McCain's clay feet?
Wednesday February 13, 2008
Categories: Culture
Somebody please explain this to me. The Senate this afternoon voted to ban torture. The votes fell largely along party lines. Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson sided with the Republicans in voting "no" on the measure. So did John McCain....
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Probably because he saw the bill for what it was, or as the NYT piece you linked to said:
Senate Democrats, sensing an opportunity to highlight a policy dispute between the White House and Senator John McCain, ...
Partisanship is as partisanship does. Refusing to play along with exercises in public posturing says nothing about the underlying issue or its merits.
... particularly when said exercise is specifically aimed at oneself.
What-specifically-was the bill banning? I need a bit more definition than just "torture." That can mean quite a bit, and there are always moral grey areas.
According to the CRS summary here:
(Sec. 327) Prohibits any individual under the custody or control of an IC element, regardless of nationality or physical location, from being subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the U.S. Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations.
I wonder what he was thinking.
He was thinking that he could always explain that he was against torture before he was for it.
Yep, Erin, and the GOP faithful will treat him the same way they treated Kerry when he uttered that phrase, right?
But Erin, this vote has nothing to do with torture and everything to do with public posturing therein.
McCain stated yesterday that he didn't want to tie the hands of the CIA. This bill only applied to the CIA (the army already bans waterboarding) and required the CIA to be bound by the Army Field Manual. But it would be the CIA's responsibility to protect America from another 911 or worse on foreign soil, where the people are not use to interrogators being really nice to them. If you don't have a written manual the enemy could study and train their people on. Better to keep them in the dark as to what may or may not happen if they fall into our hands.
If you don't have a written manual the enemy could study and train their people on. Better to keep them in the dark as to what may or may not happen if they fall into our hands.
Exactly.
Spelling out in legally-binding terms "we will only do X, Y and Z" and/or "we will not do A, B and C" is a bad idea for a secret agency, absolutely and totally regardless of what X, Y, Z or A, B, C substantively refer to -- whether "time out," waterboarding, the iron maiden or blasting Iron Maiden. Secret agencies cannot operate under the mores of a liberal open society that thinks everything is a matter for law -- it's really that simple.
Victor, isn't saying "Secret agencies cannot operate under the mores of a liberal open society that thinks everything is a matter for law -- it's really that simple." the same as saying that secret agencies are above the law?
Not exactly. It means that not everything they do (1) should be spelled out in law and made a strictly legal question, as domestic police conduct is, or (2) should be subjected to open discussion.
There's a sticky set of issues surrounding what "law" is, which makes me doubt that terms like "legal" and "illegal" are even properly applicable (in other words, what the state does abroad, because it occurs in a sovereignless state of nature, can neither be called "legal" nor "illegal," any more they can be called "sour" or "bitter" -- the entire category is misapplied). But that's has the potential to become the world's biggest rabbit hole.
Or to put it another way, we have lost the sense of "the political question," instead thinking that everything that the state does can be done can be made a legal (or just as bad, moral) matter, for lawyers (moralists) to decide, rather than something for politicians to do (or not do or fight over, without saying "the courts will decide this"), and then to be ratified (or not) by the voters.
Victor Morton has "doubt that terms like "legal" and "illegal" are even properly applicable . . . ."
Exactly what lawbreakers around the world want to hear.
The entire point of the American Revolution, as codified in the Constitution, is that no government at any level is above the law.
Of course, President Bush would be well within his character if he simply signed this law, but gave a signing statement that he "intends to exercise his authority to defend our national interests under Article II," thereby setting aside any role for Congress in constraining his conduct.
Andrew Sullivan said this morning that he was heartbroken by this. He shouldn't be. Senator McCain is the same honorable and decent man he was 48 hours ago. All Senator McCain is saying is that the CIA shouldn't be bound by the four corners of the Army Field Manual. That it should have a bit, a BIT more leeway than the uniformed services in its interrogation techniques.
Victor writes that "we have lost the sense of 'the political question,'" and we have in the grossly overbroad reach of the modern judiciary, but that is scarcely an argument against holding a politician accountable for his vote in the political body to which he was elected. A vote in Congress is the manner in which a political question is answered.
