American Politics: the Lost Generation

[sologdin]

FLOW--

yeah, it looks like the US statute, 18 USC 2340, is slightly different:

“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

my reading is that this is a stronger prohibition than the treaty, which is both rare and good. you think that the training discussed supra is within the scope of the statute?

it might have a problem with the specific intent element, the lawful sanctiosn exception, or the custody element.

[TrackerNeil]

That's largely sophistry because waterboarding is never the first thing they did. They tried other things first that didn't work. Now, you could always argue "well, maybe if you would have waited longer they would have talked", but then, maybe they wouldn't have. It's simply rolling the dice with the lives of people who did nothing wrong. And at that point, I'm not inclined to give the civilian-killing scumbag the benefit of the doubt when the lives of innocents are at risk.

Ah, the "ticking time bomb" scenario! If we don't torture suspected terrorists innocents will die while we are mucking around with pansy-liberal methods like relationship-building. I don't buy it, FLoW, and neither does Matthew Alexander, US Air Force officer who conducted or supervised hundreds of interrogations. I direct you to this great interview he did on WHYY, explaining why torture is a tool for the brutal and unimaginative instead of some effective way to gain intelligence.

[TrackerNeil]

1) I do believe that most House members on the fence that voted yes on the House bill have little to gain by now voting no

2) I think that many on the left feel that this is a historical moment, and that political cowardice is not appropriate

3) All Dems face the possibility of seeming inept if no legislation is passed at all

Triskele, although I agree with you here, you should never underestimate the ability of Democrats to lose their nerve. I think many Democrats are perfectly willing to seem inept by letting the initiative die, and have probably come up with some crazy scenario in which backing off reform causes their Republican challengers to say, "Gee...now that Congressman So-and-so has changed his vote, I see no reason to run against him." Smart people know that the Republicans are going to run hard in November no matter what the Dems do, so why not go into the election on the wave of a legislative victory instead of a humiliating defeat? (Note I said "smart people", which unfortunately excludes many within the Democratic Party.)

[lokisnow]

Triskele, although I agree with you here, you should never underestimate the ability of Democrats to lose their nerve. I think many Democrats are perfectly willing to seem inept by letting the initiative die, and have probably come up with some crazy scenario in which backing off reform causes their Republican challengers to say, "Gee...now that Congressman So-and-so has changed his vote, I see no reason to run against him." Smart people know that the Republicans are going to run hard in November no matter what the Dems do, so why not go into the election on the wave of a legislative victory instead of a humiliating defeat? (Note I said "smart people", which unfortunately excludes many all within the Democratic Party.)

fixed that for you, otherwise agree. the level of exasperation I feel towards my party is pretty unprecedented.

[Lord Mord]

FLoW,

That's largely sophistry because waterboarding is never the first thing they did. They tried other things first that didn't work. Now, you could always argue "well, maybe if you would have waited longer they would have talked", but then, maybe they wouldn't have. It's simply rolling the dice with the lives of people who did nothing wrong. And at that point, I'm not inclined to give the civilian-killing scumbag the benefit of the doubt when the lives of innocents are at risk.

Ha! Yeah, that's the problem with me. See, I typically like people to be proved guilty of something before I think they should be, you know, even imprisoned for a significant amount of time, let alone tortured. I know. Crazy, right?

Torture vs. safe civilians is a false dichotomy.

Personally, I can't understand the moral argument in the other direction, but I do recognize that a lot of people have that point of view.

Fair enough. Moralizing is kind of a dead end usually, anyway.

[lokisnow]

Alan Grayson wins at life again

[Andriy Czarchenko]

2) http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/44110-1.html

Basically, the House can't force the Senate to do Reconcilliation and THEN pass the original bill. So the House must pass the Senate bill and then trust that the Senate doesn't pussy out.

Actually they can. All they need is Joe Biden to decide so.

[Annelise]

WRT torture, we simply have to make a decision. If we want to do that, waterboard and so forth, put it on the books. Because this half-way chickshit, trying to have our cake and eat it too legal approach of Bush's has done nothing but screw us.

[TerraPrime]

WRT torture, we simply have to make a decision. If we want to do that, waterboard and so forth, put it on the books. Because this half-way chickshit, trying to have our cake and eat it too legal approach of Bush's has done nothing but screw us.

This.

If we are going to do it (and we are), as a nation, then have the guts to say that we're doing it. The legal kabuki is just distracting.

I'll underscore Lord Caspen's point, too, that the subjects of these "enhanced interrogation techniques" are detainees, not convicted terrorists. They have not been tried, to my knowledge, by either a civilian or a military court. The fact that what, over 2/3 of the detainees of Gitmo had been released should tell us that the threshold for arresting someone as a detainee is not that high.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW--

yeah, it looks like the US statute, 18 USC 2340, is slightly different:

my reading is that this is a stronger prohibition than the treaty, which is both rare and good. you think that the training discussed supra is within the scope of the statute?

it might have a problem with the specific intent element, the lawful sanctiosn exception, or the custody element.

