Obsidian Wings

In praise of Killer B's.

B movies, that is.

Given my current mood OK, nobody probably gives a flying leap about my mood, except if I flip out and go rob a train, which would make said mood entertaining - and so I shall talk about Bubba Ho-Tep, which I sat down and watched for the first time tonight. I started the evening watching it with my girlfriend, who is also fond of Bruce Campbell... but she doesn't like horror flicks, and it started looking like a horror flick pretty darn quick.

All in all, I quite liked it. It wasn't an especially technically gifted film - you'll know what I mean when you see the FX - and there were definite hokey elements to it, not to mention a certain amount of expected schlock. But it was a film that knew what it wanted to say, and knew enough to let Campbell say it without too much fuss. His Elvis is a three dimensional guy stuck in a two dimensional persona, and it bothers him. All in all, this film wasn't a polished jewel, or even a diamond in the rough - it was regular, everyday metal. But you can polish metal until it shines, and that's what happened here.

Anybody else got a favorite B/Indy film that was much better than it should have been?

Well, I'm back...

...having (hopefully) gotten a handle on whatever it is that keeps me from shouting instead of commenting and ranting instead of debating. Regular blogging - well, by me, at least; the others more than covered the slack while I was reacquiring equilibrium - will resume some time after Bubba Ho-Tep has been watched.

Moe

PS: I have noticed that the comments sections seem to be getting just a tad, ah, personal in tone, in certain places. Naming no names, mind you - but I'm sure that everybody here will be more than happy to doublecheck themselves in the future, now that it's been brought to the group's collective attention...

Things we need and things we don't

Kevin Drum and Mark Kleiman, in full schadenfreude mode, wonder "Is the Abu Ghraib scandal about to break wide open?" (Drum.) Indeed, there has been a bit of a drumbeat of late, pounding away even as Reagan's body has lain in state. Among other things:

-- The steady drip-drip-drip of the torture memoranda.

-- More reports that the use of dogs to intimidate and harass prisoners was authorized by high-level military intelligence officers.

-- Rumours that a high-ranking officer may have turned, and is cooperating with investigators.

-- A Wall Street Journal Report (subscription only) that Rumseld himself authorized the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners in Iraq.

-- Strange non-denial denials by our President (insightfully discussed by Katherine, below), blithely advising us that the U.S. Government followed the law; which would ordinarily be fine, but for the fact that the U.S. was getting horrible, indefensible legal "advice" from its lawyers -- advice that a half drunk first year law student could debunk between bong hits.

-- Most ominously, Symour Hersch is spreading stories of "horrible things done to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run." (Via DeLong.)

Whether these allegations prove true, of course, is a significant question. But I think the question of any scandal redounds to the Democrats' benefit depends entirely on whether the abuses are primarily linked to Iraq, which most of the nation is beginning to regard as a war separate and apart from the war on terror. After all, we freed Iraq from a terrible tyrant and are trying to bring peace and democracy to a long-shattered country; torturing and raping folks ain't really a good way to start the reconstruction.

If the abuses are primarily tied to the treatment of Al Queda prisoners, however, I think Matthew Yglesias makes a persuasive case that any "scandal" will be more smoke than fire:

But I've been afraid since the first word of this started trickling out that it might be a dead end for American liberalism. The charge that he's been overzealous -- that he's gone too far, that he's done to much -- to try and defeat America's enemies is, I think, one that George W. Bush can live with. The American people may well feel that he really has gone too far in one or two points, but you'd rather have the guy who does too much to defend America than the guy who does too little. Pressing this line of argument makes it seem as if Democrats are saying that the government needs to be more evenhanded between the terrorists, on the one hand, and American soldiers on the other.

We are relativists at heart. And I sadly include myself in that camp.

UPDATE: Annoying typos corrected; oblique title unmolested.

Non-Denial Denials

From the news conference today:

Q Mr. President, the Justice Department issued an advisory opinion last year declaring that as Commander-in-Chief you have the authority to order any kind of interrogation techniques that are necessary to pursue the war on terror. Were you aware of this advisory opinion? Do you agree with it? And did you issue any such authorization at any time?

THE PRESIDENT: No, the authorization I issued, David, was that anything we did would conform to U.S. law and would be consistent with international treaty obligations. That's the message I gave our people.

Q Have you seen the memos?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't remember if I've seen the memo or not, but I gave those instructions....

