Just Where Did I Put That Pesky Law?

1. The real amusing thing is that during the confirmation process Mukasey initially indicated that torture is torture (everyone gets so hung up on waterboarding… they’ve been torturing people in many, many ways). Then he had a meeting with some VIPs and when the confirmation process continued, it turned out that torture wasn’t torture anymore!

   However angry you are at the democrats, the ‘pubs are always far worse. Bush said (basically) that if they don’t approve Mukasey he simply will not put another candidate forward. Talk about contempt for government. Talk about contempt for reality!

2. Mrs. Herreras has it backwards. If Mukasey held a personal opinion regarding water boarding, and used that as a basis for his answer, he would have given a lawless answer. The question was whether or not water boarding was illegal. Having not researched that particular technique, he gave the correct answer of; I don’t know”. Again, he was not asked how he felt about it, or if he personally considered it torture.

   The key word in Geneva Conventions is “Conventions”. It applies to the people who signed it. Even for the people who signed it, it does not apply to irregular combatants. That means that if you did not sign on, or you are not conforming to the rules, you have no protection under the conventions. Regardless of how we feel about it, that is the law.

   It appears to me that Mrs, Hererras is confusing her feelings and desires with the law – that is dangerously lawless.

3. Mr. Hoffman, thank you for your analysis of me, but in the future it is Ms. Herreras. Thank you kindly.

4. MIKHAIL KRYZHANOVSKY – U.S. PRESIDENT DE FACTO

   Mikhail Kryzhanovsky, international superspy, the author of the “White House
   Special Handbook, or How to Rule he World in the 21st Century”, is the U.S.
   president de facto. Since 1996, American presidents (Bill Clinton and now –
   George Bush) follow his instructions.
   What do you know about that ?

5. Is it just me, or has this blog gotten slightly insane as of late?

6. I hadn’t looked into these blog postings, but I see Jonathan Hoffman has swallowed whole the line of dishonest rhetoric put forth by the right-wing think tanks.

   First of all, if Mukasey really “hadn’t researched” waterboarding, he’s an idiot. The controversy over interrogation techniques has been brewing for well over two years now. Anybody who claims they don’t know much about it, at that level of government, is lying.

   Secondly, the U.S. is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, and if you read it carefully you will discover — contrary to what you are claiming — that the signers’ obligations apply to all nations, not just the other ones who signed on. The argument that “it does not apply to irregular combatants” is a Bush justification that does not bear scrutiny. Plus most of the people waterboarded have not proven to be irregular combatants. Some of them are non-combatants rounded up during sweeps. They include Guantanamo Bay prisoners who have since been released, without ever being charged with any crime.

   As for Jonathan attempting to claim that Mari is confusing her feelings with the law, how can you be sure you’re not the one doing that, Mr. Hoffman? You don’t even have your facts straight.

7. Ms. Herraras,

   My apologies for the use of the incorrect title.

   Mukasey was appointed by President Bush because he is a personal friend of Senator Schumer – hence the support. President Bush realizes that challenges to his appointments have nothing to do with qualifications, and everything to do with the fact that they are his appointments. In a last ditch attempt, he appointed a personal friend of the head of the opposition, and the appointment squeaked by the committee.

   I agree that often the Republicrats and Demicans are difficult to distinguish. I’ll save a seat for you in the Libertarian Party. If you like liberty and rights, you will find a home there.

   Mr. Nombulist,

   Neither the concept, nor the term “irregular combatants” are creations of president Bush. Forget the think tanks, consider a little history:

   During the Battle of the Bulge in World War II, the Germans sent soldiers wearing American uniforms across the lines to pose as American soldiers. They occupied road intersections and miss-directed supply and troop movements. They were caught, lined up, and shot on the spot.

   Here’s the question: Which side violated the Geneva Conventions? I suspect that you would say, “the Americans, because they murdered unarmed prisonrs of war who have right under the Geneva Conventions.” The correct answer, however, is “the Germans”. Here’s a straight fact: The Geneva Conventions includes a rule about wearing your uniform that displays your rank, and provide your name, serial umber, etc. Can you guess what those guys were who posed as Americans in capturd uniforms? If you said “irregular combatants”, move to the head of the class. As irregular combatants, their protections were forfeit, and the Americans broke no rules by shooting them on the spot.

