Paul Krugman: King of Pain

Paul Krugman wonders why the president is so determined to have torture declared legal:

King of Pain, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: A lot has been written and said about President Bush’s demand that Congress “clarify” the part of the Geneva Conventions that, in effect, outlaws the use of torture under any circumstances.

We know that the world would see this action as a U.S. repudiation of the rules that bind civilized nations. We also know that an extraordinary lineup of former military and intelligence leaders, including Colin Powell, have spoken out against the Bush plan, warning that it would further damage America’s faltering moral standing, and end up endangering U.S. troops.

But I haven’t seen much discussion of the underlying question: why is Mr. Bush so determined to engage in torture? ... And bear in mind that the “few bad apples” excuse doesn’t apply; these were officially approved tactics — and Mr. Bush wants at least some of these tactics to remain in use. ... [Also,] Remember that the Bush administration has imprisoned a number of innocent men at Guantánamo, and in some cases continues to imprison them even though it knows they are innocent.

Is torture a necessary evil in a post-9/11 world? No. People with actual knowledge of intelligence work tell us that ... [w]hat torture produces in practice is misinformation, as its victims, desperate to end the pain, tell interrogators whatever they want to hear. Thus Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi — who ABC News says was subjected to both the cold cell and water boarding — told his questioners that Saddam Hussein’s regime had trained members of Al Qaeda in the use of biochemical weapons. This “confession” became a key part of the Bush administration’s case for invading Iraq — but it was pure invention.

So why is the Bush administration so determined to torture people?

To show that it can.

The central drive of the Bush administration — more fundamental than any particular policy — has been the effort to eliminate all limits on the president’s power. Torture, I believe, appeals to the president and the vice president precisely because it’s a violation of both law and tradition. By making an illegal and immoral practice a key element of U.S. policy, they’re asserting their right to do whatever they claim is necessary. ...

The Republican majority in the House ... is poised to vote in favor of the administration’s plan to, in effect, declare torture legal. Most Republican senators are equally willing to go along, although a few, to their credit, have stood with the Democrats in opposing the administration.

Mr. Bush would have us believe that the difference between him and those opposing him on this issue is that he’s willing to do what’s necessary to protect America, and they aren’t. But the record says otherwise.

The fact is that for all his talk of being a “war president,” Mr. Bush has been conspicuously unwilling to ask Americans to make sacrifices on behalf of the cause — even when, in the days after 9/11, the nation longed to be called to a higher purpose. His admirers looked at him and thought they saw Winston Churchill. But instead of offering us blood, toil, tears and sweat, he told us to go shopping and promised tax cuts.

Only now, five years after 9/11, has Mr. Bush finally found some things he wants us to sacrifice. And those things turn out to be our principles and our self-respect.

_________________________
Previous (9/15) column: Paul Krugman: Progress or Regress
Next (5/22) column: Paul Krugman: Insurance Horror Stories

Comments

[Bruce Webb]

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

(CNN.com, December 18, 2000)

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it."

(Business Week, July 30, 2001)

Bushisms prior to 9/11. Note that Bush wasn't even President yet in Dec 2000.

Off the cuff humor? Or business plan?

[Jim Harrison]

Most of us were trained to argue against positions that were at least respectable. Normal appeals to reason, or commonsense, decency don't work very well when they are deployed against truly crazy ideas like legalizing torture.

You don't debate this kind of guy. You put him in prison and lose the key.

[nedlink]

Well as in so many matters, Bush is simply taking his cue from some of the Neocons, like Dershowitz:

e.g., http://www.spectacle.org/0202/seth.html

[calmo]

Krugman's "To show that it can." is the most illuminating thing I've seen on why this administration is so determined to torture people.

No mention of their souls on this delicate point, only that if the practice is curtailed, it means The Way Forward is obstructed.

Just savor the depth of religious sentiments coming from this president...and you know just how genuine all that God talk is.

Krugman refers to principles and self-respect being sacrificed but this seems a tad understated --maybe even hazardous to our health. [Powell was more explicit, no?]
I know, in my heart, that slugs have more religious sentiments than this.

[Blissex]

«We also know that an extraordinary lineup of former military and intelligence leaders, including Colin Powell, have spoken out against the Bush plan,»

To be fair, which Krugman in this article does not seem to be to me, that was an extraordinary lineup of Republicans. Strangely enough, Democrats have been remarkably shy in their opposition to torture.

«So why is the Bush administration so determined to torture people?
To show that it can.»

I simply cannot believe that Krugman does not know better, and I regard this as a hugely disingenuous prevarication.

Krugman cannot have failed to notice that this rather controversial debate is being done before (rather than after) some very important elections, and that the Democrats are keeping silent.

I would say that both the Republicans that support torture and he Democrats that are not speaking out against it are making a very simple electoral calculation: that torture buys votes, and that not speaking out against torture avoids losing votes.

Consider what a UK newspaper comments:

http://news.Independent.co.UK/world/americas/article1603860.ece
«Unless the row is resolved, Republicans may have a hard job of persuading Americans that they are the party best able to deal with terrorism - the issue on which its hopes of avoiding defeat in November largely depend. As their opponents publicly quarrel, Democrats have remained quiet, watching the spectacle with undisguised glee.»

For both Republicans and Democrats this is not about torture; it is about votes.

Both know fully well what Krugman does not want to acknowledge, and which is the central aspect of the debate, that USA voters by and large endorse and demand torture, ''just in case'', because ''better safe than sorry''.

«The central drive of the Bush administration — more fundamental than any particular policy — has been the effort to eliminate all limits on the president’s power.»

This is something that most administrations have sought, but I strongly suspect that the central drive of the Bush administration is to get the votes to stay in undisputed power and pass more ''big government for big business'' legislation for their sponsors.

«The fact is that for all his talk of being a “war president,” Mr. Bush has been conspicuously unwilling to ask Americans to make sacrifices on behalf of the cause [ ... ] But instead of offering us blood, toil, tears and sweat, he told us to go shopping and promised tax cuts.»

Well, the draft and war taxes would have cost him re-election. Because they don't buy votes, because USA middle class voters support brutal and flawed occupations, but only of course if their children are not sent to die there and they don't pay for the costs (upfront) either.

Have the Democrats proposed to reintroduce the draft or to raise taxes to pay for those wars? Surely not -- it would be electoral suicide for them too.

President Bush was re-elected with a convincing margin and endorsment well after the abuses in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo etc. had come to light, and now he has a popular mandate for torture, a mandate that he just wants renewed by law only after those piffling legalists at the Supreme Court slapped his wrist.

«Only now, five years after 9/11, has Mr. Bush finally found some things he wants us to sacrifice. And those things turn out to be our principles and our self-respect.»