Q Returning to the question of torture, if you knew a person was in U.S. custody and had specific information about an imminent terrorist attack that could kill hundreds or even thousands of Americans, would you authorize the use of any means necessary to get that information and to save those lives?

THE PRESIDENT: Jonathan, what I've authorized is that we stay within U.S. law....

Q Mr. President, I wanted to return to the question of torture. What we've learned from these memos this week is that the Department of Justice lawyers and the Pentagon lawyers have essentially worked out a way that U.S. officials can torture detainees without running afoul of the law. So when you say that you want the U.S. to adhere to international and U.S. laws, that's not very comforting. This is a moral question: Is torture ever justified?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, I'm going to say it one more time. If I -- maybe -- maybe I can be more clear. The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you. We're a nation of law. We adhere to laws. We have laws on the books. You might look at those laws, and that might provide comfort for you. And those were the instructions out of -- from me to the government.

It does not comfort me.

The position the memo takes is that it is sometimes consistent with U.S. law, and international treaties, for the President to set aside acts of Congress and to order or authorize torture of prisoners. The administration will not release the memo to Congress, or say whether they adopted its findings, or discuss it in any way. So these answers tell us nothing.

The fact that the President won't give a meaningful answer, perhaps tells us something. The fact that the Democrats on Judiciary are not sure they'll find one G.O.P. Senator to cross the aisle and officially request the memo, according to this AP story, perhaps tells us something. The fact that Orrin Hatch told the AP that releasing the memos would "cause the deaths of our young people ... by publicizing something that shouldn't be publicized," perhaps tells us something.

I don't know whether Hatch is afraid for our troops, or afraid for Bush's re-election, or both. But he's afraid of something. If the memo is as hypothetical and harmless an exercise as some of the President's supporters say, the best thing to do for our troops is to prove it. Release this memo, and release the ones that shows the advice was rejected, and explain what the policy actually is.

Continue reading "Non-Denial Denials"

Systemic Issues with the Torture Memo

The torture memo is being adequately covered in its details all over the net (including by co-bloggers at ObsidianWings. So instead of hashing through all the little reasons why it is wrong, I want to focus on the systemic reasons why it is wrong and why even if it were legally correct (which I do not believe) it tries to set up an unwise positioning of Administrative power.

A major concern of mine is the balance of power between the legislative, administrative and judicial branches. I have written on the topic many times, including here, here and here. While I have typically been concerned with judicial overreach, the memo in question offers a blatant example of executive overreach"

Any effort by Congress to regulate the interrogation of unlawful combatants would violate the Constitution's sole vesting of the Comander-in-Chief authority in the President. There can be little doubt that intelligence operations, such as the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants and leaders, are both necessary and proper for the effective conduct of a military campaign.

This is wrong, wrong, wrong. Even though Congress does not have the power to dictate tactics for instance, it can outlaw certain general methods. And torture is a method within the power of Congress to outlaw. This is also a highly dangerous Constitutional theory. Though I would not do so, it could be argued that the torture rules are too strict for the current conflict. But if that argument is to be made it must be made in Congress and the legislative bodies must be allowed to decide on it.

As a practical matter we need to remember that people often stretch the rules. That is why it is often necessary to place the rule slightly beyond where compassion would dictate. Let's briefly examine a totally different arena--assisted suicide. There are extreme cases where a patient is in quite a bit of pain, wants to die, has a terminal illness but cannot kill himself. Cases where all four are true are fairly rare but they do exist. Doctor assisted suicide is not allowed in the United States, but it does happen in some of the most extreme cases. Doctors know full well that it isn't legal. Any doctor who routinely or systematically engaged in assisted suicide would be prosecuted. But some doctors push a bit beyond the limits of the law (saying if you took 5 of these instead of 1...) and are not prosecuted so long as they limit themselves to the extreme cases. Essentially they take a risk in the extreme cases, and the risk is that they may hit a prosecutor who will actually go after them even in this extreme instance and that they may hit a jury which would convict them (though probably not). The rule is slightly beyond what compassion would dictate, but since people push slightly pass legalisms the balance ends up about right.

