The Dish

Are they back? C’mon Colbert. We need a threatdown update. (Hat tip: Adam.)

The South Carolina debate in which a large majority of Republicans supported interrogation methods that clearly violate the UN Convention on torture, the Geneva Convention, U.S. law, and the long and honorable history of American warfare has had one benefit. It has flushed out the position of bloggers like Tom Maguire and their passive-aggressive supporters: the anti-anti-torture crowd. Greg Dejerejian has a must-read piece on the subject from a realist conservative position that really deserves a read. As Greg explains, the press needs to ask clear, specific questions – not just of the candidates, but of this president. Bush has refused to be candid about this, using carefully parsed phrases which no democratic polity should be satisfied with. If the U.S. is to continue its evolution into a torturing rogue state, then it must do so with eyes open and the consequences clear. My own essay on the incompatibility of torture with any sort of liberal democracy can be read here. Money quote from Greg:

Look, if we’re going to have this debate, let’s have it, but let’s have it honestly. Let’s not hide behind Orwellian fudging and obfuscatory verbiage. Reporters need to ask the serious candidates, which is to say, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards—are you in favor of allowing the use of sleep deprivation, induced hypothermia and water-boarding by agencies of the U.S. Government? Under a current reading of Article III of the Geneva Convention and Common Article Three, do you believe these techniques violate either of them, in the context of the 5th, 8th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution? If no, explain how they don’t, and let us judge the persuasiveness of the defenses of the pro-torture right, but in front of the entire nation and world.

Meantime, let the Democratic candidates (and perhaps John McCain) explain how these techniques do violate these basic international human rights standards. And then let us see whether the Republican Party can win the 2008 election on the basis of fear, on the basis of a platform that allows for freezing people to the point their life is imperiled, or inducing the feeling in detainees they are drowning to death, or depriving them of sleep for such protracted periods that long term deleterious mental health impacts may result. Yes, let us debate these issues, but clearly and out in the open.

To the press corps, I say, the next time a Presidential candidate says "I’m not for torture, only enhanced interrogation techniques", ask them whether induced hypothermia, sleep deprivation and water-boarding are torture? Then remind them of our treaty obligations under CAT. Ask them whether they think the "enhanced interrogation techniques" would be acceptable pursuant to Article III of the Geneva Convention? Do they wish to repudiate them? Or do they think we can do these things and not run afoul of these standards? Again, how? What will become increasingly clear is that leading Republican candidates are running on a platform that has us repudiating our treaty obligations and watering-down our constitutional standards.

So the American people will have a choice: are we to slide towards rogue nation status on such issues, or repudiate the profoundly damaging legacy of the last 6 years and regain the mantle of leading avatar of human rights in the international arena? I hope and trust Abraham Lincoln’s ‘better angels’ of human nature will prevail in this great country, and no major political party will be voted into power that is in favor of authorizing the use of techniques–by any instrumentality of the US Government – that constitute torture under internationally recognized norms.

(Photo: the single inmate tortured to death by U.S. servicemembers in Abu Ghraib prison under the command of president George W. Bush.)

Perhaps I should clarify. A reader among many writes:

You wrote:

Dinesh D’Souza’s new book is called ""What’s So Great About Christianity." Er: that it’s true?

Not even sure what you meant by the above comment, except that you are a ‘believer’… And Hitch might say Er: nothing? To each his own.

No, I meant that regardless of any religion, a discussion of it that starts with "what’s great" about it must surely miss the point of it altogether. A faith can only be measured seriously by its claims to truth. No one who treats Christianity with a modicum of seriousness could ever write such a title. It is, not to put too fine a point on it, beyond vulgar and beyond crass – and absolutely offensive to any serious person of faith. Which, at this point, I suppose, is no surprise. D’Souza’s sole interest in faith is the political and social use to which it can be put. Mainly for acquiring book advances, speaking fees and political power.

The latest on the Godfather episode in the Bush administration’s law-breaking:

Alerted to the others’ visit, Comey raced to the hospital himself, getting there with just minutes to spare. ‘I remember waiting; it wasn’t long, but it felt like forever,’ Comey told U.S. News in an exclusive interview. ‘And I was thinking, ‘What am I going to do? What if they get him to sign something? Do I intervene physically? What do I do?’"

Comey, it turns out, is 6′ 8". My money is on him. Full interview here.

I’ll try not to be jealous. Money quote:

"A community formed overnight," Serin said in an interview. "It wasn’t a very positive community."

