Category: The War on Terrorism

Trial lawyers want to protect your civil liberties!

Post author By Joe Campbell
Post date February 28, 2008

Just kidding.

Here’s Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post eviserating Mr. Bush and his press secretary over the warrantless wiretapping mess:

The ratio of useful information to hyperbole in White House press briefings has gotten dramatically worse under press secretary Dana Perino.

Here are just a few of the argumentative, nonfactual statements from yesterday’s briefing regarding the furious political battle over warrantless wiretapping.

“[L]ook, the President’s most solemn obligation is to protect the American people. And in some ways it seems that the House Democrats’ most solemn obligation is to help protect the trial lawyers – they’re the ones who have brought all these lawsuits.”

The leading lawsuits, of course, have been filed by non-profit public-interest groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union.

“Q If this is such a big deal, why didn’t the President accept another extension?

“MS. PERINO: Because the House couldn’t even pass an extension bill, even if they had wanted to. They couldn’t pass it.”

They couldn’t pass it because Republicans voted against it – on instructions of the White House.

It didn’t take long for the White House to start echoing Karl Rove about how “trial lawyers” want to protect consumer privacy. ~~I guess old habits die hard.~~ I’m sure this line of attack made it’s way to the White House via Mr. Rove’s role as “an informal adviser”.

Foreign Policy Law Morality The War on Terrorism

I Don’t Like Waterboarding

Post author By Joe Campbell
Post date February 20, 2008
3 Comments on I Don’t Like Waterboarding

[digg-reddit-me]Jonah Goldberg at the National Review believes that the debate over American torture is “stinks of political opportunism.” He apparently missed the point made by Morris David, the chief prosecutor for the military commissions in Guantanamo this weekend in the Times. And he apparently doesn’t care to take into account the fact that torture often produces false evidence. But he does have this to say:

I don’t like waterboarding, and I hope we never use it again. I have respect for those who believe it should be banned in all circumstances. But I do not weep that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed spent somewhere between .03 and .06 seconds feeling like he was drowning for every person he allegedly helped murder on 9/11.

Then again, I think it would be horrific if we used that logic to justify waterboarding. It’s not a technique that should be used for punishment. Nor do I think that evidence obtained from forced confessions should be used in trial. Those are paving stones on the road to a torture state.

Reading this, I guess that Mr. Goldberg and me have more in common than meets the eye. But what Mr. Goldberg doesn’t acknowledge here is that whether or not “coerced interrogations” will be used as evidence is still an open question in the upcoming trials of the “Guantanamo Six”. More important, he doesn’t deal with the executive acceptances of torture – from redefining it to mean only “pain equivalent to death or major organ failure” as John Yoo did while advising President Bush, to the many less dramatic instances where evidence of torture was “lost” or destroyed, as lower level employees were blamed for following vague directives to “take off the gloves”.

I think many sympathize with Mr. Goldberg’s formulation – of not caring for torture, but not caring about the fates of these mass murderers.

What Mr. Goldberg doesn’t seem to get is that he is not just apathetic about the torture of men who likely deserve it – he is also giving the President of the United States, an individual in a position of extreme power, a license to break the law when subservience to the law is the only thing that separates a President from a King.

If the President believes he or she must break the law in order to save lives, and judges that breaking the law is the only course available – then he or she should do so. But upon breaking the law, they must then submit to it. For if an individual is able to break the law with impunity, the entire system breaks down.

Law Politics The War on Terrorism

Jose A. Rodriguez, Jr.

Post author By Joe Campbell
Post date February 20, 2008

Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane of the Times have a solid piece today on Jose A. Rodriguez, Jr., the former head of CIA’s Directorate of Operations. The piece seems to suffer from a bit too much editing – but it gives the reader a flavor of the lurking back story behind Mr. Rodriguez’s role in the destruction of the interrogation tapes.

As an example of editing gone wrong, the story begins with this intriguing opening:

It would become known inside the Central Intelligence Agency as “the Italian job,” a snide movie reference to the bungling performance of an agency team that snatched a radical Muslim cleric from the streets of Milan in 2003 and flew him to Egypt — a case that led to criminal charges in Italy against 26 Americans.

That’s about as far into the matter as this story goes – although I’m sure the story isn’t breaking here for the first time.

I was left with both an admiration for Mr. Rodriguez’s character and an anger that it seems unlikely that he will face any consequences for blatantly and deliberately breaking the law. His lawyer characterizes the coda that led him to destroy the interrogation videos as well as cover up the abuses in “the Italian Job” operation as this: “I’m not going to let my people get nailed for something they were ordered to do.”

In describing his reason for destroying the tapes, the Times concludes:

Mr. Rodriguez, who was nearing retirement, saw the tapes as a sort of time bomb that, if leaked, threatened irreparable damage to the United States’ image in the Muslim world, his friends say, and posed physical and legal risks to C.I.A. officers on them.

Again – I sympathize with him. And his distrust of the administration – as well as any political administration – is well-founded. Sympathy cannot override the necessary condition of any free society: that the law must be held above any individual.

Election 2008 Morality The War on Terrorism

We don’t do stuff like that very often.

Post author By Joe Campbell
Post date February 19, 2008

Morris Davis, an Air Force colonel, who was the chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, from 2005 to 2007 made a powerful point by telling this story from American history:

Twenty-seven years ago, in the final days of the Iran hostage crisis, the C.I.A.’s Tehran station chief, Tom Ahern, faced his principal interrogator for the last time. The interrogator said the abuse Mr. Ahern had suffered was inconsistent with his own personal values and with the values of Islam and, as if to wipe the slate clean, he offered Mr. Ahern a chance to abuse him just as he had abused the hostages. Mr. Ahern looked the interrogator in the eyes and said, “We don’t do stuff like that.”