This certainly happens with torture. If we ever did get a real 'ticking bomb' situation torture might very well be used (beyond the limits of the law) and the torturer might very well not get prosecuted or convicted. But this memo sets up something different. Instead leaving it to the outlying cases, it tries to systemically change the nature of the torture-forbidding system by pretending that the right to engage in torture is a Constitutional right inherent to the Administrative Branch. No normal reading of the Constitution allows for that interpretation. And setting the routine torture laws to such a broad expanse insures in reality that the military will go even further in non-routine situations. So the memo is bad both because it attacks the proper Constitutional balance, and because it sets up a situation where routine torture levels would be allowable setting the stage for non-routine situations which would be horrific. (Torturing a terrorist's children in non-routine situations anyone? I certainly hope not.) Maybe that isn't really two things, because a proper legislative/democratic check wouldn't allow things to go that far.

This does make for an interesting note in the Constitutional interpretation battles. For those who don't put much faith in textualism--how do you know that the Constitutional argument put forth in this memo is wrong?

Fishes.

A stunner in the case against Padilla, the U.S. Citizen who has been locked up for the last two years without judicial review as an "enemy combatant":

[A]dministration officials now concede that the principal claim they have been making about Padilla ever since his detention—that he was dispatched to the United States for the specific purpose of setting off a radiological “dirty bomb”—has turned out to be wrong and most likely can never be used against him in court.

(Via Michael Froomkin.)

Needless to say, this is why the Founding Fathers demanded that the state justify its decision to deprive the accused of her life or liberty.

Funny how you find wisdom in old things. Funny how we keep learning that you discard the old in favor of the new only reluctantly. Funny how the current administration seems intent on pushing every envelope that it can find.

I'm reminded of Wanda's line to Otto from A Fish Called Wanda:

Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not "every man for himself," and the London Underground is not a political movement! Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.

Perhaps we should look up whether "everything is up for grabs" is a conservative principle.

For the Spider's House is the Frailest of all Houses

The more I read, the more I consider, the more I reflect, the more I ignore, the more I work -- the more I do anything -- well, the more it just disgusts me.

This is not a screed against the Bush Administration; don't take it as such. I bear no malice towards Bush. I hunt here with a rifle, not a shotgun.

I am a lawyer. I'm not the oldest lawyer, or the wisest lawyer, or the most learned lawyer, but I am lawyer enough to remember that I took an oath to defend the Constitution. I took that oath willingly. It meant something.

The folks to drafted the DoD's torture memorandum (ably analyzed here and here and here, among other places) forgot their oath. They lost their compass. They ignored the law. They forgot that there is a difference between right and wrong, and that it doesn't change just 'cause you want it to. I'm disgusted, I'm sickened, I'm in despair. I am more ashamed of my profession now than I ever have been in my life. Because these folks -- these trusted lawyers, far more learned and careful and smart than I -- should've known better. They should've known better. They must have known better.

Disbar them. That's all there is to do. Strip them of their right to practice law. Go Dark Crystal on their asses. They ain't smart enough and they ain't ethical enough to chase ambulances. Disbar them. Expunge their names from the roll of every single Court in which they have appeared. Disbar them. Do it now.

UPDATE:

Reader Shad writes:

I'm clearly in the minority here (judging by the prior comments), but I find your incoherent rant advocating the bypass of due process in order to punish people based on just your say-so to be... unconvincing. (Not unsurprising, just unconvincing.)

This is a bit of a rant; let's see if I can nonethless convince you. There are many ways to attempt to justify torture, and there are many colorable arguments that (in appropriate circumstances) torture may be justified. Perhaps not winning arguments, but colorable ones. The DoD memorandum, however, makes an argument that is so weak, so contrary to the Constitution and our way of life, and so, well, evil, that no learned American lawyer can make it and remain true to her oath to defend the U.S. Constitution.

The DoD memorandum essentially contends that the President can choose to disregard any law that he, in his sole opinion, believes to conflict with his duties as Commander in Chief. Let that sink in. The President has full discretion to disregard law whenever he, and he alone, believes that (in his sole opinion) the law conflicts with what he deems to be the proper scope of his duties as Commander in Chief. No Court review. No appeals. The President controls.

This is not rule by law; it is rule by men. It is, roughly speaking, an argument for Fascism. As you might expect, it is an argument that is thoroughly and deeply flawed not only under the Consitution (under any reasonable reading thereof) but also under the entire course of Anglo-American law, post Blackstone. This is not a close or difficult question. The argument advanced by this memorandum is one that a half-drunk first year law student at a fourth tier law school could convincing retort between hits off his bong.

