Krugman On Torture

by hilzoy

And here's Krugman on the administration bill, in an editorial called 'King of Pain':

"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?"

Krugman then considers and rejects a number of possibilities that will be familiar to our readers. Is torture needed? No. does it even work? No. And so on. He then gets to the heart of the matter:

"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.

And many of our politicians are willing to go along. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives 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."

I think he's right. The reason Bush wants to do this is to show that he can: that when he decides that neither laws nor treaties nor basic human decency binds him, then they don't, whatever those fussy little people on the Supreme Court say. He's the decider, and he gets to make the decisions.

This is why I think there's a chance that he and the Senators might not be able to agree. I think that the administration bill genuinely sticks in the Senators' craws. McCain's ambitions might make him sway, and ever since Graham stripped the Guantanamo detainees of habeas corpus, I haven't been able to figure out what he thinks the rule of law actually means, but I have a harder time seeing why Warner would fold. And if there were any point where he'd draw the line, I would have thought that it would be something that both endangers our troops and tosses what remains of our national honor away.

But what I really can't see is George W. Bush acknowledging that the Senate has the right to make him yield. I just can't see that at all. He's a small-minded, mean-spirited bully with only a few thoughts in his conspicuously underutilized brain, and one of them is: No one, but NO ONE, gets to tell me what to do.

The Senators might yield. I suppose Bush might somehow be forced to, though I have a hard time wrapping my mind around that possibility. But he will not compromise unless he's forced, I think. Yielding on this one would cut far too close to that small number of things Bush really cares about.

I can only hope that the same is true of Warner.

Comments

[SomeOtherDude]

He hates terrorists so much; he will sexually molest and brutalize these worthless pieces of flesh!

He makes me swoon and feel protected, unlike the liberuls.

Our leader will do anything to protect the Fatherland.

[Gary Farber]

"And here's Krugman on the administration bill, in an editorial"

This will seem like a nitpick to some, but it's not. It's a matter of nomenclature, and not confusing people as to who is responsible for what.

This is a common error. It's not an editorial. Neither is it an "article" (which you've previously called Krugman columns).

Krugman has an Op-Ed ("opposite" the "editorials") column.

Editorials are written by the editorial board of a newspaper, and represent the official editorial views of the newspaper. Articles are news items. Columns are the views of individual columnists.

Each of the three is an entirely separate beast from the other , and it's a bad idea to confuse people as to which is which by calling one one of the others.

"ever since Graham stripped the Guantanamo detainees of habeas corpus, I haven't been able to figure out what he thinks the rule of law actually means"

I'm purely 100% guessing, so the odds of my being wrong in this are high, but it's possible that he utterly opposes changing interpretations of Article 3, for the reasons he's stated, but since habeas, as I've previously pointed out, has nothing to do with Article 3, he doesn't think habeas should apply to "enemy combatant" non-citizens.

That's a way to explain his stands that would be consistent with them, at any rate. But as I said, it's just a guess.

[global yokel]

I think Krugman might be off the mark on this issue. I'm convinced that Bush and his henchmen are scared silly about the fact that a Democratic Congress or an incoming Democratic President will prosecute them for crimes against humanity. So, they are trying to make sure that the rules on torture are rewritten before they find themselves in orange jump suits in front of a tribunal at The Hague.

[Ara]

Why haven't both sides of the aisle slammed Bush on his (bizarre) threat to stop the CIA interrogations? If these interrogations are a matter of urgent national security, then he has an obligation to continue them no matter what. He certainly couldn't even consider using them as political leverage (though how it is leverage against people who would rather they did not happen is beyond me). Talk about politicizing the war on terror! If they aren't matters of urgent national security, then there is really no need to tear up the Geneva Convention and, hell, the fabric of our government for the sake of them.

It seems as the Democrats and Republicans alike -- even fascists and libertarians alike -- all have plenty to take issue with in this.

So why haven't they?

[Debra Mervant]

George W. Bush's attitude toward power and law was pretty evident to those of us who witnessed his modus operandi while Governor of Texas : he does not have the intellectual capacity to understand the symbolic foundations of the law, and thus vengefully works to undermine and destroy it. While we're focusing on habeas rights for non-citizens, perhaps we should also be aware of how habeas rights for citizens have been whittled away since the Republican party assumed control in U.S. politics (a slow erosion for the past thirty years now, in fact...) Torture is, and has been going on in U.S. prisons for quite some time now... with little or no possibility for inmates to protest against their treatment in legal channels.

