About Me

My photo
This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

The Basics



The importance of the basics needs to be repeated repeatedly, particularly since a strong minority (enabled by media voices) reject them. In September 2006, I noted something the Bush White House deemed essential:
The Long-Term Solution For Winning The War On Terror Is The Advancement Of Freedom And Human Dignity Through Effective Democracy.

I gave a few examples:
It does not fairly represent these decisions to suggest that they legalize force so brutal and so offensive to human dignity in securing evidence from a suspect as is revealed by this record. Indeed the California Supreme Court has not sanctioned this mode of securing a conviction. It merely exercised its discretion to decline a review of the conviction. All the California judges who have expressed themselves in this case have condemned the conduct in the strongest language.

-- Rochin v. California (1952) (forced stomach pumping)

The Congress hereby finds and declares that, in keeping with the traditional American concept of the inherent dignity of the individual in our democratic society, the older people of our Nation are entitled to, and it is the joint and several duty and responsibility of the governments of the United States, of the several States and their political subdivisions, and of Indian tribes to assist our older people to secure equal opportunity to the full and free enjoyment of the following objective.

-- Statement of Objectives (federal legislation assisting elderly*)

R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Find out what it means to me
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Take care, TCB


-- Aretha Franklin

dignity

1. bearing, conduct, or speech indicative of self-respect or appreciation of the formality or gravity of an occasion or situation.
2. nobility or elevation of character; worthiness: dignity of sentiments.
3. elevated rank, office, station, etc.

The ends does not justify degrading human dignity ... most importantly because the ultimate end requires its security. Ditto restraint on excessive executive power and upholding the rule of law. As to torture in particular, I also referenced an article (new link provided in this post) by Jeremy Waldron which is entitled Torture and Positive Law: Jurisprudence for the White House. The core sentiment might be summed up thusly:
Why does the prospect of judicially authorizing torture shock the conscience of a scrupulous lawyer? Is it simply that the unthinkable has become thinkable? Or is it something about the specific effect on law—perhaps a systemic corrupting effect—of this abomination becoming one of the normal items on the menu of practical consideration?
Torture violates the basic core of our rule of law. But, 9/11 changed everything, right? Wrong:
I have heard colleagues say that what the Bush Administration is trying to do in regard to torture should be understood sympathetically in light of these circumstances, and that we should be less reproachful of the Administration's efforts to manipulate the definition of "torture" than we might be in peacetime. I disagree; I do not believe that "everything is different" after September 11. The various municipal and international law prohibitions on torture are set up precisely to address the circumstances where torture is likely to be most tempting. If the prohibitions do not hold fast in those circumstances, then they are of little use in any circumstance.

Torture and other mistreatment is not just done out of spite. Things we oppose, including by criminal sanction, often are understandable when done. But, this does not mean they suddenly become acceptable or advisable. In fact, again, torture and other things being done in our names (in restricted form, to this day) is pragmatically counterproductive. So is not upholding the law. As Ronald Reagan once noted, it
is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

Or, as the Supreme Court (in 2004) quoted with support:
the torturer has become–like the pirate and slave trader before him–hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind

Such an enemy's actions, particularly when it led to homicide and lives who will have the scars of their treatment with them forever (some of whom, as when Egypt tortured, will lash back via violence and enabling of the same ... and torture supporters will oh so strenuously denounce them) needs to be addressed with more than a "we won't do it any more, we promise," but a full accounting, including enforcement of the law as might occur in any other given serious homicide or heinous crime. The former approach is particularly suspect with secrecy and selective respect for the basic, consistent use of judicial review.

This should be basic and not selective. It should include those who enabled it, including via fraudulent memoranda for which there is strong evidence that they were as much CYA efforts to cover up and enable what had been done already (particularly given the strong doubts of those involved, including the FBI, of its legality and morality) and what was to be done. This is not accepted by many, including those who wish to make the test "does it work?" The idea that this means (the horror!) political revenge in effect gives people a pass once the administration is over. Suggestion: do a lot of bad things after November, since hey, if they are punished it's just revenge, so why the heck not?

Strategy can be debated, but the basic principle is crystal clear.

---

* One might add, apropos Moyers on Maher, the moral / dignity backing of securing a right of health care for all. Meanwhile, Jack Shafer and a few others dwell on what Moyers did during the LBJ Administration. This is not too far apart from focusing on what Kennedy did forty years ago as you support, enable and ignore those who further murder and mayhem of many more people today. The theory of forgiveness aside (like I'm the best one to speak of Christian values), yes, I cry "hypocrite" on many people who love to use this as a means to denounce him.