The thing speaks for itself as to the competency and morality of the lawyers who drafted and approved it.
As for whether this is an incoherent rant: Of course it is. I'm pissed.

*And, yes, of course I shouldn't sit in judgment of these folks (your "due process" concern).

Premature Again...

They just can't wait to tack up those "Mission Accomplished" banners, this White House...

Via Barry at Bloggy.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

April 29, 2004, the Bush Administration released a report called "Patterns of Global Terrorism" which indicated that the number of annual terrorist attacks had dropped. And not only dropped, but dropped to its lowest level in 34 years (declining by 45% since 2001). The Administration cited it as objective proof that they were winning the war on terrorism. In fact, in a high-profile rollout, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage noted: "Indeed, you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight."

{{{{screeching sound of needle being dragged across an LP}}}}

Enter Congressman Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles).

Waxman, the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, told Powell that the number of significant terrorist attacks since 2001 hasn't declined as the department claimed, but risen by more than 35%. And he cited an analysis by two independent experts who used figures provided by the State Department report in concluding that significant attacks actually had reached a 20-year high in 2003.

For example, the State Department report listed 190 terrorist attacks in 2003, including 169 "significant" ones. But Waxman said a review showed the report stopped counting terrorist incidents on Nov. 11, leaving out several major attacks, including bombings of two synagogues, a bank and the British Consulate in Turkey that killed 62 and injured more than 700.

In light of Waxman's letter to Powell, the Adminstration had another look at their data. Sure enough, Waxman was right:

[O]n Tuesday, State Department officials said they underreported the number of terrorist attacks in the tally for 2003, and added that they expected to release an updated version soon.

Several U.S. officials and terrorism experts familiar with that revision effort said the new report will show that the number of significant terrorist incidents increased last year, perhaps to its highest level in 20 years. (emphasis mine)

So how does a very important report ("The report is considered the authoritative yardstick of the prevalence of terrorist activity around the world.") that was celebrated as proof of a successful campaign (something you think they'd double check before making such a big deal out of it) get it so terribly wrong? Well, giving them the benefit of doubt that it wasn't underhanded political shenanigans, we're left with incompetence of course:

Several State Department officials vehemently denied their report was swayed by politics. "That's not the way we do things here," said one senior official.

Another senior official characterized the errors as clerical, and blamed them mostly on the fact responsibility for the report recently shifted from the CIA to the administration's new Terrorist Threat Integration Center.

Ahhh....perhaps it's Tenet's fault...how convenient he's gone.

UPDATE: That last bit was a poor attempt to be clever...this is damning enough, I don't need to add some snarky epilogue. And just so it's clear, I do give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't think the April 29 celebration was politics...I think it was incompetence and perhaps a careless dose of wishful thinking.

Anti-War Fantasy

There are certainly some reasonable arguments against the war in Iraq. But I must admit that the unreasonable ones absolutely drive me nuts. A perfect example of an unreasonable argument is found by Daniel Davies at the high profile academic blog Crooked Timber. He has repeatedly claimed to be merely against the unilateral U.S. war in Iraq. In a number of different posts he suggests that a U.N. war against Iraq would have been much more acceptable. This is certainly true, and if his argument stopped there he would be correct if not helpful. But he has repeatedly claimed that U.N.-backed action was likely in the near future if only the U.S. had done it right (see here for instance):

Thus, I was in favour of allowing Saddam to remain in power for a short period (waiting for a coalition of people I trusted to be assembled).

Clearly, therefore, my moral culpability (and thus the extent to which I am prepared to take crap from pro-war lefties) is very heavily dependent on what might have happened in Iraq during that period of six months to a year.

Now he says:

I wish Saddam Hussein was still in power in Baghdad because if this were the case, then about 3,000 Iraqis would have been murdered by his regime and would be dead, the roughly 10,000 Iraqis we killed ourselves would still be alive, and we would most likely be well on our way to formulating a credible, sensible, properly resourced plan for getting rid of him and handling the aftermath.

This is pure fantasy. European countries and the UN were not in the process of figuring out how to get rid of Saddam just before bumbling George Bush talked them out of it. In January 2002 France, Germany and Russia were talking about having sanctions removed from Iraq and trade and diplomatic relations normalized. Even if he were one of those people who is easily impressed by European words decoupled from actions he couldn't take comfort in the words. There wasn't even a large rhetoric-only anti-Saddam pose being taken by European governments. At best there was the admission that he had been somewhat naughty in the past and aren't we glad that sanctions have brought him to heel.

