Back in May I posted this:
No matter what anyone spins or what commercials say, unless this changes it’s over:
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 15-18, 2004. N=1,201 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch.
“Who do you trust to do a better job handling “The U.S. campaign against terrorism”, Bush or Kerry?” Names rotatedBush 58
Kerry 37
Both 1
Neither 3
4/15-18/04However, I do expect it to change.. Where & by how much is the question. And as soon as the Kerry camp realizes this, instead of re-fighting Vietnam, the better (for them).
The latest ABC News/WaPo has it at Bush 54%/Kerry 37%. The latest Gallup figures chime in at Bush 61%/Kerry 34%.
Things could change overnight. Things could reverse. October surprises and scandals can make today’s news irrelevant. But, make no mistake, this is the issue and unless erry changes it….it’s over.
And hyping this sort of attitude doesn’t help things for the left:
- Yes, torture is a partisan issue
- The Republican Administration doesn’t mind it as long as it’s deniable.
- Rush Limbaugh likens it to fraternity hazing.
- The Republican leadership in Congress wants to legalize it. The Speaker of the House has introduced a bill that would, among other things,
- require the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue new regulations to exclude from the protection of the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, any suspected terrorist – thereby allowing them to be deported or transferred to a country that may engage in torture. The provision would put the burden of proof on the person being deported or rendered to establish "by clear and convincing evidence that he or she would be tortured," would bar the courts from having jurisdiction to review the Secretary’s regulations, and would free the Secretary to deport or remove terrorist suspects to any country in the world at will – even countries other than the person’s home country or the country in which they were born. The provision would also apply retroactively.
- Democrats are against it.
- Which side are you on?
I recall making a whimsical joke about John Walker Lindh getting beaten up (not enough) in prison a while back. Immediately, I was criticized by one of the left’s biggest bloggers at the time, as well as none-too-few commenters, obviously sent by that source. It appears that a broad group of people represented in the Democratic party (remember, "Democrats are against it", and "torture is a partisan issue") are under the assumption that it is still a 9/10 world, where any and all harm to all human beings under any circumstances is looked upon with disdain. Well, that sort of attitude from a group of people who live and die by the ‘shades of gray’ credo, it is somewhat surprising that it should be explained, but here it is in a nutshell:
I’m against torturing other people, even criminals. Ditto for those wrongfully accused. However, if hooking a terrorist up to a car battery by way of a set of jumper cables will result in saving the life, limb, or livelihood of a single non-terrorist (especially an American), I have two things to say: Red is positive and black is negative.
Apparently, looking at the polls, I’m not alone.
Your premise is faulty. You can’t know tha the torture would “save” anything.
Do you want to torture suspected terrorists? Let God sort them out?
Would you have supported tortuing Richard Jewell before he could set off another bomb?
Comment by Just John — 10/1/2004 @ 9:31 am
Frankly I can’t imagine trying to do counter insurgency operations without using torture. The US has done it in every war where we had to run CI. Nam, WWII, you name it. Bush’s mistake was letting a bunch of West Virginian Hessians armed with digital cameras do it rather then career officers who were professionals, had their careers to think about and could keep their mouths shut.
Comment by Rick DeMent — 10/1/2004 @ 5:53 pm
I can’t dumb it down any further than “wrongfully accused”, John. Don’t you get tired of the weekly instances of reading something I write, making up something you derive from it and then questioning your fabricated strawman?
I sure do.
Comment by RW — 10/1/2004 @ 8:10 pm
How do you know if you’re torturing the right guy?
How do you know you’ll get what yo’re after?
You can’t. The premise is faulty, the conclusion doesn’t stand.
Comment by Just John — 10/1/2004 @ 10:07 pm
Last try: I’m against torturing other people, even criminals. Ditto for those wrongfully accused. However, if hooking a terrorist up…
If you “don’t get it” by now, it’s not my fault and I don’t wish to see any more bytes wasted.
If they catch Zarqawi, I don’t shy away from our guys torturing him in order to get info. According to the link, the leading Democrats are against that.
Comment by RW — 10/1/2004 @ 10:37 pm
WWJD?
Comment by Just John — 10/2/2004 @ 3:32 pm
Hi. I wrote the original post on Obsidian Wings on the “extraordinary rendition” bill.
Your response really upsets me, because you’re a blogger I respect—though I agree that it’s an oversimplification to say that Republicans are pro-torture and Democrats are anti-torture. Extraordinary rendition began under Bill Clinton, for one thing; for another, I don’t know what position the Democratic leadership takes on this bill; for yet another, the Senate legislation does not contain this provision.
But:
1) The bill does not require conviction by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not even require a preponderance of evidence or probable cause or some lesser standard. If the homeland security secretary—or whoever he delegates the authority to—suspects you have being involved in terrorism, he can order you deported to a country where you will be tortured.
2) This has already happened, to some guilty people, but also to some people who are probably innocent, who were probably suspected of terrorism only on the basis of other confessions made under torture. (Look up “Maher Arar.”)
3) Tactically, it’s stupid. It’s not clear that torturing people is a particularly effective way of gaining intelligence. Did you read the recent report saying that we’ve gotten better intelligence at Abu Ghraib since the abuses ended? A military interrogator who commented on my weblog said much the same thing.