By re-electing Bush and manifestly endorsing his previous and well known policies the USA voters have lost respect and their principles (if any) in the eyes of the world quite a while ago.

The Democrats, who read the polls just as well as the Republicans, have been trying to go along with the flow:

http://news.FT.com/cms/s/2817d81c-b067-11da-a142-0000779e2340.html
«But is clear leaders of both parties lack the confidence to challenge the mood of xenophobia that exists outside Washington. Instead they are fuelling it. In some respects the Democrats are now as guilty of stoking fears on national security as the Republicans. Their logic is impeccable. A majority of Americans believe there will be another large terrorist attack on American soil.
Such is the depth of anxiety that one-fifth or more of Americans believe they will personally be victims of a future terrorist attack. This number has not budged in the last four and a half years."»
«Mr Bush has consistently received a much higher public trust rating on the war on terror than the Democrats.
Without this -- and without the constant manipulation of yellow and orange terror alert warnings at key moments in the political narrative -- Mr Bush would almost certainly have lost the presidential race to John Kerry in 2004.»
«In other words, the Democrats have found an effective way of neutralising their most persistent electoral liability: they are out-Bushing Mr Bush.
It is easy to see why key Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, have adopted this strategy. It is easy also to see why their Republican counterparts are following suit. As Peter King, the Republican representative for New York, said last week: "We are not going to allow the Democrats get to the right of us on this issue." This left Mr Bush holding the candle for the left, as it were.»

That Krugman is now speaking as if it is all Bush trying to impose vile policies all on his own just to grab more power seems to me just hypocritical electioneering, by pretending that USA voters are nice people being betrayed, instead of pandered to, by the President and Congress they have elected.

And ineffective electioneering too: if the Democrats want to do electorally effective dissembling they should be criticizing the Republicans for being soft on torture and abuses, and promising voters that if elected all brownskins will be subjected to the necessary and appropriate (wink wink) ''alternative methods'', ''just in case'' any of them knows something, because ''better safe than sorry''. :-(

[minyu]

I barely pay attention to the American politics and I don't know what's going on, so I should have shut up. But it sounds too bad to be true. Does Mr. Krugman misrepresent anything just to attack Mr.Bush? Well, even in China, the politicians won't endorse torture in public--though I heard torture is actually practised sometimes. I don't believe any politician needing to keep their image will do anything like this.

[baileyman]

Why? Another possibility is that they do it because they like to. I dunno. Just reading the historical record, Our Dear Leader was the Execution Governor in his previous job. For what reason should we expect such behavior to not continue?

[Blissex]

«I don't believe any politician needing to keep their image will do anything like this.»

Except in the USA (and perhaps the UK), where a politician's image is improved by support for ''alternative methods'' (and ''special courts'').

This is why the Washington Post has written an article with a sad title like:

http://WWW.WashingtonPost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401587.html
«A Defining Moment for America: The President goes to Capitol Hill to lobby for torture.»

I think that he know very well how popular torture of brownskins is with voters, and how it improves the image of politicians.

To the point that John McCain, who is trying to merely limit it, is considered to be damaging his chances to be elected president in 2008.

Democrats: if you want to be elected, promise that you will pass a law not merely authorizing torture and ''special courts'', but making them mandatory, and promise that Congress will monitor the administration to make sure that not one opportunity will be missed to make USA voters safer without regard to the cost to someone else. :-(

[Blissex]

«Another possibility is that they do it because they like to. I dunno. Just reading the historical record, Our Dear Leader was the Execution Governor in his previous job.»

Whether or not Bush likes to, he was the Execution Governor because that got him elected and reelected.

Let's not forget that to get elected Clinton rushed back to Little Rock to boast of his execution record too, with great fanfare:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/070200-104.htm
«No politician is hurt by frying, hanging or injecting a presumed criminal. Despite growing opposition, capital punishment is still as popular as mom's apple pie.
Think of Bill Clinton a few days before the 1992 New Hampshire primary. He rushed back to Arkansas to preside over the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a black man so mentally impaired he asked that the pie served at his last meal be saved for "later on."
Clinton's execution of Rector helped his '92 surge as the Comeback Kid. It signaled that Democrats would no longer be "soft on crime."»

Politicians do torture and executions because the USA is a democracy where if politicians don't do what the voters want they don't get reelected.

If the mail bags of representatives and senators were full of letters against torture and executions Bush would not dare to even talk about that, never mind boasting that he has done them for years.

The people who are letting their principles override the will of the voters who elected them are those like McCain.

[Scott Ferguson]

It is almost definitely true of Cheney but Bush's real interest is not so much the expansion of Executive Power as much as it is to make himself appear as a Transformative President. In his case, he does not condone torture because he thinks he can. He does it to appear tough, to appear to be taking action. He is the one who sees beyond the norms and embrasses the New Reality. Think of the "reality-based community" comments that trickled out of the White House. All previous inhibitions must be thrown aside in order to confront the Great Struggle of the 21st Century. I think he truly believes this. Just like he truly believes that anyone who cannot see the necessity of his actions is simply too dense to understand and, thus, dangerous. His is a truly Messianic view of the Presidency. Some clever psychologist might point to a Boomer's envy of his father's GI generations accomplishments - Bush seems to be trying almost too hard to conjure a world in which he can imagine himself as Churchill.

says...

Krugman asks: "So why is the Bush administration so determined to torture people?"

And answers his own question:

"To show that it can."

However, there is another and better explanation, imo, and that is the bushies desperately want to make legal what they have been doing that is now clearly illegal so that they don't face criminal charges in the World Court when they are no longer in power.

Its simple but desperate CYA.

Framed as an election issue to bash 'soft on terrorists' dems.

[calmo]

Blissex writes I simply cannot believe that Krugman does not know better, and I regard this as a hugely disingenuous prevarication. By the time I read President Bush was re-elected with a convincing margin and endorsment... I'm wondering whether the sarcasm button was ever on or whether Blissex was using the prevarication button all along.
I be provoked B.
Shall we trash the not-so-nice US voter (and maybe the hapless but nonetheless electioneering Democrats), along with Bliss or look at that simple observation that the administration's determination to torture people (even other colors than browns) has the exact merit Krugman ascribes to it: to demonstrate its power. The intelligence gathered from this practice is not the point of the exercise.
The point is to achieve higher compliance among the general population, the (not-so-stupid) US voters, the UK pundits, the difficult bloggers (are you with me B or those nice voters?)...
Can't get no respect? Well bring on the thugs and atleast get compliance.

[kharris]

Blissex,

While we should always keep in mind the strong possibility that our elected representatives are scum, there are instances in which that is not necessarily the explanation for their behavior. This may be one of them.

