Banana Republic Watch: Ed Meese

GQ's interview with Ed Meese, a member of the Baker Iraq Study Group, summarizes many of the problems with the Bush administration's thinking about military tribunals and "illegal combatants". What these folks don't seem to understand is that this path leads directly to dictatorship, or, at least, a Banana Republic. Here it is:

-----

Q: Let's move to the Geneva Conventions. A lot of people are concerned that terrorism suspects don't have any kind of habeas corpus.
A: In order to be covered by the Geneva Convention, you have to fulfill certain requirements. Number one, you have to be in uniform. Number two, you have to be part of a military unit subject to military discipline. Number three, you have to be engaged in combat with other military units and not primarily striking at civilians. So there are a number of criteria in the Geneva Convention that are not met by everyone on the battlefield. Then there's another category of people going back to the Revolutionary War—people who were in those days called spies. If they were not in uniform, they were subject to being summarily executed.

Q: You mean they were executed without even a military tribunal?
A: I think there were some. Also, a "tribunal" could be a military commander ordering the hanging. I think that's what happened to some of them.

Q: You're advocating summary execution.
A: Well, yeah, that happens in the military. Illegal combatants are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

Q: So we call them "illegal combatants," without using any legal basis to determine whether they're illegal or not.
A: Well, we do. We have military tribunals.

Q: But not always, apparently.
A: My understanding is that illegal combatants are subject to military tribunals. But in any event, they have been captured on the field of battle, and anyone captured on the field of battle is either one of these two categories. And both categories can be detained until the end of hostilities.

Q: When we talk about being detained until the war is over, we're talking about a war that could go on for half a century.
A: Absolutely.

Q: Doesn't detaining someone that long compete with some of the values in the Constitution?
A: No, it doesn't.

Q: We value a speedy trial, as a culture. That's why we put it in the Constitution.
A: We value a speedy trial for criminals. But a person who's been apprehended and captured on the field of battle, that status itself identifies them as either a prisoner of war or an illegal combatant.

Q: Unless they live there.
A: Well, how many people do you have standing around the field of battle?

Q: It depends the battle. Certainly it's possible.
A: And of course, that's why the president has applied the military tribunals. So that people have the ability, if they claim their innocence, to demonstrate it. But the reason why you detain the people is that you don't want them going back and taking up arms against our soldiers.

Q: Shouldn't we extend them the right to a public trial for that purpose?
A: Why would we? Why would you do that to somebody who's not entitled to it under any law? Why would [we] extend the laws to people who are trying to kill Americans?

------

As the interviewer points out later, many criminals in the US are trying to kill Americans as well, yet they have the right to a fair trial. And without a fair trial, how is one to know if that's really who they are?

These are the same arguments that tin-pot dictators all over the third world have made over the last 50 years: "our enemies don't respect human rights, why should we?" "You have no human rights when you're dead." And so on. Resistance to these arguments, even in the face of terror, is what distinguishes truly civilized, democratic societies. You can respect human rights and still be strong and ruthless your pursuit of the bad guys; in fact, violating them is a sign of weakness.

Andrew Sullivan also points out Meesese's disingenuousness with respect to torture, in the same interview. Sullivan also links to this great speech, worth quoting again:

This week, again, the Government of the United States, a land founded on a commitment of justice for all - my country - tells us that detainees in its campaign against terror have "no rights." ... The act abolishes the writ of habeas corpus, which Thomas Jefferson called one of the essential pillars of the American Republic. It gives the president the potentially despotic power to remove anyone from the protection of the law simply by carving upon his body a label � the words "unlawful enemy combatant."

.... Once more, the model that is adhered to is not the rich criminal or military justice system of the United States, but the model of Franz Kafka's Penal Colony. What attitude towards justice does this reveal?

I am not here to argue for release or freedom for those detained in the campaign against terror. I am arguing for justice. That is something quite different. It may well be that Majid Khan is a serious criminal responsible for crimes against humanity. It may well be that he used or promoted the use of terror as a device. If that is so, he should be charged and given a fair chance to defend himself. This trial, fairly run, will vindicate my nation's counterterrorism efforts. It will show those who are held for heinous criminals, if they are heinous criminals. It would promote the view in the world that my nation has and pursues a just cause, and treats those in its power with justice, though the justice be severe.

