Although the choice of topics has more often than not been serious as a heart attack, I've had an absolute blast writing this blog for the past several months. Many thanks to all who have read, and all who have responded with comments, in particular those who haven't seen eye to eye with me. I look forward to an even more invigorating time in 2010.
For the record, some things I wish I had spent more time on this year are state and local politics (notably the 2009 VA governor's election), the role the Catholic Church is playing in American politics (on abortion and health care in particular), and the general topic of global religious freedom (specifically, that vote in Switzerland to ban minarets raised my hackles a bit - I think a review of the W&M Wren Cross controversy may be in order). I expect my primary focus next year will continue to be accountability and transparency in matters of war and peace, but I do hope to broaden the palette a little bit as well. Of course, there's also the final season of LOST to discuss, plus my upcoming monthly series, titled From a Certain Point of View, a sprawling exposition and defense of the Star Wars prequel trilogy as high moral theater. (No, not kidding.)
My final words for 2009: The belief that all men are created equal, and the command to treat our neighbors as we ourselves would be treated, are inseparable. American government relies on the faith that if every citizen gets the same dignity, liberty and basic opportunity, the whole prospers. Forfeit the former, and risk losing the latter. So trust in, and demand, the truth from those to whom we give the authority to tax us, arrest us, and make war on our behalf. The illusion of impenetrability in matters of security, high finance, or the machinations of government, is just that - an illusion. Let's take it to the streets.
God bless America, and Happy New Year. Peace and good will to you and yours.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Reflections on Christmas and Health Care
The Man said that it’s harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. It’s not because God hates money, which is fortunate for me, since as it happens I myself love money, all evil’s root though such love may be. Rather, it’s because being rich creates choices, and choices are opportunities to fall short of expectations. For better or worse, He doesn’t keep score in a way we can keep track of on earth – who can say for sure whether in any given year we have too much or give too little, or even who’s rich and who’s poor for that matter. The safe bet, though, is that however much we’ve done, we haven’t really done enough.
I’ve been thinking lately about what this means for a rich nation, such as ours. We have choices in public life – and I’ve been wondering whether it’s coherent to imagine a personal political philosophy that is fundamentally detached from individual morality. I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s not. While nations themselves don’t enter heaven per se, citizens of rich nations do, and they thus face the same challenges and choices in public life as they do in private life. (As St. Francis said, "Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words.") If the divine mandate is not to be codified in the law of the land, permitting our social contract to deviate from what we know to be our right and good instructions is nevertheless a failure of principle, and of conscience. So I’m supporting the health care bill that Obama is likely to sign next month, and the reasoning couldn’t be simpler.
No matter what happens to aggregate medical costs over time, there will never emerge a good reason for a private insurance company to take on or retain a customer with a better than average chance of incurring high medical expenses. And there will never emerge a good reason for a private insurance company to abolish caps on company payouts. Increasing competition across state lines, tort reform, these are all excellent ideas – but they don’t solve the coverage problem because insurance companies are all about playing the averages. It isn’t because they’re evil or don’t care about people – on the contrary, ignoring those practices would be a betrayal of the company’s shareholders , and ultimately they’d go out of business. And thus, by no one’s design, the sick and the poor and increasingly underserved in the greatest nation on earth; a nation that continually, fumblingly claims to strive for a Christian character. That’s what’s fundamentally unacceptable with the current system, and everything else, including rising aggregate costs, is secondary by comparison.
Once we agree on the moral imperative that something must be done, we then turn to the means. To my mind, the simplest way to address the limitations in the private insurance market would be to tell those companies not to worry about it, keep whatever rules they want to stay profitable, and the federal government will manage an insurance plan for the balance of the population, so that everyone had an option. This solution, however, has already been dismissed as deeply un-American, in that it’s grossly unfair to the poor beleaguered insurance companies, who would then have to compete with a heavily subsidized player who could never go out of business. I’m not certain exactly why as Americans we’re supposed to care more about those companies having a tougher road to hoe than we are about the sick and the poor, but so be it. Instead the Democratic party has decided that the better solution (or at least the one that keeps campaign contributions coming to that same Democratic party) is to heavily regulate the insurance industry to abolish the practices that underserve the sick and the poor, and in exchange flood them with new healthy customers via an individual mandate to buy insurance. With the mandate come federal subsidies for people who can’t afford the premiums, and the healthy customers pay for the sick ones. That’s it; that’s the bill. It’s not perfect, but it’s absolutely 100% better than nothing, and if this is our choice as a rich nation, to provide incremental care or not provide incremental care to citizens who need it but aren’t getting it, one imagines that a rich nation would need a really, really good reason to choose no.
So, there’s increased taxes, the deficit, and the debt, that’s one reason. But looked at in context, you have to say that a $2 trillion bank bailout that didn’t unlock or secure the financial system, and a $600B annual defense budget with no end in sight when our biggest threats are essentially crime families living in caves, are reasonable expenses, but expanding medical care to 95% of all Americans at a cost of about $100B per year is not. I’m not convinced.
There’s the notion of government bureaucracy intruding into medical innovation and consumer privacy, that’s another reason. But then you’d be forced into saying that you prefer the insurance bureaucracy, motivated entirely (and understandably) by profit, to a combination of private insurance and government, presumably motivated by profit and politics, respectively. A morass, maybe, but not a good reason to just sit tight and hope for the best. Besides, every single provision in the bill that could be criticized on this rationale is borne out of a good faith effort to control cost. If you don’t like them, so be it, but then see objection 1.
Then there’s the specter of emerging tyranny, and the end of the American experiment in a cataclysm of arbitrary regulation. Okay. There’s no fighting ideology in the space of a single blog post – but in a decade where the American government has eroded our traditional notions of privacy, accountability, transparency, adherence to the rule of law, and protections against torture, in unprecedented fashion , hopefully you’ll forgive me for being skeptical that reform of the health insurance system is going to be what makes the sky fall down on us. Not good enough to say no.
This is politics – it’s messy and it’s not perfect. But it’s the only expression of our national will that we have, and the Senate bill meets the fundamental requirement that we support those less fortunate than ourselves. Everything else, including the outcry from the left over the loss of the public option, is noise. Most of us will never be faced with a debilitating medical expense, whether because of our employment, education, or other support structure. Ignoring or deferring the plight of those who do, because we’re afraid of how much money it could cost, or whatever else we might be forced to give up, or because we think we might get something better later, just doesn’t work. I cannot summon any fear that the United States can’t be safe, and free, and prosperous, and generous, all at the same time. This is the right choice for a rich nation, and as a Christian and as an American, I’ll celebrate when President Obama signs it, warts and all. Merry Christmas, good friends.
I’ve been thinking lately about what this means for a rich nation, such as ours. We have choices in public life – and I’ve been wondering whether it’s coherent to imagine a personal political philosophy that is fundamentally detached from individual morality. I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s not. While nations themselves don’t enter heaven per se, citizens of rich nations do, and they thus face the same challenges and choices in public life as they do in private life. (As St. Francis said, "Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words.") If the divine mandate is not to be codified in the law of the land, permitting our social contract to deviate from what we know to be our right and good instructions is nevertheless a failure of principle, and of conscience. So I’m supporting the health care bill that Obama is likely to sign next month, and the reasoning couldn’t be simpler.
No matter what happens to aggregate medical costs over time, there will never emerge a good reason for a private insurance company to take on or retain a customer with a better than average chance of incurring high medical expenses. And there will never emerge a good reason for a private insurance company to abolish caps on company payouts. Increasing competition across state lines, tort reform, these are all excellent ideas – but they don’t solve the coverage problem because insurance companies are all about playing the averages. It isn’t because they’re evil or don’t care about people – on the contrary, ignoring those practices would be a betrayal of the company’s shareholders , and ultimately they’d go out of business. And thus, by no one’s design, the sick and the poor and increasingly underserved in the greatest nation on earth; a nation that continually, fumblingly claims to strive for a Christian character. That’s what’s fundamentally unacceptable with the current system, and everything else, including rising aggregate costs, is secondary by comparison.
Once we agree on the moral imperative that something must be done, we then turn to the means. To my mind, the simplest way to address the limitations in the private insurance market would be to tell those companies not to worry about it, keep whatever rules they want to stay profitable, and the federal government will manage an insurance plan for the balance of the population, so that everyone had an option. This solution, however, has already been dismissed as deeply un-American, in that it’s grossly unfair to the poor beleaguered insurance companies, who would then have to compete with a heavily subsidized player who could never go out of business. I’m not certain exactly why as Americans we’re supposed to care more about those companies having a tougher road to hoe than we are about the sick and the poor, but so be it. Instead the Democratic party has decided that the better solution (or at least the one that keeps campaign contributions coming to that same Democratic party) is to heavily regulate the insurance industry to abolish the practices that underserve the sick and the poor, and in exchange flood them with new healthy customers via an individual mandate to buy insurance. With the mandate come federal subsidies for people who can’t afford the premiums, and the healthy customers pay for the sick ones. That’s it; that’s the bill. It’s not perfect, but it’s absolutely 100% better than nothing, and if this is our choice as a rich nation, to provide incremental care or not provide incremental care to citizens who need it but aren’t getting it, one imagines that a rich nation would need a really, really good reason to choose no.
So, there’s increased taxes, the deficit, and the debt, that’s one reason. But looked at in context, you have to say that a $2 trillion bank bailout that didn’t unlock or secure the financial system, and a $600B annual defense budget with no end in sight when our biggest threats are essentially crime families living in caves, are reasonable expenses, but expanding medical care to 95% of all Americans at a cost of about $100B per year is not. I’m not convinced.
There’s the notion of government bureaucracy intruding into medical innovation and consumer privacy, that’s another reason. But then you’d be forced into saying that you prefer the insurance bureaucracy, motivated entirely (and understandably) by profit, to a combination of private insurance and government, presumably motivated by profit and politics, respectively. A morass, maybe, but not a good reason to just sit tight and hope for the best. Besides, every single provision in the bill that could be criticized on this rationale is borne out of a good faith effort to control cost. If you don’t like them, so be it, but then see objection 1.
Then there’s the specter of emerging tyranny, and the end of the American experiment in a cataclysm of arbitrary regulation. Okay. There’s no fighting ideology in the space of a single blog post – but in a decade where the American government has eroded our traditional notions of privacy, accountability, transparency, adherence to the rule of law, and protections against torture, in unprecedented fashion , hopefully you’ll forgive me for being skeptical that reform of the health insurance system is going to be what makes the sky fall down on us. Not good enough to say no.
This is politics – it’s messy and it’s not perfect. But it’s the only expression of our national will that we have, and the Senate bill meets the fundamental requirement that we support those less fortunate than ourselves. Everything else, including the outcry from the left over the loss of the public option, is noise. Most of us will never be faced with a debilitating medical expense, whether because of our employment, education, or other support structure. Ignoring or deferring the plight of those who do, because we’re afraid of how much money it could cost, or whatever else we might be forced to give up, or because we think we might get something better later, just doesn’t work. I cannot summon any fear that the United States can’t be safe, and free, and prosperous, and generous, all at the same time. This is the right choice for a rich nation, and as a Christian and as an American, I’ll celebrate when President Obama signs it, warts and all. Merry Christmas, good friends.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Obama's Nobel Acceptance: Even lovely talk is cheap
When Barack Obama makes a speech, particularly one that forces him to reconcile two or more conflicting principles, he has a way of reminding me in technicolor why I preferred him over Hillary Clinton. I really am a sucker for the way his mind works, and I envy his ability to articulate positions of seemingly intractable complexity, where a poorly chosen word can topple the whole rhetorical house of cards. Accepting a Nobel Peace Prize in the same fortnight as escalating a foreign war is a tightrope worthy of Obama's talents, for certain, and he didn't disappoint.
Many commentators, in particular the writers over at Slate, appear impressed that the President acknowledged the complexities of war and peace at all (my, how our standards have waned). Above all, it was a far more satisfying embrace of realism that one imagines ever having heard from George W. - but to say that his vision for the world is markedly different from that of the neocons would be a tough case to make. In addition, Obama's insistence that America only ever engages in war with the greatest of reluctance, only in the darkest of hours, and in full recognition of the resulting misery, frankly stretches the imagination.
As I've fumblingly tried to articulate over the past week or so, it's not the 30,000 troop increase. Or rather, it's not just the troop increase. What a transformative figure like Barack Obama could be doing is breaking the status quo that makes "war as a way to keep the peace" seem so much less absurd than it actually is. To wit: the American government exported $154B worth of weaponry during the Bush administration, over half of which goes to developing nations without sustainable economies. When that weaponry is turned around and used to suppress dissent within the recipients' own countries, just what does it mean for the Barack Obama to say that human rights and free expression are of paramount concern to the United States? And when those very same countries have a tendency to produce terrorists that turn around and target America, just what does it mean to talk about our military might being the key to global security in an age of new threats? A kindergartener could figure out the flaws in this logic - but in any event you're crazy if you think that big business is merely an incidental ingredient in the whole morass. Obama could have taken the Nobel opportunity to acknowledge this and try to walk it back an inch - or at least correct the momentum of the last eight years - but he's not. Instead, he's just spreading strawberry jam on the same big pile of shit, and hoping to get through the week.
The President also made a big point of saying that the manner in which wars are fought is critical to maintaining moral authority. That's why, he said, he prohibited torture by American personnel. God damn it - even the Constitutional lawyer misses the point, after all this time. THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST TORTURE - HE DIDN'T NEED TO PROHIBIT IT, IT WAS ALREADY PROHIBITED. On torture, President Obama has actually made things worse. By not prosecuting crimes of torture from the last eight years, by suppressing the evidence of wrongdoing by claiming state secret authority, and overall by continuing to position the whole issue as a question of executive policy rather than law, he has reinforced the notion that on matters of security, what's right is right because the President says it's right, not because it's right. It's a classic Euthypro cop-out, written in fine print for the most powerful nation on earth - what matters isn't what the law says, only whether the President judges that following the law is appropriate on any given day. This continues to be a disgrace, and makes the Nobel an even starker irony than does the troop escalation itself.
What saddens me most about this, ironically, is how good Obama really is at catering to the sensibilities of progressives and idealists, or at least making them feel catered to. In his hands, the same old crap really does sound better than it used to, and people who wouldn't have accepted Bush or Cheney's assertions of "best of all bad options" are all too eager to give the new guy a break, since it seems like he's trying so darn hard. But nothing's really changed. Greenwald, as usual, puts it heartwrenchingly well:
This is why health care always mattered less to me, although I'm happy to see some small progress made on that front, tainted by corporate sell-out it may be. What's scarier to me is what the two major parties agree on - absurd corporate welfare, continually decreasing levels of transparency and oversight, and, it seems, endless and intractable war.