[Katherine]

Gary, what does the placement of the habeas clause in Article 1 rather than Article 3 have to do with anything? It's a common law writ, which always was enforced by the courts and England, and I see no reason whatsoever not to believe that it is included in "the Judicial Power" listed in Article 3. I mean, I am completely perplexed as to what you are arguing.

I'm aware of the argument that habeas doesn't apply to Guantanamo because GTMO involves noncitizens detained outside the U.S.--I don't buy this, but I'm aware of it. But that has nothing at all to do with whether the suspension clause is in Article 1 or Article 3..

With Graham, hil: I really have no idea. My guess is that he doesn't much care if we hold innocent prisoners, if we hold prisoners outside Geneva, etc. (I do think he cares some if we torture prisoners). But if the Supreme Court says CA3 applies, it applies; we and our soldiers need the Conventions too much to breach them or weasel out of them.

[Ugh]

If we can't betray our most fundamental national principles and become an international pariah, then the terrorists will have won.

[SomeOtherDude]

Who cares if the terrorist win?

Bush, and those who support him, look tough!

The Constitution doesn't win elections!

Ask the South.

[Ugh]

The key to the Bush and future Republican administrations is to never defeat the terrorists. Defeating them would remove the only issue that they have half a leg to stand on. Therefore, the terrorist threat must remain, capturing bin Laden just won't do.

[Joe Craine]

Mr. Krugman,

While I disagree with the importance of your reason they want to violate our morals, traditions and laws, your expression of righteous indignation is right on.

My opinion is that this administration is using misinformation to cover their tracks. Torture produces misinformation and it satisfies the lust for vengeance of those who believe that constitutional protections are "for Americans" only - helping the polls.

Very similar to the very successful effort to suggest that a president who protected America for 8 years and brought fiscal and economic harmony somehow did a worse job than a president who (at the minimum) permitted two successful terrorist attacks within our borders and is making everyone, other than his friends, worse off.

That a president who violated his obligations to his profession somehow is more despicable than a president who violated his obligations to the constitution and to a nation.

Follow the money.

[Ugh]

So, appropos of nothing, I go back and forth on who I think Bush is. Sometimes I think he's a weak-minded fool, a la Bib Fortuna. Sometimes I think he's a spoiled petulant child, other times I think he's a teenager who's going to rebel just for the purpose of rebelling. At other times I think he's Beaker from the Muppet Show. But now I think, and I think he thinks, he's Col. Nathan R. Jessep. He's made a command decision, whether its about torture, Iraq, domestic spying, and that's the end of it. And the fact that he just can't get up in front of the nation and say it without someone questioning him ticks him off to no end (though I guess he's come close recently to doing that).

"You think I can't invade Iran?!!? You f**king watch me!"

[SomeOtherDude]

Confessions are more valuable than facts.

[Frank]

Hmm I always think he is the same guy: a frontman/actor working with a gang of thieves. He has to keep working harder and harder to keep the marks distracted while they pry up the floorboards. He is really pretty good at what he does, most actors would have had a complete break by now.

[bob mcmanus]

Glenn Greenwald

I think it is time. Time to ramp it up a level. Words like "tyranny" and "depostism" are being used by right-wing writers. As I said, you do not argue torture, but counter-attack with a counter-escalation.

It is time for civil disobedience, for political theatre, time for illegal language.

I call for the removal of the Bush adminstration from office and power, by force if necessary. I call for all good people of conscience to join me in this project.

If the FBI comes knocking at my door and drags me away, so be it. Y'all will know it, it may make my local newspaper, it won't make Nightline. If they take Kos or Black too many would cheer and the media would spin.

I ask the left wing bloggers of impeccable reputation, high position, moderate renoun to help me out. I will not at this time name names.

It is theatre. I think useful theatre in an election season. The story could be:

"If such a person is willing to go to jail, if such a person thinks the political situation so bad that violence has become an option, then something really bad must be going on."

There will be fines and expenses. If I am not in jail, I will help. I would be shocked if adequate assistance were not abundant.

But we need headlines.

[bob mcmanus]

Let us not wait until they nuke Iran.

I call for the removal of the Bush administration by force.

[Ugh]

Bob - you forgot this part:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[Bruce Baugh]

Ugh; I'm reminded of a Chuck Jones comment in response to a question about which, if any, Looney Tunes characters he identified with. "In my dreams, I'm Bugs Bunny. But then I wake up and I'm Daffy Duck again."