Finally, as pointed out in TPM:

Meese is not a has-been from the Reagan years. He has been a key advisor to the current White House on the nominations and confirmations of Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. This is a man who is widely considered to be at the pinnacle of the powerful conservative legal movement. This is what we have come to.

The Baker Comission/Study Group

As pointed out here, the "Iraq Study Group" has a lot of studying to do, since it does not have any Iraq experts, or even Middle East ones. Here's a good article by Michael Kinsley at Slate, about why such groups are really formed.

There are many reasons to be cautious about this team (the presence of Ed Meese being only one of them). The New Yorker's George Packer writes:

The Republicans had their neoconservative spree and emerged this month from its smoking wreckage, in Iraq and at the polls, with nothing to steady them except the hope that two aging condottieri from the first Bush Presidency, James A. Baker III and Robert Gates, can lead the way out. These are the same men who, fifteen years ago, abandoned Afghanistan to civil war and Al Qaeda, allowed Saddam to massacre his own people, and concluded that genocide in the Balkans was none of America’s business

Christopher Hitchens also makes a good argument for why Baker might not be the best man for the job. And also recalls:

For millions of Iraqis, the betrayal of their uprising against Saddam in 1991 is something that they can never forget. They tend to bring it up, too, and to fear a repetition of it.

In all of this, one must feel truly sorry for the Iraqi people, who suffered through Saddam Hussein, the absurd Iran-Iraq war (back when Saddam was on the US side), the Gulf War, the supressed insurrection at its end, the UN sanctions, the 2003 invasion, and then this bungled occupation, which might lead to even worse to come. And sorry for the Iranian, Kuwaiti, and American victims of the entire thing too.

Finally, here's one of those "what-if" questions: Would Saddam have been dissuaded from invading Kuwait, back in 1990, if the Bush I administration had been really clear about the consequences? Instead, we had these quotes from the US embassador, meeting with Saddam shortly before the invasion:

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

How many lives might have been saved?

Banana Republic Watch

From the Washington Post:

Former attorney general Janet Reno has taken the unusual step of openly criticizing the Bush administration's anti-terrorism strategy -- joining seven other former Justice Department officials in warning that the indefinite detention of U.S. terrorism suspects could become commonplace unless the courts intervene.

....

In their brief, Reno and the other former Justice Department officials said: "The government is essentially asserting the right to hold putative enemy combatants arrested in the United States indefinitely whenever it decides not to prosecute those people criminally -- perhaps because it would be too difficult to obtain a conviction, perhaps because a motion to suppress evidence would raise embarrassing facts about the government's conduct, or perhaps for other reasons."

Politics and the English Language

This New Yorker's comment on Bush's use of "Democrat" vs. "Democratic" reminded me of the famous "Language Memo", allegedly written by Newt Gingrich, which circulated among Congressional Republicans in the 90's. (Aside: from the Web, it is hard to tell what year this memo was written, when it was circulated, and who actually wrote it. I'd also like to know if the title came with the original: Language: A Key Mechanism of Control.)

Both, of course, remind one of Orwell. Click here for his famous essay of the same name.
(Update: a better-formatted version is available from Russia.)

This is one of the things that the GOP has done better than the competition: It's not the "estate tax," it's the "death tax". (I myself prefer to call it the "Paris Hilton tax".) Not logging, but "healthy forests". And so on; not just with names or words, but, in general, "talking points" and "framing the debate". If you get to frame the debate in your own terms, your chances of winning are greatly improved.

In the spirit of bipartisanship, another classic case: "pro-choice" and "pro-life". Of course, it is less attractive to be "anti-choice" or "anti-life"...

Botero and Abu Ghraib

Slate has a slide show on Fernando Botero's Abu Ghraib paintings. (Warning: disturbing images.)

These are the (unintended?) consequences of authorizing torture. We will see if the secret White House and Justice Department memos that authorized it are ever made public.

Those Electronic Voting Machines

Nice: a Florida Congressional House seat is contested by a margin of 386 votes, and there are 18,000 voters whose House candidate was not recorded. Apparently, the machines had a touch-screen interface that did not always offer the proper choice of candidates.

Paper trail? There doesn't seem to be any. Hey, just ask the computers to count the votes again.

Update: see here for more details, and comments from CS profs. Dill and Jones.

More about Spain

See here for more more debunking the right-wing meme that the Spanish voters did the terrorist's bidding in 2004; you can also find more heated discussion here.

