RedState's incoherent take on the torture memo lawyers

Leon H. Wolf of RedState is a very confused man.

Recently, he criticized liberals for criticizing the Justice Department's treatment of Bush II lawyers who wrote legal memos authorizing the torture of suspected terrorists. The men, John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury, were accused of exercising poor judgment. This ruling superseded the original judgment of the investigation, which was that the lawyers were guilty of professional misconduct. That judgment could have led to their disbarment or even criminal prosecution. Read more from my sources here and here.

On my view, this ruling is troubling. There is no doubt that the Bush II administration used torture, and torture is illegal. Those responsible for the torture are guilty of war crimes. David Margolis, the man at Justice responsible for this latest judgment, has exonerated the men responsible for the torture memo and thus saw to it that they will not be punished for war crimes. The memos themselves justified the Bush II administration's use of torture, and therefore those in charge of the torture can avoid responsbility for their criminal acts. In the end, everyone involved in these war crimes will not be prosecuted and are therefore in effect above the law. As Scott Horton argues, this is a very serious matter:

Open criminality is a cancer on democracy. It implicates all who know of the conduct and fail to act. Such compliance presents a practical crisis, in that a government that is allowed to torture will inevitably transgress other legal limits. But it also presents an existential political crisis. Many democracies have simply collapsed as the people permitted their leaders to abandon the rule of law in the face of alleged external threats. The turn to torture was rapid, for instance, in Argentina at the time of the Dirty War and in Chile after the American-directed coup against Salvador Allende. In both cases, that turn had little to do with a perceived benefit from the use of torture in interrogation. To the contrary, the very criminality of the act had a talismanic significance. It asserted the primacy of the will of the torturer. It made the claim, for all to accept or reject, that the ruler was the law. Such a claim is, of course, intolerable to democracy, which presupposes, as Thomas Paine wrote, that “the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”

So, what is Wolf's take on this? I'll quote his post at length:

Like a spoiled and petulant child who has tattled on a sibling to Daddy to no effect, angry liberals who are mad that Bush Administration lawyers suggested it was legal to put a terrorist in a box with a caterpillar have decided to try the other parent to see if they get a more satisfactory response. . . . Ever content to parody themselves, outraged liberals offended at our very uncouth treatment of people who plot our national destruction have been busy demanding the heads of current law professor John Yoo and current federal appeals judge Jay Bybee ever since. . . .

Of course, as everyone (most especially the Obama Administration) realizes, this course of action is preposterous and dangerous for the future of our country.
In the first place, . . . it’s preposterous to go on a witch hunt against lawyers for the crime of rendering a legal opinion, simply because that legal opinion proves to be politically unpopular with certain sets of the population. . . .

More to the point, the ridiculous hyperventilation directed at Messrs. Yoo and Bybee by people who haven’t the foggiest clue of these basic principles - and the politically-motivated witch hunt that has followed, will lead inexorably to the practice of defensive (read: bad) law. . . . In a rare exercise of foresight, it appears that someone in the Administration has posed the question, “Say, what’s to prevent people from going after our license if we, say, opine that it’s legal for the EPA to enact cap-and-trade without legislative authorization?”
This, however, is a point that is lost on the bungling left, who seemingly have no guiding star or principle other than being nice to people who want to kill Americans and destroy this country.

One can immediately see that Wolf is going to use whatever fallacious, non-rational means of persuasion are required to convince his readers, who are all too ready to believe what he says anyway and whose intelligence Wolf obviously does not respect. For who is the opposition here? The "bungling left," composed of "spoiled and petulant" children who want only to "[be] nice to people who want to kill Americans." If Wolf's actual arguments are so good, what purpose does the abuse serve? But think about it: how plausible is it that liberals, who are actual Americans, really want to be nice to actual terrorists? Last I heard, they want to convict them in civilian courts and execute them. So the portrayal is not only false; it is ludicrous.