Democrats tried in several instances to stand on what looked like principle over the past few years. Some of them did, anyhow. Cheney would show up on a "news-maker" interview, call them traitors, lied and toss around phrases which would magically end up in editorials all over the place. Democrats would lose the debate because Cheney had a bigger megaphone and a tame press corp. In other cases, Republicans have been their own worst enemies - think about the Social Security privatization effort or Dubai ports.

Democrats can resist Bush if Republicans won"t, but getting involved from the beginning gives Rove something to aim at. As long as Republicans are willing to stand between the President and his beloved cattle prod, the cause of civilization is served by letting them. If Bush gets past the few scupulous members of his own party, then Democrats can come off the bench.

As far as McCain's standing in the polls, well there may be more to political success than short-term poll results. People actually do remember things that are consistent with their expectations. They will remember McCain standing up against a president that most voters no longer support. McCain's image (and that's what counts, I'm afraid) may well be helped through this stand.

[Blissex]

«so that they don't face criminal charges in the World Court when they are no longer in power.»

The World Court is out of the picture; for some very clear reasons the USA have opposed it and they are not part of is treaty. Anyhow that any USA official or ex-official may be arrested and tried by any international body for whatever reason is utterly ludicrous. It would be an act of war.

Rather it is USA courts that may be a problem, and not for Bush, but for the minions who obeyed his orders.

Before the Supreme Court ruling the minions could claim that they did believe that they were obeying legitimate orders. They can no longer do so, and the ruling of course has retroactive effects, so they could be sued in the USA by their victims. Thus part of the plan is to pass a law with retroactive immunity from lawsuits.

But the main effect of the legislation is to make most types of torture legal in the USA, and its main aim seems to be winning votes.

The immunity from lawsuits is there just in case, if the elections are won, to make sure that there is a popular mandate for the notion that if the executive agents ''accidentally'' exceed even the wide limits set on what is legal, they can only be prosecuted or sued in the original country of the victim or the country where they were taken, e.g. Afghanistan or Iraq...

So I agree that there is an immunity issue, but not that it is the primary goal.

I see the immunity as the secondary issue and the elections as the primary issue, because if the Republicans lose the elections, no immunity law for Republicans is going to last, and impeachment proceedings may well start at least against some officials (not Bush, as he has had a clear voter mandate for his policies).

The key is the election; if Republicans win, they can claim that the popular mandate for torture has been renewed, as well as the one for immunity, and then they can pass any further legislation they wish. If they lose the elections, that is when troubles start.

[Emmanuel]

Flouting human rights is a necessity as the administration gears up for Operation Iranian Liberation. Consequently, it will have to Abu Ghraib--I mean, interview Iranians in short order. To the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbra Ann":

Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb-Iran...

[Blissex]

«While we should always keep in mind the strong possibility that our elected representatives are scum,»

Ah but in essence my argument is not that the elected representatives are scum, but that their electors are scum.

And in a democracy what the voters are like must necessarily reflect in what politicians say, especially a few weeks away from elections.

Put another way: the USA is not a platonic republic.

«there are instances in which that is not necessarily the explanation for their behavior.»

Ah sure, the Democrats in this case, just like Clinton ten years ago, are not really scum, but are just learning to pander to the majority of voters who are. I think that this is largely the same with the Republicans; probably most Republican representatives and senators know fully well how vile the legislation is, but don't oppose it because they, democratically, represent the will of their voters.

«As long as Republicans are willing to stand between the President and his beloved cattle prod,»

But again, it is not the President, it is the majority of voters and their beloved waterboards.

«the cause of civilization is served by letting them. If Bush gets past the few scupulous members of his own party, then Democrats can come off the bench.»

Sure, and you don't mention, so I feel obliged to do it, that there is also a big difference between the Republicans who are keeping silent and the Democrats who are also keeping silent: the Republicans will vote for torture and the Democrats against torture.

Also, for the Democrats to keep silent may even be something those few Republicans who are speaking out are grateful for, because it does not taint them by association.

The reason why I am pointing out that even the Democrats are keeping silent is not to point that that torture is popular with them, because they are against, but that they are keeping silent because they know fully well that most voters are in favor.

The debate among republicans and the silence of the Democrats are not abstract discussions as of between politicians; they matter only because of the popularity of torture with voters and the impending elections.

Those that are against torture in American should not attack Bush or most Republicans or the silence of the Democrats; they should try to change the minds of their neighbors.

Without that the whole debate is just a theater of shadows, and focusing on Bush or McCain or even on the silence of the Democratic lambs is just misleading.

[Movie Guy]

Blissex - But the main effect of the legislation is to make most types of torture legal in the USA, and its main aim seems to be winning votes.

What is your government document reference or proposed legislation draft to support that claim?

[baileyman]

Regarding what our neighbors actually think about the torture issue, here's an expert. From PIPA at http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Terrorism/Torture_Jul04/Torture_Jul04_rpt.pdf

"4. Use of Torture and Abuse in Interrogations Related to Terrorism
On balance Americans lean toward the view that even when conducting interrogations as part of the war on terrorism, the US should not make exceptions to the laws governing the treatment of detainees. If the US is highly confident that a detainee is withholding information that could prove critical to stopping a terrorist attack on the US, majorities still reject using most forms of torture and abuse. However, a majority would accept using sleep deprivation, hooding, loud noises, and, for a bare majority, stress positions. Identifying the detainee as a member of a terrorist group does not increase the readiness to use coercive methods."

[nedlink]

MG, you have so many documents on file, surely you can find what you ask about amongst them. Just look a bit harder.

[nedlink]

As in so much else the US is simply following the lead of Israel.

Amnesty Int. on Israeli torture:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/
ENGMDE150311998?open&of=ENG-ISR

[Movie Guy]

nedlink,

I didn't make the claim. Blissex did.

He can cough it up.

[Movie Guy]

Or choke on it.

[jack]

"..but that their electors are scum."

"it is the majority of voters and their beloved waterboards."

" are not really scum, but are just learning to pander to the majority of voters who are."

Ever heard of a democracy? Isnt it lovely, then, how we can glibly dismiss the "majority of voters" as "scum"? Oh God, just imagine having someone like Blissex in power?

[Blissex]

"But the main effect of the legislation is to make most types of torture legal in the USA, and its main aim seems to be winning votes."
«What is your government document reference or proposed legislation draft to support that claim?»