Heh.

Fascinating demographic research about who exactly is accessing the wesbites of Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Clinton’s here; Obama’s here; Edwards’ is here.

This piece in the Los Angeles Times strikes me as very important. One fact in plain sight about this administration is that they failed both to prevent 9/11 and to catch its perpetrators. Now, the misbegotten war in Iraq may actually be helping to finance the group that murdered so many innocents on 9/11:

A major CIA effort launched last year to hunt down Osama bin Laden has produced no significant leads on his whereabouts, but has helped track an alarming increase in the movement of Al Qaeda operatives and money into Pakistan’s tribal territories, according to senior U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the operation.

In one of the most troubling trends, U.S. officials said that Al Qaeda’s command base in Pakistan is increasingly being funded by cash coming out of Iraq, where the terrorist network’s operatives are raising substantial sums from donations to the anti-American insurgency as well as kidnappings of wealthy Iraqis and other criminal activity.

The influx of money has bolstered Al Qaeda’s leadership ranks at a time when the core command is regrouping and reasserting influence over its far-flung network. The trend also signals a reversal in the traditional flow of Al Qaeda funds, with the network’s leadership surviving to a large extent on money coming in from its most profitable franchise, rather than distributing funds from headquarters to distant cells.

Al Qaeda’s efforts were aided, intelligence officials said, by Pakistan’s withdrawal in September of tens of thousands of troops from the tribal areas along the Afghanistan border where Bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, are believed to be hiding.

Little more than a year ago, Al Qaeda’s core command was thought to be in a financial crunch. But U.S. officials said cash shipped from Iraq has eased those troubles. "Iraq is a big moneymaker for them," said a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official.

The story raises as many questions as it answers. But if it’s true that the occupation of Iraq has not only emboldened Iran, crippled the U.S. military, and damaged our moral standing in the world, but has also provided a financial lifeline to al Qaeda then the sheer magnitude of the damage this administration has done to national security is hard to fathom. This much I know, however. If Bush were a Democrat, the Republicans would have impeached him by now for reckless endangerment of the security of the United States.

A reader remembers a classic Marx Brothers line that almost perfectly sums up the rationale for the Romney candidacy:

"Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others."

"I won’t be posting much about Ron Paul during this campaign. The highest office he’ll ever hold is probably his current one, and that frustrates me just as it does his more ardent supporters. But his continued presence as a candidate is important as a public service if nothing else. That’s confirmed by the strangely disproportionate attention he’s getting from the Titular Right. Paul is their mirror, an unsettling reminder of what they’ve become during the past six years.

I have no doubt they’ll keep trying to break that mirror, which is why Paul should keep doing exactly what he’s doing," – Cunning Realist.

From emails, it appears some of you think I’ve endorsed Paul. Please. I’m nowhere near as isolationist as he is. And he’s polling at zero percent. My view is simply that he is a particularly timely breath of fresh air in the fetid swamp that has become American conservatism. Anyone who loves democracy – who loves debate and and exchange of ideas – should be grateful he has expanded the range of thought within the primaries of the GOP. And it says a huge amount about the degeneracy of the current right that their response is to try and smear him and silence him. They don’t get liberty, do they? And I don’t think they realize yet the scale of what’s coming to them.

A reader writes:

In "Falwell’s Legacy" your reader wrote:

"the classic definition of conservatism (smaller government + lower taxes = more personal liberty and a stronger, freer republic) has been on life support since the right sold their souls and went after the wallace voters in ’68 and then embraced falwell in ’80."

The Bush/Cheney/Gonzalez/Rove "unitary executive" effort has given the conservative movement one more thing to face down: authoritarianism. As you rightly said, conservatism is historically about smaller government. The "unitary executive" as a concept and as a policy could not be more the opposite of this, yet it is what conservatism stands for, at least in large part, in early 21st century American politics.

Could there a better example of it and how far it’s reached into our culture than Mitt "aims to please" Romney offering to double the size of Guantanamo?  Short of jack-booted thugs checking people’s citizen ID cards, I can’t think of any. Thank god we’re not there. Yet.

The "double Guantanamo" moment should indeed define Romney. It was a moment when he said something literally meaningless in order to appease and whip up hysteria on the far-right. How exactly, after all, does one "double Gitmo"? Go out to the Muslim world and round people up? Rudy’s proud authoritarianism is worn on his sleeve. Romney’s tailored cuffs are far harder to discern, but just as troubling.