It is easy to see how the Spanish case can be certain people's worst nightmare: a well-informed voting public, punishing an incompetent government that cynically exploits the terrorist problem. For a sample of the distortions, see this column by Charles Krauthammer, before the 2004 elections. As I have pointed out before, most of this is nonsense:

1. The most important fact behind the Spanish case is ignored (the Government's lies about who perpetrated the attack).
2. Just because terrorists are perceived to favor one result does not mean that the elections should be canceled and victory handed to the other side.
3. How easy for an embattled government to say, "Vote for me, or the terrorists win."
4. Whether Bin Laden wanted Bush to win or lose in 2004 is, actually, in doubt. There are good arguments as to why he might have wanted Bush to win, and the timing of a video he released a few days before the elections has been offered as evidence. The mismanagement of the Iraq invasion was a gift to al-Qaeda. See, for example, Richard Clarke's book.
5. Withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq might actually hurt the interests of Islamic terrorists in Spain.
   

Consider this quote from Krauthammer:

A second direct attack on the United States would backfire. As Sept. 11 showed, attacking the U.S. homeland would prompt a rallying around the president, whoever he is. America is not Spain. Such an attack would probably result in a Bush landslide.

Gimme a break. "America is not Spain"??? I hope that in America, the result would not be a landslide if the President lied about the attack for political advantage and people found out.

In short, these arguments are insulting to the Spanish people. If the Conservative Prime Minister, instead of blaming ETA, had come out with a strong statement against terrorists in general, faced honestly the possibility that it could have been Islamic terror, and promised never to yield to it, he would have had a very good chance of winning the elections. And, who knows? That might have been the result that the terrorists intended.

Movie: The Departed

Just got back from watching The Departed. Indeed, as the critics say: Martin Scorsese is back! It's no Mean Streets, but I liked it even more than Goodfellas. (I didn't care much for Casino or Gangs of New York, and missed The Aviator.)

Violent? Yes, but not unnecessarily or sadistically so (unlike many other movies in theaters these days). What I liked the most was the acting, with some of the best that Hollywood has to offer: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Mark Wahlberg, Jack Nicholson, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, all do great work. Among all that testosterone, the one female lead, Vera Farmiga, does quite well too.

I thought the movie was near-perfect for its genre. A couple of Scorcese's more annoying traits from previous movies are absent: the overuse of rock music, and the Joe -Pesci-psycho-comic-type character. (The music was fine: a very appropriate "Gimme Shelter," plus, I was actually pleasantly surprised to catch the Van Morrison rendition of "Comfortably Numb," from Roger Water's The Wall in Berlin, also tastefully used.) And hey, Nicholson did not overact as much as some reviews accuse him of doing!

Academy, listen up: this is your chance to finally give the man the Oscar for Best Director, with no embarrasment for anyone involved. DiCaprio should get some Oscar or other as well, while we're at it...

Time of War

From President Bush's radio address this weekend:

Whatever your opinion of the outcome, all Americans can take pride in the example our democracy sets for the world by holding elections even in a time of war.

Wow, I hadn't quite thought about it up until I read this, but it is indeed quite an achievement. Let me take the opportunity to congratulate, from among the following list, those countries that have had elections since 2003:

Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Uzbekistan.

Yes, it's the Coalition of the Willing. Oh, and Afghanistan too - a real achievement, truly.

All snarkiness aside, two things come to mind: First, perhaps this is not best called "a time of war," for many of the reasons that "War on Terror" is not the best name. I think that the United States is currently not at war with any nation state, with the possible exception of North Korea after the armistice of 1953. Second, that Bush's words would have more resonance if he had asked for some sacrifice from the US population, except, of course, for those in the Military. (Gas tax? Conservation? Any tax? Nope...)

Who's writing the President's speeches these days? Michael Gerson, his best speechwriter, left in the summer of 2006...

Civil Unions in Mexico City

An interesting development in Mexico City:

Mexico City's assembly has backed a law recognising same-sex civil unions, the first such move in the country's history.

The ruling stops short of enabling gay couples to get married and will only apply to the estimated nine million inhabitants of Mexico City.

This, while several states in the US are doing the opposite. The good news: one state, Arizona, was the first to reject an anti-gay referendum. Update: a Slate article argues that it was the ban on all civil unions that brought down that referendum, rather than the marriage part.