Well, to make a long discussion short as to interpretations of those legislative instruments I shall refer to a neutral third party, the conservative-leaning Washington Post:

http://WWW.WashingtonPost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401587.html
«A Defining Moment for America
The president goes to Capitol Hill to lobby for torture.
Friday, September 15, 2006; Page A18
[ ... ] to seek legislative permission for the CIA to make people disappear into secret prisons and have information extracted from them by means he dare not describe publicly.
Of course, Mr. Bush didn't come out and say he's lobbying for torture. Instead he refers to "an alternative set of procedures" for interrogation. [ ... ]
A president who lobbies for torture feeds those doubts even if, as we hope, Congress denies him his request.»

Note that I wrote that «effect» is to make most types of torture legal, not that the legislation explicitly says so. This is an arguable point, but at least the Washington Post seems to agree. And a few Republicans too... Do you read the newspapers about the current debate? They contain a lot of quotes by people who agree that the effect of the House legislation is the one I described.

[pborder]

I think the point of torture is not to gain information- it's pretty obvious that there are better ways to do that. The point of torture is simply to scare the hell out of people, whether they've done anything or not. Torture won't stop anyone from doing anything (terrorists are willing to blow themselves up), but it does serve notice that you are a very scary guy and all the sane people in the world will be afraid of you.

And, if being scary is what they're after, the Bushies have certainly accomplished their goals. They sure scare me!

[Blissex]

"..but that their electors are scum."
"it is the majority of voters and their beloved waterboards."
"are not really scum, but are just learning to pander to the majority of voters who are."
Ever heard of a democracy? Isnt it lovely, then, how we can glibly dismiss the "majority of voters" as "scum"?»

This comment seems to be a thoroughly dishonest misrepresentation of the quotes provided, because they are very selective and malicious.

Because the point was precisely that in a democracy the will of the majority of voters is paramount, even if such a will is for vile policies, and that the big issue is not that politicians are pushing their policies over the will of the voters, but that, democratically, they are pandering to it. Because that's how democracy works:

«President Bush was re-elected with a convincing margin and endorsment well after the abuses in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo etc. had come to light, and now he has a popular mandate for torture, a mandate that he just wants renewed by law only after those piffling legalists at the Supreme Court slapped his wrist.»
«Politicians do torture and executions because the USA is a democracy where if politicians don't do what the voters want they don't get reelected. [ ... ] The people who are letting their principles override the will of the voters who elected them are those like McCain.»
«most Republican representatives and senators know fully well how vile the legislation is, but don't oppose it because they, democratically, represent the will of their voters.»

As to how nasty USA democracy can be, some ancient extracts from Tocqueville:

«When a man or a party suffers from an injustice in the United States, to whom can he turn? To public opinion? That is what forms the majority. To the legislative body? That represents the majority and obeys it blindly. To the executive power? That is appointed by the majority and servers as is passive instrument. To the public police force? They are nothing but the majority under arms. To the jury? That is the majority invested with the right to pronounce judgements; the very judges in certain states are elected by the majority. So, however unfair or unreasonable the measure which damages you, you have to submit.
A striking example of the excesses which the despotism of the majority may occasion was seen in Baltimore during the war of 1812. At that time the war was very popular in Baltimore.
A newspaper opposed to it aroused the indignation of the inhabitants by taking that line. The people came together, destroyed the printing presses and attacked the journalists' premises. The call went out to summon the militia which, however, did not respond to the call. In order to save those wretched fellows threatened with by the public frenzy the decision was taken to put them in prison like criminals.
The precaution was useless. During the night the people gathered once again; when the magistrates failed to summon the militia, the prison was forced one of the journalists was killed on the spot and the others were left for dead. The guilty parties, when standing before a jury, were acquitted.»

«I said to someone who lived in Pennsylvania: "Kindly explain to me how, in a state founded by Quakers and celebrated for its tolerance, free Negroes are not allowed to exercise their civil rights. They pay their taxes; is it not fair that they should have the vote?"
"You insult us," he replied, "if you imagine that our legislators committed such a gross act of injustice and intolerance."
"Thus the blacks possess the right to vote in this country?"
"Without any doubt."
"So, how does it come about that at the polling-booth this morning I did not notice a single Negro in the crowd?"
"That is not the fault of the law," said the American to me. "It is true that the Negroes have the right to participate in the elections but they voluntarily abstain from making an appearance."
"That is indeed very modest of them."
"It is not that they are refusing to attend, but they are afraid of being mistreated. In this country it sometimes happens that the law lacks any force when the majority does not support it. Now, the majority is imbued with the strongest of prejudices against the blacks and the magistrates feel they do not have enough strength to guarantee the rights which the legislator has conferred upon them."
"So you mean that the majority, which has the privilege of enacting the laws, also wishes to enjoy the privilege of disobeying them?"»

[null]

Blissex wrote ..

"The debate among republicans and the silence of the Democrats are not abstract discussions as of between politicians; they matter only because of the popularity of torture with voters and the impending elections."

Sad, but very true. History may have to decide what the final truth is. Will the torturers and their supporters in the early 21st century be wrong? What is right and wrong, other than the judgement of the winner?

Why is anyone surprised? "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior." goes the prophet Leo Strauss, whom these guys follow.

That they use God and religion, has no relevance. In the end, despite all claims to religion and goodness, they have only one religion - power. Evil, ala Nietzsche, is part of 'slave' morality, the morality which favors the weak, suffering and incompetent over the powerful. The greatest and best humans are those who create values for themselves, - their own reality- , and live by that. Such great people refuse to acknowledge their common humanity with anyone else, other than other strong people who follow the same path.

"Those that are against torture in American should not attack Bush or most Republicans or the silence of the Democrats; they should try to change the minds of their neighbors."

For an exercise, do the following
- Its 1933. You are a German, who feels that the Jews are being made scapegoats. How would you act, so as to influence the outcome?

- It's 1942. You are an American who feels the Japanese internment camps are wrong. How would you act, so as to influence the outcome?

If it did not work then, why should it work now? MovieGuy asks "What is your government document reference or proposed legislation draft to support that claim?"

Or jack - "Ever heard of a democracy? Isnt it lovely, then, how we can glibly dismiss the "majority of voters" as "scum"?" jack?

Blissex, what makes you think that these "neighbours" can be made to change their minds? The moment to stop things has passed. Now maybe the post-mortem analysis, and apologies lie in the future. Maybe. If it's like the Native American's course, even that wont be necessary. What was, was right. What will be, will be, and right.

And you, Blissex, will be just another loser. What benefit will it be to you if you lost the whole world but kept your own soul?

[Blissex]

«Regarding what our neighbors actually think about the torture issue, here's an expert.
"[ ... ] On balance Americans lean toward the view that even when conducting interrogations as part of the war on terrorism, the US should not make exceptions to the laws governing the treatment of detainees."»