[bob mcmanus]

Ask yourself:"If an attack on Iran happens, will I be able to say 'I have done all I could do'"

Ask yourself have much practical damage would be actually done with the words:to the nation, to the discourse...of course to yourself and those around you. Ask yourself if the situation has evolved to the point where the basic principles of the social contract are in play, where actions against tyranny are thinkable. Ask yourself if the bounds of the thinkable should be extended. Ask yourself if principles of non-violence will be truly damaged more than the nation is being damaged.

Ask yourself what other options are available, and if those options are commenserate with the threats and ongoing damage. We have people crying "Tyranny" on the NY Times Op-Ed pages, and no one listens.
Impeachment will not happen. Oversight will be stonewalled.

I am seeing way too much despair, resignation, and false hope. I am seeing too much patience and faith in a system clearly broken. I am not seeing much actual sacrifice and courage, save among the military.

[Jesurgislac]

bob mcmanus: I call for the removal of the Bush administration by force.

Every time I've entered the US I've ticked a little check box on the Visa Waiver form to assure the US Immigration officer that my intent in entering the country is not to overthrow the US government by force and violence.

There's no room on the form next to that box to write in Not sole purpose of visit.

[togolosh]

I'm sceptical of the idea that torture doesn't work. Given access to information from other sources, and using standard techniques to catch the victim in a lie, I strongly suspect that the signal to noise ratio for information gathered through torture can be quite good. The information gained in an individual torture session does not exist in a vacuum. It can be cross checked against information from other victims, information from other sources such as signals and human intelligence, and against information gained from the same victim on previous sessions. It'd hard to stick to a lie reliably over multiple sessions of torture, especially given that the victim is deliberately worn down into a state of high stress and exhaustion.

There are very good reasons to oppose the use of torture, but ineffectiveness isn't one of them. In addition, using the argument that it doesn't work weakens the anti-torture argument since it can be shown that in specific cases it *has* worked to extract useful information.

[bsa]

Mr. President,
Jack Bauer is NOT a high level agent doing a fine job for us. BTW, torture doesn't work (like on tv); stick with the drug cocktails if you need to loosen the tongues of the bad guys.

[Jesurgislac]

Togolosh, if you're a trained US army interrogator, you are the very first one I have encountered who thought that torture was effective as a means of getting information.

If you're not a trained US army interrogator, you are giving us your uninformed speculation about how you think torture ought to work - in the face of considerable evidence that it doesn't.

There are many reasons to oppose torture: the fact that it's ineffective as a means of getting information from prisoners is the least ethical reason, but it is a fact.

[calmo]

Torture is an instrument of the state to enhance compliance in the general population. It is not about gathering intelligence.
I almost feel tortured responding to claims like 'There are many good reasons to oppose torture'. If the case needs to be argued, then we have more work to do than you can imagine.
Let me tease/torture you with the picture of that consumate citizen who only has that slight blemish on his record of having a healthy appetite for torture. Without that torture, all that citizenship would not be secure against the barbarians and the state and its hard-won standards would fail.
Some standards, yes?

Krugman is right about this dangerous step w&co are taking.

[Carleton Wu]

Personally, I don't think Bush is gung-ho for torture because of any ideological drive- I think he's for torture as a wedge issue.
It's like the Dept of Homeland Security in 2002- everyone was *for* it, so it made a lousy wedge issue. Rove had to add a poison pill to it so it would be unpalatable to the Dems before it made a good wedge.
Everyone is in favor of catching OBL. Everyone is in favor of vigorous interrogation within the GC of catpured terrorists. Hell, everyone is for holding confirmed terrorists as long as possible until we can find a viable long-term solution.

But everyone is *not* for torture, holding people who might be innocent, or for show trials that would do Stalin proud. Ergo, this is the territory Bush *must* stake out in order to claim that he is willing to do more than the Dems to protect us.
I say *must* because he's got f*ckall otherwise to 'run on' for the midterms. Wages aren't growing, gas prices are high, Katrina was a colossal fuckup, the budget is broken, the drug benefit was a confusing mistake, etc. And the biggestissue, Iraq, is looking very bad for him. I admit, as a wedge issue it probably leaves too many folks on the other side of the wedge, but it's better than leaving the voters to decide based on whether the country has been well-run over the past 6 years...