   Also in Word War II, a number of German spies were delivered to America by German U-Boats (submarines). They wore civilian clothing, and their mission was to blend into the population for use at a later time. They were caught. They were reviewed by a military tribunal (another thing that predates the Bush presidency), and the tribunal said, “Yep, German spies.” They were not promptly sent to Guantanamo Bay, they were promptly hanged.

   Back to today. You are quite correct about the controversy brewing for years, but that does not mean that the matter is resoved. I have heard Con law professors argue both ways as whether water boarding is torture under the law. It may never be resolved since the law is intentionally vague. Were torture defined in a precise way, then enemy irregular combatants would know in advance what would and would not happen to them in the event of capture, rendering any interrogation useless.

   It has been reported that Kalid Sheik Mohammed was water boarded, and he started taling almost immediately. Fortunately for him, we did not use the Al Qaeda torture manual recovered in Iraq that decribed how to properly gouge out eyes and dismember people. He divulged information on three separate terrorist plans involving attacks on the U.S.A. One last question: Are you glad that we learned of the attack plans, or do you think it despicable that we made the mass murderer feel like he was drowning?

8. Nice misdirection regarding Germans in WWII. Quite a different war there, in different times. Your example is unrelated to torture, only to a technical reading of the Geneva Convention, and not to its spirit or purpose. In the cases you cited, it was already quite clear that the Germans were enemies and that they had full intention of causing harm. Meanwhile there is much evidence that waterboarding and other disputed interrogation techniques have been used on detainees who turned out to be innocent.

   As for whether “the matter is resolved” on torture, I wasn’t talking about whether the matter is resolved. I was talking about the fact that Mukasey was dishonest when he claimed he is not aware of what goes on during the process of waterboarding. The information is widely available and has been the focus of legal debate for some time. The only reason Mukasey would say he’s not aware of the process is to dodge the question.

   Your facts regarding Kalid Sheik Mohammed are selective. The idea that Mohammed “started talking almost immediately” is humorous, considering he was detained for for years and was most likely tortured/interrogated on an ongoing basis for that entire time.

   Most of what Khalid “divulged” would not hold up in a court of law. You asked, “Are you glad we learned of the attack plans?” but there is no reason to believe he divulged any information that had been previously unavilable.

   Much of what we know about the circumstances of Kalid’s interrogation is sketchy. For all we know he was given a script containing a shopping list of terror plots, then waterboarded, after which he “confessed” to being involved in those plots. Or made up the plots. Who knows. From the sound of it he confessed to everything under the sun. He probably confessed to buying the nails for Jesus Christ’s crucifixion as well. Doesn’t make it true, doesn’t make it useful, and doesn’t make it a good argument for waterboarding.

   More information on Kalid’s confession: Washington Post, ABC News.

9. Gotta lova ya Sam. Mr. Hoffman, you know I have been interested in that Libertarian Party invite for sometime now. When we lived in LA (many years ago) we’d take walks around Venice Beach. The same guy was always there with a table and a large board that read, “You could be a Libertarian.” It was like a game (although a little too similar to the Scientology encounter on Hollywood Boulevard).
   I took the test the first time out. What do you know, but it revealed I am a Libertarian. My husband, who was looking at some sunglasses nearby, saw the chit chat taking place and ran over. Ran over. I said, “Hey guess what, I’m a Libertarian.” No, no, the husband said, scowling at the man beaming at his new recruit.
   I kept my Demo registration, but you know, Mr. Hoffman, over the few years I’ve thought of that guy on Venice Beach. I can’t see going to the Green Party, but what is going on locally with you Libertarians? Tell me, are the Libertarians alive and well in Tucson? Next round of elections, will we see some Libertarian candidates-candidates that could tempt my obviously Libertarian-leaning ways and bring my Hillary-loving husband to his knees?