Well, they still endorse brutality, and anyhow that matters is not what Americans think, but that voters think.

A large minority of Americans cannot vote, and only about half of those entitled to vote do vote. It is their opinions who matter to politicians in a democracy, and as a rule the majority of voters elect the majority of politicians.

A majority of politicians in the House have made their position clearly in favor -- and I personally think that is because they think that a majority of their voters are in favor, and are betting their careers on that.

[Blissex]

«For an exercise, do the following - Its 1933. [ ... ] - It's 1942. [ ... ]»

Let's not exaggerate: it is not 1933, and for all the claims of Bush that this is a war against the global islamofascist caliphate it is not 1942 either. And there was a large difference between 1933 and 1942 either: people who dissented in 1933 did so at the risk of their lives, in 1942 merely at the risk of their popularity. And today not even that.

«How would you act, so as to influence the outcome? [ ... ] what makes you think that these "neighbours" can be made to change their minds?»

Well, two things may help:

* According to the poll mentioned in another comment, a majority of Americans are against torture. Problem is, most of them don't vote. In the short term telling your neighbors to go out and vote is probably the single best thing anybody can do.

* In the long term, some of those voters are simply ill informed, or are all too ready to conform with conventional wisdom, or haven't really argued it through with themselves. Patience can win. There were scum majorities of voters in the USA for slavery first, and then another scum majority for segregation, and even a scum majority for japanese camps, and all become minorities, after all.

[calmo]

I dunno, I may have some scum moments myself when I feel that torturing someone/thing is downright fun. It could happen, but I expect those of you who are decent human beings to rescue me from my plight and set me straight or send me in for rehabilitation.
I feel like Bliss (who may be having a similar scum moment) is torturing all of us who have read (Plato or de Tocqueville or just the scum Cole notes) or considered anything on this issue.
Torture is bad, maybe even scum bad, Blissex (and that is why your mother spanked you as a toddler for biting your younger brother) and the intention of sanctioning it is beyond bad. That is all Krugman or any decent human being, needs to say about it. Spare us your scum-political/scum-scholarly insights or I'll send out my rehabilitation team.

[Movie Guy]

STATEMENT OF
STEVEN G. BRADBURY
ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
CONCERNING
THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION
IN HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD
JULY 11, 2006

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Leahy, and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to discuss the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

Hamdan is a decision without historical analogue. Since the Revolutionary War, the United States has used military commissions in time of armed conflict to bring to justice unlawful combatants for violations of the laws of war. Indeed, Hamdan recognized that the Supreme Court itself has sanctioned the use of military commissions on multiple occasions in the past. Yet the Court in Hamdan held that the military commissions that the President established were inconsistent with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.

The Court’s reasoning in Hamdan may be surprising and disappointing to many of us, but it is not my intent to reargue the case this morning. The Administration will, of course, as the President has said, abide by the decision of the Court.

It is important to point out that the Court did not call into question the authority of the United States to detain enemy combatants in the War on Terror, and that the Court’s decision does not require us to close the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay or release any terrorist held by the United States. Moreover, the Court implicitly recognized several fundamental Government positions: The Court confirmed our view that the atrocities committed by al Qaeda on September 11 have triggered our right to use military force in self-defense and that we are involved in an armed conflict with al Qaeda to which the laws of war apply.

And the Supreme Court made clear that its decision rested only on an interpretation of current statutory and treaty-based law. The Court did not address the President’s constitutional authority and did not reach any constitutional question. Indeed, the Court did not accept the petitioner’s arguments that the Constitution precludes the use of military commissions.

Therefore, the Hamdan decision now gives Congress and the Administration a clear opportunity to work together to address the matters raised by the case, including the appropriate procedures governing military commissions. As Justice Breyer stated in his separate opinion, "Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary."

In its decision, the Court also addressed the application of the Geneva Conventions to al Qaeda fighters in our War on Terror. On this point, it is important to emphasize that the Court did not decide that the Geneva Conventions as a whole apply to our conflict with al Qaeda or that members of al Qaeda are entitled to the privileges of prisoner of war status. The Court did hold, rather, that the basic standards contained in common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions apply to the conflict with al Qaeda.

Of course, the terrorists who fight for al Qaeda have nothing but contempt for the laws of war. They have killed thousands of innocent civilians in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania—and thousands more in London, Madrid, Kenya, Tanzania, Yemen, Jordan, Indonesia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. They advocate unrestrained violence and chaos. As a matter of course, they kidnap relief aid workers, behead contractors, journalists, and U.S. military personnel, and bomb shrines, wedding parties, restaurants, and night clubs. They openly mock the rule of law, the Geneva Conventions, and the standards of civilized people everywhere, and they will attack us again if given the chance.

The Supreme Court’s conclusion that common Article 3 applies to members of al Qaeda is a significant development that must be considered as we continue the healthy discussion between the political Branches about the standards and procedures that ought to govern the treatment of terrorist detainees.

Courts-Martial and Military Commissions

In moving forward after Hamdan, the basic question we must answer together is how best to pursue the prosecution of al Qaeda and other terrorists engaged in armed conflict with the United States.

The Hamdan majority held that Congress had greatly restricted the President’s authority to establish procedures for military commissions. The Court read the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or "UCMJ," to require presumptively that captured enemy combatants, including unlawful combatants such as al Qaeda terrorists, are entitled to the very same military court-martial procedures that are provided for the members of our Armed Forces.

In trying al Qaeda terrorists for their war crimes, we firmly believe that it is neither appropriate as a matter of national policy, practical as a matter of military reality, nor feasible in protecting sensitive intelligence sources and methods, to require that military commissions follow all of the procedures of a court-martial.

For example, when members of the U.S. Armed Forces are suspected of crimes, the UCMJ, in Article 31(b), provides that they must be informed of their Miranda rights, including the right to counsel, prior to any questioning. The right of access to a lawyer in the military justice system is even more protective than in civilian courts, since it applies as soon as the service member is suspected of an offense. Granting terrorists prophylactic Miranda warnings and extraordinary access to lawyers is inconsistent with security needs and with the need to question detainees for intelligence purposes. The very notion of our military personnel regularly reading captured enemy combatants Miranda warnings on the battlefield is nonsensical.

The rules that apply to courts-martial under the UCMJ also impose strict requirements on the admission of evidence in court-martial proceedings that are wholly unworkable for military commission trials of unlawful combatants in the War on Terror.

Court-martial rules require that the chain of custody for evidence be preserved, and that all documents admitted be painstakingly authenticated. But it is extremely difficult during an armed conflict to gather evidence in a way that meets strict criminal procedure requirements, whether collected on the battlefield, during military intelligence operations, or during interrogations of detainees.

