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.

FOX and OJ: O'Reilly should boycott FOX

I started this posting with this: hope that the self-proclaimed "culture warriors" at FOX News call the upcoming FOX-OJ Simpson production for what it is.

It turns out that Bill O'Reilly is suitably outraged: but he's not calling for a boycott on FOX, and actually said:

For the record, Fox Broadcasting has nothing to do with the Fox News Channel.

What a coincidence, then, that they share a name! One of them should sue the other.

I just hope that whatever money is made from this, it all goes to the victims' families. Not just OJ's, but also the money that FOX makes. Fat chance...

A recent New Yorker profile of Rupert Murdoch appears to confirm that he cares more about power and money than ideology, and is now starting to hedge his bets with the Democratic candidates for 2008. As with most of the media in most of the world (and, especially, in the US), he certainly cares more about money than good taste, common decency, or justice. The OJ thing is just the latest proof of this.

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.

How terrorism works, and what Al-Qaeda wants

Stating the obvious:

How does Al-Qaeda, or any other terrorist organization, measure success? Their "metric" is not necessarily the number of people that they kill. They do want to achieve the maximum "effect," and spectacular attacks that kill lots of people are a part of this. But what, really, are their ultimate goals?

This, of course, depends on the particular group; but it seems that, in general, one of these goals is to get their enemies to do stupid things in reaction to the terrorist threat. The cliche, "when we give up our civil rights, the terrorists have won", can be quite true.

And it seems clearer every day, that in invading Iraq, the US walked into a trap, especially, given the mismanagent of the post-war invasion.

We can argue endlessly about the rationale for the invasion - the WMD stories, the cherry-picking of intelligence, the shifting justifications, etc. Among the confusion, we can find good reasons for wanting to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and good intentions for the future of Iraq.

What is really inexplicable, and unforgivable, is the bungling of the occupation once the decision to invade was made. (Reports of Donald Rumsfeld threatening to fire the next person who brought-up the need for a post-invasion plan are quite disturbing.)

It was as if, having decided to jump into the deep end of a swimming pool, one neglected learning how to swim.

As a good blogger analysis of what Al-Qaeda points out:

The sad irony of the last five years is that al Qaeda gambled and lost. Their attack offended more Muslims than expected and their military position in Afghanistan folded like a house of cards. Then, unbelievably, with bin Laden’s outfit on the ropes Bush gave them exactly what they wanted.

Namely, the chaos in Iraq. There's also a provocative prediction, which could also explain why there have been no attacks in the US since 9/11:

What happens next? In my understanding, nothing as far as America is concerned. Notwithstanding mutations like Zarqawi’s former organization, which view killing (Americans, Shiites, whatever) as an end in itself, the terrorists got what they needed from us. Assuming that the old Al Qaeda has any influence relative to strategy-blind mutations, the folks who probably should worry are US-backed regimes like the al-Sauds and Murbarak who will turn to us in the face of a growing insurgency and find no help forthcoming. And, ultimately, Israel.

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.

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...

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.)

Cheney fallacy: insurgents' wishes

From the Washington Post, one week before the 2006 elections:

Cheney, meanwhile, said in an interview with Fox News that he thinks insurgents in Iraq are timing their attacks to influence the U.S. elections.

"It's my belief that they're very sensitive of the fact that we've got an election scheduled," he said. Cheney said the insurgents believe "they can break the will of the American people," and "that's what they're trying to do."

Hmmm... Let's assume that these are, in fact, the intentions of the insurgents. Does this mean that the party in power should automatically be given a pass, and always win, just because some terror group, somewhere, is acting up?

This reminds me of how commentators in the US read the election of the socialist governmment in Spain, shortly after the Madrid train bombing attack, as a capitulation to Islamic terror. The actual cause-and-effect was not so simple: the Conservative Government in power panicked when the attacks happened and immediately blamed the wrong group, ETA, and even claimed to have proof of it. The Spanish voters punished this and drove them out of office.

Going back to the implication that the terrorists want the Republicans to lose: Actually, the contrary might be true: there seems to be evidence that Al-Qaeda, in 2004, was not rooting for the Bush ticket to lose, and hence the appearance of a bin Laden video late in the campaign. Of course, this does not mean that Kerry deserved to win just because of this (if true): the point is that the terrorist's wishes should not be factored so simplistically into an election!

Flawed Logic: Presidential Press Conference, Sept. 2006

In a September 2006 press conference, President Bush pushed for approval of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which authorized "robust interrogation procedures", among other things. While the bill was being negotiated, Colin Powell, former Secretary of State (and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), wrote a public letter warning against re-interpreting the provisions of the Geneva Convention. So the first question was this:

Press Conference of the President: "Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?

THE PRESIDENT: If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic. I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective, Terry.

I'd respectfully submit that there are at least 3 flawed arguments in this response:

One could start by commenting on the obvious: the answer had nothing to do with the question! Powell's letter did not make a comparison between those two. Nor did the question imply one. Bush simply changed the subject, adding a red herring that attributed an inflammatory position to the opponent.

We can probably tag this answer as a combination of two techniques: the straw-man argument ("there are some who say that we should not fight the terrorists but send them to therapy instead..."---example courtesy of Karl Rove) and projection ("when did you stop beating your wife?").

Even so, let's examine the straw man argument more closely: One could point out that the American people, compassionate and decent as they might be, are not the same thing as the American government. I am sure that many Americans would not approve of the "interrogation techniques" the bill espouses --- that is, if they could find out what those techniques actually are.

One might also ask, what peoples would not like to think of themselves as "good and decent"?

Finally, it might be true that there is, in fact, no comparison; but even if we grant that the terrorists are orders of magnitude more despicable, this does not automatically mean that what the bill proposes is automatically moral and good.

The headline in many newspapers the next day was something like: "Bush accuses critics of using flawed logic"---without any actual analysis of the argument, or lack thereof. One step closer to Paul Krugman's observation, that if W said that the earth was flat, the headline would be, "Shape of the Earth: Views Differ".

Keith Olberman focused on the line: "It is unaccceptable to think ...". This being an impromptu answer, I would play down the significance of this unfortunate prefix. However, the larger point is this: perhaps we should think, if only a little, about what the moral basis is, and whether currrent methods and approaches are appropriate?

In the context of Powell's statement, given Powell's experience, and his role in this very same administration, perhaps some thinking and nuance would be called for. I wonder if Powell has publicly reacted to this exchange?