We would not be 'most likely be well on our way to formulating a credible, sensible, properly resourced plan for getting rid of him' if only the U.S. hadn't invaded in 2003. Unless of course by 'we' he means the U.S. acting unilaterally. I understand the need to protect the leftist conscience, but let usat least stick to semi-plausible hypotheticals like "If we were lucky Saddam might have choked on a chicken bone."

UPDATE: I also would like to note that we know now that the UN Inspectors were not likely to find any major WMD programs. Doesn't that fact tend to suggest that France, Germany and Russia were even less likely to be willing to take action against Saddam than they were when they strongly suspected that he did have some serious WMD programs? You can argue that the war was wrong because of a lack of WMD programs to hang on as a justification. But to argue that Europe would have helped an invasion if only we had waited when we know that the inspectors weren't likely to find a justification for war seems like a huge stretch.

Getting It in Writing

The Wall Street Journal has offered up free portions of the "Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism: Assessment of Legal, Historical, Policy, and Operational Considerations" (or in other words, the legal boundaries of "successful interrogations" of "[unlawful] enemy combatants").

It's 49 pages long, and the best bits have been reported in the press, but this part jumped out at me:

(U) Any effort by Congress to regulate the interrogation of unlawful combatants would violate the Constitution's sole vesting of the Comander-in-Chief authority in the President. There can be little doubt that intelligence operations, such as the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants and leaders, are both necessary and proper for the effective conduct of a military campaign. Indeed, such operations may be of more importance in a war with an international terrorist organization than one with conventional armed forces of a nation-state, due to the former's emphasis on secret operations and surprise attacks against civilians. It may be the case that only successful interrogations can provide the information necessary to prevent the success of covert terrorist attacks upon the United Sates and its citizens. Congress can no more interfere with the President's conduct of the interroration of enemy combatants than it can dictate strategy or tactical decision on the battlefiled. Just as statues that order the President to conduct warfare in a certain manner or for specific goals would be unconstitutional, so too are laws that seek to prevent the President from gaining the intelligence he believes necessary to prevent attacks upon the United States.

(U)As this authority is inherent in the President, exercise of it by subordinates would be best if it can be shown to have been derived from the President's authority through Presidential directive or other writing.

Continue reading "Getting It in Writing"

Selling Out the Kurds

Samuel Johnson noted that "Life cannot subsist in society but by reciprocal concessions."

Iraq's Kurdish leaders seem to understand that, and, despite being so much closer to having the pieces in place to make democracy work than the rest of the country (and plenty o' oil), they continue to compromise toward a unified, democratic Iraq, including "concessions in the interim Constitution over the oil-rich city of Kirkuk [and] acceptance of a new government with no Kurds in top positions."

But while the US and other nations of the UN Security Council congratulate themseleves on their unanimous vote yesterday, the concession it took to get there may just be the one the Kurds are unwilling to make.

As William Safire notes in his column today:

In his eagerness for the approval of the Shiite religious leader — and driven by desperation to get yesterday's unanimous U.N. resolution in time for the G-8 meeting — President Bush may be double-crossing the Kurds, our most loyal friends in Iraq.

[...]

In February, the Iraqi Governing Council, which included all religious and ethnic groups, hammered out its only memorable work: a Transitional Administrative Law, which laid the groundwork for a constitution to be adopted later by elected officials in a sovereign state. Most important for Kurds, who have long been oppressed by an Arab majority, it established minority rights within a federal state — the essence of a stable democracy.

But as the U.N. resolution supporting that state was nearing completion, the Shiite grand ayatollah, Ali al-Sistani, suddenly intervened. He denounced the agreed-upon law as "legislated by an unelected council in the shadow of occupation." He decreed that mentioning it in the U.N. resolution would be "a harbinger of grave consequences."

The U.S. promptly caved. Stunned Kurds protested in a letter to President Bush that "the people of Kurdistan will no longer accept second-class citizenship in Iraq." If the law guaranteeing minority rights was abrogated, Kurds would "have no choice but to refrain from participating in the central government, not to take part in the national elections, and to bar representatives of the central government from Kurdistan."

