GG said: Of course, Jonah never has "been strapped down to the board" and thus it's easy (and repulsive) for him to send around with his friend Pete talking about all the fascinating theoretical nuances behind the "waterboarding debate." Identically, he's never been near a war and it is thus fun and easy for him to beat his chest and type about the "need to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall."

As Glenn points out, it is easy for people such as Jonah Goldberg to argue in favor of preemptive war (whether Iraq, Iran, or another country) because he has never been to war. It is also easy for Jonah Goldberg to argue that waterboarding is not torture because he has never experienced it. A more apt statement, however, might be that Jonah Goldberg can argue that waterboarding is not torture because he has never waterboarded anyone (And as an aside he can argue from the pro-war position because he has never been on the receiving end of a military invasion).

Various posts I have seen suggest that those in favor of waterboarding should submit themselves to the process to see if it is in fact torture. However, a better idea might be to have those in favor of waterboarding use the method on someone else. Offer Rudy Giuliani an opportunity to waterboard an individual (a volunteer who knows that he or she will be waterboarded) who may or may not have information regarding some type of terrorist plot. Should Giuliani refuse, then Giuliani's refusal shows that there may be something unseemly about waterboarding, something that may give a person of good conscience pause. Should Giuliani accept, then we would be able to witness the exact nature of a waterboarding, after which I doubt few people would be able to say that waterboarding is not torture.

Of course, none of the Republican candidates for president, or any of the "conservatives" who support the current establishment would ever agree to such a display. However, this points to a larger problem I have with those who are pro-waterboarding (and pro-war), i.e., they will never themselves fight in a war or torture another human being. When Giuliani is asked what he would do if the government is holding a person who may have information regarding a "ticking time bomb" scenario, he responds that he would order the agency holding that person to do what is necessary to get the information. Wrong answer!!!! A truly strong man would ask where the person was being kept and go there and get the information himself.

Torture proponents like to throw out hypotheticals asking "what would you do if your family _________?", with the anticipated response being that you would torture the person who did "X" in order to save your family. However, the response consistent with that analogy would be "I would demand that the authorities torture that individual in order to save my family."

The strength of pro-war and pro-torture people comes from their knowledge that they will never have to actually fight or torture, but instead can order others to perform these functions and go on to more important business (e.g., tax cuts). The strength of anti-war and anti-torture people derives from the knowledge of what actually happens when you fight or torture, or from the ability to imagine what war or torture might entail even though not having actually taken part in either (e.g., death to innocent people, either in war or by the use of torture).

Of course, a part of me likes to think that Democrats are not taking a stand against anything now based on a plan to use these extraordinary powers granted to the Executive Branch as a means of punishing those Republicans who have spent the last seven years trashing our Constitution. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales and others would be declared enemy combatants and wisked away for an all expenses paid trip to Guantanamo Bay, there to enjoy the pleasures of stress positions, extreme cold, and waterboarding. Another part of my brain, however, feels that the expansion of Executive power is unconstitutional and that the next president would do well to repudiate everything that this current administration has done, and place Bush, Cheney, et al on trial as war criminals with full due process rights and every protection afforded by the Constitution. I suspect that in either instance Jonah Goldberg would be a lot less conflicted.

I just read the post regarding Pakistan potentially providing a template for declaration of martial law in the United States. Bush and Cheney have an advantage, however, because in Pakistan the declaration came in the face of an expected adverse ruling by Pakistan's Supreme Court. Here, on the other hand, Bush and Cheney would not have to do anything to the Supreme Court because it stands ready to rubber stamp any actions by the Executive branch; this appears to be the moment that Scalia has been waiting for.

It seems strange to me that those judges and legal scholars who have argued for "original intent" and "strict construction" when it comes to "activist judges" finding new rights within the penumbra of the Constitution (e.g., privacy, abortion) now seem ready to (1) grant President Bush sweeping powers on the basis of his authority as "Commander in Chief," even though such term is vague and undefined; and (2) ignore actual provisions of the Constitution in order to provide these powers to President Bush (e.g., declaring American citizens enemy combatants, suspending habeus corpus). The goal is, and has been at least since the time of Richard Nixon, absolute power.