Second, notice that, according to Wolf, the reason why liberals want to go after the torture memo lawyers is that their "legal opinion proves to be politically unpopular with certain sets of the population." This is, of course, false, as Horton makes clear. And, of course, it is also ludicrous.

Third, Wolf argues for the claim that punishing the lawyers will produce bad law. But his argument for this claim is that, if the torture memo lawyers are punished, then other lawyers might also be held responsible for their own actions. But what is wrong with that, exactly? The Bush administration wanted a specific legal opinion for political reasons, and it was the job of the torture memo lawyers to provide it. Holding lawyers accountable for their actions would not only give them additional incentive to do their jobs competently, it would also protect them from politicians would would prey on them. This might not have occurred to Wolf: as I have said before, those on the right have spent so long avoiding responsibility for their actions that by now it is probably second nature for them.

Finally, Wolf mischaracterizes the nature of the torture. He writes that the lawyers said only that "it was legal to put a terrorist in a box with a caterpillar." And this is where Wolf's post is not only false and misleading, it's just freaking incoherent. The justification of torture on the right is that it works, i.e., that it rapidly produces actionable intelligence better than alternative methods—a claim that is almost certainly false, by the way. (Just ask John Kiriakou.) Now, how could torture be so effective if it involves merely putting people in boxes with insects? It couldn't be, of course, so it must involve techniques that actually traumatize its victims. But then the liberal concern about the use of torture seems justified. I would be willing to waterboard Wolf it would help him see the point. But I doubt that he would sign up for it.

Electric Light Orchestra, "Ordinary Dream"

Ratigan shows us how to look worse than the guest you want to trash

Lori Ziganto at RedState posted a video of Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC having a meltdown during an interview with Tea Party leader Mark Williams. Her commentary on the video consists of the same overworked and tedious conservative talking points. But she is right to view the video with disapproval. It's painful to watch, and Williams comes out it looking a lot better than he otherwise might have, which is quite an accomplishment, considering the things that Williams has said about Barack Obama.

A bunch of freaking idiots

RealQuiet, one of the losers at RedState, has been quoting Sen. Kent Conrad as saying that reconciliation cannot be used to pass health care reform. According to Conrad,

[R]econciliation cannot be used to pass comprehensive health care reform. It won't work. It won't work because it was never designed for that kind of significant legislation. It was designed for deficit reduction... It will not work because of the Byrd rule which says anything that doesn't score for budget purposes has to be eliminated. That would eliminate all the delivery system reform, all the insurance market reform, all of those things the experts tell us are really the most important parts of this bill. The only possible role that I can see for reconciliation would be make modest changes in the major package to improve affordability, to deal with what share of Medicaid expansion the federal government pays, those kinds of issues, which is the traditional role for reconciliation in health care.

Unfortunately, RedState jumped the gun. As it turns out, Conrad thinks that reconciliation can be used to pass health care reform:

“Reporters don’t seem to be able to get this straight,” Conrad said, hitting the “misreporting” he said is widespread. “Comprehensive health care reform will not work through reconciliation. But if the House passes the Senate bill, and wants certain things improved on, like affordability, the Medicaid provisions, how much of Medicaid expenses are paid for by the Federal government, that is something that could be done through reconciliation.”

“A sidecar would be a good candidate for reconciliation depending on what’s in it,” Conrad said, adding that he didn’t think fixes to abortion or immigration provions would likely work, something that could create obstacles to passing the Senate bill in the House.

Conrad also explained in new detail why he believes that the House must pass the Senate bill first, a view that has been denounced by some critics who want the Senate to pass its fix before the House acts.

Conrad said that under Congressional rules, for a reconciliation fix to be “scored,” it’s not necessary that it become law, but it is necessary for it to have passed both houses of Congress before getting fixed. “For the scoring to change it has to have passed Congress, and that means both houses,” he said.

“The only thing that works here is the House has to pass the Senate bill,” Conrad continued. “Then the House can initiate a reconciliation measure that would deal with a limited number of issues that score for budget purposes.” After that, the Senate would pass the same reconciliation fix, Conrad explained, because even on the fix itself the House must go first because the lower chamber must initiate “revenue bills.”