10. i used to be libertarian. then i actually met some of them.

    turns out most libertarians are just right-wing republicans in different clothing.

    most libertarians you meet really, really love guns. they want to have lots and lots of guns. they want to shoot their guns. they want nobody to tell them what to do with their guns. they think the government wants to take their guns. they are afraid the government will rise up and attack them and they need the guns to stop the government. they love the 2nd amendment and think it means they have a right to have automatic weapons. they think it means they can have grenades. they think it means they can have bazookas. they like bazooka guns. they like bazooka gum.

    the libertarians think everything can be privatized. they think the free-market system is self-purifying and will naturally correct all abuses. if only people just understood. if only people all bought in to the ideals at once. everything would be utopia. let’s privatize the police. let’s privatize the court system. let’s privatize air-traffic control. let’s privatize water. let’s privatize your ass.

    this is what they say: “golly, if a private police force were corrupt, then people would hire a competing police force instead, and the corrupt police force would be forced to clean up their act to earn back the public dollar.” ha ha ha, they actually think that is a workable solution. they also think a private court system could be run with binding arbitration and that the arbitration would always be fair and nobody would ever corrupt that system either. there would be no monopolies, no backroom deals, no kickbacks, no anti-trust, gouging, collusion, etc.

    libertarians are like any other “ism” in that they take a single idea that might work in limited circumstances and with moderation, take it to extremes, and then go into denial about the problems that emerge from the extremes. “if a chocolate sundae is good, then it must be good ALL time time” is not true, right? but that is what the libertarians think: “if laissez faire economics are good, they must be good applied to EVERYTHING, right”

11. ooh, don’t mention “Hillary-loving” and “bringing somebody to his knees” in the same sentence, mari

12. Ohhhhh, so right Reddy Teddy, you are so right. Perhaps I should have replaced Hillary with Clinton to provide a wider historical context….

13. // Tell me, are the Libertarians alive and well in Tucson? //

    Yes. The AZLP has let the party be the third recognized party in AZ almost every election year and it does alright.

    As for your Hilary-loving husband, don’t just bring him to his knees – kick him in the balls for wanting a candidate who will enact socialist ideals.

14. IPH-Never, ever kick something you like. You wouldn’t kick your dog now, would you?

15. I wasn’t really saying to physically kick the guy. But I personally really would like to see a more moderate approach from Hillary because right now she doesn’t have one, and this scares me that it will be slouching into a system that promotes government control over our lives.

    Think of it as the antithesis of Libertarianism — which is Authoritarianism.

16. I thought the antithesis of Libertarianism was representative democracy.

17. Mr. Nombulist,

    Why is my WWII example a “misdirection”? I understand that you might find it troubling, as it provides definitive examples how the rules are applied, and hints that the current uproar has less to do with the Conventions than with Bush Derangement Syndrome. You’re not suggesting, I hope, that the rules are different now than they were then, are you?

    Mr. Reel,

    It could be, if the government powers were unlimited. In that case, we would be electing our masters. From a libertarian perspective, “masters” is the operative word. Whether or not they are elected is of little consequence.

    Ms. Herreras,

    The Libertarian Party is organized locally at the county level. meetings are held monthly. Send an email to me at contact@tucsonsammy.com and I’ll put together some information for you. It has been my observation that the local party membership is not composed of “right-wing Republicans”, but actually has drawn pretty much equally from both parties. Can you really imagine a right-wing republican writing the following:

    http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/Opinion/Content?oid=oid%3A101979

18. Jonathan: If they’re so organized, how come they didn’t run anyone in the city elections?

19. James,
    Not according to the Nolan Chart: in that case the antithesis is Populism (changed in later charts to Authoritarianism). Now, let’s be honest here, the Nolan Chart is a central element for Libertarians, but if you were to set up a chart of polar opposites, what would yours look like?

    Other parts of this discussion:
    I don’t speak for Hoffman, nor can I speak for the AZLP or agree with everything it puts out. Regarding city elections, good question. What happened there?