Rumsfeld post-mortem

A good article over at Slate about Rumsfeld's job performance. Excerpts:

Iraq dominates the list of Rumsfeld errors because of the sheer enormity of his strategic mistakes. Indeed, his Iraq blunders should have cost him his job long before the 2006 midterm elections. From tinkering with troop deployments in 2002 and 2003, which ensured there were too few troops from the start, to micromanaging operations with his famed "8,000 mile screwdriver," to pushing for the disastrous twin policies of de-Baathification and disbandment for the Iraqi army, Rumsfeld's failures transformed the Iraq war from a difficult enterprise into an unwinnable one.

And:

Notwithstanding the spectacular violence of the Sept. 11 attacks, America might have done better had it not chosen a war paradigm to fight terrorism and instead chosen to employ a comprehensive array of diplomatic, intelligence, military, and law enforcement approaches. Doing so might have encouraged more of our allies to stand by our side. It might also have put America on a better footing to sustain its efforts for what promises to be a generational struggle against terrorism.

Now he tells us

From President Bush's press conference today:

While we made some progress on changing the tone, I'm disappointed we haven't made more. I'm confident that we can work together. I'm confident that we can overcome the temptation to divide this country between red and blue.

I guess he's back to being a "uniter, not a divider", after 6 years of dividing.

Bush also pretty much admits lying when he said last week, before the elections, that Rumsfeld would stay on for the next two years. My take is that it was a conditional lie: if the elections had gone well for the Republicans, Rumsfeld might have stayed on. His answer was probably part of a Rove-ian strategy to project total confidence before the elections. Another thing: I'm not sure that "the only way to answer that question and to get you onto another question was to give you that answer."

And then there's this:

And I truly believe that Congresswoman Pelosi and Harry Reid care just about as much -- you know, they care about the security of this country like I do.

That was not the message he was sending during the campaign!

Recounts and electronic machines

Among many complaints: Reports last night said that the Montana senate count was taking longer because they were having problems with the electronic machines.

As for the Virginia recount, it seems that there is no paper trail for the individual ballots? If this is the case, all that can be done is to add the sub-totals again.

I believe I heard a Diebold representative say this on the radio, once: if you want a recount (when there's no paper trail), just ask the computer to count again.

One might say that a decent, reliable voting system does not exist for the same reasons that New Orleans did not have decent levees: because the US government does not want them. Not a big conspiracy, necessarily, just an appalling lack of political will. Both can be achieved with less money than what a month's occupation of Iraq currently costs.

Recommended: VerifiedVoting.org's site, for example.

Conservative Magazine: GOP must go

Interesting, what a magazine called The American Conservative has to say about President Bush:

There may be little Americans can do to atone for this presidency, which will stain our country’s reputation for a long time.

They are speaking of Iraq, mostly. But Bush's position on immigration has riled them up considerably too. (Immigration is the one issue where most rabid conservatives actually disagree with Bush.) They didn't even get to discuss spending and the deficit...

Quote of the (Election) Day

From a letter from President Bush to GOP voters:

There are fundamental differences in this election. Our country cannot afford to elect a Democrat Congress that would abandon our strategy for victory in the War on Terror and raise taxes to pay for their reckless spending.

Laura and I urge you to vote Republican and to ask all your family and friends to go to the polls. The stakes are too high for you to stay at home.

Indeed, there are fundamental differences. But "reckless spending?" I would also like more details on the "strategy for victory," too.

Note also the word usage we've remarked on previously: "Democrat Congress", when "Democratic Congress" would have done just as well.

Free Friedman

This week, you can read it for free: Tom Friedman's column at the New York Times (and other Times Select material). To quote:

George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld think you’re stupid. Yes, they do.

They think they can take a mangled quip about President Bush and Iraq by John Kerry — a man who is not even running for office but who, unlike Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, never ran away from combat service — and get you to vote against all Democrats in this election.

Here's Krugman's, also free.

By the way, ever since that Times Select thing started, I've found it strange that the NYT is charging for opinion columns. Are they really making more money than they could from ads?
(A friend argued that the op-ed columns are the most unique product they have to offer—most of the news content is syndicated for other news sources. But, still, I don't like it! :-)

Dirty tricks, the media, and the obvious

The latest GOP dirty trick is a thing of beauty: lots of annoying automated phone calls, which seem to come from the opponent at first, but really slime the opponent if listened till the end.