Now there's one big deterence to the Kurds forming their own government, and that's Turkey's promise to smash it to bits if they do. However, the Kurds may just be willing to risk that, and they may just be stronger than anyone thinks they are. Consider the following from Bartle Breese Bull's opinion piece in the Times today:

Continue reading "Selling Out the Kurds"

Sudan and the Capacity for More Tragedy

I was already feeling guilty about not blogging about Sudan (The Times Nicholas Kristof has been covering it well, but you gotta pay for most of these now) when Gary Farber directed me to his excellent series of posts about the tragic events happening there (and don't worry Gary, you didn't make me feel more guilty...in fact, you helped me see something parallel but also important):

• Ugliness in Sudan
• One Million People
• Those Million Again
• Sudan
• Darfur and the Genocide Warning
• They Came At Dawn

From Gary's April 26, 2004 post

For 14 months, the government has fought a merciless war against rebels in the remote Darfur region. Sudanese warplanes and the feared Arab militiamen known as the janjaweed, who attack on horseback, have depopulated much of an area larger than California, driving roughly 1 million villagers into a few spots like Mornay. In January the town had some 2,000 inhabitants; by March there were 80,000. Every village within 30 miles has been leveled, says Coralie Lechelle, a nurse with the relief group Medecins sans Frontieres. Refugees are stuck there, she says: "In fact, it is a prison."

Now it certainly does me no credit to admit that I skim the Kristof updates on the situation in Sudan when they come along, but then actually make a conscious decision to not post about them. And not only has that tugged hard at my conscience, making me question my values, my latent racism, my laziness, it's also led me to dream up rationales like "I only have the capacity for so much empathy" or, worse, "when it gets really bad, then I'll start paying attention or get involved."

Continue reading "Sudan and the Capacity for More Tragedy"

The Turing Police

It's a bit ironic, really, that Gibson chose Alan Turing as the inspiration for his futuristic police force:

Several of the best scenes in [Neuromancer] show the Turing police in action, as they carry out their task of making sure any AIs are firmly under human control.

Cruel ideas about controlling humans led to Turing's suicide.

Via Andrew Sullivan

ANOTHER ANNIVERSARY: June 7 was the fiftieth anniversary of the suicide of Alan Turing, one of the forefathers of modern computing who was also critical in cracking the Nazi Enigma Code that helped win the war against Hitler. For these achievements, he was persecuted, given estrogen injections and threatened with jail because he was homosexual. Just another gay man fighting for his country only to be treated with contempt and cruelty - like so many American servicemembers today.

Just when you think the world can't get any more twisted

Via Paul Cella:

What a truly awful crime this was. A real flesh and blood sacrifice at the altar of the twin gods Liberation and Rationalism. John Money will answer for his transgression.

I don't share Paul's assessment of the causes for this atrocity, but I share his belief that John Money should pay dearly for what he's done. Like some modern-day Dr. Frankenstein, this s.o.b. should be locked up.

The Memo

Excerpts from a Department of Defense memo on the use of torture, from a Wall Street Journal article today:

"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign ... (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in chief authority..."

After defining torture and other prohibited acts, the memo presents "legal doctrines ... that could render specific conduct, otherwise criminal, not unlawful." Foremost, the lawyers rely on the "commander-in-chief authority," concluding that "without a clear statement otherwise, criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the president's ultimate authority" to wage war. Moreover, "any effort by Congress to regulate the interrogation of unlawful combatants would violate the Constitution's sole vesting of the commander-in-chief authority in the president," the lawyers advised.

Likewise, the lawyers found that "constitutional principles" make it impossible to "punish officials for aiding the president in exercising his exclusive constitutional authorities" and neither Congress nor the courts could "require or implement the prosecution of such an individual."

To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

For members of the military, the report suggested that officials could escape torture convictions by arguing that they were following superior orders, since such orders "may be inferred to be lawful" and are "disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate." Examining the "superior orders" defense at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals, the Vietnam War prosecution of U.S. Army Lt. William Calley for the My Lai massacre and the current U.N. war-crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the report concluded it could be asserted by "U.S. armed forces personnel engaged in exceptional interrogations except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful."

The full text is easily available via a Google News search; I feel funny violating newspaper copyright, though.

There are two enormous problems with this memo.

The first is that the arguments themselves are frightening. I also think it's fair to say, even as a rank amateur, that many of them are well outside the mainstream of constitutional law--let alone international law. The idea that not only does the President have unlimited and indefinite authority to declare someone an unlawful combatant if Congress doesn't say otherwise, and to torture them up to and including death, but it is unconstitutional for Congress to regulate it, is beyond the pale.