It's not stronger -- it's weaker. Go read the actual convention, and there is a specific U.S. Reservation on that treaty. That being said, mens rea is still an issue, although in SERE training, interrogators really are trying to get the person to crack and provide information. That is their specific intent at the time waterboarding is occuring, even though the overall goal is training.

Also, according to the memos, actual SERE people were supposed to be present for all the "real" waterboarding to ensure it didn't go too far. I'm not saying that in itself makes it "okay", but to point out that there was at least an attempt to keep it within certain boundaries.

[TrackerNeil]

WRT torture, we simply have to make a decision. If we want to do that, waterboard and so forth, put it on the books. Because this half-way chickshit, trying to have our cake and eat it too legal approach of Bush's has done nothing but screw us.

Indeed; the Bush administration tossed respect for the rule of law out the window, and the Obama administration has been shamefully reluctant to pick it up off the lawn and bring it back inside the house. However, I am thankful that at least Dick Cheney has admitted, openly and in public, that respect for the rule of law was never his concern. The guy has stated that even if interrogators went "too far" (whatever that means) he is "OK with that." So at least we now know that he - and by logical extension, the entire Bush team - never cared about the rule of law.

It's strange; not only has the use of torture been defended as necessary, but it's even been proclaimed right and moral. Cheney himself has stated that it would have been "unethical and immoral for us not to do everything we could in order to protect the nation against further attacks like what happened on 9/11." So torturers have gone from thugs and villains to heroes and conscientious citizens. It's insane.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Starkimus - Happy B-Day

FLOW - I'm going to echo what Pax said earlier in that it's a breath of fresh air to have you here. There has been a vaccuum of reasoned conservatism in the political talks in these threads. Sure, there are more left-leaning people which is bound to create a mob-mentality to some degree (of which I'm guilty), but for whatever reason there haven't been too many conservatives willing to really engage and not make it personal. Props and welcome.

Thanks, though I have to say that there are other reasoned conservatives on here too. I'm just the (sort of) new guy. The funny thing is how similar the whole thing is to what happens on some conservative boards. You have some really smart conservatives and some troglodytes. The liberals who post there tend to be more extreme and less reasonable than the liberals who post on other boards, probably because the same mob mentality hits them as well. As a result, each side can get a sort of skewed perspective on what the other side is really like. But a lot of time, I really think the troglodytes on each side really aren't dumb or thoughtless -- they just might not express themselves in as academic terms. Anyway, thanks.

Benjen, if you're reading this, come back.

Forgot that I hadn't seen his name here.

As to healthcare...I cannot believe this political melodrama. I cannot put a % on whether this will pass or not. It does feel clear to me that we're at an all or nothing stage. That is to say, there's no chance of any legislators trying to pass "popular but less expansive" incremental reforms. Either some version that is similar to the Senate bill is going to go through or nothing is.

I sense that at this point, the issue on the Democratic side is more about the political issue rather than a conviction that it is a really good bill.

It feels to me like Pelosi is the most important person at the moment. The House Dems can pass the Senate bill if they so choose. I have a feeling that they'll be able to do it because:

1) I do believe that most House members on the fence that voted yes on the House bill have little to gain by now voting no

2) I think that many on the left feel that this is a historical moment, and that political cowardice is not appropriate

3) All Dems face the possibility of seeming inept if no legislation is passed at all

My money would be on it not passing, but that's just a guess too. And I think part of that is just really bad luck on the part of the Democrats. They happen to get a more progressive President and control of both chambers at exactly the same time an economic crisis has made voters more leery of new federal programs than they've ever been. I tend to agree with those who think the Democrats will lose big if it doesn't pass, but lose much bigger if it does. The Republican message would be really simple: "You didn't want it, but they forced it through anyway. There's no telling what they'll do in the next two years that you don't like if they retain unchecked power." It'll be fear-mongering, but I think it will work.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Ah, the "ticking time bomb" scenario! If we don't torture suspected terrorists innocents will die while we are mucking around with pansy-liberal methods like relationship-building. I don't buy it, FLoW, and neither does Matthew Alexander, US Air Force officer who conducted or supervised hundreds of interrogations. I direct you to this great interview he did on WHYY, explaining why torture is a tool for the brutal and unimaginative instead of some effective way to gain intelligence.

Neil, the problem I have with this argument is that I think your burden of proof is much higher than that. The question isn't whether other techniques may work, or whether they generally work or generally get better results. The question is what do you do if those other techniques aren't working in a particular situation, or aren't working quickly enough in a particular circumstance. You've got to show that waterboarding is never more effective than other measures to really win this non-moral aspect of the argument. One thing that is clear from the memos is that a lot of other techniques were tried before waterboarding or any other EIT. The only reason they went to EIT was because the other things were not working.

They only waterboarded 3 individuals. Out of the thousands who were questioned, they only found it necessary to use it on 3. To me, that strongly suggests that they really tried all those other methods, including those recommended by the guy in your interview. The reality is that in these three cases, they just didn't work, or the intel was considered of such value that they didn't have time to wait out all those other methods. So ultimately, it still reverts to a moral decision, because I think you can't win the practicality argument.