It's being very well-documented by Josh Marshall, who has also realized the obvious, thanks to the media's apparent lack of interest in this story. (CNN is picking it up, but it might be too late.) As Paul Krugman writes:

The feeding frenzy over John Kerry’s botched joke showed that many people in the news media are still willing to be played like a fiddle.

They will also choose to devote humongous amounts of time to any missing white woman or child, Michael Jackson, serial killers, and troubled celebrities. Darfur? Congo? Honest discussion of the deficit? I guess that does not sell...

It all depends on what the meaning of "torture" is

Only one reporter has had the opportunity and the presence of mind to ask President Bush, directly, if he thinks water-boarding is torture: Bill O'Reilly. Sullivan analyzed the transcript, also available from FOX news here. Let's just focus on this part:

O'REILLY: Is water boarding torture?

BUSH: I don't want to talk about techniques. And — but I do share the American people that we were within the law. And we don't torture. We — I've said all along to the American people we won't torture, but we need to be in a position where we can interrogate these people.

O'REILLY: But if the public doesn't know what torture is or is not, as defined by the Bush administration, how can the public make a decision on whether your policy is right or wrong?

BUSH: Well, one thing is that you can rest assured we're not going to talk about the techniques we use in a public forum. No matter how hard you try because I don't want the enemy to be able to adjust their tactics if we capture them on the battlefield.

So much for the "no-spin zone." Not only did Bush not answer the first question, he did not answer the second one either. The implicit answer is: "Trust me." (And I thought that in the US, it was conservatives who did not trust the Government, and did not want to give it unfettered powers.)

Bush's excuse for not answering question No. 1 does not make sense either: it's not like the question was, "tell me what techniques you are using to interrogate suspects". It was about a very specific method. Any terrorist watching will have to conclude that yes, waterboarding is indeed used, and might consider "training" for it. (It appears that such training is, actuallly, impossible to do, since the method relies on triggering basic reflexes and a sensation of drowning.)

So what is the reason for not answering the question, other than the political embarrasment that a straight answer might cause?

The only one I can think of is that perhaps it's all a very clever plan to get terrorists to train for waterboarding, and then use some different technique on them when they are captured, thus wasting the terrorists time! Still, other governments do use waterboarding, and some are the receiving end of "extraordinary rendition" by the US. So it seems that a terrorist would be well-advised to "train" for waterboarding anyway, just in case (again, if such a thing were possible). Thus, I see no strategic advantage in either case.

Back to the question: is waterboarding considered torture, or not? Memos from the Bush White House and Justice Department would seem to indicate that it does not fall under their rather narrow definition of torture, since it does not cause permanent organ damage or failure. This lets Bush say that "we are within the law" and "we do not torture:" the law he signed got to re-define what torture is.

Leaving aside the morality of such practices, there are many doubts about their practicality: it is not clear that good intelligence is obtained in this way. The victim will tell their interrogators what they think they want to hear. (One example of this: the main source for Saddam's supposed al-Qaeda links was tortured in Saudi Araba, and apparently made it all up.)

Lifestyle choice, blame the wife?

A classic: Seattle Pastor blames Haggard's wife for her husband's lifelong homosexuality, denial, and deception. Dan Savage's reaction is, as usual, hilarious and on-the-point.

This piece of (attempted) rationalization from David Frum at the National Review is also a classic. One man puts his wife at risk for HIV/AIDS and lies to his children, friends and congregation. He also uses religion to mobilize politically against letting openly gay, commited couples marry. "The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution." Frum asks: Which man is leading the more moral life? Well, sir, we disagree.

From Haggard's letter of apology:

I am a deceiver and a liar. There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life. For extended periods of time, I would enjoy victory and rejoice in freedom. Then, from time to time, the dirt that I thought was gone would resurface, and I would find myself thinking thoughts and experiencing desires that were contrary to everything I believe and teach.

Through the years, I've sought assistance in a variety of ways, with none of them proving to be effective in me.

And then these folks argue that it's "a lifestle choice"? Why would you choose to be gay, rather than straight, and make your life so much more difficult?

Update: Andrew Sullivan discusses this quote, with more, um, personal insight than I can ever hope to have.

Democracy and honesty

A good essay by Michael Kinsley in the NYT Books in Review:

The biggest flaw in our democracy is, as I say, the enormous tolerance for intellectual dishonesty.

Not sure if it's the biggest, but it's a flaw amply demonstrated by the Kerry silliness, the Foley and Haggard scandals, and so many other recent news items...