This is a bit awkward for the losers at RedState. They are typical conservatives in that they believe that liberals are complete morons. Their megalomania is so pronounced that they believe that they know Congressional rules better than those in Congress do. According to Erik Erickson, "What the Democrats want to do is use reconciliation to fix legislation before it is enacted into law." But "reconciliation can only apply to fix legislation already signed into law by the President." This, of course, contradicts Kent Conrad, who RealQuiet had cited as an authority for his or her own mistaken opinion.

This is awkward because the RedState losers have been abusing people left and right for misunderstanding Congressional rules. So hogan, after quoting former comedian Dennis Miller (who is now about as funny as the genocide in Darfur) tells everyone that Sen. Bunning's objection to unanimous consent is "not a filibuster you freaking idiots," "as is increasingly well known to those who actually are capable of comprehension."

Some of the bloggers at RedState are capable of irony, it appears, even if they haven't the slightest understanding of the concept.

A Brief History of Senate Reconciliation Votes

Source: http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/infographics/reconciliation/

What to do when you ain't got nothin'

According to Ben Smith of Politico,

The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on “fear” of President Barack Obama and a promise to "save the country from trending toward socialism."

The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how “ego-driven” wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”

Read the rest of the story here.

If you needed evidence that the Republican Party is morally and intellectually bankrupt, here it is.

The Republican Party does not want voters to make rational choices. People do not make rational choices when they are terrified, and Republicans want to terrify voters. And one gets the sense that if they had to perform fellatio on their donors in order to get their cash, they would do it in a New York minute. Such is the cynicism of today's Republican Party.

Republicans know that if they had to compete with Democrats in a marketplace of ideas, they would fail miserably. Usually, the only idea they have to offer they got from Ronald Reagan: cut taxes. Cutting taxes is obviously not a sustainable approach to governing. Since they cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas, they want to create a campaign in which ideas are irrelevant—a campaign driven by greed, hatred, fear, and lies.

Hey, Republicans: after being subjected to watching your immature, amoral, disgusting behavior for the last ten years, I have recently resolved never to vote for any of you bastards for as long as I shall live. May your stinking corpse of a party push the daisies on the ash heap of history.

When did Republicans turn into a cowering bunch of wimps?

Is it morning again in America?

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. —Ronald Reagan

Prosecuting the 9/11 defendants in federal court does not represent some larger judgment about whether or not we are at war. We are at war, and we will use every instrument of national power – civilian, military, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic, and others – to win. We need not cower in the face of this enemy. Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready. —Attorney General Eric Holder

Or are we facing a crisis of confidence?

The Obama Administration’s irresponsible decision to prosecute the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in New York City puts the interests of liberal special interest groups before the safety and security of the American people. The possibility that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators could be found ‘not guilty’ due to some legal technicality just blocks from Ground Zero should give every American pause. —Congressman John Boehner (R-OH)

I saw the Mayor of New York said today, "We're tough. We can do it." Well, Mayor, how are you going to feel when it's your daughter that's kidnapped at school by a terrorist? How are you going to feel when it's some clerk -- some innocent clerk of the court -- whose daughter or son is kidnapped? Or the judge's wife? Or the jailer's little brother or little sister? This is political correctness run amok. —Congressman John Shadegg (R-AZ)

God help us if they get off on a technicality because of the way the evidence was gathered. I would tell you not only is the Obama administration finished, I think the Democratic Party is finished. —Mike Huckabee

The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation. —Jimmy Carter

James Traub: "What Happened to New York's Moxie?"

Trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Manhattan would have showed the terrorists that Americans are not afraid. Eight and a half years after 9/11, we’re not there yet.

