Obsidian Wings

Probably Get Fooled Again

by publius

The poor administration -- they’re really just misunderstood “doves” on Iran. Despite officially designating a foreign government’s military as terrorism supporters for the first time in history, they say they’re getting a bum rap. Here’s the Post:

Both publicly and privately, White House and other administration officials have expressed frustration over the talk of war, emphasizing that Bush remains convinced that his strategy of nonmilitary pressure can work. They described yesterday's actions as essential to that approach.

"This decision today supports the diplomacy and in no way, shape or form does it anticipate the use of force," said Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, a key administration player on Iran.

Thing is -- I suspect Burns actually believes this. In fact, the larger Rice camp -- rather perversely -- probably sees this drastic action as an olive branch.

The problem, though, is that their baselines have been warped by fighting with the Cheney camp on Iran. I suspect the Cheney crew is more than ready for military strikes (either by us or Israel). Anything short of that -- from Rice’s embattled perspective -- is actually a step for diplomacy. (Truly frightening thought of the day -- the fate of the Middle East is riding on the persuasive powers of Rice). From any objective perspective, however, the administration’s actions are the opposite of an olive branch. They represent a serious and potentially dangerous escalation of tensions.

It’s not so much that the designation itself will lead to military action. It that’s it crams even more gunpowder into an already-bulging powderkeg. We’ve got 150,000 troops in a country that borders Iran and that understandably has lots of Iranian connections. It’s extremely easy for random gunfights -- sparks -- to rapidly escalate into something much bigger. Archduke Ferdinand: Yep.

The administration’s designation (and the appalling Senate endorsement) feeds this potential fire in two ways. First, it gives the administration political cover to escalate otherwise limited fires. Second, it gives the Iranians more reason to fear an attack. Like any nation would, Iran will be more aggressive and less cooperative -- thus making “sparks” more likely, and on the snowball rolls.

In short, it’s a really bad idea. And it’s not any better just because Rice thinks it’s necessary to preempt the Cheney camp in the Great War for Bush’s Ear currently raging within the administration.

Two other points. First, if I’m right, the whole thing illustrates how adopting extreme positions can often influence public debates. The Cheney/Podhoretz camp is pushing for -- how else to say it -- insane military action of the most extreme nature. No luck so far, but they certainly have shifted the center of gravity. In a way, this strategy pretty much captures the essence of GOP politics from 1994 to 2006.

Second, Clinton’s Iran vote is a big deal. As a matter of common sense, there’s no reason to vote for any foreign policy resolution entitled “Kyl-Lieberman.” More substantively, she’s not voting in a vacuum. She knows exactly what the effects of these actions are -- and how they make military action far more likely. It’s true of course that she -- wisely -- co-sponsored Webb’s Iran legislation. But I classify that under “hedging her panders.” Depending on what crowd she’s speaking to, she can pull out either the Kyl-Lieberman or the Webb card.

I honestly don’t know what Hillary Clinton personally thinks about this stuff. And, frankly, I don’t care. The problem with Hillary is not what she thinks. The problem is her willingness to support more war-oriented foreign policy to avoid looking like a Woodstock hippy. She did it in 2002 -- and she’s just gone and done it again. And it's something to be sincerely concerned about.

Hawk 'N Dove

by publius

Regardless of how you come down on political tactics, I think we can all stipulate that the American public is more nationalistic and war-happy than we would like them to be. Maybe we can change that through strong principled stands, maybe we can’t. That’s part of the simmering fault line within the progressive community these days. But for now, I want to focus only on the first point -- i.e., that Americans are more willing to embrace military force than we would prefer. (If you disagree with this baseline assumption, the rest of the post maybe ain’t for you.)

The interesting question is why. I suppose it’s rooted in a complex mix of cultural, psychological, and historical forces. But regardless of how, it’s interesting -- and maddening -- how the pro-war bias is reflected and reinforced in subtle ways, particularly linguistically.

I discussed this at my old place, but one particularly infuriating example is the ubiquitous use of the words “hawk” and “dove.” Here’s Dan Balz in the Post discussing Clinton’s Iran issues:

Whichever view is correct, Clinton's actions have elevated Iran even more as an issue in the Democratic campaign and demonstrated anew her possible vulnerabilities among dovish Democrats on national security issues.