Many commentators, in particular the writers over at Slate, appear impressed that the President acknowledged the complexities of war and peace at all (my, how our standards have waned). Above all, it was a far more satisfying embrace of realism that one imagines ever having heard from George W. - but to say that his vision for the world is markedly different from that of the neocons would be a tough case to make. In addition, Obama's insistence that America only ever engages in war with the greatest of reluctance, only in the darkest of hours, and in full recognition of the resulting misery, frankly stretches the imagination.
As I've fumblingly tried to articulate over the past week or so, it's not the 30,000 troop increase. Or rather, it's not just the troop increase. What a transformative figure like Barack Obama could be doing is breaking the status quo that makes "war as a way to keep the peace" seem so much less absurd than it actually is. To wit: the American government exported $154B worth of weaponry during the Bush administration, over half of which goes to developing nations without sustainable economies. When that weaponry is turned around and used to suppress dissent within the recipients' own countries, just what does it mean for the Barack Obama to say that human rights and free expression are of paramount concern to the United States? And when those very same countries have a tendency to produce terrorists that turn around and target America, just what does it mean to talk about our military might being the key to global security in an age of new threats? A kindergartener could figure out the flaws in this logic - but in any event you're crazy if you think that big business is merely an incidental ingredient in the whole morass. Obama could have taken the Nobel opportunity to acknowledge this and try to walk it back an inch - or at least correct the momentum of the last eight years - but he's not. Instead, he's just spreading strawberry jam on the same big pile of shit, and hoping to get through the week.
The President also made a big point of saying that the manner in which wars are fought is critical to maintaining moral authority. That's why, he said, he prohibited torture by American personnel. God damn it - even the Constitutional lawyer misses the point, after all this time. THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST TORTURE - HE DIDN'T NEED TO PROHIBIT IT, IT WAS ALREADY PROHIBITED. On torture, President Obama has actually made things worse. By not prosecuting crimes of torture from the last eight years, by suppressing the evidence of wrongdoing by claiming state secret authority, and overall by continuing to position the whole issue as a question of executive policy rather than law, he has reinforced the notion that on matters of security, what's right is right because the President says it's right, not because it's right. It's a classic Euthypro cop-out, written in fine print for the most powerful nation on earth - what matters isn't what the law says, only whether the President judges that following the law is appropriate on any given day. This continues to be a disgrace, and makes the Nobel an even starker irony than does the troop escalation itself.
What saddens me most about this, ironically, is how good Obama really is at catering to the sensibilities of progressives and idealists, or at least making them feel catered to. In his hands, the same old crap really does sound better than it used to, and people who wouldn't have accepted Bush or Cheney's assertions of "best of all bad options" are all too eager to give the new guy a break, since it seems like he's trying so darn hard. But nothing's really changed. Greenwald, as usual, puts it heartwrenchingly well:
To red state Republicans, war and its accompanying instruments (secrecy, executive power, indefinite detention) felt so good and right when justified by swaggering, unapologetic toughness and divinely-mandated purpose; to blue state Democrats, all of that feels just as good when justified by academic meditations on "just war" doctrine and when accompanied by poetic expressions of sorrow and reluctance. When you combine the two rhetorical approaches, what you get is what you saw yesterday: a bipartisan embrace of the same policies and ideologies among people with supposedly irreconcilable views of the world.
This is why health care always mattered less to me, although I'm happy to see some small progress made on that front, tainted by corporate sell-out it may be. What's scarier to me is what the two major parties agree on - absurd corporate welfare, continually decreasing levels of transparency and oversight, and, it seems, endless and intractable war.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Tales from another war
I swear, from time to time I wonder whether I overdo it on this page, that maybe I'm losing my penchant for balance. But then I come across something like this, and it makes me want to beat the ever living piss out of someone all over again. According to testimony offered this week in the UK pursuant to a public inquiry into how the Brits found themselves at war in Iraq (God save the Brits for actually having the balls to do this by the way), it was revealed that:
Greenwald does a nice job detailing the extent to which this particular claim was amplified and repeated, both in the UK and in the US, in aid of drumming up support for the invasion.
For a long time, I just operated under the presumption that the intelligence leading up to the war, about Iraq's capabilities and Saddam's threat to us, was just mistaken. It wasn't - what the Brits are showing us now, in the clearest possible terms, is that the guys on the ground told us everything they knew, and by and large they had it right. It was our country's leadership that deliberately distorted, amplified, and manufactured whatever they could get their hands on, in order to justify a course of action on which they had already decided.
Tens of thousands dead. Hundreds of thousands wounded. Trillions spent. And while Saddam may be gone, the Shia government that replaced him shows signs of being just as bad as he was (which is saying something, for sure). They can't guarantee fair elections, or protect the populace from terrorists. They're certainly not an example for their Arab neighbors to follow. What in the name of all that is holy did we do this for? And how can we look ourselves in the mirror every single day as Americans and in the full light of day chalk it all up to reasonable policy differences, and flawed attempts to find the best of all bad options? What will we ever have the balls to call criminal, ever again?
So no - readers of this page will have to look elsewhere for a balanced approach to death and destruction. And to anyone outraged at the Bush administration given the rearview look on Iraq, but who still insists on giving Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt as he prosecutes his war in Afghanistan, don't look here for comfort. I'm not accusing the President of grossly fudging the case for a troop surge in Afghanistan, or deliberately misleading anyone for that matter - he doesn't need to be as bad as Bush for me to make my case. What I am saying is that claiming to pursue virtuous ends with bombs and bullets is the hallmark of fools and tyrants, no matter whether you're from Crawford or Chicago. And even more important that that, what I'm saying is Don't. Trust. Anyone.
An Iraqi taxi driver may have been the source of the discredited claim that Saddam Hussein could unleash weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, a Tory MP claimed today.
...
In the report he wrote: "Under pressure from Downing Street to find anything to back up the WMD case, British intelligence was squeezing their agents in Iraq for information. One agent did come up with something: the '45 minutes' or something about missiles allegedly discussed in a high level Iraqi political meeting.
"But the provenance of this information was never questioned in detail until after the Iraq invasion, when it became apparent that something was wrong. In the end it turned out that the information was not credible, it had originated from an émigré taxi driver on the Iraqi-Jordanian border, who had remembered an overheard a conversation in the back of his cab a full two years earlier.
"Indeed, in the intelligence analyst's footnote to the report, it was flagged up that part of the report probably describing some missiles that the Iraqi government allegedly possessed was demonstrably untrue. They verifiably did not exist.
Greenwald does a nice job detailing the extent to which this particular claim was amplified and repeated, both in the UK and in the US, in aid of drumming up support for the invasion.
For a long time, I just operated under the presumption that the intelligence leading up to the war, about Iraq's capabilities and Saddam's threat to us, was just mistaken. It wasn't - what the Brits are showing us now, in the clearest possible terms, is that the guys on the ground told us everything they knew, and by and large they had it right. It was our country's leadership that deliberately distorted, amplified, and manufactured whatever they could get their hands on, in order to justify a course of action on which they had already decided.
Tens of thousands dead. Hundreds of thousands wounded. Trillions spent. And while Saddam may be gone, the Shia government that replaced him shows signs of being just as bad as he was (which is saying something, for sure). They can't guarantee fair elections, or protect the populace from terrorists. They're certainly not an example for their Arab neighbors to follow. What in the name of all that is holy did we do this for? And how can we look ourselves in the mirror every single day as Americans and in the full light of day chalk it all up to reasonable policy differences, and flawed attempts to find the best of all bad options? What will we ever have the balls to call criminal, ever again?
So no - readers of this page will have to look elsewhere for a balanced approach to death and destruction. And to anyone outraged at the Bush administration given the rearview look on Iraq, but who still insists on giving Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt as he prosecutes his war in Afghanistan, don't look here for comfort. I'm not accusing the President of grossly fudging the case for a troop surge in Afghanistan, or deliberately misleading anyone for that matter - he doesn't need to be as bad as Bush for me to make my case. What I am saying is that claiming to pursue virtuous ends with bombs and bullets is the hallmark of fools and tyrants, no matter whether you're from Crawford or Chicago. And even more important that that, what I'm saying is Don't. Trust. Anyone.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Afghanistan musings, part III
I'm still doing my level best to divine a coherent theory of President Obama's plans in Afghanistan. This graphic most certainly does not help, but it is useful if you want a visceral appreciation of just how complex an endeavor we're talking about (hat-tip: Weinberger). All in all, we've got to be aware - this is not a straightforward mission. Success entirely depends not on military prowess, which we naturally have in abundance, but rather that we know the terrain, the people, the alliances, the economy - pretty much everything - better than the people who live there. And yet, here's General McChrystal, testifying on the Hill today:
The two worst kept secrets about all this are that a) the July 2011 timetable for withdrawal is 110% meaningless (there's no other way to interpret "dependent upon conditions on the ground"), and b) the lynchpin of stability isn't removing al Qaeda's influence in Afghanistan, it's mitigating the Taliban's influence in Pakistan. This week, reports have emerged that the CIA is stepping up drone attacks in Pakistani tribal areas, and the Obama administration is increasing pressure on the Pakistanis to pick up more of the fight on the border against the Islamist militias. Trouble is, the Pakistanis aren't unambiguously opposed to those militias...but supposedly that balance can be tipped in our direction. Here's a passage from Steve Coll:
Now, India wasn't mentioned at all in the President's speech last week...one can see whym if Pakistan was also considered part of the audience. But once again this all begs the question of what's the endgame. Do we expect tensions between India and Pakistan, which underpin much of the Pakistani support for Islamists both within Pakistan and in Afghanistan, to somehow wane in the next 18 months? Or do we plan on filling that "asymmetrical" gap ourselves, providing a peace-keeping buffer between these two nuclear nations, while suppressing Taliban-like efforts to destroy all three nations, in perpetuity? And notice how far away any of this reasoning is from our stated intentions of eliminating direct terrorists threats against the homeland. Can any of this be done without enflaming anti-American sentiment amongst the people with the misfortune to live within and around the theater of war? Is there any historical precedent for success here that I'm not thinking of?
Still looking for some kind of comfort level here...but I'm not feeling any better about it than I did last week.
"There is much in Afghanistan that I do not understand."
The two worst kept secrets about all this are that a) the July 2011 timetable for withdrawal is 110% meaningless (there's no other way to interpret "dependent upon conditions on the ground"), and b) the lynchpin of stability isn't removing al Qaeda's influence in Afghanistan, it's mitigating the Taliban's influence in Pakistan. This week, reports have emerged that the CIA is stepping up drone attacks in Pakistani tribal areas, and the Obama administration is increasing pressure on the Pakistanis to pick up more of the fight on the border against the Islamist militias. Trouble is, the Pakistanis aren't unambiguously opposed to those militias...but supposedly that balance can be tipped in our direction. Here's a passage from Steve Coll:
The Pakistan Army has historically supported groups like the Taliban because it sees them as essential, along with a nuclear deterrent, to an asymmetrical defense against much larger India, which Pakistan regards as determined to weaken or destroy Pakistan. Now sections of the Pakistani elites, faced with their own revolutionary Taliban, are questioning whether the benefits of allies like the Taliban are outstripped by the costs. Here the governments of Pakistan, Afghanistan, the United States and India actually have a common interest--to persuade Pakistan to abandon its support for these groups and pursue its legitimate security goals by other means. American failure in Afghanistan would almost guarantee failure of this project in Pakistan.
Now, India wasn't mentioned at all in the President's speech last week...one can see whym if Pakistan was also considered part of the audience. But once again this all begs the question of what's the endgame. Do we expect tensions between India and Pakistan, which underpin much of the Pakistani support for Islamists both within Pakistan and in Afghanistan, to somehow wane in the next 18 months? Or do we plan on filling that "asymmetrical" gap ourselves, providing a peace-keeping buffer between these two nuclear nations, while suppressing Taliban-like efforts to destroy all three nations, in perpetuity? And notice how far away any of this reasoning is from our stated intentions of eliminating direct terrorists threats against the homeland. Can any of this be done without enflaming anti-American sentiment amongst the people with the misfortune to live within and around the theater of war? Is there any historical precedent for success here that I'm not thinking of?
Still looking for some kind of comfort level here...but I'm not feeling any better about it than I did last week.
Hunting and Zinn
In 1998, I read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States based on (Good) Will Hunting's assessment that it would "knock you on your ass." According to this article at the Daily Beast, it turns out that Matt Damon and Zinn are actually old friends, and that's how that line got in the movie. I don't know why, but I find that trippy. Also within that link, Aragorn's take on Sarah Palin - priceless.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Additional thoughts and links on Afghanistan
As a follow-up to my Afghanistan post prior to President Obama's speech, I don't mind saying I was wrong about a few things, although what I was wrong about doesn't make me feel any better about the situation. One, I was wrong when I said that the President wouldn't use the specter of imminent attack to justify the escalation. Not precisely correct - he spent the first section of the speech recounting the events of 9/11 and the initiation of the Afghan conflict, repeatedly saying that our primary mission now is just what it was then - disrupting and dismantling al Qaeda so they can't launch more attacks against us. He didn't say exactly how he was going to keep al Qaeda from centralizing in Somalia or Yemen after they were routed, but then he also relied heavily for his case on the conflation between al Qaeda jihadists, who could be anywhere, and Taliban nationalists, who are really the ones right at home in the mountains of Afghanistan. So he wasn't really going for a real precise articulation of the mission. Obama also did not mention the capture or death of Osama bin Laden as either a missed opportunity or a current goal of his administration. But he did say that not succeeding in Afghanistan would leave America less safe.
Second, I also said that the President would remind us of our historic commitment to the welfare of the Afghan people. Greenwald, in a curious and measured bit of praise, points out that Obama kept his case clearly within the bounds of American national interest:
While Greenwald is happy about the bit of refreshing honesty, I'm extraordinarily bothered by the fact that Obama is abandoning even the pretense of helping average Afghans to realize a better future for themselves. What it shows is that Obama's interest is consistent with a situation that is identical or worse for Afghan citizens, even than it is now. We know how bad Karzai is on women's rights, and we know that in general the whole Afghan government is near-hopelessly corrupt, and can't be trusted to take care of its people. But Obama's explicitly not trying to solve that problem - he's trying to create stability and eliminate a nominal threat to American security. Nice, limited goals - here's the problem though. We already have client states in the Muslim world that are capable of cracking down on internal dissidents and that claim to share America's global interests. Saudi Arabia and Egypt come to mind, and the best we can probably hope for Iraq is that it soon joins that club. (That whole wellspring of democracy idea? Not so much.) Saudi Arabia is among the most oppressive governments in the entire world, by any standard of measurement. If Obama wants the same for Afghanistan in exchange for stability, he ought to remember that while the al Qaeda leadership had safe haven there prior to 2001, that country didn't actually produce the terrorists of 9/11. By and large, Saudi Arabia did - our supposed ally, propped up by our military support. So this is the plan then? America will side with Karzai over the Taliban, and try to summon some pride that, as Obama put it, "while the election was marred by fraud, it produced a government that was consistent with the Afghan constitution and laws." Whoopee. That government, if we're lucky, will crush its opposition (with our help), so we can go home. And then we'll have created another effective dictatorship who only knows how to survive by oppressing its own people. This is going to make us safer? Please.
