The Pro-Torture Right

The use of torture is fast becoming a core principle of today’s Republican party. My sense is that many in the base are uncomfortable with the defensiveness of the Bush people, and their use of euphemism in this respect. And so the NYT #1 Bestselling author is unabashed in his support of using Gestapo methods against terror suspects, seized without due process and tortured under presidential authority. Yes, of course he’s endorsing Giuliani. Who else will do what the quisling, gutless liberals won’t? Here is the Hannity-style argument:

"Congress really upset me with how they treated Attorney General Michael Mukasey and how the media pushed this question. Why aren’t reporters forcing senators and Congress to answer the same questions about torture? What do you think we should have done? Given them a lawyer, three square meals a day and let planes get hijacked?"

Give them Geneva protections if they are caught on the battlefield, and interrogate them legally. Or if they are seized in the US, they remain covered by the Constitution. Is that so hard to grasp? Meanwhile, here are two more pro-torture pieces in the Washington Times: Murdock’s open celebration of torture, and Mona Charen’s astonishing two sentences:

Under the U.S. Constitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land. But that hardly settles the matter.

Indeed. When we live under a presidential protectorate, it really is up to one man to make a subjective judgment, isn’t it? Even though no international body and no American precedents even question whether waterboarding is torture, the law is suddenly imprecise. It seems to me that the pro-torture right needs to make this explicit: legalize waterboarding explicitly, and withdraw from the Geneva Conventions, and the relevant UN Treaty. If resistance to America becoming a torturing nation is mere "moral preening" why not just get the Congress to do what the Republican base wants? It’s far more honest than voting for Giuliani in the sure knowledge that he will torture any terror suspect he can get his hands on, while pretending that America is still the same country it was before 9/11.

Against Obama And Paul

A reader writes:

You wrote:

"I don’t think Clinton would resist [suspending civil liberties after another terror attack]. I think Giuliani would embrace it enthusiastically and be backed by Fox, whose creature he has been and will become. It’s one reason I lean toward Paul and Obama. I think they are among the very few candidates who actually understand what civil liberty is." 

You are close, but not there.

We are in Iraq because of linkage assumptions post 9-11 that, even if correct, are subject to repetition if there is sufficient catalyst.

Sufficient catalyst means, of course, another domestic terrorist attack. You fear Guiliani/Clinton because you fear the end of American liberty in the aftermath of a truly horrendous attack, and rightly so.

I fear Obama/Paul, not because they too would suspend liberties, but because their inherent lack of aggression, their disinclination to use force pre-emptively, is more likely to create a situation that permits the horrendous attack, which then ushers in the new leaders who ‘will keep us safe.’ We don’t need nice people who will do the ‘right thing’. We need a man like McCain who will fight hard, cleanly but hard, and who won’t flinch. The best defense against an attack is to attack the terrorists everyday, to kill them and to make their lives so miserable and so difficult that they are perpetually on the defensive.  Incrementalism, soft power, multilateralism, etc. will have the opposite of their intended effect when they are associated with a failure to prevent another attack.

I take the point, but I’m not sure that this definition of strength captures the subtler measures we need to take against an elusive enemy, while appealing to the populations that give them passive, and even active, support. If I felt Obama would lower our guard against Islamist terrorism, I wouldn’t hesitate to back someone else. How we counter Islamist terror is the difficult question – and what I’ve learned from Iraq is that blanket warfare is not enough, and can even be counter-productive. The trouble is: so much of this war is conducted in the shadows and in secret and it becomes extremely difficult for average citizens or observers to be able to judge its efficacy.

Evolving Evangelicals

A reader writes:

It’s a truism in many theological circles that religious belief flows in generational waves, as each rejects the premises of its parents.  The first generation is fundamentalist.  The second is liberal.  The third is unchurched.  The fourth is fundamentalist.

Oh, and if I were not already against Hillary, the accretion of The Egregious Sidney Blumenthal would seal the deal.

Blogs and the MSM

A reader writes:

Yours is among several political blogs I read daily. A common trait among them is the interspersion of irreverence alongside the serious news — YouTube videos, pop culture contests, photos of the blogger’s pets, etc.

As blogs become more legitimate as a news source, I was inclined to worry that the silly posts would diminish the impact of the news. But for some reason, on your blog (and others) the reader can distinguish the irreverent and the serious. Whereas increasingly, in the MSM, the silliness is the news.

The Debate

I wish I had anything very trenchant to say about the debate I just sat through. It seemed to me that no one actually changed the dynamic of their own candidacies or the cogency of their own arguments. Clinton will have pleased her supporters, but I doubt she will have won over any waverers or doubters. Her more aggressive rebuttals led to a few moments of bossy screechiness, and her careful parsing of everything continued, diamonds and pearls included. By saying she wasn’t playing the gender card, she played it. And so on. She grates on me more with every minute I have to listen to her. And that whole passive-aggressive crap about "throwing mud" and "Republican talking points" drove me once again up the wall. But she was better than her previous outing and the crowd was very supportive, in a rowdy dumb-liberal kind of way. She also managed to defuse her dreadful Kyl-Lieberman vote, which was quite a feat. We had one "laugh" – inappropriate, of course.

Obama was a solid B+, started strongly and then petered out. He blew the illegal drivers’ license question and the polarization question. He really is uneven in these things. He didn’t suck, but, at this point, he needs to keep the A grades coming to keep pressure on you-know-who. Alas, I think he just trod water. Edwards was impressive again – he can just sum up arguments, frame questions and target his opponents’ weak spots like a, well, trial lawyer, I guess. But still I cannot think of him as a potential president. I liked the scrappiness of the start and found the usual high-minded reminders that we’re all Democrats and deeply respect one another blah blah blah to be a letdown. But I guess I’m not a Democrat and I love watching them tear each other Clinton apart. It’s quite clear to me, though, that Obama and Clinton loathe each other. When I hear people talk of a Clinton-Obama ticket, I want to know what they’re smoking and get some.

There were a few fun moments. When Biden answered one question, "No", and then shut up, I began to worry about his health. When Dodd started tourettesing in Spanish, and when Kucinich insisted on impeaching Bush now, I perked up. Richardson had a bad surge answer. The Democrats had better think through the shifting sands of Iraq with a little more authority than they seemed to muster tonight.

I have to say, though, that I don’t think I can make it through another one of these. Sit them down; stand them up; I don’t think there’s any way to make these less soporific any more. Maybe a Clinton-Obama two-some would be instructive. But it won’t happen.

I guess I’m a little tired, but the Onion summed up my feelings about the campaign tonight. Tomorrow, of course, is another day.

The Democrats and the Oath Of Office

I’ve now heard Dodd and Clinton say that the president takes an oath to defend the Constitution and the territory and people of the United States. This is the president’s oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I would think that one basic requirement of assuming the presidency is to know the oath, wouldn’t you? If forced to pick between defending the territory of the US and the Constitution of the US, your oath is to pick the Constitution.