And here’s the NYT on Rudy’s band of lunatic foreign policy advisors:

But in developing his views, Mr. Giuliani is consulting with, among others, a particularly hawkish group of advisers and neoconservative thinkers.

Maybe I’m making mountains of molehills here, but these words color perceptions. I mean, think about it -- who do you want to be associated with -- a weenie wussified dove or a big manly hairy-chested hawk. There are implicit value judgments in these terms. They also reinforce stereotypes of war opponents as Mr. Van Driesens from Beavis & Butthead.

We might think of war differently if the NYT wrote:

But in developing his views, Mr. Giuliani is consulting with, among others, a group of advisers and neoconservative thinkers who aggressively advocate starting wars to solve foreign policy problems.

Or if the Post wrote:

Whichever view is correct, Clinton's actions have elevated Iran even more as an issue in the Democratic campaign and demonstrated anew her possible vulnerabilities among Democrats more skeptical that starting wars is the answer to our national security issues.

Real Support

by G'Kar

A brief post, as I'm not somewhere with a dedicated internet connection at the moment. But I couldn't read this comment without (after letting my blood pressure abate) making at least a brief response.

I will note that, of course, I do not speak for all soldiers, or even necessarily any subset of soldiers other than the one containing me. But the notion that hilzoy and Katherine 'support the cause of terrorism' rather than supporting the troops is beyond risible. (And yes, I realize Tom doesn't really merit a response, but I'm responding to all those who think that anyone who doesn't line up uncritically behind the war is somehow undermining the troops.)

I have no use for the support of people who uncritically assume that, since we're at war, it's their duty to support it in order to help the troops. History is replete with examples of troops getting the shaft during wartime, and the only way to protect them against that is through critical thought. You can oppose the war without opposing the troops; people do that every day. I would much prefer the support of people who have examined the war, found it wanting, and seek to bring me home than those who will continue mindlessly beating the war drum regardless of the circumstances on the ground. (Please note that my own position on the war remains one of principled uncertainty.)

The sooner people realize that critical thinking is an asset rather than a liability, the better off we will all be.

Mercy... Uncle...Etc.

by publius

If the liberal blogosphere collectively stipulates that everything Scott Beauchamp said was wrong, can we stop hearing about it? What if I personally send every conservative blogger $20?

We give. Seriously. White flag. No more. Mercy.

UPDATE: I should say that while I (intentionally) don't know much about it, this in no way endorses the Malkinite masses' view. I doubt he's a speaking-freely soldier these days. But regardless, I don't care. Just make it stop. Uncle.

UPDATE 2: This is actually turning out to be pretty hilarious. Even K-Lo -- ! -- pretty much concedes these documents say nothing other than Beauchamp wants to be left alone. No retraction at all it seems. Oh well, maybe next time guys. I hear there's a paraplegic 6-year old cancer patient on a respirator somewhere currently enjoying free medical benefits.

Scary Scientists!

by hilzoy

I was just going over the stuff in my junk email to see whether I could delete it all, and I found the most astonishing message:

"Dear Dr. [hilzoy],

From your article titled “The implications of advances in neuroscience for freedom of the will.” (Neurotherapeutics. 2007 Jul;4(3):555-9.), we learned of your research with [hilzoy] and thought you might be interested in knowing that GenWay currently has an antibody against this target as part of our catalog products."

Since I'm not sure what "this target" refers to, I'm not entirely sure what this means. It could be that GenWay has developed an antibody against me. That would be pretty scary, although I take some comfort from the thought that I'm unlikely to be visiting anyone else's bloodstream in the near future. Still, I don't particularly like thinking of myself as "this target", let alone a target so prominent that an antibody against me would be in GenWay's catalog.

But the alternative is even worse. This email could mean that GenWay has developed an antibody against freedom of the will. That would really be scary: inoculate people with this antibody, and in a sort of horrible variant on autoimmune disorders, it would attack their free will. If this gets out, we might find armies of automata wandering the streets. Horrid foreign governments could literally inoculate their populations against George W. Bush's attempt to spread freedom throughout the globe, or create huge armies of unthinking zombies marching in lockstep, unable to resist. Huge masses of alternate possibilities would collapse on themselves; whole possible worlds would be annihilated with each injection. The possibilities are horrifying.