Here's an op-ed by a courageous Afghan woman who points out that things are as bad as they've ever been for the Afghan people, and that they're poised to get a lot worse with Obama's escalation. I remain exasperated and very, very sad.
Second, I also said that the President would remind us of our historic commitment to the welfare of the Afghan people. Greenwald, in a curious and measured bit of praise, points out that Obama kept his case clearly within the bounds of American national interest:
There were no grandiose claims that the justness of the war derives from our desire to defeat evil, tyrannical extremists and replace them with more humane and democratic leaders. To the contrary, he was commendably blunt that our true goal is not to improve the lives of Afghan citizens but rather: "Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda." There were no promises to guarantee freedom and human rights to the Afghan people. To the contrary, he explicitly rejected a mission of broad nation-building "because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost and what we need to achieve to secure our interests"
While Greenwald is happy about the bit of refreshing honesty, I'm extraordinarily bothered by the fact that Obama is abandoning even the pretense of helping average Afghans to realize a better future for themselves. What it shows is that Obama's interest is consistent with a situation that is identical or worse for Afghan citizens, even than it is now. We know how bad Karzai is on women's rights, and we know that in general the whole Afghan government is near-hopelessly corrupt, and can't be trusted to take care of its people. But Obama's explicitly not trying to solve that problem - he's trying to create stability and eliminate a nominal threat to American security. Nice, limited goals - here's the problem though. We already have client states in the Muslim world that are capable of cracking down on internal dissidents and that claim to share America's global interests. Saudi Arabia and Egypt come to mind, and the best we can probably hope for Iraq is that it soon joins that club. (That whole wellspring of democracy idea? Not so much.) Saudi Arabia is among the most oppressive governments in the entire world, by any standard of measurement. If Obama wants the same for Afghanistan in exchange for stability, he ought to remember that while the al Qaeda leadership had safe haven there prior to 2001, that country didn't actually produce the terrorists of 9/11. By and large, Saudi Arabia did - our supposed ally, propped up by our military support. So this is the plan then? America will side with Karzai over the Taliban, and try to summon some pride that, as Obama put it, "while the election was marred by fraud, it produced a government that was consistent with the Afghan constitution and laws." Whoopee. That government, if we're lucky, will crush its opposition (with our help), so we can go home. And then we'll have created another effective dictatorship who only knows how to survive by oppressing its own people. This is going to make us safer? Please.
Here's an op-ed by a courageous Afghan woman who points out that things are as bad as they've ever been for the Afghan people, and that they're poised to get a lot worse with Obama's escalation. I remain exasperated and very, very sad.
More Americans favor torture, and it's Barack Obama's fault
According to the latest Pew survey, a full 53% of Americans currently believe that torture of suspected terrorists is either "often" or "sometimes" justified. We're down to only 1 out of 4 of us who believe that torture is never justified. Those who say torture is often (often!) justified is up from 15% in April to 19% last month.
Couple points on the language here - first, we're talking about torture. Not "interrogation methods that some critics of the Bush administration call torture," but torture. Pick your technique, no matter how heinous - rape, cutting, electric shocks, beatings - and that's what we're referring to, without limits. Second, note that the poll refers not to terrorists, but suspected terrorists. You can become a suspected terrorist with no due process at all, and as followers of this blog know, there are numerous examples from the last decade where government suspicions were unfounded, and where torture proceeded nonetheless. I guess it was worth it.
Here's what may be the worst part, though. According to the survey, in February 2008, 38% of Democrats thought it was often or sometimes necessary to torture suspected terrorists. In February of 2009, that number dropped to 29%. In November of 2009, a mere 9 months later, it's up to a whopping 47%.
Consider how the Democrat number drops 10 points during 2008, during the last Presidential campaign, when Barack Obama was on the campaign trail doubling down on every difference between him and George W. Bush. He won the election in part by claiming the high road, reminding the American people of our moral obligation as a leader among nations to behave better than we had been. But look at what's happened since the election, where support for torture has leapt 20 points in less than a year. During that time, the President has repeatedly suppressed evidence of US torture in the courts and in the release of incriminating photographs, insisted on "looking forward" rather than addressing past acts of criminality, and asserted the US's right to indefinite military detention and extraordinary rendition. Looks like Obama's moral outrage, and that of the voters who put him in office, served the moment of his election nicely but not much else.
When Bush was in office, at least there was a vociferous opposition party eager to check his worst impulses. Now, the party out of power, exemplified by the former vice president, spends most of its time complaining that the president isn't brutal enough when it comes to the nation's enemies. Maybe something to keep in mind while we're busy moralizing about all those crazy Muslims and their lack of respect for basic human dignity.
Couple points on the language here - first, we're talking about torture. Not "interrogation methods that some critics of the Bush administration call torture," but torture. Pick your technique, no matter how heinous - rape, cutting, electric shocks, beatings - and that's what we're referring to, without limits. Second, note that the poll refers not to terrorists, but suspected terrorists. You can become a suspected terrorist with no due process at all, and as followers of this blog know, there are numerous examples from the last decade where government suspicions were unfounded, and where torture proceeded nonetheless. I guess it was worth it.
Here's what may be the worst part, though. According to the survey, in February 2008, 38% of Democrats thought it was often or sometimes necessary to torture suspected terrorists. In February of 2009, that number dropped to 29%. In November of 2009, a mere 9 months later, it's up to a whopping 47%.
Consider how the Democrat number drops 10 points during 2008, during the last Presidential campaign, when Barack Obama was on the campaign trail doubling down on every difference between him and George W. Bush. He won the election in part by claiming the high road, reminding the American people of our moral obligation as a leader among nations to behave better than we had been. But look at what's happened since the election, where support for torture has leapt 20 points in less than a year. During that time, the President has repeatedly suppressed evidence of US torture in the courts and in the release of incriminating photographs, insisted on "looking forward" rather than addressing past acts of criminality, and asserted the US's right to indefinite military detention and extraordinary rendition. Looks like Obama's moral outrage, and that of the voters who put him in office, served the moment of his election nicely but not much else.
When Bush was in office, at least there was a vociferous opposition party eager to check his worst impulses. Now, the party out of power, exemplified by the former vice president, spends most of its time complaining that the president isn't brutal enough when it comes to the nation's enemies. Maybe something to keep in mind while we're busy moralizing about all those crazy Muslims and their lack of respect for basic human dignity.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Reflections on Advent and Afghanistan
The season of Advent has just begun, and with it comes an expectation of not only a reverent patience, but also the summoning of a joyful hope, that the life God intended for us is indeed within mankind’s grasp. Most days I count myself an optimist on balance, but have to I confess that there are some times that I just get positively fatigued. At the moment, the culprit is my obsessive, week-long reflection on President Obama’s soon-to-be-announced escalation of the war in Afghanistan, to the tune of 34,000 additional American troops.
I think I have a good idea of what the President will say tonight, and what he won’t say. He won’t say that the increased deployment is necessary to protect America from imminent attack, not when 9/11 was planned in Florida and West Germany. He’ll probably touch on our commitment to the Afghan people, regardless of the fact that most of them don’t actually want us to be there anymore, and many consider us a threat or an “aggravating influence.” Odds are Obama will play up the notion of clear benchmarks for the Karzai government, upon which the United States will absolutely insist; but he won’t draw attention to the fact that similar benchmarks in Iraq have pretty much meant absolutely nothing to the Malaki government, which by the by is looking more and more like Saddam’s Iraq every day, so one still wonders what the point of the whole thing was unless we just wanted another Saudi Arabia to begin with. He’ll most certainly highlight the unquestioned expertise of the generals on the ground, and maybe even the success of the Iraq troop surge from a few years ago, without going into the messy details about how that surge was concurrent with an alliance with some of the Sunni insurgents in Iraq, for whom there is no Afghan substitute. The President’s biggest selling point for the troop increase looks to be America’s interest in a stable Pakistan, free from Taliban influence – but he won’t talk about how that country has been screwing us over on intelligence and operations for a decade, and he certainly won’t get into Pakistan’s preference for a long-term, indefinite American presence in Afghanistan over the specter of an Indian one. And the one thing President Obama most certainly will not mention, because it’s just too depressing to even contemplate, is that given how close health care is to either passage or collapse, he just can’t afford another political fight right now, and so the easiest course of action is simply to follow the generals’ advice.
I’m being uncharitable to the Commander in Chief, I know. Tell you what – I’ll concede for the sake of argument that no matter how fact-challenged and clichéd the case for more war may be, it’s at least within the realm of possibility that additional troops going into the mountains to fight and die is in the national interest. Who the hell knows. But that still leaves one unassailable fact that, to my mind, should break every heart in this country into pieces: the human race, after thousands of years of so-called forward progress and myriad examples from which to draw experience, has still not found a better way to conduct ourselves than to kill and maim each other over our differences. Cut through all the “they started it” and “best of all bad options” bullshit, and that’s what you’ve got. As valuable as abstractions can be, this is not a frakking game of Risk. In this real world we’ve made for ourselves, more of our volunteers, to say nothing of those poor souls unfortunate enough to be born into an American theater of war, are going to die violently and far from home, because we just can’t come up with any other plan. Even the United States of America, with more concentrated ingenuity and resources ever assembled in human history, just has no choice but to go over there and kill some more people, and lose some of our own to boot. So I’m ashamed, because I’m left with no other conclusion that we are poor stewards indeed of this Creation that has been entrusted to us. One imagines even the most patient and loving God imaginable regarding us with contempt and disbelief.
I don’t really know what’s to be done, and I’m aware how that eats away at any moral authority I may have to complain about the situation. But here are some things I do know, some things that certainly make things far more difficult to manage in the long term. The United States spends as much on defense as the next 15 countries combined – over $500 billion a year. On both a nominal and per capita basis, our investment into military might dwarfs that of our allies and enemies (especially our enemies) alike. Keep in mind I’m not even talking about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars themselves (which, helpfully, are evaluated under separate heading) or homeland security, veterans’ affairs, the debt on previous defense-related deficits, etc – all told it approaches about $1 trillion a year, or 7% of GDP. With that kind of money being spent compared to those who call us an enemy, it’s hard to believe that we face any real threat at all, from anyone…but let’s just focus on the $500 billion, which is spent before any troops are deployed, any ports are protected, any intelligence gathered, any veterans cared for. Most of that budget obviously doesn’t go directly to troops and military personnel – the big bulk of the money is paid out in contracts to private companies, who by their very nature are primarily motivated by profits for their shareholders, equally if not more so than the national interest. To wit, the various defense lobbies spend between $30 million and $40 million out of their clients’ considerable revenues on Congressional campaign contributions, which quite nicely ensure continued appropriations no matter what, and of course, the revolving door between public service and the private sector has been well documented. Weapons built and unused can’t normally be replaced at equal or greater cost, so little wonder in the end that most weapons get used, or get sold. And of course, the tendency for the American public to conflate military spending and ‘hard power’ with the national character, and the tendency for representatives of both political parties to encourage that conflation, have in tandem the indisputable side effect of making some people very, very rich, while also making some other people very, very dead. (Average pay for a CEO of a large defense contractor in the U.S.: $11M annually.) No wonder we’ve been at war for almost ten years and nothing has changed, and no wonder we’re set to double down for more.
Fr. John Courtney Murray writes in We Hold These Truths of a theory of just war that yearns achingly for its own obsolescence. We have to stop thinking of these wars as things being forced on us by the intransigence of strange, outsider fanatics and recognize that we, not them, have the power. Not the American government, but the American people. What’s done in our name is done by our hand, otherwise this whole self-government thing is a sham. Obama is planning now to further bleed the treasury and risk a higher death toll, with no end in sight, and to date there is absolutely no reason any of us can be sure that it’s worth it. What’s to be done? Demand better. Question everything. Recognize the conflicts of interest inherent in the system. And pray that we find a better way soon, so that someday we can look back and see the moment we put ourselves back on track. Tonight, alas, is not that moment, however much it could have been.
God bless America, especially those who fight and those who lead. God bless the memories of all who have died standing up for the ideals we claim to hold highest – and may Heaven forgive us if we let them down.
I think I have a good idea of what the President will say tonight, and what he won’t say. He won’t say that the increased deployment is necessary to protect America from imminent attack, not when 9/11 was planned in Florida and West Germany. He’ll probably touch on our commitment to the Afghan people, regardless of the fact that most of them don’t actually want us to be there anymore, and many consider us a threat or an “aggravating influence.” Odds are Obama will play up the notion of clear benchmarks for the Karzai government, upon which the United States will absolutely insist; but he won’t draw attention to the fact that similar benchmarks in Iraq have pretty much meant absolutely nothing to the Malaki government, which by the by is looking more and more like Saddam’s Iraq every day, so one still wonders what the point of the whole thing was unless we just wanted another Saudi Arabia to begin with. He’ll most certainly highlight the unquestioned expertise of the generals on the ground, and maybe even the success of the Iraq troop surge from a few years ago, without going into the messy details about how that surge was concurrent with an alliance with some of the Sunni insurgents in Iraq, for whom there is no Afghan substitute. The President’s biggest selling point for the troop increase looks to be America’s interest in a stable Pakistan, free from Taliban influence – but he won’t talk about how that country has been screwing us over on intelligence and operations for a decade, and he certainly won’t get into Pakistan’s preference for a long-term, indefinite American presence in Afghanistan over the specter of an Indian one. And the one thing President Obama most certainly will not mention, because it’s just too depressing to even contemplate, is that given how close health care is to either passage or collapse, he just can’t afford another political fight right now, and so the easiest course of action is simply to follow the generals’ advice.
I’m being uncharitable to the Commander in Chief, I know. Tell you what – I’ll concede for the sake of argument that no matter how fact-challenged and clichéd the case for more war may be, it’s at least within the realm of possibility that additional troops going into the mountains to fight and die is in the national interest. Who the hell knows. But that still leaves one unassailable fact that, to my mind, should break every heart in this country into pieces: the human race, after thousands of years of so-called forward progress and myriad examples from which to draw experience, has still not found a better way to conduct ourselves than to kill and maim each other over our differences. Cut through all the “they started it” and “best of all bad options” bullshit, and that’s what you’ve got. As valuable as abstractions can be, this is not a frakking game of Risk. In this real world we’ve made for ourselves, more of our volunteers, to say nothing of those poor souls unfortunate enough to be born into an American theater of war, are going to die violently and far from home, because we just can’t come up with any other plan. Even the United States of America, with more concentrated ingenuity and resources ever assembled in human history, just has no choice but to go over there and kill some more people, and lose some of our own to boot. So I’m ashamed, because I’m left with no other conclusion that we are poor stewards indeed of this Creation that has been entrusted to us. One imagines even the most patient and loving God imaginable regarding us with contempt and disbelief.