Furthermore, court-martial rules prohibit the use of hearsay in ways very similar to the civilian rules of evidence. Yet reliable hearsay statements from the battlefield and from fellow terrorists are often the only probative evidence readily available. In these situations, use of court-martial procedures may mean that the most relevant and probative evidence will be inadmissible. Securing properly sworn and authenticated evidence would also require members of the Armed Forces to leave the front lines to attend legal proceedings, in effect, requiring them to fight al Qaeda members twice, once on the battlefield and then again through legal proceedings.

Article 46 of the UCMJ, and the procedures prescribed under it, require that prosecutors share classified information with the accused if the information will be introduced as evidence at trial. We cannot put at risk our Nation’s most sensitive secrets in the War on Terror by exposing them to terrorist detainees. The disclosure of classified information about intelligence sources and methods would compromise national security and could endanger the lives of Americans at home and around the world. That is a risk that can be avoided, while still ensuring that military commission trials are fundamentally fair.

The insistence upon the protections of the UMCJ may not always be easy in the military justice system, but it is often impossible on the battlefields of the present conflict. Our forces are dedicated to fighting this armed conflict; unsurprisingly, they cannot be expected to focus on the law enforcement tasks of gathering evidence and conducting criminal investigations. Such duties would, at best, distract from the military’s central mission—fighting and winning the war. Congress has never embraced the notion that dangerous foreign terrorists are entitled to the same procedural protections as American citizens who risk their lives for the Nation.

All of the issues with military commissions identified by the Supreme Court can be addressed and resolved through legislation. The Administration stands ready to work with Congress to do just that. We would like to see Congress act quickly to establish a solid statutory basis for the military commission process, so that trials of captured al Qaeda terrorists can move forward again.

The United States may continue to detain the terrorists we have captured. But as of right now, we cannot effectively punish those who have committed war crimes. That is unacceptable.

The Court’s Jurisdiction Under the DTA

In addition to developing appropriate procedures for military commissions, we will need to consider carefully how any new legislation should clarify the scope of judicial review. In this connection, I want to comment briefly on the Court’s threshold conclusion in Hamdan that it was proper for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over the case.

The role of the Supreme Court in the separation of powers depends crucially upon the principle that the jurisdiction of federal courts extends only to cases that properly arise under the laws enacted by Congress. Last December, in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, Congress expressly established procedures for the review of military commission decisions. The DTA provided that judicial review of military commission proceedings would be strictly limited to post-trial review of the final judgments of military commissions; the DTA expressly deprived the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear pre-trial habeas petitions, such as Hamdan’s.

It has long been a canon of interpretation, firmly established by what the dissenting Justices called "[a]n ancient and unbroken line of authority," that statutes removing jurisdiction from the courts have immediate effect in all pending cases.

Congress was entitled to legislate against the background of that traditional canon when it enacted the DTA. Hamdan makes clear, however, that if Congress seeks to limit the Court’s jurisdiction in future cases, it may be well advised to enact statutory provisions that are ironclad and leave absolutely no wiggle room with respect to Congress’s intent.

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions

Finally, we will need to address the Court’s ruling that common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to our armed conflict with al Qaeda.

The United States has never before applied common Article 3 in the context of an armed conflict with international terrorists. When the Geneva Conventions were concluded in 1949, of course, the drafters of the Conventions certainly did not anticipate, and did not agree to cover, armed conflicts with international terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda.

In directing that our Armed Forces would treat all detainees humanely regardless of their legal status, the President specifically determined in February 2002 that common Article 3 does not apply to the conflict with al Qaeda on the ground that the War on Terror is decidedly an "international" conflict. It involves the projection of U.S. force to different states to combat a transnational terrorist movement with global reach and a proven record of targeting the United States in multiple countries. The President’s conclusion on this point was plainly reasonable. Indeed, it reflects what is a fundamental truth about the Geneva Conventions—that they were not designed as a framework for addressing the kind of conflict we are in with al Qaeda.

We are now faced with the task of implementing the Court’s decision on common Article 3. Last year, Congress engaged in a significant public debate on the standard that should govern the treatment of captured al Qaeda terrorists. Congress codified that standard in the McCain Amendment, part of the Detainee Treatment Act, which prohibits "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment," as defined by reference to the established meaning of our Constitution, for all detainees held by the United States, regardless of nationality or geographic location. Congress rightly assumed that the enactment of the DTA settled questions about the baseline standard that would govern the treatment of detainees by the United States in the War on Terror.

That assumption may no longer be true. By its interpretation of common Article 3 in Hamdan, the Supreme Court has imposed another baseline standard—common Article 3—that we must now interpret and implement.

On the one hand, when reasonably read and properly applied, common Article 3 will prohibit the most serious and grave offenses. Most of the provisions of common Article 3 prohibit actions that are universally condemned, such as "violence to life," "murder," "mutilation," "torture," and the "taking of hostages." These are a catalog of the most fundamental violations of international humanitarian law. In fact, they neatly sum up the standard tactics and methods of warfare utilized by our enemy, al Qaeda and its allies, who regularly perpetrate gruesome beheadings, torture, and indiscriminate slaughter through suicide bombings. Consistent with that view, some in the international community, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, have stated that the actions prohibited by common Article 3 involve conduct of a serious nature.

On the other hand, although common Article 3 should be understood to apply only to serious misconduct, it is undeniable that some of the terms in common Article 3 are inherently vague. Common Article 3 prohibits "[o]utrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment," a phrase that is susceptible of uncertain and unpredictable application. It is also unclear what precisely is meant by "judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has said that in interpreting a treaty provision such as common Article 3, the meaning given to the treaty language by international tribunals must be accorded "respectful consideration," and the interpretations adopted by other state parties to the treaty are due "considerable weight." Accordingly, the meaning of common Article 3—the baseline standard that now applies to the conduct of U.S. personnel in the War on Terror—would be informed by the evolving interpretations of tribunals and governments outside the United States. Many of these interpretations to date have been consistent with the reading that we would give to common Article 3.

Nevertheless, the application of common Article 3 will create a degree of uncertainty for those who fight to defend us from terrorist attack.

We believe that the standards governing the treatment of detainees by the United States in the War on Terror should be certain, and that those standards should be defined by U.S. law, in a manner that will fully satisfy our international obligations.

The meaning and application of the vague terms in common Article 3 are not merely academic questions. The War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2441, makes any violation of common Article 3 a felony offense.

The difficult issues raised by the Court’s pronouncement on common Article 3 are ones that the political Branches need to consider carefully as they chart a way forward after Hamdan. We think this, too, is an area that Congress should address.