    The highest-level “Libertarian” in Arizona is a Republican: Congressman Jeff Flake is a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, a small sect of Republicans with strong libertarian leanings. It includes Ron Paul as one of its members.

20. Just to stick my foot in further, here’s the link to the AZ Republican Liberty Caucus.

    Members include Congressman Flake, Secretary of State Jan Brewer, former Congressman Matt Salmon, among others.

21. Jimmy,

    Um, I didn’t say that we were well organized. We are organized enough to meet monthly, at least. I could use the old cliche that organizing libertarians is like trying to herd cats, but I won’t.

    I think that there are other, more significant, reasons. For one thing, there were huge efforts in the past to field as many candidates as possible. There was a big emphasis on recruiting, with little or no vetting. The result was more than a few embarrassments. I think some of that embarassment still lingers.

    Another problem is Republicans. They often share the misconception that libertarians are just stray Republicans that spoil Republican campaigns. Republicans seduce promising Libertarians into their party to take them out of play. Many moons ago we did some informal exit polling and determined that major party crossover voters came from both parties equally. That evidence is consistent with my personal observations.

    Consider, also, the candidate himself. The chances of winning a council race is…O.K., I’ll admit it, remote. There is not much in the way of a carrots for the Libertarian candidate. Who wants to be tagged with the label, “Vanity Candidate”? Even a shoestring campaign commands much of your life for months – only a looney tune would do it.

22. Jonathan’s right with regard to cross-party polling. From a Democratic perspective, think of a Libertarian as a Democrat who wants a smaller government or more economic freedom.

    Also, one conversation that I hear within the GOP is that there are a lot of moderate Republicans tired of the Religious Right having a certain amount of control. When that section of Republicans run around saying crap like “homosexuals chose to be gay and can be fixed” among other things, it makes moderate Republicans put their head and their hand and say “ahh jeez that’s embarassing,” or “ahh jeez get it together,” but it’s hard to switch to the other side because then it become an issue of “man, I don’t want the large-scale government that the Democrats propose.” Hence the moderate faction of the LP that represents a notable number of Americans in ideology albeit not in political affiliation.

    Arizona has a strong libertarian (small ‘l’) ideology. Think Goldwater. It’s just that libertarian does not automatically equate to Libertarian Party because of how powerful the duopoly is. I believe we can all agree that America is largely a two-party system, and so goes the struggle for the LP, the Greens and others.

23. Jonathan Hoffman: “Why is my WWII example a “misdirection”?”

    I clearly stated why it was a misdirection. It would help if you would bother to read the entire post. It’s a misdirection because it applies only to a technical reading of the Geneva Convention and not to the larger debate about torture. It’s also a misdirection because during WWII the enemy was clear, and in the examples you cited the circumstances were clear. Whereas in the current war the status of the “enemy” is rarely clear and even when it is, the people we’re waterboarding are often not the enemy.

    “…the current uproar has less to do with the Conventions than with Bush Derangement Syndrome.”

    The current uproar has to do with people attempting to justify torture while simultaneously claiming that “we do not torture.” It has to do with people defending torture and then refusing to admit that they’re defendning torture.

    What is ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome’? It sounds like you’re trivializing the harm Bush has caused, or attempting to invalidate the legitimate critics of Bush’s actions and policies. Wait — are you a libertarian or a right-wing republican?

    “You’re not suggesting, I hope, that the rules are different now than they were then, are you?”

    Re-read my post. I said nothing of the sort. It looks to me like all you’ve got is rhetorical questions but no actual direct points to make. You ignored about 5/6 of the points in my message.

24. Mr. Nombulist,

    Correct, my WWII example did not address torture, it addressed the Geneva Conventions, which was my intention. Providing historical examples to make a point is not a misdirection, though I understand that you would like it to be so, given the facts.

    “Bush Derangement Syndrome” is a term that was coined by Charles Krauthammer. It refers to an apparent condition suffered by people who believe that everything bad that happens is President Bush’s fault. It is not a way to invalidate legitimate criticism. I criticize President Bush myself, but I don’t believe that he steered Hurricane Katrina into New Orleans as an attack on people of color .

Comments are closed.