I don’t really know what’s to be done, and I’m aware how that eats away at any moral authority I may have to complain about the situation. But here are some things I do know, some things that certainly make things far more difficult to manage in the long term. The United States spends as much on defense as the next 15 countries combined – over $500 billion a year. On both a nominal and per capita basis, our investment into military might dwarfs that of our allies and enemies (especially our enemies) alike. Keep in mind I’m not even talking about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars themselves (which, helpfully, are evaluated under separate heading) or homeland security, veterans’ affairs, the debt on previous defense-related deficits, etc – all told it approaches about $1 trillion a year, or 7% of GDP. With that kind of money being spent compared to those who call us an enemy, it’s hard to believe that we face any real threat at all, from anyone…but let’s just focus on the $500 billion, which is spent before any troops are deployed, any ports are protected, any intelligence gathered, any veterans cared for. Most of that budget obviously doesn’t go directly to troops and military personnel – the big bulk of the money is paid out in contracts to private companies, who by their very nature are primarily motivated by profits for their shareholders, equally if not more so than the national interest. To wit, the various defense lobbies spend between $30 million and $40 million out of their clients’ considerable revenues on Congressional campaign contributions, which quite nicely ensure continued appropriations no matter what, and of course, the revolving door between public service and the private sector has been well documented. Weapons built and unused can’t normally be replaced at equal or greater cost, so little wonder in the end that most weapons get used, or get sold. And of course, the tendency for the American public to conflate military spending and ‘hard power’ with the national character, and the tendency for representatives of both political parties to encourage that conflation, have in tandem the indisputable side effect of making some people very, very rich, while also making some other people very, very dead. (Average pay for a CEO of a large defense contractor in the U.S.: $11M annually.) No wonder we’ve been at war for almost ten years and nothing has changed, and no wonder we’re set to double down for more.
Fr. John Courtney Murray writes in We Hold These Truths of a theory of just war that yearns achingly for its own obsolescence. We have to stop thinking of these wars as things being forced on us by the intransigence of strange, outsider fanatics and recognize that we, not them, have the power. Not the American government, but the American people. What’s done in our name is done by our hand, otherwise this whole self-government thing is a sham. Obama is planning now to further bleed the treasury and risk a higher death toll, with no end in sight, and to date there is absolutely no reason any of us can be sure that it’s worth it. What’s to be done? Demand better. Question everything. Recognize the conflicts of interest inherent in the system. And pray that we find a better way soon, so that someday we can look back and see the moment we put ourselves back on track. Tonight, alas, is not that moment, however much it could have been.
God bless America, especially those who fight and those who lead. God bless the memories of all who have died standing up for the ideals we claim to hold highest – and may Heaven forgive us if we let them down.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Update on Afghanistan coming next week
I will wait for President Obama's address to the nation next week to make a final judgment. But his reported plan to send an additional 35,000 troops to Afghanistan, when the definition of victory in that country is still yet to be articulated, disappoints and depresses me. We're going to lose a lot more people, and we're going to kill a lot more people, and none of us can actually say why, except that unless we don't, the President of the United States might just appear weak and uncommitted. We're all just idiots, sometimes.
Here is a transcript of Bill Moyers' Journal, where he takes us through LBJ's year-long process of inexorably escalating the Vietnam War. Read it, to get a sense of where we may be headed. The parallels aren't exact, but they're unnerving still. This is how it ends:
Here is a transcript of Bill Moyers' Journal, where he takes us through LBJ's year-long process of inexorably escalating the Vietnam War. Read it, to get a sense of where we may be headed. The parallels aren't exact, but they're unnerving still. This is how it ends:
Now in a different world, at a different time, and with a different president, we face the prospect of enlarging a different war. But once again we're fighting in remote provinces against an enemy who can bleed us slowly and wait us out, because he will still be there when we are gone.
Once again, we are caught between warring factions in a country where other foreign powers fail before us. Once again, every setback brings a call for more troops, although no one can say how long they will be there or what it means to win. Once again, the government we are trying to help is hopelessly corrupt and incompetent.
And once again, a President pushing for critical change at home is being pressured to stop dithering, be tough, show he's got the guts, by sending young people seven thousand miles from home to fight and die, while their own country is coming apart.
And once again, the loudest case for enlarging the war is being made by those who will not have to fight it, who will be safely in their beds while the war grinds on. And once again, a small circle of advisers debates the course of action, but one man will make the decision.
We will never know what would have happened if Lyndon Johnson had said no to more war. We know what happened because he said yes.
Monday, November 23, 2009
The KSM trial
My point of view will come as little surprise to those who follow this blog. Every argument I've seen not to try KSM and his co-conspirators in New York, in federal court, only plays out as an argument to have done so far sooner, before the torture, before the misguided efforts at creating a legal black hole. Make no mistake, we're not "giving" KSM the rights accorded citizens of the United States. On the contrary, we're reclaiming those rights for ourselves by affirming the limits on the government's power to make up the rules as they go along. Trust the NYPD. Trust the FBI. And don't worry about the defendants using the trial as a platform to spout anti-American rhetoric. It won't be anything the world hasn't heard before - sticks and stones, and all that.
Two notes. One, Obama and Holder should shut up about failure not being an option and don't worry, we can still keep the guy locked up even if he gets acquitted. It won't be a show trial unless the judge and the jury, not the prosecution, lets it be. Procedurally speaking, that's going to have to be enough. And two, there are myriad protections against the forced release of classified information during the trial. Given the rules of evidence, nothing the government doesn't want out gets out. Mukasey's warnings on the op-ed page of the Journal, about bin Laden finding out the US was on to him during the first WTC trial, don't hold up. See here for details. Trust the process.
Two notes. One, Obama and Holder should shut up about failure not being an option and don't worry, we can still keep the guy locked up even if he gets acquitted. It won't be a show trial unless the judge and the jury, not the prosecution, lets it be. Procedurally speaking, that's going to have to be enough. And two, there are myriad protections against the forced release of classified information during the trial. Given the rules of evidence, nothing the government doesn't want out gets out. Mukasey's warnings on the op-ed page of the Journal, about bin Laden finding out the US was on to him during the first WTC trial, don't hold up. See here for details. Trust the process.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The case of Maher Arar: No recourse for torture and rendition
Another absolute travesty in the arena of illegal torture and rendition, this time perpetrated by the Second Circuit US Court of Appeals. In September of 2002, the United States government detained Canadian national Maher Arad, under suspicion of membership in a terrorist organization. As you read the rest of this post, keep in mind the undisputed fact that no one currently maintains this suspicion. Maher Arad is an international businessman, with a family, who was picked up by mistake. Subsequent to his detainment, Arad was abusively interrogated without access to counsel for two weeks. Despite his pleas that he would be tortured, he was then sent in chains to Syria by way of Jordan for the express purpose of additional interrogation. He spent nearly one year in Syria being starved and beaten and confined in a coffin-sized cell. during the course of this treatment he falsely confessed to being a member of al Qaeda and having trained with terrorists in Afghanistan. (In actuality he had never been to Afghanistan.) Arad's confessions were then reported back to American officials by the Syrians. The details of Arad's American confinement can be found here. The gruesome details of what happened to Arad in Syria can be found here. After a year, Arad was released back to Canada, presumably because the Americans realized there was no point in taking the confessions seriously and that there was no additional evidence.
Arar is, quite reasonably it would seem, suing John Ashcroft and the US Government. It's worth pointing out that the Canadian government has already paid Arad a settlement of $9 million, and has produced a scathing report that not only fully exonerates Arad, but squarely places blame for the incident on both their own laxity and American malfeasance. In the case against the U.S., the government has asserted not an affirmative defense, but a state secrets privilege that, they say, precludes any adjudication of the events of Arad's rendition whatsoever, on the grounds that any investigation of the facts of the case by an independent court would represent a threat to national security. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with the government in a 7-4 decision.
This is Obama's Justice Department, making the argument that the United States literally cannot be held responsible, in any way, for anything it does in the name of security. Even if it means taking an innocent man from his family to be tortured for a year. The Court isn't saying it finds the government Not Guilty, or that the facts of the case don't support any civil culpability. It's saying that the matter can't even be adjudicated. That the Courts don't have any authority to even address the issue, based solely on the executive's assertion of that non-authority. I can't imagine anything more controversial and repugnant - I mean, one could argue that in 2002, we made some mistakes and our presence of mind should be taken into consideration. But to assert categorically that the victims of our abuses aren't entitled to any recompense, or even a fair hearing of events, seven years after the fact? I mean even if we want to claim that torturing one innocent man is worth it if torturing nine others stops a terrorist attack (an empirically dubious claim at that), wouldn't the slightest sense of human decency demand that we at least offer a formal apology and settlement to the innocent one?
Forget about who's President for a second, and take a moment to consider that this is all happening on our watch. What the American government does, it does only with the acquiescence of the American people. We - you and I and our families - are saying to the rest of the world that we reserve the right to torture innocent people. If you truly believe in self-government, there is no other way to interpret the case of Maher Arar. The longer this goes on, the more difficult it will be to dispute the accusation that America is nothing but an Ordinary Nation, with no claim to principle of any stripe. We must demand better, or in the end it's on us.
Arar is, quite reasonably it would seem, suing John Ashcroft and the US Government. It's worth pointing out that the Canadian government has already paid Arad a settlement of $9 million, and has produced a scathing report that not only fully exonerates Arad, but squarely places blame for the incident on both their own laxity and American malfeasance. In the case against the U.S., the government has asserted not an affirmative defense, but a state secrets privilege that, they say, precludes any adjudication of the events of Arad's rendition whatsoever, on the grounds that any investigation of the facts of the case by an independent court would represent a threat to national security. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with the government in a 7-4 decision.
This is Obama's Justice Department, making the argument that the United States literally cannot be held responsible, in any way, for anything it does in the name of security. Even if it means taking an innocent man from his family to be tortured for a year. The Court isn't saying it finds the government Not Guilty, or that the facts of the case don't support any civil culpability. It's saying that the matter can't even be adjudicated. That the Courts don't have any authority to even address the issue, based solely on the executive's assertion of that non-authority. I can't imagine anything more controversial and repugnant - I mean, one could argue that in 2002, we made some mistakes and our presence of mind should be taken into consideration. But to assert categorically that the victims of our abuses aren't entitled to any recompense, or even a fair hearing of events, seven years after the fact? I mean even if we want to claim that torturing one innocent man is worth it if torturing nine others stops a terrorist attack (an empirically dubious claim at that), wouldn't the slightest sense of human decency demand that we at least offer a formal apology and settlement to the innocent one?
Forget about who's President for a second, and take a moment to consider that this is all happening on our watch. What the American government does, it does only with the acquiescence of the American people. We - you and I and our families - are saying to the rest of the world that we reserve the right to torture innocent people. If you truly believe in self-government, there is no other way to interpret the case of Maher Arar. The longer this goes on, the more difficult it will be to dispute the accusation that America is nothing but an Ordinary Nation, with no claim to principle of any stripe. We must demand better, or in the end it's on us.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
More worthwhile Afghanistan links
Tom Friedman on the need to wind down our engagement, on the simple grounds that every time something wonderful happens in the Islamic world, it happens in spite of our assistance, not because of it. I find this interesting,, because Friedman's one of the biggest Iraq hawks around - but he even says the '06 surge was only successful because of a pre-existing internal desire to stamp out al Qaeda in Iraq.
Nick Kristof making the point that for the cost of 40,000 additional troops, you could instead build thousands of schools. After all, the Islamic extremists are building schools...
Glenn Greenwald pointing out an Op-Ed from 2006, written by a former Russian soldier who was stationed in Afghanistan. I won't summarize - this one you've got to read for yourself.
Nick Kristof making the point that for the cost of 40,000 additional troops, you could instead build thousands of schools. After all, the Islamic extremists are building schools...
Glenn Greenwald pointing out an Op-Ed from 2006, written by a former Russian soldier who was stationed in Afghanistan. I won't summarize - this one you've got to read for yourself.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The case of Binyamin Mohamed - the truth will out
Of all the verifiable cases of abuse and cover-up coming out of the fight against Islamic terrorism, this is the one that has continued to chap my tookus the most - and that is saying something. This is the one where in response to a released, i.e. innocent, Guantanamo detainee's attempts to sue the British government for their complicity in his torture and rendition, the United States government has threatened our closest historic ally with a "reassessed intelligence relationship" should the British High Court release to the public the relevant facts of what we did.
Recent reports have confirmed that the US "threat" may actually have been solicited by the Brits themselves - David Milband, the foreign secretary, is now accused of requesting that the Americans say exactly what we said, so as to apply pressure to the High Court to keep the facts of Mohammed's torture under wraps and protect the British officials involved. I'm encouraged to think that we weren't actually serious about letting citizens of the U.K. die just to cover up government crimes, but it's still an abhorrent, reckless game to play with the rule of law. In any event, the British High Court, having read the evidence Binyamin Mohammed intends to introduce and finding no threat to the national security of either nation, appears prepared to call the bluff. In a 38-page ruling released last week, they condemned the foreign secretary's actions in this regard as being contrary to the rule of law, and overruled his request to suppress the evidence. Pending one final appeal, the details of what the United States and other governments did to Binyamin Mohammed will be laid plain.
I've written about this before, of course, but it's important to note once again that those of us who feel passionately that a reckoning is due on these matters are not choosing transparency and the rule of law over security. Binyamin Mohammed was innocent. And he was tortured. By Americans. How can anyone believe that having done things like this systemically for seven years, on three continents, made us safer, when it's obvious how many of the victims were simply not guilty of anything? I reject categorically the notion that we had no choice here, because this is exactly what bin Laden wanted. He wanted to turn us into something we are not, and thus create a sustained mindset of all-out war. Enough is enough.
In the British High Court ruling, it is stated that the risk of an actual deterioration in intelligence sharing, based on releasing the Mohammed info, must be assessed in light of the strong historic relationship between the U.K. and the U.S. In short, the Brits are saying that Americans would never do this, would never put an ally's citizens at risk just to deny an innocent man his day in court. That language is directed at us, the American people. They're putting their faith in America's ultimate goodness. In light of this, Congress ought to put the Obama administration on notice, saying that our alliance with the UK is sacrosanct, and no actions of retribution are to be taken. If we can find the time to investigate Muslim groups for spying, on the basis of their desire to participate in democratic governance, maybe we can find the time for that too.