(And let's not forget, we know from the Padilla case that administration believes the inherent commander in chief power applies fully to U.S. citizens and within the United States.)

They also seem to confuse the possibility that a court wouldn't enforce the torture convention or the laws implementing it against the President or those following his orders--a real enough possibility--with the claim that it would be perfectly legal for the President to order captives tortured. It's not the same thing. The fact that you may not be caught or punished, doesn't mean you aren't breaking the law.

You can say that this is just a hypothetical question, that we have no evidence that the government adopted this policy, that maybe this team was playing devil's advocate. But these things are classified--this memo itself was classified. You cannot get them through the Freedom of Information Act. The executive branch has almost complete authority to classify documents*. This administration has proven willing to declassify documents for political reasons, and there is every reason to believe they are willing to keep politically damaging things classified.

And torture has actually happened. We know that now. It happened at Abu Ghraib, it has happened to Maher Arar and others through "extraordinary rendition", it apparently happened at Bagram and other detention centers in Iraq, it may have happened in Guantanamo.

Which is the second problem with the memo: it's yet another piece of circumstantial evidence that this administration at least condones torture.

*does anyone know if it's subject to Congressional subpoena power? I don't think it is, but I sure hope so.

Father Joe

So there we were at home, an Evangelical Christian and a moderate Muslim, watching PBS and they had this story about a Catholic priest working in a Bangkok slum populated primarily by Buddhists, and, well, we were deeply moved by his story:

PHIL JONES: Children singing the national anthem of Thailand -- it's how their school day begins. After the anthem, it's time for their prayers, led by the teachers.

TEACHERS AND STUDENTS: Bow once to the Buddha. The Buddha is great.

JONES: What's so unique about this scene is, the kids are praying to Buddha in a Catholic school. But that's just fine with Father Joe Maier, who says he doesn't care if the children say their "Hail Marys" to a statue of Buddha as long as they know some prayers to help them deal with life. They live in Klong Toey, amidst poverty, drugs, gang violence, and child sex abuse. Father Maier came here more than 30 years ago and never left.

In addition to the schools he's built which are literally giving hope to folks who knew little before he arrived, Father Joe has begun to develop support networks for the victims of Thailand's exploding AIDS epidemic.

Fr. MAIER: Oh, look at this, here comes the AIDS brigade.

JONES: It's a brigade of children -- most of them born HIV positive. The Mercy Center is their home. On this day, they stopped by the office after school for some candy and compassion from the staff and Father Joe.

(To Fr. Maier): Are these kids going to survive?

Fr. MAIER: No, they are all going to die. This one might make it forever. The two boys won't make it. The two boys won't make it. But you do what you can -- day by day by day.

JONES: After candy, the children line up for what's called cocktail time -- their medicine. It will keep them alive for a little big longer.

Fr. MAIER: We're a house of hope and of joy and of life. You've got AIDS, you've got AIDS. You die, you die; but, you know, that's tomorrow. You live right now and here, today.

As an Evangelical Christian and a moderate Muslim, we know how fundamentalism can interfere with the more beautiful aspects of religion. "As long as they know some prayers to help them deal with life." Indeed. The rest is politics.

You can't make this stuff up

Via Wage Slave Journal:

Jesus loves you...

... but he sure does charge a lot for Viagra.

Reagan and Alzheimer's Disease

Reagan has died. I am not going to try to do what others have already done better than I could, so if you are interested in reading an excellent discussion of his political life I strongly suggest that you visit Pejmanesque especially for his excellent discussion of the fact that Reagan was instrumental in the fall of the Soviet Union.

Reagan died of Alzheimer's Disease, a disease that I have taken quite an interest in. In fact I read an excellent book about it on the way to Vancouver last week: "Decoding Darkness" by Rudolph E. Tanzi and Ann B. Parson. I firtst became interested in Alzheimer's disease when I found out that my paternal grandmother was dying of it and other ailments. Later I discovered that my maternal grandfather is dying of it. It is an awful disease which robs its victims of their memories. I saw my grandmother lose her ability to recognize anyone in my family (except perversely me, which I think irritated some members of my family who spent more of her last years with her.) I am now seeing my grandfather forget my mother's name from time to time though he still knows what their relationship is.