Hard cases make bad law. Torture is a great evil. But...I can't find an easy solution to the question posed by a simple thought experiment. Suppose you're the man on the spot, who is certain beyond a reasonable doubt that some aggrieved terrorist outfit is getting set to detonate a small nuke in a Dallas neighborhood. It's not a power center for government or business, it's just a place where folks live their lives, and therefore a perfect target if the intention is to terrorize. You, as the man on the spot, have captured two or three lowlifes affiliated with said terrorist outfit. It is possible that, if one of them can be coerced to talk, the bomb may be found, the rest of the terrorist outfit killed or captured, and Rod Dreher doesn't see his children blown into radioactive debris. What should the man on the spot do, Rod? Your answer matters, because a scenario similar to this is bound to play out some day, if, as you seem to think, there really are bad people out there who are determined to kill us. A couple of posts above this one, you're wondering if Obama is tough enough to deal with a dangerous world, and here you're wringing your hands about the CIA being too tough. I don't see how you can have it both ways. It's a hard case, which is why it should not be made into bad law. McCain is right on this one. Does this leave us open to the possibility of hideous abuses? Yep. I'm a big fan of the Jason Bourne movies, and as such do not doubt that there are well-groomed people in quiet offices contemplating crimes. But what, Rod, would you have the man on the spot do? There is a reason why Constantine delayed his baptism until he knew he was dying. Caesar sometimes has to do bad things. Let enough time go by, and those bad things become the sad necessities of war, and Constantine is not only a great Caesar, but is canonized a saint. I'm not saying it's good; I'm saying it's what is. May God have mercy on us all.
Secret agencies cannot operate under the mores of a liberal open society that thinks everything is a matter for law -- it's really that simple.
If that is true, then liberal open societies that operate under the law cannot have secret agencies.
It's really that simple.
...from being subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the U.S. Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations.
These are weasal words. If you want to ban waterboarding, make it explicit: "Prohibits ... from being subject to waterboarding..."
Perhaps the Dems don't want to be explicit? Perhaps they want to use some loophole themselves? Maybe they want to reserve the right to waterboard Don Rumsfeld? Just asking. Afterall, they know that the Rumsfelds of the world are far more dangerous than the Khalid Sheik Mohammads.
Is anyone else here made even a little bit nervous by giving even a vague go-ahead to a government agency to use any type of torture technique? I mean, we assume it will be used only against 'terrorists', but what happens in 5, 10 or 20 years time when they decide that the 'terrorists' are here? My concern is that this lays the groundwork for a rule of terror upon us by our own government.
You don't give any government the power to do something that could be turned against it's own citizens, and that's what I see happening both with this and other events of the past 7 years.
Yes, Charity, some of us are nervous. Please see many of the posts to "Simply one night he heard screams."
DavidTC, at 11:56AM, wins the prize for quickest and simplest smackdown of weaselly torture advocates.
This is from a Washington Post story this morning on this vote. It sounds like there's more to it than meets the eye. I'd be disappointed if McCain changed his stance on waterboarding, but it appears he still opposes it. This vote sounds pretty convoluted to me.
"Congress banned any military use of waterboarding and other harsh tactics through the Detainee Treatment Act of 2006, which was co-sponsored by Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), now the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination. But McCain sided with the Bush administration yesterday on the waterboarding ban passed by the Senate, saying in a statement that the measure goes too far by applying military standards to intelligence agencies. He also said current laws already forbid waterboarding, and he urged the administration to declare it illegal. 'Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation' of laws and treaties, McCain said."
Except that David's 1156's point did not mention, and had nothing to do with, torture.
Indeed one of my points* -- that foreign operations take place outside the space for law that the sovereign creates -- is just as true of foreign policy generally. So, on his terms, liberal societies cannot have foreign policies either (which, if it sounds retarded and stupid to say ... that was exactly my point; nobody really believes that everything is under law).
I'm sure what he said was persuasive as a devotional exercise to liberal fundamentalists and as an excuse to chant "amen" and feel tha Spirit.
-----------
* The other being the squeamishness that liberal culture creates and liberal polities demand obeisance to.
Can I ask the followers of Jesus Christ here (which I realize isn't everybody) how or why they can see Jesus "waterboarding" anyone?
And if you can't, I'd be interested in hearing your justification for this behavior notwithstanding that fact.
I can't imagine Jesus shoot anyone. That doesn't morally-bind me to pacifism.
Oh ... and it's not just "morally-bind me." The Church has NEVER at any point taught pacifism as morally binding per se.
I can't imagine Jesus shoot (sic) anyone. That doesn't morally-bind me to pacifism.
Why not?
"Where I am, there will my servant be."
Well, Susan, if one believes in the Trinity, then one must conclude that Jesus was quite emphatic with Sodom and Gomorrah. Egypt had a hard time, too.
Well then, no holds barred, huh Scott. Exterminate the enemy, men, women and children; dash the Babylonian babies' heads against the rock. Jesus would approve doubtless.
Hey, a little waterboarding? All good. No distinction between the old covenant and the new: an eye for an eye. At least.
Victor Morton
Indeed one of my points* -- that foreign operations take place outside the space for law that the sovereign creates -- is just as true of foreign policy generally. So, on his terms, liberal societies cannot have foreign policies either (which, if it sounds retarded and stupid to say ... that was exactly my point; nobody really believes that everything is under law).