Recent reports have confirmed that the US "threat" may actually have been solicited by the Brits themselves - David Milband, the foreign secretary, is now accused of requesting that the Americans say exactly what we said, so as to apply pressure to the High Court to keep the facts of Mohammed's torture under wraps and protect the British officials involved. I'm encouraged to think that we weren't actually serious about letting citizens of the U.K. die just to cover up government crimes, but it's still an abhorrent, reckless game to play with the rule of law. In any event, the British High Court, having read the evidence Binyamin Mohammed intends to introduce and finding no threat to the national security of either nation, appears prepared to call the bluff. In a 38-page ruling released last week, they condemned the foreign secretary's actions in this regard as being contrary to the rule of law, and overruled his request to suppress the evidence. Pending one final appeal, the details of what the United States and other governments did to Binyamin Mohammed will be laid plain.
I've written about this before, of course, but it's important to note once again that those of us who feel passionately that a reckoning is due on these matters are not choosing transparency and the rule of law over security. Binyamin Mohammed was innocent. And he was tortured. By Americans. How can anyone believe that having done things like this systemically for seven years, on three continents, made us safer, when it's obvious how many of the victims were simply not guilty of anything? I reject categorically the notion that we had no choice here, because this is exactly what bin Laden wanted. He wanted to turn us into something we are not, and thus create a sustained mindset of all-out war. Enough is enough.
In the British High Court ruling, it is stated that the risk of an actual deterioration in intelligence sharing, based on releasing the Mohammed info, must be assessed in light of the strong historic relationship between the U.K. and the U.S. In short, the Brits are saying that Americans would never do this, would never put an ally's citizens at risk just to deny an innocent man his day in court. That language is directed at us, the American people. They're putting their faith in America's ultimate goodness. In light of this, Congress ought to put the Obama administration on notice, saying that our alliance with the UK is sacrosanct, and no actions of retribution are to be taken. If we can find the time to investigate Muslim groups for spying, on the basis of their desire to participate in democratic governance, maybe we can find the time for that too.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Interesting take on the Constitutionality of the President's Nobel
Obama's Prize was premature, at best; we're still embroiled in two foreign wars, and the President is actively maintaining the security and war footing of his predecessor while at the same time frustrating the efforts of others to create a more secure, accountable, and sustainable footing. But really, his speech after the announcement was made was pitch perfect, and I'm guessing is anyone saying he should have refused the thing would almost certainly not have given him any political credit for doing so. All in all, as far as I'm concerned this is theater - not really any big deal one way or the other. This, however, I found very interesting; legally speaking, these guys say that the President accepting the Nobel Peace Prize will require Congressional approval, and for good reason. Check it out.
Monday, October 12, 2009
The case of Fouad al-Rabiah - this absolutely tears it.
From Andrew Sullivan, on a recent torture case:
A false confession. Gone, ripped to pieces by the perpetrators' own words entered into evidence, is the sordid myth that torture was only done to the worst of the worst, and only to keep us safe from imminent attack, and only by rogue CIA agents flouting the official rules. This was Guantanamo. It was to save prosecutorial face. How many of these cases do we need to see before we recognize the pattern, and DEMAND to bring the whole putrid mess out into the light of day?
One more quote from the article, for anyone still swooning over the Nobel and imagining that the election brought us into different times:
This is repellent, and it is NOT going away. Obama and the Democratic party will be held to account for this, by history if by nothing else.
An astonishing, and largely ignored, judicial ruling issued on September 17 in the case of one Fouad al-Rabiah told us that the US government knowingly tortured an innocent man to procure a false confession.
A false confession. Gone, ripped to pieces by the perpetrators' own words entered into evidence, is the sordid myth that torture was only done to the worst of the worst, and only to keep us safe from imminent attack, and only by rogue CIA agents flouting the official rules. This was Guantanamo. It was to save prosecutorial face. How many of these cases do we need to see before we recognize the pattern, and DEMAND to bring the whole putrid mess out into the light of day?
One more quote from the article, for anyone still swooning over the Nobel and imagining that the election brought us into different times:
Shockingly, although Barack Obama’s justice department knew the details of this case, it persisted with the Bush administration’s attempt to prosecute him.
This is repellent, and it is NOT going away. Obama and the Democratic party will be held to account for this, by history if by nothing else.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Weinberger on Iran
I was struggling to find the time to write up a perspective on recent Iran developments this weekend, when I discovered that my friend Seth Weinberger, professor of international relations at the University of Puget Sound, has already done so here and here, in a manner far more learned and articulate than I could. While I take a slightly more charitable position on the Obama administration's recent successes than Seth and his sources do, this is an excellent primer. Add Seth's blog to your daily news feed, and also buy his book. :)
Friday, October 2, 2009
Appalling sentiments from Archbishop Tomasi
I take enormous pride in the Catholic intellectual and moral tradition, from Augustine and Anselm to John Courtney Murray. And that, at least in part, is why this leaves me fairly well disgusted. Archbishop Silvio Tomasi, in response to criticisms over the Church's lackluster reactions to the sex abuse scandal, evidently had the following things to say:
- less than 5% of Catholic clergy were involved in abuse of children (hey, only one out of every 20)
- all kinds of religious institutions, to say nothing of babysitters and family members, also suffer from this systemic abomination (see, everyone's doing it)
- what we're talking about isn't really pedophilia; it's better described as ephebophilia, a particularly corrosive strain of homosexuality that involves an irresistible attraction to adolescent young men (don't even get me started).
I'm obliged to note here that I can't seem to find text from Tomasi's original statement, and all articles on this subject I can find ultimate source back to the Guardian article linked above. But under the presumption that it's an accurate representation, it's that last gem on the list that really makes it plain how Competence invariably becomes Depravity's bitch, and how necessary a willful stupidity is to a dilapidated moral compass. Not pedophilia, indeed.
The Archbishop may have a point that in the grand scheme of things, the Church is being held to a higher standard than other religious denominations and secular institutions. My response to that, as a Catholic, would be, damn right you are. Get it together, and next time, consider suffering your indignation in silence.
- less than 5% of Catholic clergy were involved in abuse of children (hey, only one out of every 20)
- all kinds of religious institutions, to say nothing of babysitters and family members, also suffer from this systemic abomination (see, everyone's doing it)
- what we're talking about isn't really pedophilia; it's better described as ephebophilia, a particularly corrosive strain of homosexuality that involves an irresistible attraction to adolescent young men (don't even get me started).
I'm obliged to note here that I can't seem to find text from Tomasi's original statement, and all articles on this subject I can find ultimate source back to the Guardian article linked above. But under the presumption that it's an accurate representation, it's that last gem on the list that really makes it plain how Competence invariably becomes Depravity's bitch, and how necessary a willful stupidity is to a dilapidated moral compass. Not pedophilia, indeed.
The Archbishop may have a point that in the grand scheme of things, the Church is being held to a higher standard than other religious denominations and secular institutions. My response to that, as a Catholic, would be, damn right you are. Get it together, and next time, consider suffering your indignation in silence.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
How health care ambivalence recedes
It wasn't only the speech that eroded my abiding ambivalence on health care reform, but it sure didn't hurt. As expected, it was a really good speech. President Obama was eloquent, passionate, and tough. But in the end, it was just a speech.
My primary issue on this topic has always been the cost. I conceded from the start that we had a moral obligation to provide better care and coverage to Americans, but I really hate indeterminate costs. The President now says health care reform is going to be deficit neutral. And you know, he's probably wrong at the end of the day. Government initiatives are never as cheap as their proponents think they're going to be, whether we're talking about wars or entitlements.
But, then again, my (private) insurance premiums are going up too, along with copays, deductibles, non-covered medical expenses, etc. The CBO's estimates do say they don't see enough fundamental changes in the current bill to drive down medical costs substantially, but of course that was the bill that assumed the public option wouldn't get more than several million customers....I'm betting on another score coming after tonight anyhow. Either way, against the status quo it could be kind of a wash, and the bottom line is we don't have any earthly clue what our budget profile is going to be in ten years. So let's just agree that we also have a moral obligation, if we're going to do this, to do it responsibly, concede that we might be facing a bigger bill at the end of the day, and put that question aside, just for a moment.
This week marks the eighth anniversary of 9/11, the day we were reminded that evil can still be made manifest in the most profoundly threatening ways, even in this post-Enlightenment world we thought we conquered decades ago. Since that awful, awful day, the prevailing and conventional view of government in America has been that its most sacred and verifiable mission was to Keep Us Safe, plain and simple. Everything else was deemed secondary. We weren't always so single-minded; as a people we've long acknowledged other responsibilities, ones related to the unspoken contract that we have with each other, both as citizens and as human beings. Some of us even believe that honoring that contract is a mandate from on high - to be servants to one another in all things. From time to time we've turned to the democratic process to make those commitments real, and there are those who argue that in those moments America was at her very best.
But in the new post-9/11 world, even thinking along those lines, much less doing anything about it, has had to take a back seat. We were angry and we were scared. And so, in an effort to recover a little bit of our 9/10 peace of mind, we let a lot of bad stuff happen. We happily turned over liberty after liberty to the new security state, converted our desire for justice into the havoc of unilateral, global shock and awe, and eviscerated our once-unmatched devotion to laws governed by the People. At the same time, not coincidentally, we doubled down on our faith in undirected markets to keep us prosperous, ratcheting up material consumption to new heights wherever and whenever we could, and fooling ourselves into believing we were creating actual wealth, without producing the commensurate value. We had ups, we had downs, and then we had a really big down when the whole house of cards crashed to earth. But through it all, I would submit that the one thing we really haven't been worrying much about is what we citizens owe each other, just for being citizens. When it comes to everything but safety from terrorism, which we leave in the unchecked hands of government, all we've asked for from our institutions is a nominally fair playing field for a blind market to work. More than ever, the results, material or otherwise - what kind of society our policies left us with - have simply been deemed out of human control, subject only to the whims of the Impartial, Invisible Hand. The most dramatic result of letting such a worldview spin out of control, in my most humble opinion, was a whole American city precipitously falling into the Gulf of Mexico. And we've wondered how could all this happen to a country that claims to lead the world?
After eight years of this, I can't escape the feeling that we simply haven't grown like we should have in that time. We're still angry; maybe we're slightly less scared. Not only that, but as I look around it seems that we're no smarter, healthier, or richer than we were at the beginning of this decade. It's like we're in the same place we were in 2000, except with iPods.
There was a reason the whole world lowered their flags on September 11. There was a reason, with all our imperfections, that having something so abominable befall this particular nation drew a nearly universal outcry of grief and support. Something about us, our government or our people, screamed that we simply didn't deserve it. We responded so bravely on the day it happened; even before we were angry, we were generous and embracing with each other, prouder to be Americans than we had been in years. I can remember vividly, driving home in bumper to bumper traffic at 11AM that morning, listening to a guy on the radio talk about having just maxed out his credit cards that morning, to the tune of about $20K toward the relief efforts. He just figured he'd make it all back someday; for now, other people he didn't even know needed it more than him. That was American heroism, just like the passengers of Flight 93 - and it was everywhere in the days after 9/11. Since the immediate aftermath, it's harder to see. Can we honestly look at ourselves in the mirror and say we've nourished that spirit in the way it deserved, to the best of our ability in the years since 2001? For an instinct so important and so special, has the conviction that we're truly all in this together been at the top of our minds and hearts with the same fervor that vengeance and victory have been? Or did that generosity of spirit merely serve the purpose of that moment, appropriately giving way to a collective American will that's best articulated in bombs and bullets?
After some weeks of reflection, I submit that the health care reform debate is the best chance we've had in some time to take our civic generosity out for a long-overdue spin. It's time to once again put our beliefs to the test, that what makes America great isn't our unmatched military or our powerhouse economy, but rather our centuries-long commitment to share our burdens and join our interests - young and old, rich and poor, immigrant and native alike. We take care of each other here, even at some risk to ourselves - and that, more than anything else, is how we stay strong and safe and free.
I don't know if health care reform is going to raise my net costs or lower them, or by how much. Taking care of myself and my family might end up easier, it might end up harder; I'm willing to admit I don't know. What I do know - what I've always known - is that there are people hurting in this country for want of better health care, and that if we don't do something, things are going to get harder for a lot of them. Maybe it's 5 million, maybe it's 40 - it doesn't matter. We can endeavor to treat more people, prevent more deaths and sicknesses, ease more pain and suffering, and if we go into it with integrity and fearless determination to do good, I don't believe the sky will fall down on us for it. My faith tells me that we're all family; it's high time we started acting like it, and just this one time, bicker a little less about dollars and cents. This is something we can try, at long last, to do for each other, as Americans.
So on those grounds, the President has my support. Obviously this isn't a defense of any specific policy; we'll get there, I'm certain. But I for one am done arguing from self-interest. If you agree, pass this sentiment on, and let's make this a vibrant September, full of vigorous and passionate debate. Let's resolve not to be prejudiced toward inaction, and let's see how we can get the best possible result for all American citizens, not just those in our particular class or income level. And then let's decide what's next, and nail that too.
God bless America.
My primary issue on this topic has always been the cost. I conceded from the start that we had a moral obligation to provide better care and coverage to Americans, but I really hate indeterminate costs. The President now says health care reform is going to be deficit neutral. And you know, he's probably wrong at the end of the day. Government initiatives are never as cheap as their proponents think they're going to be, whether we're talking about wars or entitlements.
But, then again, my (private) insurance premiums are going up too, along with copays, deductibles, non-covered medical expenses, etc. The CBO's estimates do say they don't see enough fundamental changes in the current bill to drive down medical costs substantially, but of course that was the bill that assumed the public option wouldn't get more than several million customers....I'm betting on another score coming after tonight anyhow. Either way, against the status quo it could be kind of a wash, and the bottom line is we don't have any earthly clue what our budget profile is going to be in ten years. So let's just agree that we also have a moral obligation, if we're going to do this, to do it responsibly, concede that we might be facing a bigger bill at the end of the day, and put that question aside, just for a moment.
This week marks the eighth anniversary of 9/11, the day we were reminded that evil can still be made manifest in the most profoundly threatening ways, even in this post-Enlightenment world we thought we conquered decades ago. Since that awful, awful day, the prevailing and conventional view of government in America has been that its most sacred and verifiable mission was to Keep Us Safe, plain and simple. Everything else was deemed secondary. We weren't always so single-minded; as a people we've long acknowledged other responsibilities, ones related to the unspoken contract that we have with each other, both as citizens and as human beings. Some of us even believe that honoring that contract is a mandate from on high - to be servants to one another in all things. From time to time we've turned to the democratic process to make those commitments real, and there are those who argue that in those moments America was at her very best.
