Letters to the Editor
-
Still fired up
I slept on it, and I am still fired up, as I have been since reading those letters by tempus and Svensker yesterday. I have to believe it's real if it survives the Bardo plane ;-)
Anyway, the NYT has letters on this in response to their articles and editorials, and there is one which is pretty revealing. Quoted in it's entirety:
To the Editor:
Re “Nominee’s Stand May Avoid Tangle of Torture Cases” (front page, Nov. 1):
If Michael B. Mukasey were to admit that waterboarding is torture, the danger that those who tortured in good faith would be prosecuted is minimal so long as the president has the courage to use the pardon power.
As President Ford demonstrated, one need not await the commencement of legal action to issue a pardon for offenses that may have been committed. Let the president take personal responsibility for the torturing done at his behest.
Bob Kelly
Keansburg, N.J., Nov. 2, 2007
While the letter writer has his heart in the right place, and obviously wants President Bush to own up to his crimes, he is reflecting an American conceit that I think is misplaced, but which can be heard both on left and right. The idea is that all one has to square with is American law, and own up to the American People.
Technically, were President Bush to pardon torturers, he would be in violation of the U.N. treaty, which demands that they get punishment proportional to their crimes. Shooter pointed out a common American conception yesterday, that countries violate U.N. treaties with impunity, so they can be ignored.
Less cynically, American lawyers, Glenn and others can confirm, typically regard the Constitution as the highest authority, and therefore regard treaties as something that may be abrogated by the President, or by the Congress at any time. This is codified by regarding treaties as not being self-implementing and therefore regarding the implementing legislation as compelling but not the treaty itself.
For those of us in what the Red Cross refers to as the International Humanitarian Law Movement, there are international laws that should be binding on all signatories. Especially the Geneva Conventions seem more like the Constitution, universally agreed to, amended from time to time, even ruled on by courts, for instance the Hamdan decision here in the U.S. The Convention Against Torture has been similarly treated by the Supreme Court in Israel and the European Union Court of Human Rights. The Constitution is seen as enjoining the Congress to define and punish offenses against them ("the law of Nations") and demanding adherence to them ("and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land").
Suffice it to say, if the U.S. has entered into an international agreement which it demands be respected, like the Convention Against Torture, it cannot then turn and say it is just a treaty and the U.S. government is not bound by it, and the President may pardon a torturer in defiance of the treaty.
Just my personal opinion, but international law should be law, and America isn't some special country on the globe with a unique right to ignore it at will, while demanding that others follow it. Henry Dunant and Gustav Moynier worried that high minded "High Parties" might do just that when the shoe was on the other foot, and that was why they, long before the modern International Criminal Court was conceived, called for such a body, fearing just the sort of attitude expressed in the United States today. That was in the late 19th century, you'd think we could make a little progress.
Sorry for the rant.
-
Pedantry
Jim W says: As Frankly has pointed out, "Camp Xray" works better than "Camp Gitmo". I think "Gitmo Bay" also works and would be more recognizable.
Yes, Gitmo Bay works for the scan, but from the point of view of pragmatics it is important to have "Camp" in the lyrics because it will bring to mind, if only subliminally, other "camps" such as Auschwitz-Birkenau, Dachau, Therisienstadt, Treblinka, and many others that most people would like to forget about but shouldn't be allowed to.
-
It's a good rant, ondelette
But I would have taken exception to the letter writer's use of the expression those who tortured in good faith. There is no such thing as torturing in good faith. According to the UNCAT neither the President of the United States nor any of his officers can order torture legally under any circumstances whatsoever. Shooter is always pointing out that he is not a lawyer (as if it needed pointing out) and that legal language confuses him, but there is nothing confusing about the language of the UNCAT:
-
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
- An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Anyone who can't understand this language needs to be asked "What part of No exceptional circumstances whatsoever don't you understand?
-
-
@ Jordan Orlando
You're splitting hairs, trying to have it both ways. You want to "support" the Constitution and its views on the rule of law, but at the same time you clearly want to allow special "wiggle room" for the Executive given our current geopolitical situation. You are not alone in this. The John Yoo/David Addington position is not legally sound; it is not accepted or respected, it is merely stated. Thanks to our weak and spineless Democratic leaders it has never been seriously questioned, and is even being (as you say) implicitly supported by Schumer, Feingold etc. But that does not make it correct.
Yes it does. Certainly in fact, if not in theory. The shape of the Governmental landscape is being negotiated between the President and the Congress, with the Supreme Court as referee. When all three branches agree on something, it's a done deal until reshaped by other agreements. That moment will come as the result of elections, and the process continues. You can complain all you like, but this back and forth is necessary to find the parameters of government needed to deal with new adversaries and new technology. It is what makes the Constitution strong enough to contain all the disparate elements this country husbands.
(FDR: same remarks, same complaints. See my comments yesterday viz. the shooter242 technique of finding Demcrats who are guilty of the action UT posters are complaining about. It does not make me wrong.)
It doesn't make you right either, just willing to ignore history and standards accepted for your side of the aisle and denied to ours.
I fully appreciate that Hillary etc. don't mind giving Bush the candy
The candy? Hillary etc. give Bush nothing but grief. I repeat the point that for Bush there is no personal gain in accumulating power to be given up a year from now. He is doing what he feels necessary to protect the country in a time of war.
This isn't about "terrorism," it's about changing the Middle East, defending AIPAC's and Israel's interests, and getting the oil. 9/11 was a criminal action that was seized upon as the "Reichtag Fire" galvanizing event that could leverage the already-planned power grab. If you came at the entire scenario with cold unemotional logic, I think you would have to recognize what I'm saying as the most reasonabl explanation of what's going on. I have conservative friends who freely admit that the "9/11" rationale is horseshit but that it's necessary horseshit because the invasion is so necessary, so crucial.
Examining any human endeavor with solely "cold unemotional logic" will always miss the point of the process, because NOTHING we do is coldly separate from emotion. If you want to argue the war, save that for another day.
Because the damage done to the United States is so egregious, so harmful, and so damaging to our interests. That's the part you don't want to accept or understand. A "brute force," amoral approach to geopolitics is the one thing that will create more 9/11s. This is a historical lesson that Bush supporters refuse to learn. Power grabs make enemies. Hatred for the United States is far, far more harmful to our global economic and diplomatic interests, long term, than anything else.
Such as? I don't get this grave concern for the world to like us. What difference would it make exactly? What is this need for approval from people you don't know? I'm not getting it. On a global basis, life is a free for all with no governing body to play referee, except what might be agreed to such as the UN. But so what? If someone breaks the "rules" nothing happens. The truth is that what the world wants is for us to get out of their way so they can wheel, deal, and steal, without interference. Personally I say fine. But I sure don't care if they like us. Worse, neediness for approval warps the "cold unemotional logic" approach you mentioned.
Let me also remind you that 9/11 was conceived, planned and staged during the tenure of the most popular President in the World. Obviously, good will didn't help us out at all.