March 2, 2010

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder insisted gamely last week that Barack Obama's administration is still considering holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the master planner of 9/11, in the federal criminal courthouse in Manhattan; but it cannot be. An immense tide of fear and anger has swamped the judicial -- and moral-- calculations that led Holder to his initial choice, rendering the actual merits immaterial beside the suicidal politics. More than eight years after the bombing of the World Trade Center, that fear, and that anger, still cloud Americans' thoughts about the response to terrorism.

Here is one of the chief ironies of the war on terror: Thanks in part to the Bush administration's aggressive homeland security efforts, we may be objectively safer than we were nine years ago; and yet, thanks to the apocalyptic terms on which Bush and Cheney waged the war on terror, we feel much less safe. We feel terrified. "We're at war in our airports," Scott Brown cried during his Senate campaign in Massachusetts. "We're at war in our shopping malls." We are living in the middle of a monster movie. This is why the politics of the war on terror have reproduced those of the Cold War, making Democrats live in fear of any policy, any gesture, that could be deemed "soft."

After Holder first announced the decision to hold the trial in New York, Obama said, "We have to break ... this fearful notion that somehow our justice system can't handle these guys." It was a notion with no obvious foundation, since nine-tenths of the accused terrorists processed through the criminal-justice system had been found guilty, and no trial had been seriously disrupted. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg initially agreed, saying, "It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site, where so many New Yorkers were murdered." As a New Yorker who had emerged from the subway that morning to see the first flames leap from the towers, I felt -- and I foolishly imagined that all New Yorkers would feel -- that holding the trial here offered us a chance to demonstrate our imperturbable urban mettle, to make sure that we, not they, got the last word.

It's true, says Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies in Stockholm, that a public trial could turn KSM "into a superhuman for those terrorists who are his followers." But Ranstorp nevertheless strongly favors such a trial, which, he says, "de-dramatizes the mythology around terrorism." And of course it sends a message about us: That our strength inheres in our democratic principles and practices more than in our military might, that we do not have to annul or sideline our system of criminal justice in order to deal with this new threat, that calling people "terrorists" does not make them either subhuman or superhuman.

The message, however, fell victim to the politics, and to the psychic atmosphere. City officials at first estimated that security for the trial would cost $75 million a year. But on Jan. 6, Bloomberg delivered a letter to the White House putting the cost at $200 million a year, over five years. Two weeks later, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly publicly outlined the plans, which entailed cordoning off several blocks around the courthouse and establishing a wider security zone within which drivers and pedestrians would be subjected to random checks. The trial, Kelly warned, "will raise the threat level of this city," adding, "We will have to look at the entire city as a potential target."

What happened to urban mettle? The city's top security official was saying that the cost of holding the trial in New York was paralyzing Lower Manhattan and exposing the metropolitan area to the threat of terrorist attack. Of course that was too high a price to pay -- in every sense. The Real Estate Board of New York established movethetrial.com, a website whose central proposition was that the trial "will strangle the already weakened local economy." The effective imprisonment of Lower Manhattan would, in the supreme nightmare scenario, bring co-op and condo sales to a halt. New York's business and civic elite began to close ranks against the trial. On Jan. 27, Bloomberg reversed himself, suggesting the Justice Department move the trial to a military base somewhere.

But was it, in fact, necessary to choose between the trial and the city's security, and economy, and daily life? In other parts of the world, high-security terrorism trials are accepted as a fact of modern life. Irish terrorists used to be routinely tried in Belfast's Crumlin Road courthouse on the ethnic dividing line of a city seething with terrorist sympathizers. The Old Bailey, the setting for many such trials, sits in the middle of London. The trial of the 29 men accused of masterminding the 2004 train bombings in Madrid, which killed 191 people, featured a bomb-proof chamber for the defendants; but the intense security did not make city life grind to a halt. (I cannot say what happened to condo sales.) Peter Clarke, the former head of counterterrorism for Scotland Yard and now a fellow at New York University's Center on Law and Security, told me, "You have to accept that it is virtually impossible to exclude risk. And then you have to decide who owns that risk." Political leaders must be willing to take responsibility. (But Clarke also noted that the British have moved the most notorious trials to the high-security court at Belmarsh, at the edge of London -- a solution worth considering for the future.)

