Kamm reports.

“Re: your post ““Love in Action:” Nonsense.

a) It’s sloppy and unfair to assume that bible study, even combined with “church activist” (whatever that means) supports an allegation (in this case, made by a wife with her own agenda, or perhaps as the article suggests by lawyers contriving a defense) explains homicidal homophobia (just as it’s sloppy and unfair to assume that attendance at Gay Pride and being a “gay activist” must have something to do with child molestation, because we all know those queers fetishize “boys”).

b) It’s sloppy and unfair to assume, based on what you’ve supplied, that this man’s (unidentified) church “demonizes” gays.

And c) It’s sloppy and unfair to assume that even deeply misguided teachings can explain the obviously deranged behavior displayed in this case. One of the things that distinguishes your thought and writing is that you generally eschew and frequently attack such sloppiness when the ox being gored is one of your own sacred cows. I respectfully suggest that this is an instance where, notwithstanding your eloquent writings to the contrary (especially on hate crimes), you don the cloak of victim a bit too readily. I fully understand the pain and anger imposed by your own (Catholic) and my (Mormon) hierarchies in teaching “hate the sin but love the sinner.” But I think we need to be careful not to go overboard (would you facilely ascribe the depravity of Matthew Shepard’s killers to their Mormon background? I doubt it.)”

The reader makes a fair point, and I’m guilty of sloppiness. But I would say that the source of this man’s terror that his son might be gay is obviously related to church doctrine that homosexuality is evil, can be “cured” and that, as the “reparative therapists” argue, is fixed by the age of three. The father was a “church activist” and regular at Bible study. The trauma inflicted on gay kids and teens is real; their pain is terrible; and much of it can be traced to what I believe is a distortion of the real message of Christianity. This is an extreme case; but its roots bear examining.

Robert A. George looks into the Bob Jones question.

It appears that the Bush administration, before anyone has even proposed legislation clarifying rules for interrogation of “enemy combatants,” has threatened to veto any military bill that does such a thing. Here’s the Statement of Administration Policy, issued yesterday:

The Administration understands that amendments may be offered to establish a national commission on the detainee operations or to regulate the detention, treatment or trial of terrorists captured in the war on terror. The Administration strongly opposes such amendments, which would interfere with the protection of Americans from terrorism by diverting resources from the war to answer unnecessary or duplicative inquiry or by restricting the President’s ability to conduct the war effectively under existing law. The Constitution and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution (Public Law 107-40, September 18, 201) provide the authority the President needs to conduct the war effectively and protect the American people. If legislation is presented that would restrict the President’s authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice, the President’s senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.

The emphasis is in the original. Translation: Congress shall not interfere with the president’s right to supercede law and tradition and allow detainees to be abused and tortured. This is, as Marty Lederman observes, a throwing down of the gauntlet to Senators McCain, Graham and Warner, who want clearer, better rules for prisoner treatment. It’s also an indication of how passionately this administration believes in the abuse and torture of detainees in the war on terror.

Whatever happened to the jock strap?

CCTV has identified the bombing suspects. The bombs were real; the intent was the same; one suspect has been shot dead, but does not appear to be one of the four; the culprits will soon, one hopes, be found. London, my family tells me, is in a state of near-disarray – roads closed, public transportation facing a potential strike, and Muslims very edgy.