But in the new post-9/11 world, even thinking along those lines, much less doing anything about it, has had to take a back seat. We were angry and we were scared. And so, in an effort to recover a little bit of our 9/10 peace of mind, we let a lot of bad stuff happen. We happily turned over liberty after liberty to the new security state, converted our desire for justice into the havoc of unilateral, global shock and awe, and eviscerated our once-unmatched devotion to laws governed by the People. At the same time, not coincidentally, we doubled down on our faith in undirected markets to keep us prosperous, ratcheting up material consumption to new heights wherever and whenever we could, and fooling ourselves into believing we were creating actual wealth, without producing the commensurate value. We had ups, we had downs, and then we had a really big down when the whole house of cards crashed to earth. But through it all, I would submit that the one thing we really haven't been worrying much about is what we citizens owe each other, just for being citizens. When it comes to everything but safety from terrorism, which we leave in the unchecked hands of government, all we've asked for from our institutions is a nominally fair playing field for a blind market to work. More than ever, the results, material or otherwise - what kind of society our policies left us with - have simply been deemed out of human control, subject only to the whims of the Impartial, Invisible Hand. The most dramatic result of letting such a worldview spin out of control, in my most humble opinion, was a whole American city precipitously falling into the Gulf of Mexico. And we've wondered how could all this happen to a country that claims to lead the world?
After eight years of this, I can't escape the feeling that we simply haven't grown like we should have in that time. We're still angry; maybe we're slightly less scared. Not only that, but as I look around it seems that we're no smarter, healthier, or richer than we were at the beginning of this decade. It's like we're in the same place we were in 2000, except with iPods.
There was a reason the whole world lowered their flags on September 11. There was a reason, with all our imperfections, that having something so abominable befall this particular nation drew a nearly universal outcry of grief and support. Something about us, our government or our people, screamed that we simply didn't deserve it. We responded so bravely on the day it happened; even before we were angry, we were generous and embracing with each other, prouder to be Americans than we had been in years. I can remember vividly, driving home in bumper to bumper traffic at 11AM that morning, listening to a guy on the radio talk about having just maxed out his credit cards that morning, to the tune of about $20K toward the relief efforts. He just figured he'd make it all back someday; for now, other people he didn't even know needed it more than him. That was American heroism, just like the passengers of Flight 93 - and it was everywhere in the days after 9/11. Since the immediate aftermath, it's harder to see. Can we honestly look at ourselves in the mirror and say we've nourished that spirit in the way it deserved, to the best of our ability in the years since 2001? For an instinct so important and so special, has the conviction that we're truly all in this together been at the top of our minds and hearts with the same fervor that vengeance and victory have been? Or did that generosity of spirit merely serve the purpose of that moment, appropriately giving way to a collective American will that's best articulated in bombs and bullets?
After some weeks of reflection, I submit that the health care reform debate is the best chance we've had in some time to take our civic generosity out for a long-overdue spin. It's time to once again put our beliefs to the test, that what makes America great isn't our unmatched military or our powerhouse economy, but rather our centuries-long commitment to share our burdens and join our interests - young and old, rich and poor, immigrant and native alike. We take care of each other here, even at some risk to ourselves - and that, more than anything else, is how we stay strong and safe and free.
I don't know if health care reform is going to raise my net costs or lower them, or by how much. Taking care of myself and my family might end up easier, it might end up harder; I'm willing to admit I don't know. What I do know - what I've always known - is that there are people hurting in this country for want of better health care, and that if we don't do something, things are going to get harder for a lot of them. Maybe it's 5 million, maybe it's 40 - it doesn't matter. We can endeavor to treat more people, prevent more deaths and sicknesses, ease more pain and suffering, and if we go into it with integrity and fearless determination to do good, I don't believe the sky will fall down on us for it. My faith tells me that we're all family; it's high time we started acting like it, and just this one time, bicker a little less about dollars and cents. This is something we can try, at long last, to do for each other, as Americans.
So on those grounds, the President has my support. Obviously this isn't a defense of any specific policy; we'll get there, I'm certain. But I for one am done arguing from self-interest. If you agree, pass this sentiment on, and let's make this a vibrant September, full of vigorous and passionate debate. Let's resolve not to be prejudiced toward inaction, and let's see how we can get the best possible result for all American citizens, not just those in our particular class or income level. And then let's decide what's next, and nail that too.
Some day, after we have mastered the winds, the waves, the tides and gravity, we shall harness the energies of love. Then, for the second time in the history of the world, humans will have discovered fire. ---Teilhard de Chardin
God bless America.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Two views on TARP
Daniel Gross says that there's at least a sliver of a chance that we won't lose absolutely all of the TARP money that was paid out. Whooppity-do.
More interestingly, and depressingly, in another piece of essential long-form journalism, Vanity Fair describes the process (or lack thereof) under which the TARP money was actually distributed, and the governments comprehensive inability to control or even stay aware of what the money was used for.
It really is more painful than it seems being right all the time.
More interestingly, and depressingly, in another piece of essential long-form journalism, Vanity Fair describes the process (or lack thereof) under which the TARP money was actually distributed, and the governments comprehensive inability to control or even stay aware of what the money was used for.
It really is more painful than it seems being right all the time.
The case of Abdullah al-Kidd: Ashcroft not immune from civil suit
The material witness statutes permit the government to detain an individual, even if that individual is not suspected of having committed or planning to commit crime, on the grounds that he or she is required as part of a prosecutorial action against someone else. If you're needed as a witness, and the government has a good faith reason to believe you're gonna skip town, they can lock you up until you've testified. In the months following September 11, John Ashcroft's justice department had an explicit policy to use the material witness statutes to detain individuals suspected of terrorist sympathies, not for the purpose of prepared prosecution, but as an end run around the arrest process. Keep in mind that conspiracy to commit terrorism and material support for terrorism are punishable crimes; the system by no means waits for an act of terrorism to actually be committed before the government is permitted to act. The material witness abuses were for those people against whom there was no actionable evidence at all - only suspicion.
Abdullah al-Kidd is a black American who had recently converted to Islam. He had a wife and two children, and a government job. He was planning to visit Saudi Arabia to study Islamic law and culture, when he was picked up by the government on a material witness warrant. He was held for two weeks in cells lit 24 hours a day, and transferred between three separate prisons in shackles on his wrists, waist, and ankles. When he was released by court order, his movements were restricted by the government, and he lost his security clearance (and therefore his job). He was never called as a witness in any prosecution, and subsequent facts have revealed that the warrant used to secure his arrest contained lies about whether he had a one-way or a round trip ticket to Saudi Arabia, and omitted details about his previous cooperation with the FBI on matters related to national security. The U.S. government has never even attempted to make a case that al-Kidd had any intention or motive to do anything wrong. Again, no evidence of either conspiracy or material support for any illicit activity at all; just someone they wanted off the streets.
al-Kidd has sued John Ashcroft for damages related to his incarceration and persecution, on the grounds that his policies to abuse the material witness statutes led directly to his life being turned upside down for no good reason. Ashcroft, of course, has claimed immunity. The Ninth Circuit, led by a judge appointed by George W. Bush, has ruled in al-Kidd's favor - John Ashcroft has no immunity.
Critics of Obama, take note. Read what happened to Abdullah al-Kidd, and consider the fact that if government officials have no liability for abusing the authority granted to them, the only thing standing between an ordinary citizen and indefinite detention is the good graces of the President. Now Ashcroft can try to make the case in court that the al-Kidd material warrant was justified, and he's personally motivated to do so.
Abdullah al-Kidd is a black American who had recently converted to Islam. He had a wife and two children, and a government job. He was planning to visit Saudi Arabia to study Islamic law and culture, when he was picked up by the government on a material witness warrant. He was held for two weeks in cells lit 24 hours a day, and transferred between three separate prisons in shackles on his wrists, waist, and ankles. When he was released by court order, his movements were restricted by the government, and he lost his security clearance (and therefore his job). He was never called as a witness in any prosecution, and subsequent facts have revealed that the warrant used to secure his arrest contained lies about whether he had a one-way or a round trip ticket to Saudi Arabia, and omitted details about his previous cooperation with the FBI on matters related to national security. The U.S. government has never even attempted to make a case that al-Kidd had any intention or motive to do anything wrong. Again, no evidence of either conspiracy or material support for any illicit activity at all; just someone they wanted off the streets.
al-Kidd has sued John Ashcroft for damages related to his incarceration and persecution, on the grounds that his policies to abuse the material witness statutes led directly to his life being turned upside down for no good reason. Ashcroft, of course, has claimed immunity. The Ninth Circuit, led by a judge appointed by George W. Bush, has ruled in al-Kidd's favor - John Ashcroft has no immunity.
Critics of Obama, take note. Read what happened to Abdullah al-Kidd, and consider the fact that if government officials have no liability for abusing the authority granted to them, the only thing standing between an ordinary citizen and indefinite detention is the good graces of the President. Now Ashcroft can try to make the case in court that the al-Kidd material warrant was justified, and he's personally motivated to do so.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
What if torture really is effective
Proving a negative, as we all know, is impossible. As long as it's established fact that Khalied Sheikh Mohammed delivered a single piece of verifiable intelligence at some point following being drowned and pulled back from the brink of death 183 times, then there's an extent to which shouting "Post hoc ergo propter hoc!!" is a clear waste of breath. There's just no deductive way to prove that the torture wasn't the only way, or the fastest way, to get what needed doing done, the convictions of everyone from Ronald Reagan to Dwight Eisenhower to Winston Churchill aside. Based on that inconclusiveness, Richard Cohen is sure that taking this particular weapon out of our arsenal is bad for the country. David Broder says that since we'll never really know the truth, any investigation and/or prosecution is doomed to degenerate into pointless political bickering. (Again, by the way, so much for the liberal press.) Cohen and Broder, like the President, would prefer that we all just Look Forward.
Well, I am looking forward. Discussions about crime and punishment, as Eric Holder knows, isn't just about retribution, it's about setting the standards for future behavior. It's about making it clear, in advance, what happens when individuals break the law, so that they think twice about doing it even when it's tempting. What the Justice Department does about torture that happened in the past is a good predictor of whether torture will occur in the future, whatever transient presidential proclamations exist - indeed, the law is just about the only mechanism that we the people have of ensuring that political office doesn't come with a license to make it all up as you go along.
So let's grant, for the sake of argument, that we'll never make an airtight case against torture based on its inefficacy. That means there are two questions that require our attention. One, is whether this is the best way to fight the war against al Qaeda, and of course I would say no. In the past few days others have made this case just as well as I could, so I won't bother repeating it all here. The second question that needs answering, related but distinct, has received less attention. That is, if we do accept torture as a valid means to an end against al Qaeda, what's our argument to keep it in that particular bottle, given all the other threats out there? Indeed, do we have such an argument?
The second worst terrorist attack on American soil took place in Oklahoma City 14 1/2 years ago. Not by a foreign extremist, but by a fellow citizen, in response to perceived government overreach at Waco and Ruby Ridge. In June of this year, the Holocaust Museum was attacked in broad daylight by an avowed white supremacist and anti-Semite. Dr. George Tiller was gunned down in his Kansas church by an anti-abortion fanatic, after which the killer claimed to know of other acts of violence being planned by ideological compatriots. Terrorism as a tactic is clearly not limited to Islamic extremists
It's folly, as well, to consider this all these domestic threats just a random series of isolated events, with no discernible ideological pattern. Of course, the individuals were deranged and disturbed, but they were part of a network, all the same. There were websites, support structures, funding in some cases. What's more, most of the violence was in no small part motivated and inspired by a warped religious impulse, just like al Qaeda - they were fanatics. And just to bring it all up to the present day, at legislative town halls around the country discussing health care (health care!), we have people wearing T-shirts quoting Thomas Jefferson, who said "The tree of liberty must from time to time be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants." We all know Jefferson wasn't speaking metaphorically when he said that, and some of these people are packing heat.
Only a fool would conclude that there was no threat to the public from domestic sources, even if the town hall creeps are just full of hot air, which, let's face it, they probably are. But make no mistake, people have already died from this kind of thing, this year, and we know the United States government takes the threat seriously. What, then, I ask, is the logic, if we allow that it could work, behind refraining from the use of 'harsh interrogation tactics' on the next Timothy McVeigh and his crew, as long as we were reasonably sure who they were? Does enforcing the Constitution represent an unnecessary, inconvenient, and dispensable threat to our safety, or not? We've concluded it could potentially be of value for international terrorists - wouldn't it be best to make accommodations to domestic law enforcement now, before we suffer another serious attack in the homeland?
It seems to me that it's enough to know what would happen if we did strap George Tiller's murderer to a table and fake-drown him until he talks. Or if we shut down every right-wing website, rounded up every dissident, confiscated every rifle, and generally suspended the first, fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments just as long as we perceived a threat. We all know that would mean the beginning of the end of the legitimacy of the U.S. government. It would add weight to the arguments of those who take up arms against us, and make defending fundamental American decency far more difficult, if not impossible. In short, it would cause things to get worse, not better. Not because the criminals we were trying to stop deserved more humane treatment, but rather because our whole claim to moral authority in the first place is based on doing more than what is easy and expedient.
So back to macro then. If we agree that torturing those who represent domestic threats is a path best not taken, what precisely is the difference when we bring al Qaeda into the mix? Isn't it reasonable to assume that in the international arena, our policies have made things worse, not better, by the same exact logic? And if so, doesn't that mean that we were right about torture to begin with, even if we can't conclude it never, ever works?
Support Eric Holder. Let's walk through this, wherever it leads, and make sure it doesn't ever happen again, inside or outside our borders.
Well, I am looking forward. Discussions about crime and punishment, as Eric Holder knows, isn't just about retribution, it's about setting the standards for future behavior. It's about making it clear, in advance, what happens when individuals break the law, so that they think twice about doing it even when it's tempting. What the Justice Department does about torture that happened in the past is a good predictor of whether torture will occur in the future, whatever transient presidential proclamations exist - indeed, the law is just about the only mechanism that we the people have of ensuring that political office doesn't come with a license to make it all up as you go along.
So let's grant, for the sake of argument, that we'll never make an airtight case against torture based on its inefficacy. That means there are two questions that require our attention. One, is whether this is the best way to fight the war against al Qaeda, and of course I would say no. In the past few days others have made this case just as well as I could, so I won't bother repeating it all here. The second question that needs answering, related but distinct, has received less attention. That is, if we do accept torture as a valid means to an end against al Qaeda, what's our argument to keep it in that particular bottle, given all the other threats out there? Indeed, do we have such an argument?
The second worst terrorist attack on American soil took place in Oklahoma City 14 1/2 years ago. Not by a foreign extremist, but by a fellow citizen, in response to perceived government overreach at Waco and Ruby Ridge. In June of this year, the Holocaust Museum was attacked in broad daylight by an avowed white supremacist and anti-Semite. Dr. George Tiller was gunned down in his Kansas church by an anti-abortion fanatic, after which the killer claimed to know of other acts of violence being planned by ideological compatriots. Terrorism as a tactic is clearly not limited to Islamic extremists
It's folly, as well, to consider this all these domestic threats just a random series of isolated events, with no discernible ideological pattern. Of course, the individuals were deranged and disturbed, but they were part of a network, all the same. There were websites, support structures, funding in some cases. What's more, most of the violence was in no small part motivated and inspired by a warped religious impulse, just like al Qaeda - they were fanatics. And just to bring it all up to the present day, at legislative town halls around the country discussing health care (health care!), we have people wearing T-shirts quoting Thomas Jefferson, who said "The tree of liberty must from time to time be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants." We all know Jefferson wasn't speaking metaphorically when he said that, and some of these people are packing heat.