I'll underscore Lord Caspen's point, too, that the subjects of these "enhanced interrogation techniques" are detainees, not convicted terrorists. They have not been tried, to my knowledge, by either a civilian or a military court.

We routinely kill these people without even a hint of due process. Snipers at 1000 meters, Hellfire-armed Predators that are never seen by the victims, artillery firing from 20 clicks away. All of that without an arrest or conviction of any kind. And there are tens of thousands of bad guys to whom we are attempting to do that. So we're perfectly fine with killing them without due process. It's just the questioning part that troubles you?

Due process applied to enemy combatants, particularly unlawful enemy combatants, seems a bit of an oxymoron to me. Consider your average POW. We have routinely held them throught the duration of hostilities without any due process at all. They don't get a trial. We just stick them in POW camps because we don't have to prove they committed a "crime". That is clearly depriving them of "liberty" without due process at all. Yet that clearly has been the norm in warfare for thousands of years.

Now these particular peckerheads don't have the honor of uniformed soldiers who follow the law of war. They don't fight fair, they target civilians indiscriminately and in particular, routinely engage in the use of human shields. Yet somehow, they apparently have acquired a due process right that people who follow the law of war don't get. I struggle with the morality of that as well.

And on a practical level, if you really wanted to give them due process rights, then you couldn't even question them at all once they were captured. You'd have to give them their lawyers, and not question them unless and until the entire judicial process held them convicted of a crime. Functionally, that would make the gathering of any intelligence from them impossible.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

WRT torture, we simply have to make a decision. If we want to do that, waterboard and so forth, put it on the books. Because this half-way chickshit, trying to have our cake and eat it too legal approach of Bush's has done nothing but screw us.

That sounds good in theory, but how does it fit with your point about keeping it covert? If they thought they had a legal justification, then why would you do something that necessarily would make it overt if you thought there was an advantage to making it covert? And again, weaselly semi-denials, its pretty apparent that the Administration didn't do this unilaterally, and informed leadership Dems in Congress. So it wasn't exactly a rogue operation.

Personally, I have to say that I'd prefer it to be overt. This is a bit of a sore subject with me, but can you guess how many of our guys they've taken prisoner and released? Or even how about how many they've taken prisoner and not killed? Or how many of our wounded have gotten treatment rather than just a bullet in the head? So I'd have absolutely no problem with a worldwide announcement that IF people are going to use human shields, and not take prisoners at all, etc., etc. etc., we will essentially take the Cheney approach.

I'm not advocating brutality for the sake of brutality, which is pointless and indefensible. But I am saying that if the other side is not abiding by the law of war as a matter of course, and we can gain a tactical advantage in some situations by doing so, I personally wouldn't let the rules of "civilized" war impede us.

[Shryke]

More random shit about Health Care:

1)

TPM's Brian Beutler reports from Capitol Hill that House Democrats are moving forward on health care with or without prolife Rep. Bart Stupak and the dozen lawmakers he might get to attempt to block the bill.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters this morning that Democrats "have not discussed a third way" and that when he spoke with Stupak (D-MI) about the abortion provisions he wants in the measure, "I made it clear that I wasn't negotiating."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/hoyer-im-not-negotiating-on-abortion-provisions-in-health-care-bill.php

2) Also, Grayson's "Medicare Buy-in" Bill is up to 50 co-sponsors:

http://www.openleft.com/diary/17786/in-one-day-grayson-piles-up-another-40-cosponsors-for-medicare-buyin-bill

It's about 12% of the House, but hey.

[Padraig]

I'm just the (sort of) new guy.

Ok. Just to ease my curiousity. It was revealed in some thread that FLOW is the poster previously called Jeff? (I'm talking seriously old school here though). Whose title was "Lord of Winterfell"?

I don't follow these threads, so no clue.

Anyhow, welcome back Jeff/FLOW!

[Trebla]

Ok. Just to ease my curiousity. It was revealed in some thread that FLOW is the poster previously called Jeff? (I'm talking seriously old school here though). Whose title was "Lord of Winterfell"?

I don't follow these threads, so no clue.

Anyhow, welcome back Jeff/FLOW!

gtfo! no WAY?!?!?!

[Padraig]

gtfo! no WAY?!?!?!

Hmm. I suppose it would be embarrasing if I was wrong. :P I just assumed...

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Hmm. I suppose it would be embarrasing if I was wrong. :P I just assumed...

Oh no, he was far more intelligent than me, infinitely perceptive, and of course much better looking. In fact, he should be the first name on everyone's list in the deity thread..

[Annelise]

That sounds good in theory, but how does it fit with your point about keeping it covert?

It fits in that "wanting our cake and eating it too" category. I think Americans would vote it down personally, because I think they don't want to make the call to torture people, they want the government to do it for them, without their consent, in the dark.

However, if the public were to feel strongly enough about its utility, we should make it legal. That would be fairest to our military and our intelligence agencies. I still doubt it would be admissable as evidence in court, though.

Frankly, I find limiting these techniques to foreigners to be an arbitrary line if the justification is to do what it takes to save innocent lives. We've got more than plenty home grown killers to concern ourselves with too.