* * *

Notwithstanding the problematic aspects of the Court’s opinion I have described, the decision in Hamdan gives the political Branches an opportunity to work as one to reestablish the legitimate authority of the United States to rely on military commissions to bring the terrorists to justice. It is also an opportunity to come together to reaffirm our values as a Nation and our faith in the rule of law.

We in the Administration look forward to working with Congress to protect the American people and to ensure that unlawful terrorist combatants can be brought to justice, consistent with the Supreme Court’s guidance. I look forward to discussing these issues with the Committee this morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

# # #

[Movie Guy]

Ask the White House
September 18, 2006
Steve Bradbury
Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel,
U.S. Department of Justice

FULL TEXT:

In response to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the President has recommended to Congress legislation that would establish effective and fair procedures for military commissions to bring to justice captured terrorists who have committed war crimes. The President's bill would also provide clarity and certainty concerning the legal standards that apply to U.S. personnel who handle captured terrorists in the War on Terror, so that we can continue to have the vital tools necessary to protect the country, consistent with our values as a nation and our international commitments. By a bipartisan vote of 52-8, the House Armed Services Committee has approved the President's legislation. The Administration is currently working with the Senate to find common ground for legislation that will achieve these essential goals.

Separately, the President has called on Congress to pass legislation updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and affirming the President's authority to conduct effective electronic surveillance of al Qaeda communications into and out of the United States, to help detect and prevent another catastrophic attack on our homeland. The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved legislation sponsored by Senator Specter that would do just that, and the House is considering similar legislation. The Administration continues to work with Congress to complete work on this vital legislation.

I'm happy to answer questions on these important issues.

-----

Kim, from Kentucky writes:
Hi Mr. Bradbury, I think that the anti-terror legislation currently before Congress is an important tool to protect the freedom's that this country holds dear. It would be sweet justice to see the masterminds of attacks against our country be put to trial and face repercussions for their crimes. In regard to the military tribunal legislation, is the difficulty here that these criminals are not represented by a country and therefore there are no current guidelines under the Geneva Convention? Thank You

Steve Bradbury
The President agrees with you that it is time to bring the masterminds of the 9/11 atrocities to justice, along with those responsible for the bombings of the U.S.S. Cole and the U.S. Embassies in East Africa. Some of those suspected of these heinous crimes are among the 14 key al Qaeda leaders and operatives that the President recently announced have been moved to Guantanamo Bay. These are terrorists who have provided vital intelligence in the War on Terror through questioning by the CIA. And now that we have obtained the most important intelligence we can gain from them, it is high time we put them on trial for their war crimes. Under the Supreme Court’s decision, however, the President needs express authorization from Congress to establish the procedures for fair and effective military commissions to try these terrorists. These al Qaeda terrorists are not POWs entitled to the privileges that apply to regular armed forces under the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions do require, however, that they be afforded the basic judicial guarantees deemed indispensable by civilized nations. In its Hamdan decision, the Supreme Court said that Congress must define those procedures. Otherwise, these terrorists would have to be tried through the same court-martial procedures afforded to our own troops. The President believes that it is neither practical nor appropriate to give the terrorists all of the same procedural protections that apply to the trials of our own troops and citizens, and there is a broad agreement on that in Congress.

-----

Gustav, from Durango, CO writes:
Why does the president think the strongest nation in the history of the world needs to resort to torture to win the war against terrorists?

Steve Bradbury
He doesn’t. The United States does not torture. The President has not authorized torture and has made clear that he will not do so. United States law already bans torture. Furthermore, the legislation proposed by the President reaffirms that torture and other similar forms of cruel and abusive treatment are illegal under U.S. law and constitute war crimes. In Hamdan, the Supreme Court held that “Common Article 3” of the Geneva Conventions applies to our armed conflict against al Qaeda. Common Article 3 provides basic standards of treatment for persons in our custody, just as does the Detainee Treatment Act (sometimes called the McCain Amendment) that the President signed into law in December 2005. Many of the prohibitions of Common Article 3, such as prohibitions on torture, mutilation, and taking of hostages, are clear and universally understood. We do not have any intention of violating those proscriptions. But other provisions of Common Article 3 are hopelessly vague and subject to almost unlimited interpretation – such as its prohibition on “outrages upon person dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.” The question that is before the Senate right now is how to bring clarity and certainty to those vague prohibitions, so that our men and women in the intelligence and military services who are asked to handle captured terrorists to obtain the intelligence that is vital to protecting the country will know precisely what is permissible under Common Article 3.

------

Kathleen, from Maryland writes:
By using "shocks the conscience" as the standard, how does such a flexibe standard create clarity, which is what the President is demanding?

Steve Bradbury
The basic standard of treatment adopted by the United States in the Detainee Treatment Act is a prohibition on the “cruel, unusual, or inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.” For persons in U.S. detention who have not yet been adjudged guilty of a crime, the relevant standard is that provided under the substantive due process precedents of our Fifth Amendment. Although this standard is in certain contexts flexible, as you suggest, still it provides much-needed clarity over the current hopelessly vague provisions of Common Article 3, because it is based on the familiar principles of our own Constitution and is fleshed out in precedents of our own Supreme Court. Without grounding the understanding of Common Article 3’s vague provisions in our own law and Constitution, the meaning of those provisions will be subject to infinite interpretation, including the evolving interpretations of international tribunals and foreign governments, and will offer little guidance and certainty to our own personnel.

-----

Benny, from Tucson, AZ writes:
Why do Colin Powell, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Warner and Susan Collins insist that statutory clarification of what "inhumane and degrading treatment," as used in the Detainee Treatment Act, and in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, would cause the "world community" to assume that the U.S. is now taking a position of non-compliance with the Geneva Conventions by "reinterpreting" or "redefining" the conventions. We currently have a Reservation to Article 3 that defines "torture." What is so different about defining "inhumane and degrading treatment?"

Steve Bradbury
The Secretary of State has said that she supports the President’s recommendation for Congress to define the vague terms of Common Article 3 by reference to the Detainee Treatment Act and our own constitutional principles. Nations are free to give ambiguous treaty terms a good faith interpretation consistent with their own domestic laws and traditions. Congress clearly has authority to do so, and has interpreted many other treaty provisions through implementing statutes like this. The Secretary of State has said that she is confident our international partners will accept our effort to give reasonable and clear meaning to our treaty obligations, as proposed by the President. Indeed, the President believes that giving clarity and definition to Common Article 3’s hopelessly vague terms through legislation will actually strengthen our adherence to Common Article 3.