So why wouldn't the famously pugnacious Bloomberg own that risk? Or rather, why didn't he push back when Kelly presented his asphyxiating plan? I don't know the mayor's motivation; given the police commissioner's own sterling record as a public servant and the growing opposition of the business community, Bloomberg would have had to believe very deeply in holding the trial in the shadow of the World Trade Center. Perhaps he didn't. An avowed pragmatist, the mayor might well have concluded that this was scarcely a battle worth taking up.

Could Bloomberg have succeeded by reminding New Yorkers of their native moxie? I suspect not. One of the hallmarks of our era is that when security is placed in balance with some other principle, security almost always wins. Look at the outcry over moving prisoners from Guantánamo to the U.S. mainland. When the Justice Department tried last fall to resettle two (likely harmless) Chinese Uighurs in Virginia, the hysterical reaction led Congress to bar the government from moving any detainees to U.S. soil, save for trial. The proposal to move others to supermax prisons in this country led to a nationwide NIMBY backlash. A few dozen craggly detainees had been endowed with a kind of radioactive menace.

New York's mayor and police commissioner thus put the president and the attorney general in the impossible position of advocating core democratic principles in the face of security concerns. That's a loser. Last week, Obama ruefully acknowledged that "if you have a city that is saying no, and a police department that is saying no, and a mayor that is saying no, that makes it difficult." But you can't just blame them: All of us are running scared.

James Traub is a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and author of, most recently, The Freedom Agenda. His new column for ForeignPolicy.com runs weekly.

Source: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/03/02/what_happened_to_new_yorks_moxie

RedState's contempt for its readers apparent in campaign against reconciliation

I just started reading RedState a few days ago, and already I have the suspicion that their bloggers have no respect for their readership. And they certainly have no credibility.

Brian Darling writes that Barack Obama favors the use of reconciliation to pass health care reform in the Senate. But Darling refers to this use of reconciliation as "the nuclear option" because it is intended as a way around a potential Republican filibuster. In fact, he explicitly defines "nuclear option" as "a tactic to get around a Senate filibuster."

Darling accuses Democrats, including President Obama, of hypocrisy regarding the use of reconciliation. Democrats were against its use in 2005 but they support its use in 2010, according to Darling.

But the careful reader who remembers what happened in 2005 will notice something fishy going on. Here's how Darling argues that 2010 is no different than 2005:

Some Senate Republicans in 2005 considered the a Nuclear Option strong arm tactic to pass some of President Bush’s judicial nominees. What they advocated was to set a Senate precedent that the filibuster does not apply to judges. This would have negated the filibuster rule for judges. What the liberals are doing today is to use reconciliation as a means to make the filibuster rule not apply to ObamaCare. This would negate the filibuster for ObamaCare. These two actions are very similar.

This explanation probably doesn't raise any red flags with the readers of RedState because it is so carefully worded. But it is carefully worded to deceive them. The explanation is an extremely misleading distortion of the actual facts.

The use of reconciliation to pass health care reform would not require any change to Senate rules. Indeed, reconciliation has been used 22 times by Democrats and Republicans since 1980. The Republican plan in 2005 was to change Senate rules so that the filibuster could not be used against judicial appointments. So the two cases are clearly very different, although a lazy reader would not notice this, thanks to Darling's skillful deception. In fact, the Republican plan in 2005 was so extreme that Trent Lott himself called it "the nuclear option." The so-called Gang of 12 moderate senators, some of them Republicans, defeated the plan. (Remember them?)

In addition, by conflating reconciliation with the nuclear option, Darling implies that Democrats were against the use of reconciliation, rather than the actual plan they opposed in 2005. Now, there may be some Democrats who are against the use of reconciliation to pass health care reform. But for Darling to infer that Obama was against the use of reconciliation in 2005 because he was against the nuclear option in 2005 is sloppy and irresponsible. And this sloppiness with the language is puzzling, especially after RedState's compulsive insistence that Bunning's recent maneuvering in the Senate not be called a filibuster.