Tee hee hee. The joys of biomedical spam.

Give 'Em a Break

by publius

I’m not sure I entirely understand Brian Beutler’s argument here. The point -- familiar enough -- is that Congressional Democrats suck. But to support this conclusion, he offers up the failure to override the SCHIP veto. I’m not attacking Beutler (he’s one of the good ones), but I’m frankly tired of this line of argument. Democrats can’t alter the laws of mathematics. If they lack numbers, I don’t understand what exactly they’re supposed to do.

Democrats can’t transform Republicans into non-Republicans. Yes, Democrats control Congress, but not by much. For practical purposes, the parties basically have 50/50 support. The Senate, however, requires 60/40 support, while overriding a veto requires 2/3 support. So again -- what exactly are Democrats supposed to do differently?

In the face of inferior numbers, there’s only one thing to do -- politicize issues and tee them up for the next election. And on that front, the Democrats were wildly successful. What makes Beutler’s argument somewhat puzzling is that he praises this very strategy (the ones the Dems pursued), but ultimately dismisses them anyway. I mean, I guess the schedule of the RESTORE Act wasn’t a stroke of genius, but I don’t see how it changed anything on the SCHIP front. (Remember that everyone had already voted once -- why would you expect Republicans to change for the override -- flip-flop anyone?).

From a glass half-full perspective, the Dems have had weeks of positive coverage on quite possibly the most favorable, sympathetic issue of the entire congressional session (children’s health care). That’s all you can hope for. When the time comes, future Democratic candidates (especially the presidential nominee) can bang the opposition over the head with it. Again, Beutler notes all this, but still concludes the Dems failed miserably.

We’re seeing the exact same dynamic with the war and the Webb bill. The Democrats are being blamed by Democrats for Republican votes. But if Republicans continue voting this way, there are going to be fewer and fewer Republicans in the next session. It’s not ideal -- the ideal would be to end the war, to pass the Webb bill, to enact SCHIP. But the Democrats lost the 2004 election. If you want to blame someone, blame the American people. Blame Republicans. But I don’t understand why the Democrats keep getting so much blame. At the very least, they are catching a disproportionate amount of crap. I mean, good God, just look at what they’re at least trying to do -- through bills and hearings -- as compared to the last Congress.

Granted, FISA is a different story. I strongly disagree with the leadership, but I also recognize it’s a much thornier political issue in the swing districts and swing states that determine political power.

But blaming Dems for lacking numbers just isn’t fair. And, frankly, it will ultimately lead them to embrace Broderism in the hopes of “doing something.” Sometimes, though, it’s better to do nothing if it ultimately leads to better and more progressive policies down the road.

Think chess, not horse races.

A Mystery

by hilzoy

The NYT had an article yesterday on the smear campaign against John McCain that helped win George W. Bush the nomination:

"A smear campaign during the primary in February 2000 here had many in South Carolina falsely believing that Mr. McCain’s wife, Cindy, was a drug addict and that the couple’s adopted daughter, Bridget, was the product of an illicit union. Mr. McCain’s patriotism, mental well-being and sexuality were also viciously called into question. (...)

People in some areas of South Carolina began to receive phone calls in which self-described pollsters would ask, “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”

It was a reference to Bridget, who was adopted as a baby from an orphanage in Bangladesh and is darker skinned than the rest of the McCain family. Richard Hand, a professor at Bob Jones University, sent an e-mail message to “fellow South Carolinians” telling recipients that Mr. McCain had “chosen to sire children without marriage.”

Literature began to pepper the windshields of cars at political events suggesting that Mr. McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, that he was mentally unstable after years in a P.O.W. camp, that he was the homosexual candidate and that Mrs. McCain, who had admitted to abusing prescription drugs years earlier, was an addict.

“You had a sense of besiegement daily,” said Mark Salter, a longtime aide to Mr. McCain.

The McCain team had trouble nailing down the origin of the dirt.

“One time in Hilton Head, we chased these punks down the block who were handing them out,” said State Representative James H. Merrill, the Republican state majority leader, “and when we got to them and asked them where they got them, they said some guy in a red pickup truck said, ‘Hey do you wanna make $100?’”

Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s political adviser, and the entire Bush team strongly denied involvement, though it was clear Mr. Bush was the beneficiary of the campaign."

This was one of the ugliest political episodes I can remember. It's hard to beat a smear campaign that goes after a candidate's wife, child, patriotism, and mental stability all at once. But to me, the mystery is: why does this work?

When some anonymous person calls you up and insinuates that a candidate committed treason while a prisoner of war, or lost his mind as a result of torture, there would seem to be two main possibilities: either that person is telling the truth, in which case the candidate has real problems, or s/he is not, in which someone is running one of the most despicable smear campaigns imaginable. And it would seem to be a matter of some urgency to decide which of these possibilities is true. I would have thought that reporters would make it their business to report on these allegations, and to determine and broadcast the truth.

I would also have thought that even if the candidate who seemed to be benefitting from those rumors denied being behind them, it would be incumbent on him to denounce them in the strongest possible terms, and explicitly deny that they were true. A candidate who does this -- who stands up and says: I'm running against John McCain because I think I'd be a better President, but I will not tolerate anyone saying that he was not a genuine war hero, still less that he committed treason or lost his mind, and I will certainly not tolerate anyone attacking his wife and child -- shows genuine character. One who remains silent, allowing himself to benefit from flat-out slander, shows himself to have no character at all.

Even if I were genuinely in doubt about whether or not Karl Rove were behind that campaign, then, I would have thought that Bush's response to it told me a lot about the kind of person he was. And what it told me was not good. Moreover, I can't imagine that being the sort of person who allows himself to benefit from these kinds of attacks wouldn't be any more attractive to conservatives than it is to liberals.

So why on earth does this sort of attack succeed? Why don't people just say: any candidate who doesn't denounce these sort of attacks as strongly as possible shows himself to be scum, and vote accordingly? I honestly have no idea.

The Rule Of Law

by hilzoy

From the NYT:

"On the second day of confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Mukasey went further than he had the day before in arguing that the White House had constitutional authority to act beyond the limits of laws enacted by Congress, especially when it came to national defense.

He suggested that both the administration’s program of eavesdropping without warrants and its use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects, including waterboarding, might be acceptable under the Constitution even if they went beyond what the law technically allowed. Mr. Mukasey said the president’s authority as commander in chief might allow him to supersede laws written by Congress."*

I haven't been able to locate a transcript of the hearings, but one of the points at which Mukasey said this is the following:

"Asked if the president had the constitutional power to authorize an illegal act, Mukasey said yes and no simultaneously:

"If by illegal you mean contrary to a statute, but within the authority of the president to defend the country, the president is not putting somebody above the law; the president is putting somebody within the law. Can the president put somebody above the law? No. The president doesn't stand above the law. But the law emphatically includes the Constitution. It starts with the Constitution.""

Last time I checked, the Constitution does not give the President the authority to defend the country. It says that he "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" (Art. 2 sec. 2), but that's hardly the same as saying that he gets to do whatever it takes to defend the country. On the other hand, the Constitution explicitly says that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." (Art. 2, sec. 3.) It doesn't say that he has to take care that the laws he likes, or the laws he feels like obeying, or the laws he would have passed if he were the Congress, shall be faithfully executed; it says that he has to take care that the laws, period, without exception be faithfully executed. How anyone can look at Article 2 and conclude that the President has the right to disobey duly enacted laws when the national defense requires it is a mystery to me.

This is not a minor matter. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. If he is not firmly committed to the rule of law, and to the idea that the President is bound by any law enacted by Congress, and to the view that when he thinks a law is wrong, the correct response is either to challenge its constitutionality in court or to suck it up and obey it, then he should not be confirmed.

It's as simple as that.

***

* Question: what is the point of the word "technically", in the NYT's phrase "what the law technically allowed"? Is there some other way in which something can be against the law? If not, why add this word, if not to belittle the need for the nation's highest law enforcement officer to obey the law?

Attorney General Nominee Disavows Torture

by Katherine

The President’s nominee for Attorney General was introduced to the committee by a Democratic Senator, who vouched for his integrity, his qualifications, and “his interest in working with all of us in making our homeland more secure, and at the same time protecting our citizens' rights and liberties.”