-----

Cliff, from Brimfield, Ohio writes:
Attorney General Bradbury: Do you see the President and Congress finding some ground on the issue? Not high ground or low ground but COMMON GROUND. They both seem to be digging in. Thank You

Steve Bradbury
I do believe that the President and Congress will find common ground on these important issues. We all want to protect our country through vital intelligence programs while upholding our values as a nation and our international commitments. We must and, I believe, will reach a common understanding on a way forward that will ensure that we do so.

-----

Erik, from Miami, Florida writes:
If the interrogations of US detainees is and always has been legal, why are legislative changes necessary to continue 'interrogating' detainees? If our 'interrogators' have been doing this for five years, and it was legal, why do we need changes now?

Steve Bradbury
The short answer is because of the Hamdan case. There, the Supreme Court has now told us for the first time, contrary to the determination made by the President in February 2002, that our armed conflict with the international terrorist organization al Qaeda is actually not an “international” conflict and therefore that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to protect captured al Qaeda terrorists. That decision requires us to bring clarity and certainty to the terms of Common Article 3 – especially because U.S. law currently makes any violation of Common Article 3 a war crime.

-----

Jordan, from Kennewick, WA writes:
How will the terror legislation impact our ability to fight terrorism around the globe?

Steve Bradbury
The President has said that it is vitally important for the security of the United States and our personnel and allies in the War on Terror that we have the ability to obtain critical intelligence from captured terrorists. To do so, we must have clarity and certainty on the rules and standards that will apply to our intelligence personnel who are asked to question terrorists. That’s what the President’s proposed legislation would do.

-----

Steve Bradbury

I've enjoyed this opportunity to answer questions, and I hope that I've helped provide better understanding of the Administration's positions on these vital matters. Thank you!

[null]

"Let's not exaggerate: it is not 1933, and for all the claims of Bush that this is a war against the global islamofascist caliphate it is not 1942 either. And there was a large difference between 1933 and 1942 either: people who dissented in 1933 did so at the risk of their lives, in 1942 merely at the risk of their popularity"

No, it's not either of that. My point was not with the the gravity of the situation, but the principle - can a people who are collectively captivated by an idea, get rid of the idea by themselves? Usually the idea is followed, till the consequences generate a correction. Or if there are no consequences, to its logical end, and the people who survived or won, and remain to evaluate it in the future, take the idea to be right.

[nedlink]

MG what is your position on the Amnesty International report on Israeli torture? Is Amnesty Int. another anti-Semitic organization spewing lies? You must have lots of files on all this. ;-)

[Blissex]

The quotes from Bradbury are a revolting example of dissembling: most questions are not answered, and just about the only content is that the administration wants «clarity and certainty on the rules and standards», without ever saying which specific rules and standards they are lobbying for. Very astute.

However the game is given away in the details, check this masterful statement (my emboldening) about the Hamdan decision:

«That decision requires us to bring clarity and certainty to the terms of Common Article 3 – especially because U.S. law currently makes any violation of Common Article 3 a war crime.»

Very astute indeed...

The Supreme Court has said that up to now the government has lacked authorization from Congress to perform certain actions. That means that other laws may apply to those actions, for example the criminal code of the USA.

Now let's make an example about the «rules and standards» as applied in the past.

* Suppose that a CEO is suspected to have awarded himself backdated, in-the-money options, and misrepresented the resulting income as capital gains to the tune of several dozen million dollars. He gets nabbed by the FBI, stripped naked, put in a cell at 50F, and showered with cold water for a few days, until he admits that he did backdate those options. Under the existing laws of the USA has a crime been committed by anybody other than him?

* Suppose that a USA government official is suspected of leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative. The CIA gets him, sends him to a hidden camp in Slovakia, and then waterboards him every day for a week and gets him to confess and to supply the names of his accomplices. Under the existing laws of the USA has a crime been committed by anybody but the leaker?

Obviously the USA government does not know the answer, and that is why Bush has gone to Congress to get a law to provide «clarity and certainty». A honest man asking a honest question...

[Cyrille]

Well, why does he need more "clarity" if he knows himself that "U.S. law currently makes any violation of Common Article 3 a war crime". Therefore, this administration has committed crimes.

Sounds pretty clear to me.

On top of that, to say that it "applies to protect captured Al Qaeda terrorists" is very, very disingenuous. Many, in fact probably most, of them are not terrorists. Which makes it all the more needed to protect them by law. Yet, somehow, it is phrased so as to sound like a scandalous protection of terrorists who don't deserve it.

[Blissex]

«Well, why does he need more "clarity" if he knows himself that "U.S. law currently makes any violation of Common Article 3 a war crime".»

Only «currently». Also to my imagination the tactic is transparent:

* The administration is (not so) subtly inviting Congress to state that in the USA article 3 is interpreted so that it means something very narrow indeed. For example, that ''torture'' means the loss of all four limbs.

* Just to go along, the House is also offering the idea that even under that narrow interpretation the victims have no recourse to USA courts. They can always sue in their country or origin or country of abduction, after all.

* Of course the plain meaning of article 3 would still apply internationally; Congress would only ''reinterpret'' article 3 in the USA. But the chances of USA officials being tried in other countries for violations of article 3 are zero.

«Many, in fact probably most, of them are not terrorists.»

Quoting from a SciFi series/game (WarHammer 2006): «Innocence proves nothing» :-).

Relevant links:

http://WWW.Innocence-Proves-Nothing.com/
http://WWW.Amazon.com/Warhammer-40000-Roleplay-Innocence-nothing/dp/1844164357

[Blissex]

As to the
http://WWW.Amazon.com/Warhammer-40000-Roleplay-Innocence-nothing/dp/1844164357

Book, it is described as (my emboldenings):

«In the grim darkness of the far flung future of the 41st Millenium horrors lurk on all sides, ready to corrupt the Imperium of Man. Warhammer 40,000: Dark Heresy will be the first in a trilogy of 40KRP games. Dark Heresy allows players to take on the role of an Inquisitor's retinue. Their task is to uproot the taint of Chaos in Imperial society, to smash dark cults and foil sinister plots. It's a game of investigation and will be an ideal introduction to the dark and gothic universe of the 41st Millennium. A gorgeous full colour book crammed with all the information you need to play agents of the Imperial Inquisition. Packed with evocative background, detailed rules and an adventure to get you started, this book is all you need to step into the far flung future of Warhammer 40,000. Search out the traitor, the heretic, the mutant, and remember- innocence proves nothing.»

Perhaps Bush can get Congress to enact this book as the relevant «rules and standards», it seems exactly what he needs.

[reason]

Anne,
re Euro - yea right but try to get information about them AND keep the transaction costs down!

[reason]

Oops wrong thread - please ignore.