Firstly, are you arguing that foreign policy is outside the law? That is certainly a strange way to look at what are, in fact, laws, specifically, treaties and regulations about international contact. In your universe how do we get foreign policies? Do random operatives of the US just wander around making them up? What exactly is a 'foreign policy' to you?
And, secondly, the idea that 'foreign operations take place outside the space for laws' is incredibly stupid.
Operations outside the US are covered by the laws of the originating countries, which is what you're trying to say. This is fine and good. We all break each others laws, and people go to jail if caught.
I don't know why you assume that they're not covered by our laws too, though. CIA agents are, indeed, under specific regulations about what they can and cannot do. They're not covered by the same laws as normal people in the US, but they are covered by some laws. (Often which much much harsher penalties. People have been told to kill someone, in cold blood, on their own side before.)
However, we are actually talking about torture, which is not happening outside our laws, no matter how much the government wishes to pretend a US military base in Cuba is not subject to our laws.
Oh ... and it's not just "morally-bind me." The Church has NEVER at any point taught pacifism as morally binding per se.
It has, however, taught that attempting to coerce people with physical pain into doing or saying things is objectively disordered and thus can never be a moral act.
Scott Walker
Hard cases make bad law. Torture is a great evil. But...I can't find an easy solution to the question posed by a simple thought experiment.
I have a better thought experiment for you:
What if the guys you need to coerce were behind bulletproof unbreakable glass, but their wives were right there next to you? Their five-year-old child? Would you slap them around a bit? Threaten their life?
Let's pretend you were married, and one of those guys were in fact your brother-in-law? Could you threaten your wife/his sister? What about your child/his nephew?
Hard cases may make bad law, but hypothetical situations make stupid law and evil morals. Any idiot can say 'What if you have to do X or Y', where X is some incredibly evil thing and Y is something slightly less evil, and conclude they should do Y.
I haven't seen any of the 'Saw' movies, but I believe that is the premise of them. Life is not actually a horror movie.
And, hell, maybe if they find themselves in those circumstances they should do those things. But that doesn't mean we should make it legal, and it doesn't mean we should make it policy, just in case the absolutely improbable circumstances just happen to arise. It should still be illegal for you to kill someone even if, maybe, someday, a crazy serial killer will kill a random person every minute until you do. (We do still have courts, you know, and you get a trial in front of other people and can explain your illegal actions.)
And before you argue about the 'improbable circumstances' line there, there are no terrorists. Period. It would be trivial to sow panic with a dozen guys doing a DC Sniper in random major cities, a lot easier than getting a nuke. Or, heck, car bombs. They're not doing that. Why?
Because all these 'terrorists' that people are scared of don't exist. There is a very tiny faction of people who might kill people, about the same as the amount of school shooters. It's not a damn big deal. There are no nukes, there are no dirty bombs, there are no car bombs, there isn't anything.
Ask the UK, who actually did deal with a level of terrorist activity for years, what being under terrorist attack is like. This isn't it.
There was one crime, a single lucky hit, that people need to be punished for. Plus some mentally-certifiable copycats and a few groups of idiots the government has to encourage. That's all. Stop running around like damn chickens with your head cut off trying to destroy the rule of law using crazy hypothetical situations.
Well then, no holds barred, huh Scott.
Fallacy of the excluded middle.
I think not, Victor. It seems to me that arguing that if you refuse to torture, you're just a softie who is letting the terrorists win would be the fallacy of the excluded middle. Scott has stated that Christians must accept any action approved by the Old Testament God as being something Jesus would have done. The OT God--the Irate Jehovah--has approved the eradication of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the slaying of the first-born of Egypt. It would seem to follow quite logically that Scott thinks Jesus would approve of eradicating whole cities and slaying the children of the enemy. The Irate Jehovah also praised those who would dash the heads of children against rocks. So Susan is not making any huge leaps of extrapolation in pointing out to Scott that his position seems to approve of Christians doing those things, too. Scott: Irate Jehovah=Jesus. Susan: Christians are to follow the example of Jesus, therefore Christians=Jesus=Irate Jehovah, so Christians can commit child murder and genocide in the course of warfare against the enemy. Where's the excluded middle?
It seems to me that arguing that if you refuse to torture, you're just a softie who is letting the terrorists win would be the fallacy of the excluded middle.
Since I never said such a thing, there is no point in reading further.
Well, one excuse is as good as another, Victor. Your name was not attached to my example. However, you can be grateful for the misunderstanding, since it spares you from admitting that you were wrong. : )
Y'all should read McCain's statement before arriving at your final judgment on this.
Christians are to follow the example of Jesus, therefore Christians=Jesus=Irate Jehovah, so Christians can commit child murder and genocide in the course of warfare against the enemy
Go for it. I guess. (Don't read the New Testament too closely if you're on this path.)
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.