"Decoding Darkness" is an overview of the research path regarding Alzheimer's. I won't try to replicate the findings of the book, but I highly recommend it if you have any basic biological knowledge and are interested in the topic. One interesting finding was that Alzheimer's decays the connections between the neurons. Its progress can be slowed by making large numbers of connections. This can be done with intensive mental activity. Surprisingly (at least to me) this can also be done with regular exercise. Apparently almost everything good for the heart is also good for delaying Alzheimer's. This includes such things as regular exercise, certain types of oils, and there may be a link to low cholesterol. Chalk up another thing for good cardio-vascular health.

Reagan, I hope you can remember Nancy now.

Zoning, was it? Less of a surprise, then.

No, actually, I'm not being entirely facetious. 99%, perhaps, but that last 1% is a different story. I am referring, of course, to the armor-plated bulldozer (complete with .50 caliber machine gun) that tore up a Colorado town yesterday:

GRANBY — A 52-year-old welder nursing a grudge against the town fathers and driving a bulldozer converted into a war machine ripped the heart of this high-country ranching town from its foundations Friday.

Among the structures destroyed or heavily damaged in a relentless 90-minute rampage were Granby's town hall and library, a bank, the town's newspaper, an electric cooperative building, Gambles Store, an excavating business and a house owned by the town's former mayor, as well as a concrete plant adjacent to the business of the man believed responsible for the bizarre assault.

It's not really funny: although the, well, rampage somehow didn't hurt anyone being attacked, the guy responsible shot himself afterwards. For that matter, I don't particularly think that driving around town with what's essentially a homemade armored car and shooting at things is an example of what one would call reasonable behavior; Jim Henley aside*, I suspect that a tumor or recent change in brain chemistry was what set this guy off.

That being said, I'm not surprised that a zoning violation was the apparent cause: it's amazing how much sheer emotional energy and contention get generated by the simple application of rules about who can build what and where. I'm also struck by these two lines:

"He said, 'By God, I am going to bulldoze those businesses,' the businesses of all the people who'd done this to him," Brown recalled.

"People knew he was building the armored bulldozer, but they didn't know why he was building it," said Nelson. He said Heemeyer welded one-inch armor plate around the bulldozer.

Because, of course, there are so many possible reasons why a man would need a homemade armored bulldozer. A pity that Ms. Brown and Mr. Nelson never compared notes...

Moe

Continue reading "Zoning, was it? Less of a surprise, then."

Being reasonable...

...which is to say, they agree with me. As I am, of course, the epitome of wisdom and truthfulness - HEY! Stop laughing at me! - this obviously makes them quite the savants...

Continue reading "Being reasonable..."

Some Reactions from the other end of the Spectrum...

...regarding Ronald Reagan's passing, in no particular order. Please note that they have all taken the high road.

Continue reading "Some Reactions from the other end of the Spectrum..."

May you have a peaceful passing, sir.

I am very sorry to report that I think that former President Reagan is entering his final illness:

Reagan's Health Said to Have Deteriorated

PARIS - Former President Ronald Reagan (news - web sites)'s health has deteriorated, the White House has been told. The White House was informed that the 93-year-old former president's health had changed significantly in the past several days, a person familiar with Reagan's condition said Saturday.

Reagan has been out of the public eye since disclosing a decade ago that he had Alzheimer's disease (news - web sites). He has lived longer than any other U.S. president.

Reading between the lines of the article, I would say that it's more likely to be weeks than months; I'm not entirely certain that it won't be days instead of weeks. 93 years is a good, long run: I only regret that he couldn't enjoy more of them without mental impairments. Actually, I also regret a wide variety of incredibly stupid and thoughtless comments that I made about this man when I was growing up; it was not until my twenties that I was able to see both the good and the bad things done during his term in office. I was young and stupid; not an excuse, just an explanation.

Rest easy, Gipper.

Moe

PS: I loathe Alzheimer's - and that's the loathing that comes from fear; one of my private terrors is that I'll develop the disease myself, some day. As some of you may know, Nancy Reagan has recently spoken out in favor of stem cell research as a method of treating this and other diseases. This is not the place to have that debate - particularly since I happen to agree with her and disagree with President Bush on this issue - but I urge my readers to make their opinions known to their elected officials, in a polite and civilized manner.

UPDATE: Constant Reader JimPortlandOR has forwarded to us that former President Reagan has passed away. This was faster than I expected, but not overwhelmingly surprising. Our prayers go out to his wife, family and loved ones.