Only a fool would conclude that there was no threat to the public from domestic sources, even if the town hall creeps are just full of hot air, which, let's face it, they probably are. But make no mistake, people have already died from this kind of thing, this year, and we know the United States government takes the threat seriously. What, then, I ask, is the logic, if we allow that it could work, behind refraining from the use of 'harsh interrogation tactics' on the next Timothy McVeigh and his crew, as long as we were reasonably sure who they were? Does enforcing the Constitution represent an unnecessary, inconvenient, and dispensable threat to our safety, or not? We've concluded it could potentially be of value for international terrorists - wouldn't it be best to make accommodations to domestic law enforcement now, before we suffer another serious attack in the homeland?
It seems to me that it's enough to know what would happen if we did strap George Tiller's murderer to a table and fake-drown him until he talks. Or if we shut down every right-wing website, rounded up every dissident, confiscated every rifle, and generally suspended the first, fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments just as long as we perceived a threat. We all know that would mean the beginning of the end of the legitimacy of the U.S. government. It would add weight to the arguments of those who take up arms against us, and make defending fundamental American decency far more difficult, if not impossible. In short, it would cause things to get worse, not better. Not because the criminals we were trying to stop deserved more humane treatment, but rather because our whole claim to moral authority in the first place is based on doing more than what is easy and expedient.
So back to macro then. If we agree that torturing those who represent domestic threats is a path best not taken, what precisely is the difference when we bring al Qaeda into the mix? Isn't it reasonable to assume that in the international arena, our policies have made things worse, not better, by the same exact logic? And if so, doesn't that mean that we were right about torture to begin with, even if we can't conclude it never, ever works?
Support Eric Holder. Let's walk through this, wherever it leads, and make sure it doesn't ever happen again, inside or outside our borders.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Bookmark Glenn Greenwald
Although I do my level best to maintain a diverse set of news sources, across the political spectrum, at some point it would be disingenuous of me not to acknowledge the unique debt I owe to Glenn Greenwald at Salon. Greenwald is known as a "civil-liberties fanatic" by his detractors, as though that's somehow a bad thing. He is tireless, merciless, arrogant, unapologetic, and singularly focused on one thing - accountability in government and the media. He has taken on George Bush, Barack Obama, Rahm Emmanuel, Dick Cheney, Chuck Todd, Keith Olbermann, Richard Cohen, David Brooks, Tim Geithner, Hank Paulson, and dozens of others - basically anyone he suspects of being more influenced by money, politics, influence, or prestige than they are by their various responsibilities to the public. He has no ambitions to be a TV star, and is famous for being exhaustively detailed and comprehensive in his arguments. On the torture issue in particular, he has a greater command of fact than pretty much anyone, save perhaps Jane Mayer. I don't by any means agree with Greenwald all of the time, but he is among the very best at what he does, and what I try to do on this page.
This week Greenwald is taking some heat from Joe Klein, for making public some disparaging comments the latter made about him in a supposedly private online journalists forum. Klein's been taking potshots at Greenwald for a couple of years, ever since Greenwald ripped apart some opinioneering Klein did on Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. So I'm taking this opportunity, along with many others, to give Greenwald the support he deserves.
If you do a daily news roundup each morning, whether you're conservative or liberal, do yourself a favor and include this link in what you read each day. You won't regret it.
A quick business trip (darn actual work) has interfered with my upcoming post on what to do if you just can't conclude that torture never ever works. Looking forward to hearing what people think, so hopefully later this week.
This week Greenwald is taking some heat from Joe Klein, for making public some disparaging comments the latter made about him in a supposedly private online journalists forum. Klein's been taking potshots at Greenwald for a couple of years, ever since Greenwald ripped apart some opinioneering Klein did on Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. So I'm taking this opportunity, along with many others, to give Greenwald the support he deserves.
If you do a daily news roundup each morning, whether you're conservative or liberal, do yourself a favor and include this link in what you read each day. You won't regret it.
A quick business trip (darn actual work) has interfered with my upcoming post on what to do if you just can't conclude that torture never ever works. Looking forward to hearing what people think, so hopefully later this week.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Breaking News: Anonymous former officials provide unsubstantiated reports that torture provided unspecified intelligence value
The next time someone complains to you about there being an awful liberal bias in the media, remember this Washington Post article from Saturday, which will certainly do its part to make it appear that the debate over whether torture works is as lively as ever. See, this is how it works - one day, an Inspector General report comes out which says explicitly that no conclusions can be drawn from the available evidence that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" were effective in the cases of Abu Zubayda and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed. The report is painstakingly detailed, the result of actual investigative reporting inside the agency, and comes with as clear an authority as one is likely to receive. (It was written under the Bush administration, for those suspicious of trickery.) The day after the report comes out, the people who advocated the policy simply assert that not just that the conclusions of the report are false, but that the report itself says exactly the opposite of what it does. That's enough for the public and the media to consider the matter "unsettled". Then, as a follow-up, the second largest paper in the country reports as front page news that some of the people who could be facing indictments over the subject (but who won't identify themselves in any case) recall that at some unspecified point after torture was perpetrated on the terrorists, they began to talk about all manner of interesting things, saving lives in the process. They even title the piece "How a Detainee Became an Asset". Liberal bias indeed.
First - it's time for serious journalists in this country to stop accommodating the anonymous providing of information. Not only do we not have any idea who the people are, and what relationship to the facts they actually have, but it's a good bet that they're the ones potentially facing indictment in John Durham's upcoming investigations. Does the Post really think it "broke a story" here, when all it looks like they did was write down what other people told them to say? Do they even mention the reason these folks might have to flat out lie?
Second - even if you accept as fact everything that the anonymous officials got the Post to transcribe, what it shows is not that torture worked, but rather that some information was gained after torture. Nothing in the story tells you anything about whether it was the torture that made the difference, whether the information was accurate and comprehensive, whether other methods could have been tried first, or anything of value whatsoever. And yet, the title of the piece makes the conclusion for you - How a Detainee Became an Asset.
Here's the sum total of the argument, from the Post piece:
Of course. Muckrake on, Washington Post.
In the weekend's other example of crack journalism, Chris Wallace interviewed Dick Cheney himself on the torture investigations, and foreign policy in general, even giving the veep a chance to plug his new book while he's at it. I can't sum this up any better than Andrew Sullivan, who compares Wallace to a teenage girl interviewing the Jonas Brothers.
Later today: What if Cheney's right, and torture does actually work?
First - it's time for serious journalists in this country to stop accommodating the anonymous providing of information. Not only do we not have any idea who the people are, and what relationship to the facts they actually have, but it's a good bet that they're the ones potentially facing indictment in John Durham's upcoming investigations. Does the Post really think it "broke a story" here, when all it looks like they did was write down what other people told them to say? Do they even mention the reason these folks might have to flat out lie?
Second - even if you accept as fact everything that the anonymous officials got the Post to transcribe, what it shows is not that torture worked, but rather that some information was gained after torture. Nothing in the story tells you anything about whether it was the torture that made the difference, whether the information was accurate and comprehensive, whether other methods could have been tried first, or anything of value whatsoever. And yet, the title of the piece makes the conclusion for you - How a Detainee Became an Asset.
Here's the sum total of the argument, from the Post piece:
"What do you think changed KSM's mind?" one former senior intelligence official said this week after being asked about the effect of waterboarding. "Of course it began with that."
Of course. Muckrake on, Washington Post.
In the weekend's other example of crack journalism, Chris Wallace interviewed Dick Cheney himself on the torture investigations, and foreign policy in general, even giving the veep a chance to plug his new book while he's at it. I can't sum this up any better than Andrew Sullivan, who compares Wallace to a teenage girl interviewing the Jonas Brothers.
Later today: What if Cheney's right, and torture does actually work?
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Krugman on debt and the deficit
For me, the 2008 election turned for the most part on the general unfitness of the GOP, and more specifically the insistence of John McCain to extend and make permanent the Bush tax cuts, in the face of overwhelming economic evidence that they were bad for the country. My primary concern was the negative impacts of the tax cuts on skyrocketing federal debt, and consequently on the value of the dollar, interest rates, and the threat of inflation. (I mostly left social concerns about rising inequality, falling health care and educational standards, etc. to others, since my general progressiveness was somewhat embroynic.) I still consider public and private debt to be an enormous threat to our way of life in the coming years, which is why I was furious about TARP when it was announced, and why I opposed the auto bailouts. (For the record, the stimulus package is an entirely different story, given the economic recession.)
In any case, given my relatively recent interest in all this, I'm compelled to consider the contrary position of our newest Nobel Laureate in economics, Paul Krugman, who argues that advanced countries (including the US) have survived these kinds of debt-to-GDP ratios in the past, even as he points out that if you are upset about the debt and the deficit, it's Bush you need to be pissed at, not Obama.
In any case, when a guy as smart as Krugman says he's worried that the deficit isn't high enough to get us out of this slump, it makes you wonder. Yes, the debt is real bad, but that's not Obama's fault, and there are good reasons to allow for the possibility that additional deficits aren't the biggest danger.
In any case, given my relatively recent interest in all this, I'm compelled to consider the contrary position of our newest Nobel Laureate in economics, Paul Krugman, who argues that advanced countries (including the US) have survived these kinds of debt-to-GDP ratios in the past, even as he points out that if you are upset about the debt and the deficit, it's Bush you need to be pissed at, not Obama.
In any case, when a guy as smart as Krugman says he's worried that the deficit isn't high enough to get us out of this slump, it makes you wonder. Yes, the debt is real bad, but that's not Obama's fault, and there are good reasons to allow for the possibility that additional deficits aren't the biggest danger.
Notes on the upcoming Torture probes
For those following Eric Holder's decision to investigate the CIA operatives who went beyond the directives of the Bush Justice Department's torture memos, some interesting links:
The Washington Times with a profile of John Durham, the special prosecutor appointed by Holder.
Scott Horton of Harpers on why the Obama administration, after releasing loads of info on what the CIA did, still hasn't released the report from the Office of Professional Responsibility, which focuses on the misconduct of the Justice Department lawyers who provided the arguments that authorized torture.
Dahlia Lithwick at Slate on why an investigation that limits its attention to those who overstepped the Bush team's directives would be a disgrace, betraying those in the Agency who were principled enough to resist illegal orders, and legitimizing the means by which the law was summarily cast aside.
A second reading of the CIA IG report by the Times, laying out the evidence that the interrogation program was controlled down to the last detail not by rogue agents out in the field, but by bureaucrats at the Agency and Justice in Washington.
And finally, just for fun, an interview between Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and Politico, where he characterizes the investigations as "bullshit", "disgraceful", and "declaring war on the CIA". For those of you who don't know King, one of his more recent legislative contributions was an amendment to the federal hate crimes bill clarifying the definition of "homosexuals" to explicitly exclude "pedophilia". Being roughly equivalent to clarifying the definition of "vegetables" to explicitly exclude "rat poison", the amendment was defeated, along party lines, as it happens. Naturally, James Dobson characterized this chain of events as "Democrats support the rights of pedophiles."
But I digress...King, like many others, remains content to ignore the facts that a) the "enhanced interrogation techniques" produced no unique intelligence in the war on terror, and in fact resulted in more wild goose chases than actual leads, b) federal law and treaty obligations specifically prohibit the exact techniques authorized by the Bush White House, and they have been prosecuted as crimes by the US government in both peacetime and wartime, c) actions undertaken by the US and the legal acrobatics used to justify them provide a blueprint for our enemies to treat our soldiers in kind in current and future conflicts, and d) Holder, perversely, is still only investigating those who didn't follow the orders of their bosses in Washington. My favorite quote from the Congressman:
Indeed - why is it OK?
The Washington Times with a profile of John Durham, the special prosecutor appointed by Holder.
Scott Horton of Harpers on why the Obama administration, after releasing loads of info on what the CIA did, still hasn't released the report from the Office of Professional Responsibility, which focuses on the misconduct of the Justice Department lawyers who provided the arguments that authorized torture.
Dahlia Lithwick at Slate on why an investigation that limits its attention to those who overstepped the Bush team's directives would be a disgrace, betraying those in the Agency who were principled enough to resist illegal orders, and legitimizing the means by which the law was summarily cast aside.
A second reading of the CIA IG report by the Times, laying out the evidence that the interrogation program was controlled down to the last detail not by rogue agents out in the field, but by bureaucrats at the Agency and Justice in Washington.
And finally, just for fun, an interview between Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and Politico, where he characterizes the investigations as "bullshit", "disgraceful", and "declaring war on the CIA". For those of you who don't know King, one of his more recent legislative contributions was an amendment to the federal hate crimes bill clarifying the definition of "homosexuals" to explicitly exclude "pedophilia". Being roughly equivalent to clarifying the definition of "vegetables" to explicitly exclude "rat poison", the amendment was defeated, along party lines, as it happens. Naturally, James Dobson characterized this chain of events as "Democrats support the rights of pedophiles."
But I digress...King, like many others, remains content to ignore the facts that a) the "enhanced interrogation techniques" produced no unique intelligence in the war on terror, and in fact resulted in more wild goose chases than actual leads, b) federal law and treaty obligations specifically prohibit the exact techniques authorized by the Bush White House, and they have been prosecuted as crimes by the US government in both peacetime and wartime, c) actions undertaken by the US and the legal acrobatics used to justify them provide a blueprint for our enemies to treat our soldiers in kind in current and future conflicts, and d) Holder, perversely, is still only investigating those who didn't follow the orders of their bosses in Washington. My favorite quote from the Congressman:
"Why is it OK to waterboard someone, which causes physical pain, but not threaten someone and not cause pain?"
Indeed - why is it OK?
Dick Cheney thinks you can't read
Months ago, when the Obama administration released the Yoo/Bybee/Bradbury torture memos, under whose authorization the government engaged in years of conduct theretofore prohibited by all manner of custom and statute, Dick Cheney was shocked and appalled, and accused Obama of selectively releasing information about this program for political gain. He referred specifically to reports that he had seen testifying to the efficacy of the techniques, and the lives saved thanks to their use. This week Cheney got what he wanted - the reports of which Cheney spoke (heavily redacted) have been released, along with the CIA Inspector General's report on the subject. Immediately Cheney took to the airwaves to claim victory, asserting that now the public can see all the good that he and his allies did for the country.