Once one is reminded of the actual history, RedState's contempt for its readers and the truth is apparent. I know that you people want your red meat, but can't you be a bit more selective?

Sources:

• Confused By ‘Nuclear Option’ Spin, Right-Wingers Claim Obama And Biden Called Reconciliation A ‘Power Grab’
• Everything you wanted to know about the "nuclear option"
• On the 'Nuclear' Brink
• Senate's 'Gang of 12' Steps In Where Party Leaders Couldn't Go

Doubleplusungood

Yesterday, I wrote about RedState's incredible claim that Harry Reid was to blame for Sen. Bunning's repeated objections to unanimous consent to pass a bill that would, among other things, extend unemployment benefits.

Fortunately for RedState, it appears that attention has been diverted from that incredible claim and focused on what is, upon closer inspection, a trivial tangent.

RedState's hogan is telling everyone who will listen that Bunning's stunt is not a filibuster:

[A]s is increasingly well known to those who actually are capable of comprehension, Senator Jim Bunning - for the simple reason he wishes it to be paid for - is objecting to a repeated unanimous consent request by Senate Democrats to call up and pass a bill that would temporarily extend unemployment benefits, transportation funding, medicare reimbursement, COBRA subsidies and other expenditures to the tune of another $10 billion or so. . . . A filibuster is one of two things. One, an actual filibuster where a Senator gets control of the Senate floor and will yield only for a question while continuing to speak, thereby delaying consideration of a measure. . . . Two, a “filibuster” under Rule 22 of the Standing Rules of the Senate whereby debate is continuous unless “cloture” is filed to shut off debate on a measure under consideration and the vote is 3/5ths or more of the Senate.

Bunning's maneuver, therefore, is clearly not a filibuster, according to hogan.

Media Matters' Ben Dimiero, however, claims to have caught the bloggers at RedState in a contradiction:

An hour ago, I published a post pointing out that a RedState blogger attacked media outlets referring to Sen. Jim Bunning's (R-KY) move to block legislation that would extend unemployment benefits as a "filibuster." The blogger -- Hogan -- called them "freaking idiots" not "capable of comprehension" and lacking "rudimentary understanding of the U.S. Senate." Only problem is, RedState Editor Erick Erickson made the "filibuster" claim at least twice.

So, the bloggers at RedState have attached different terms to Bunning's maneuver, even though they are abusing their liberal opponents for calling it a filibuster. Now, here's my question for Dimiero: why should I give a shit?

Maybe Dimiero thinks he has to care about this because RedState appears to care about it. But what difference does it make what this thing is called? For all intents and purposes, Bunning's little maneuver had the same effect as a filibuster, so does it really matter whether we call it a filibuster or not?

Perhaps the folks at RedState care about this because conservatives, like the leaders of the totalitarian state of Oceania in George Orwell's 1984, know the power of language. Fox "News" knows. They call reconciliation "the nuclear option" even when it plainly is not, because they know, as the propaganda arm of the Republican party, that what you call something can effect what people think about it. So perhaps RedState bloggers believe that the allegedly liberal media is calling this a filibuster because they want to turn people against it, as if cutting off innocent peoples' unemployment benefits wasn't already a good enough reason to be against it.

But I think RedState has other motives. Think about it. This issue not only diverts attention away from their ridiculous attempt to blame Sen. Reid and helps them wage their Newspeak-style propaganda campaign, it also gives them an excuse to abuse those who disagree with them and thus throw more red meat to their ravenous readers. Feeding at the trough, indeed.

If you want to combat organizations like RedState and Fox "News," it is a good idea to focus on the things that matter and not be distracted by all the trivial nonsense they'd like you to waste your time discussing.

Doubleplusungood, Media Matters. Focus your energy on the important stuff.