And as a result of these policies we’ve got:
a) Arabs and Muslims afraid to report suspicious activities because it might get their neighbors deported and tortured, and what if they’re wrong?
b) A movement in Canada to get the government to stop sharing intelligence with the U.S. because it contributed to the deportation of Arar (a Canadian citizen.)
Now, I don’t think either of those responses are justified but they’re entirely understandable. And that’s leaving aside the effect this has
4) We’re not even torturing these people ourselves. We’re deporting them to Egypt and Jordan and for God’s sake SYRIA. We cannot trust them to show any restraint at all, to stop if it becomes clear that the suspect is innocent, or to accurately report on what the suspect tells us. And it makes us look like utter hypocrites to deport people into the hands of the same dictatorial Middle Eastern regimes that President Bush denounces.
Aside from being immoral, it’s incoherent. You can pursue a foreign policy of amoral, hard-headed realism and self-interest and have people tortured if you think it’s useful, or you can claim to be spreading democracy, peace and freedom to the Arab world. But you sure as hell cannot get away with both.
Comment by Katherine — 10/2/2004 @ 4:57 pm
Also, this:
“However, if hooking a terrorist up to a car battery by way of a set of jumper cables will result in saving the life, limb, or livelihood of a single non-terrorist (especially an American)”
assumes knowledge you do not and can never have.
You do not necessarily know he is a terrorist.
You do not know that he will reveal intelligence that saves lives if he is tortured.
You do not know that he will not reveal the same intelligence if he is not tortured.
You do not know if hearing stories of Americans torturing people will motivate more terrorists who kill more people than you save from getting the intelligence from this terrorist. If you think this is just softheaded liberalism, read the history of France in Algeria, or read this post about Ayman Al-Zawahiri.
Comment by Katherine — 10/2/2004 @ 5:04 pm
She makes a good case.
Comment by Cassidy — 10/2/2004 @ 6:01 pm
Katherine, I don’t want anyone to think that I’m going around advocating torture on a whim. I’m not.
Nor am I supporting torture for ‘suspected’ terrorists…..remember, I lean away from trusting the gov’t whether it be led by a GOPer or a DNCer. Since our intel vis-a-vis Iraq has been, ahem, somewhat (cough, cough) suspect…....I wouldn’t trust them to say “hey, we can beat the truth outta Abdul!”
All I’m saying is that I’d be the last person to say that we shouldn’t do WHATEVER to Zarqawi or Bin Laden (who is dead, btw) or some of their deputies in order to accomplish the big picture. I’m for fighting the terrorists (the legit ones, not suspects) using whatever methods necessary, whereas Kleiman & co are focusing on fighting Republicans.
IMO, this shouldn’t be left vs right or liberal vs conservative.
John,
If you’re going to go with the notion that we should adopt Jesus’ teachings into our governmental policies, make sure you keep that door open all the way & not just whenever you pick and choose or when you’re out of debating options. You sure you wanna do that? I’ve got my KJV handy & can pull out some doozie quotes that I don’t think you’d want enacted into law/policy. Think it over.
Comment by RW — 10/2/2004 @ 10:21 pm
As I said, I think it is counterproductive to call Republicans the pro-torture party.
But Kleiman is focusing on the Republicans because the Republican leadership of the House is probably going to pass a bill that makes it legal to deport people merely suspected of terrorism to countries that practice torture. The provision is probably in the bill at the request of the Republican Department of Justice. The amendment to change the provision will probably be rejected by Congress with a large majority of Democrats voting against it and a large majority of Republicans voting for it. Since the provision is (apparently) supported by the administration it will probably be in the version of the bill that emerges from conference, and will probably be signed into law by a Republican president.
If you agree with him, and me, on the bill, and it sounds like you do, criticize him on the hyperbole, fine—but don’t let the hyperbole distract you from writing to your Congressman or writing as if you support a bill you don’t support, and don’t accuse him of caring more about fighting the Republicans than the terrorists. (Abu Musab Al Zarqawi isn’t up for election this November.)
Comment by Katherine — 10/2/2004 @ 10:30 pm
Fair enough.
(If only my wife read this site, maybe she wouldn’t think I’m the most stubborn person on the planet)
Comment by RW — 10/2/2004 @ 10:57 pm
Although, looking at the follow-ups, it’s obvious where Mr. Kleiman’s anger is aimed at (it’s the guys running for election). You’ll have to forgive me, I haven’t shaken off the lunacy he put forth when he claimed racism after MS rejected an income tax hike (no, I’m not joking).
Comment by RW — 10/3/2004 @ 5:18 pm
I didn’t mean for for to answer me. (Not that you did, really.)
Answer it for yourself.
King James can keep himself separate from the state, thank you. And learn the proper plural of “cherub”.
Comment by Just John — 10/4/2004 @ 12:13 am
Sorry, trying to place it in when you can’t come up with any more debate points won’t wash.
Comment by RW — 10/4/2004 @ 5:59 am
Geez, it was a hypothetical/metaphorical statement. RW didn’t claim to be cBS incarnate. Reminds me of Zell miller when Chris matthews asked him if he really thought Kerry would defend the country with spitballs.
“It was a metaphor. You know what a metaphor is don’t you?”
snicker
I think those of us with friends and family over there facing the possibility of a beheading or car bomb every day, are a little less concerned with how delicately we deal with them once they are apprehended.
Comment by lj — 10/5/2004 @ 12:28 am