Except, wonder of wonders, the memos don't say that that "Enhanced Interrogation" works, at all. What they do say is that the interrogation program was successful, in that a) terror suspects were not out free to commit acts of terrorism while they were being interrogated (duh) and b) terror suspects gave up critical intelligence while in custody. On the second point, the memos indicate that the efficacy of individual techniques is indeterminate, but they note that a majority of info that turned out to be reliable was given up by the terrorist prior to being tortured. After torture began, it was impossible to tell the lies from the truth without corroboration.
Unlike Cheney, I won't assume that you'll take my word for it. Read the memos - they're heavily blacked-out, but the Vice President isn't saying that the real truth is in the still-classified parts - he's saying he's won the case.
Torture isn't just wrong because it flies in the face of our values, even though it does. It's not just wrong because there are laws that prohibit it, even though there are. It's wrong because it flat out does not work, which means it's dangerous and makes us less safe, regardless of what the Cheney's of the world say. Here's what Ali Soufan, an FBI interrogator who actually did this for a living and actively fought the CIA against the use of these methods, had to say in his testimony (reading the whole thing is recommended) to the Senate some months back:
It's actually amazing that in the United States of American we have to have this conversation, because until Bush and Cheney came along, this was obvious to everyone on the left and the right. Reagan, LBJ, Eisenhower, Churchill - they all knew how bad for national security torture was.
Here's another review of the memos from Tim Noah at Slate. More later today on Eric Holder's announced investigations and the classy responses from the right.
Except, wonder of wonders, the memos don't say that that "Enhanced Interrogation" works, at all. What they do say is that the interrogation program was successful, in that a) terror suspects were not out free to commit acts of terrorism while they were being interrogated (duh) and b) terror suspects gave up critical intelligence while in custody. On the second point, the memos indicate that the efficacy of individual techniques is indeterminate, but they note that a majority of info that turned out to be reliable was given up by the terrorist prior to being tortured. After torture began, it was impossible to tell the lies from the truth without corroboration.
Unlike Cheney, I won't assume that you'll take my word for it. Read the memos - they're heavily blacked-out, but the Vice President isn't saying that the real truth is in the still-classified parts - he's saying he's won the case.
Torture isn't just wrong because it flies in the face of our values, even though it does. It's not just wrong because there are laws that prohibit it, even though there are. It's wrong because it flat out does not work, which means it's dangerous and makes us less safe, regardless of what the Cheney's of the world say. Here's what Ali Soufan, an FBI interrogator who actually did this for a living and actively fought the CIA against the use of these methods, had to say in his testimony (reading the whole thing is recommended) to the Senate some months back:
Authoritative CIA, FBI, and military sources have also questioned the claims made by the advocates of the techniques. For example, in one of the recently released Justice Department memos, the author, Stephen Bradbury, acknowledged a (still classified) internal CIA Inspector General report that had found it "difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations have provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks."
In summary, the Informed Interrogation Approach outlined in the Army Field Manual is the most effective, reliable, and speedy approach we have for interrogating terrorists. It is legal and has worked time and again.
It was a mistake to abandon it in favor of harsh interrogation methods that are harmful, shameful, slower, unreliable, ineffective, and play directly into the enemy's handbook. It was a mistake to abandon an approach that was working and naively replace it with an untested method. It was a mistake to abandon an approach that is based on the cumulative wisdom and successful tradition of our military, intelligence, and law enforcement community, in favor of techniques advocated by contractors with no relevant experience.
The mistake was so costly precisely because the situation was, and remains, too risky to allow someone to experiment with amateurish, Hollywood style interrogation methods- that in reality- taints sources, risks outcomes, ignores the end game, and diminishes our moral high ground in a battle that is impossible to win without first capturing the hearts and minds around the world. It was one of the worst and most harmful decisions made in our efforts against al Qaeda.
For the last seven years, it was not easy objecting to these methods when they had powerful backers. I stood up then for the same reason I'm willing to take on critics now, because I took an oath swearing to protect this great nation. I could not stand by quietly while our country's safety was endangered and our moral standing damaged.
It's actually amazing that in the United States of American we have to have this conversation, because until Bush and Cheney came along, this was obvious to everyone on the left and the right. Reagan, LBJ, Eisenhower, Churchill - they all knew how bad for national security torture was.
Here's another review of the memos from Tim Noah at Slate. More later today on Eric Holder's announced investigations and the classy responses from the right.
Monday, August 24, 2009
10 Yr deficit projections rise from $7.1T to $9.1T
From Reuters. Ok, so the deficit for this year is actually going down by about $300B, because of bank bailout money that never got paid out (thank God for small favors). And most of the deficit increase this year came from bailout policies initiated by George Bush, and from the stimulus, nearly half of which came in tax cuts. So Obama doesn't quite own this the way Republicans say he does. Not yet.
But these projections spell big trouble. There are only a couple ways to curb federal spending in any real significant way, and they all go through entitlements and defense. So far the President hasn't done a good enough job describing how health care reform was going to cut down on medical costs for both individuals and the federal government. He's dealt away the government's ability to negotiate with the drug companies, and at best he's wavering on the public option, which would introduce competition into markets that are effectively single-sourced at the moment. With this latest news, if September isn't an extremely strong month, rhetorically speaking, the whole thing could just get away from him.
But these projections spell big trouble. There are only a couple ways to curb federal spending in any real significant way, and they all go through entitlements and defense. So far the President hasn't done a good enough job describing how health care reform was going to cut down on medical costs for both individuals and the federal government. He's dealt away the government's ability to negotiate with the drug companies, and at best he's wavering on the public option, which would introduce competition into markets that are effectively single-sourced at the moment. With this latest news, if September isn't an extremely strong month, rhetorically speaking, the whole thing could just get away from him.
Robert Wright on Evolution and Religion
Before all this civil liberties stuff went to pot, I used to spend a good deal of my time focusing on the evolution/creationism/intelligent design conflict. From time to time it's nice to know the issue isn't dead. Robert Wright, one of my personal favorite science/philosophy writers, has a new book out (The Evolution of God), and also published an op-ed in Times over the weekend. In it he proposes that science and religion aren't quite so far apart as they seem - if scientists can accept the notion of a higher purpose in nature, and if the faithful can allow that nature itself contains the tools and mechanisms to produce what we cavalierly refer to as miraculous, then the rest is just detail.
It's kind of a shame, because I really like Wright, but I believe he's missed the point pretty significantly on this. The people fighting tooth and nail against the concept of an evolved universe and human race aren't struggling to preserve the notion of God as some principled majestic presence, sitting back and watching creation unfold, allowing Himself to be interpreted in whatever way people feel like. That's as controversial to them as atheism. What compels these folks, on the contrary, is a world where Scripture reigns supreme, and where God acts with historical precision to make manifest a very specific Divine Plan. Wright's recipe ain't gonna do it.
That's not to say that truly unifying science and religion is impossible; far from it. But doing so in such a way that doesn't dilute either irrevocably requires a far more sophisticated theology, and as such it can't reasonably accommodate everyone. It requires a Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, or more recently, a John Haught. Read Wright, by all means, but read these guys too.
It's kind of a shame, because I really like Wright, but I believe he's missed the point pretty significantly on this. The people fighting tooth and nail against the concept of an evolved universe and human race aren't struggling to preserve the notion of God as some principled majestic presence, sitting back and watching creation unfold, allowing Himself to be interpreted in whatever way people feel like. That's as controversial to them as atheism. What compels these folks, on the contrary, is a world where Scripture reigns supreme, and where God acts with historical precision to make manifest a very specific Divine Plan. Wright's recipe ain't gonna do it.
That's not to say that truly unifying science and religion is impossible; far from it. But doing so in such a way that doesn't dilute either irrevocably requires a far more sophisticated theology, and as such it can't reasonably accommodate everyone. It requires a Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, or more recently, a John Haught. Read Wright, by all means, but read these guys too.
Update - The case of Mohammed Jawad - Released
The teenager I wrote about a month ago, ordered released by a federal judge, finally left US custody this week. The Justice Department had threatened to explore criminal charges in federal court after the military commissions process fell apart due to allegations of torture and prolonged abuse. Evidently nothing materialized (shocker), and the kid's headed home.
Torture Watch: IG report released, Eric Holder announces investigation
Big day today.
The long-awaited CIA Inspector General's report was released by the Obama administration today. Much of it remains classified, and a good part of the balance is old news (particularly after the weekend's leaks). But I would most humbly recommend that everyone read the highlights. Like how people wearing the flag of the United States of America conducted mock executions, threatened detainees with handguns and power drills while they sat bound and naked but for a hood, boasted about raping the mothers and killing the children of suspects. And this was only the stuff that went beyond the guidelines offered by the Bush Justice Department. Standard operating procedure included all kinds of chilling activities, during which several detainees died in custody.
The report makes the claim that the CIA's detention and interrogation program provided valuable guidance in counter-terrorism operations, but basically states that the effectiveness of any of the "enhanced techniques", as they are called, is indeterminate. It doesn't commit one way or the other, so but for the redacted content of the report, the question remains open. But the report is quite clear that many if not most of the individuals involved in the interrogations were cognizant of the legal culpability they were risking, to say nothing of the damage to their own reputations and the Agency's effectiveness.
It is this report, by all accounts, that most motivated Eric Holder to announce that he is conducting a preliminary investigation into the crimes contained therein. He is targeting the officers and agents who tortured detainees (and in some cases killed them) in manners that went beyond the boundaries identified in the Yoo/Bybee/Bradbury Office of Legal Counsel memos. Barack Obama has indicated that this decision belongs to the Attorney General and him alone, as befits the apolitical nature of his responsibility.
The actions Holder is taking are a good first step, and the individuals who have spent years trying to get this report declassified (notably the ACLU) deserve a great deal of credit. But the largest danger here, as I've written before, is that in prosecuting only the violators of the Bush DoJ protocols, the Obama administration is implicitly offering legitimacy to the protocols themselves, and the manner in which they were constructed. To review - US law has stated for decades that "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" treatment, as outlined in the torture statutes, is to be interpreted in roughly the same manner as the guidelines set out in the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution. This implies that if it could be done to a terrorist, it could be done to anyone in government custody, citizen or not. Regardless of what President Obama has made his own policy, the Bush Justice Department gave the CIA rulings that incorporated sleep deprivation, beatings, extended cramped confinement (with and without insects), waterboarding, stress positions, and other "harsh treatment". into the realm of legal treatment, under the theory that unless an action could be proved to cause years of mental suffering, pain approaching that caused by organ failure, or unless the treatment was inflicted solely for the purpose of sadistic pleasure and not real intelligence gathering, the prohibitions couldn't be construed to apply. All indications are that this conclusion was drawn with the full knowledge that it was legally unsound, but the Agency was instructed to proceed nonetheless. The so-far undisclosed report from the Office of Professional Responsibility on the torture memos recommends disciplinary action against the lawyers who wrote them, on the grounds that they were written in bad faith - that is, with the knowledge that they would be used to justify illegal behavior. But in declining to prosecute or even investigate the policy-makers, in deciding to focus on the grunts instead, Holder is effectively saying that there's nothing to hold the government accountable for. Just a difference of opinion, that's all.
What cracks me up about this is hearing the yahoos on TV saying that the tyranny which ends the American experiment will come in the form of a public health insurance plan.
Two more quick items - one, Obama today also affirmed his policy of renditioning terror suspects to foreign countries, except now he promises to make sure they won't be tortured once they get there. Why don't I feel encouraged. Two, Obama also announced the creation of a new team of expert interrogators for high-value detainees, controlled by the White House instead of the CIA. Yeah, that ought to help.
The long-awaited CIA Inspector General's report was released by the Obama administration today. Much of it remains classified, and a good part of the balance is old news (particularly after the weekend's leaks). But I would most humbly recommend that everyone read the highlights. Like how people wearing the flag of the United States of America conducted mock executions, threatened detainees with handguns and power drills while they sat bound and naked but for a hood, boasted about raping the mothers and killing the children of suspects. And this was only the stuff that went beyond the guidelines offered by the Bush Justice Department. Standard operating procedure included all kinds of chilling activities, during which several detainees died in custody.
The report makes the claim that the CIA's detention and interrogation program provided valuable guidance in counter-terrorism operations, but basically states that the effectiveness of any of the "enhanced techniques", as they are called, is indeterminate. It doesn't commit one way or the other, so but for the redacted content of the report, the question remains open. But the report is quite clear that many if not most of the individuals involved in the interrogations were cognizant of the legal culpability they were risking, to say nothing of the damage to their own reputations and the Agency's effectiveness.
It is this report, by all accounts, that most motivated Eric Holder to announce that he is conducting a preliminary investigation into the crimes contained therein. He is targeting the officers and agents who tortured detainees (and in some cases killed them) in manners that went beyond the boundaries identified in the Yoo/Bybee/Bradbury Office of Legal Counsel memos. Barack Obama has indicated that this decision belongs to the Attorney General and him alone, as befits the apolitical nature of his responsibility.
The actions Holder is taking are a good first step, and the individuals who have spent years trying to get this report declassified (notably the ACLU) deserve a great deal of credit. But the largest danger here, as I've written before, is that in prosecuting only the violators of the Bush DoJ protocols, the Obama administration is implicitly offering legitimacy to the protocols themselves, and the manner in which they were constructed. To review - US law has stated for decades that "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" treatment, as outlined in the torture statutes, is to be interpreted in roughly the same manner as the guidelines set out in the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution. This implies that if it could be done to a terrorist, it could be done to anyone in government custody, citizen or not. Regardless of what President Obama has made his own policy, the Bush Justice Department gave the CIA rulings that incorporated sleep deprivation, beatings, extended cramped confinement (with and without insects), waterboarding, stress positions, and other "harsh treatment". into the realm of legal treatment, under the theory that unless an action could be proved to cause years of mental suffering, pain approaching that caused by organ failure, or unless the treatment was inflicted solely for the purpose of sadistic pleasure and not real intelligence gathering, the prohibitions couldn't be construed to apply. All indications are that this conclusion was drawn with the full knowledge that it was legally unsound, but the Agency was instructed to proceed nonetheless. The so-far undisclosed report from the Office of Professional Responsibility on the torture memos recommends disciplinary action against the lawyers who wrote them, on the grounds that they were written in bad faith - that is, with the knowledge that they would be used to justify illegal behavior. But in declining to prosecute or even investigate the policy-makers, in deciding to focus on the grunts instead, Holder is effectively saying that there's nothing to hold the government accountable for. Just a difference of opinion, that's all.
What cracks me up about this is hearing the yahoos on TV saying that the tyranny which ends the American experiment will come in the form of a public health insurance plan.
Two more quick items - one, Obama today also affirmed his policy of renditioning terror suspects to foreign countries, except now he promises to make sure they won't be tortured once they get there. Why don't I feel encouraged. Two, Obama also announced the creation of a new team of expert interrogators for high-value detainees, controlled by the White House instead of the CIA. Yeah, that ought to help.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)