[JakeB]

Carleton--
I have to disagree, because I think it's pretty evident that torture is not particularly popular even with the Republican party. I think the my-way-of-interrogation-(new-with-added-torture!)-or-the-highway stand is going to leave people recognizing the crude and vicious false choice and moving against it (just as they saw through the gov't. shutdown when Clinton was president). Of course, it's possible that you're right and Rove has simply made a big misjudement.

By the way, you forgot to gloss out a 'u' and violated the posting rules a bit, I think.

[Carleton Wu]

Jake,
I agree that it isn't a good position for Bush to be in; I just think it may be the best of a very bad lot.
It's better than it sounds bc Bush isn't up for re-election personally, and manuvers such as this allow for otherwise-loyal GOP Congresscritters to go against Bush & carry those non-rubber-stamp creds back to their districts. The red-meat base gets their bloody spectacle and moderate GOPers get credit for opposing the administration.
As an additional advantage, it keeps a bunch of other stuff off of the front page, stuff that would probably do more harm to the GOP's chances of keeping one or both chambers. It's this or more stories about the evolving civil war in Iraq.

Finally, it might not be the best strategy, but it may be the best strategy that Bush can stomach. It might've been better for the GOP's chances to start a pullout from Iraq this summer, but I don't think anyone could convince George to let his reputation 'take one for the team' like that. I suspect he's still hoping (or even expecting) that history will vindicate him, and he can't do that if he's basically forced to concede defeat.

[Anderson]

Brave Republican senators say they'll oppose the White House on torture ... while the media, and most of the blogosphere, ignores the double whammy of stripping detainees of both (1) habeas corpus and (2) judicial redress for Geneva violations.

How special. The Republican "moderates" are fine with locking people up FOREVER, so long as we don't torture them ... but if we *do* torture them, the courts won't be able to do anything about it. Nothing in the news, of course, about habeas or judicial review. The Republican mock-debate is letting the Repubs set the terms, as usual.

What, exactly, are these "moderates" relying upon to ensure that the Executive obeys the law? Its good word?

The latest report is that a "deal" will emerge at the end of this week. No doubt. And the Democrats will sit on their hands, lest the defense of basic human rights be deemed Soft on Terror.

(Yes, I am venting. Mille mercis.)

[Katherine]

vent away! I feel the same way, & it's nice to have company.

[liberal japonicus]

The Republican "moderates" are fine with locking people up FOREVER, so long as we don't torture them

Here, Anderson, let me stoke that rant a bit. 5 months in captivity without being charged.

[Anderson]

Katherine, and Balkinization, are of course the only reason I even *know* about these issues. God knows I wouldn't read about them in the news.

(Even The News Agency Formerly Known as Knight-Ridder has fallen down on the job; their puff-piece on Republicans "defying" the White House is too execrable to link, and the FAQ co-written by James Rosen, of all people, is silent on habeas/review.)

All the Dems have to do is say, "look, we don't need to waste time and money holding people who aren't terrorists; let's have fair hearings that will sort out the sheep from the goats." Joe Sixpack can understand that. It's not a hard point to make. But the Dems won't make it, because they are [expletives deleted].

(Don't stoke the rant, LJ. I am drinking too much as it is.)

[russell]

I will return, again and again, as often as necessary, to the same point.

There is absolutely nothing suprising about the President's request to legalize an "alternate" interpretation of Article III or Geneva. He wants to cover his behind. Don't even bother pretending to be shocked.

These people will keep this crap up until it costs them something. When they and those who support and enable them lose something they value because of their outrageous behavior and policies, then and only then will they put this garbage aside. They will not do so one minute before then.

What they value is power. Make them pay. Take their toys away.

Every single member of Congress who fails to support the interpretation of Geneva Article III that has prevailed here in the US and internationally for the last 60 years should lose their office this November. They should be required to support it loudly and publicly, with both their words and their vote. If they fail to do so, at all, they should be dusting off their resumes come November.

The President's bill is garbage. The McCain/Warner/Graham "compromise" is garbage. There is no need for a reinterpretation of Geneva III. Everyone knows what it means, and what it requires.

When this shameless, irresponsible, self-serving nonsense costs them something that they want, they will stop. Until it does, they will not stop. They will take everything they can get, and then demand more, as if it were their birthright.

Make them pay. Spend your money, your time, and your vote. Make them pay. Then, and only then, will it stop.

Thank you