He repeatedly told the Judiciary committee that he was horrified by the pictures of Abu Ghraib; that he would not condone torture or rendition; that he would prosecute those who violated the laws against torture; that he understood there were limits on the President’s power as Commander in Chief and that he rejected the “torture memo” issued by the Office of Legal Counsel in August 2002:

"Like all of you, I have been deeply troubled and offended by reports of abuse. The photos from Abu Ghraib sickened and outraged me and left a stain on our nation's reputation. And the president has made clear that he condemns the conduct and that these activities are inconsistent with his policies. He has also made clear that America stands against and will not tolerate torture under any circumstances. I share his resolve that torture and abuse will not be tolerated by this administration and commit to you today that, if confirmed, I will ensure the Department of Justice aggressively pursues those responsible for such abhorrent actions."

“We in the executive branch, of course, understand that there are limits upon presidential power; very, very mindful of Justice O'Connor's statement in the Hamdi decision that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president of the United States" with respect the rights of American citizens. I understand that, and I agree with that.”

“Senator, this president is not going to order torture. We don't condone it. I will say, with respect to the opinion, the [OLC torture memo] has been withdrawn. I reject that opinion. It has been rejected. It does not represent the views of the executive branch. It has been replaced by a new opinion that does not have that discussion.”

“Senator, the [OLC torture memo] has been withdrawn. It has been rejected, including that section regarding the commander in chief authority to ignore the criminal statutes. So it’s been rejected by the executive branch. I categorically reject it. And in addition to that, as I’ve said repeatedly today, this administration does not engage in torture and will not condone torture.”

“Senator, if I might respond to that, the president is not above the law. Of course he’s not above the law.”

“I want to emphasize to the committee how important I think treaties like Geneva are for America, because they do represent our values, and in many ways and at many times, they have protected our troops. And it is true that part of winning the war on terror is winning the hearts and minds of certain communities.”

Q: “I was glad to hear you say to -- and I’m -- correct me if I misunderstood you, but to Senator Durbin that it is wrong if somebody -- if a U.S. personnel turns somebody over to another country knowing they’re going to be tortured. Did I understand you correctly on that?”
A: “I believe that that is the law, and naturally U.S. policy.”
Q: “And so they would be prosecuted, the people who did that?”
A: “Yes, sir. Yes.”

The hearing took place in 2005. The nominee was Alberto Gonzales.

I assume Michael Mukasey will be a better Attorney General than Gonzales. He could hardly be worse. He doesn’t owe his career to George W. Bush. He has a reputation for independence and integrity that Gonzales never did. He sometimes said no to the administration as a judge. Overall, he gave somewhat better answers at his confirmation hearings than Gonzales—less “oh but we were doing our best” defense of the original OLC torture memo; more willingness to admit that the Commander in Chief power has limits.

So maybe his ringing denunciations of torture today were actually sincere. Then again, maybe not. His answers sounded better than Gonzales’, but he was asked much easier questions. When Gonzales refused to take a position on the legality of waterboarding, he got detailed written follow-up questions. I would be surprised if there’s any follow up to Mukasey’s claim he couldn’t comment on the admissibility of evidence obtained through waterboarding, because he didn’t really know what waterboarding was.

None of the statements that I’ve read today give me any real information or reassurance about what he will do as Attorney General. Not without a specific denunciation of the 2004 and 2005 OLC torture memos; or a willingness to say that specific techniques like waterboarding, hypothermia, and painful stress positions are banned; or a pledge to release the publicly release the legal justifications for “enhanced interrogation” & wireless surveillance instead of treating the administration’s constitutional law arguments as state secrets. The statements that “I categorically denounce torture,” “the United States doesn’t torture,” “torture is antithetical to our values”—they are meaningless from members of this administration. It’s past time for the press to learn this, and to stop writing credulous headlines about how the “Attorney General Nominee Rejects Torture.” But I doubt that’s going to happen when the Democrats abdicate and fail to ask hard questions.

UPDATE: Emily Bazelon has a similar take.

(edited for typos, etc.)

CATS!

by publius

I also trust everyone is fully aware of the pure awesomeness that was the UK-LSU game. I'm tempted to get a virtual Blue-White cheer going. Farley maybe? -- you're an adopted Kentuckian (not the real thing like me, but close enough, assuming you can now pronounce Louisville with two syllables).