Today, Tom Ahern might have to say: “We don’t do stuff like that very often.”

Election 2008 Foreign Policy Humor Iraq McCain Obama Politics The War on Terrorism

Like Hope, But Different

I appreciate Senator John McCain’s frankness. Especially in contrast to the political styles of Senator Hillary Clinton and President George W. Bush.

Domestic issues Morality Politics The War on Terrorism

“Openly opposing torture”

Post author By Joe Campbell
Post date February 3, 2008

At least two actors who openly oppose torture have accepted parts on the [the television show 24].

From Rebecca Dana of the Wall Street Journal‘s story entitled “Reinventing 24” in yesterday’s paper.

The sentence jumped out at me as I read the piece. The sentence suggested a kind of furtiveness to opposition to torture – suggesting those who “openly promote the homosexual agenda“, who “openly embrace socialist medicine”, who “openly promote apostate Catholicism“, “openly promote keyword spamming“, “openly promote intolerance“, “openly promote cigarettes to minors” “openly embrace prejudice“, who “openly oppose a living wage“, “openly oppose any talks with Iran that might resolve the nuclear issue“, who “openly oppose what built this Nation“, and those who “openly embrace the hysterical homophobia mouthed by Christian fundamentalist groups from all over the country“. ((I acknowledge these are not exact quotes – I have changed the tenses and in some sentences deleted phrases in order to conform all of them to the structure I set up; but I have attempted to maintain the original meaning of each.))

In almost every usage I was able to find, adding the adverb “openly” to describe a political act indicates a kind of shame associated with that act. The openness is supposed to shock – “Not only does this candidate seem to accept x view, they openly promote it!”

I don’t blame Ms. Dana for using the phrase – but it was shocking to find it associated with opposing torture. Have we really come that far as a nation that opposing torture is now somewhat embarrassing? I don’t think so. But enough mainstream conservatives have defended torture as to make it an acceptable point of view in the press.

There is shame in that.

Domestic issues Politics The War on Terrorism

A collective failure

Post author By Joe Campbell
Post date February 1, 2008

Glenn Greenwald with some hard truths:

I long ago stopped blaming the Bush administration – at least exclusively – for what has happened to our political system. They were responsible in the first instance, but the rest of the country’s institutions – its media, its Congress, the “opposition” party, even the courts – all allowed it to happen, choosing to do nothing – or to endorse it – once it all began to be disclosed. It wouldn’t have surprised the Founders that we would have corrupt and lawbreaking political leaders, including in the White House. The idea was that there would be numerous checks on that corruption. But when those other institutions fail, or are complicit, the fault is collective.

Election 2008 Obama Politics The Clintons The War on Terrorism

Slowly standing up

Post author By Joe Campbell
Post date January 29, 2008

From the Hill this morning reporting, on Bush’s State of the Union Address, comes this telling anecdote:

In one instance Clinton appeared to gauge Obama’s response before showing her own.

When Bush warned the Iranian government that “America will confront those who threaten our troops, we will stand by our allies, and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf” Obama jumped up to applaud. Clinton leaned across Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), seated to her left, to look in Obama’s direction before slowly standing.

Iraq Life The War on Terrorism

The morons die with our respect.

Post author By Joe Campbell
Post date December 11, 2007

A direct quote from an officemate today; I walked in on the middle of this conversation:

…but war is good. We need war every few years or so to kill off all the morons – send the jocks, the meatheads, all of them. We need to let them volunteer, go off and get killed – like in Iraq; it’s perfect. Who else would be willing to go? I mean with respect of course – the morons die with our respect. [Waving his hand to dismiss someone.]

One of the most unusual people I know discussing why war is good. He’s generally a conservative, in a Catholic religious sense. But he has a determinedly independent streak and a penchant for saying outrageous things.

He also maintained at a previous point that the Taliban in Afghanistan were “basically” the “good guys” because they were religious instead of the thugs growing drugs. I in no way endorse what he says – but his point of view is distinct and usually well-thought out. It just goes to show how far a faulty premise can take you.

Election 2008 Foreign Policy Giuliani Law Libertarianism Obama Politics Post 9/11 Generation The War on Terrorism

Why I write this blog

It’s been about two months since I’ve started this blog. I started it knowing only that I wanted to write, and that I already had a dozen ideas for posts or articles. There were many times as well when I would read this or that article and be frustrated at the inaccuracies, and I wanted to correct them, or add to them, and I thought could advance the collective conversation.

This blog has in many ways been more successful than I anticipated – with over 125,000 pageviews and over 80,000 absolute unique visitors in this short time. I’ve been writing only in my free time here and there – a few minutes before lunch at work, after I get home at night, and on weekends.

Recently, I have been trying to determine what exactly it is that I have to offer, and therefore what this blog should be about. My most popular link so far was this funny cat video I came across on a Saturday night and embedded; next was this bit of electoral analysis which has proved remarkably prescient, especially in its title “The Beginning of the End of Hillary 2008”; then comes this uneven piece on the rhetoric used in the debate on what to do about terrorists and terrorism. As you go further down the list, there is one piece of pop-political-philosophy discussing the differences between two libertarian-minded political trends; a mention of Chris Rock’s comments introducing Obama with related video; the contrasting stories of the interrogation of two Al Qaeda related prisoners in the aftermath of September 11; and a video of a cheerleader getting trampled by a football team. The posts cover a wide range – from clear fluff to horse-race analysis of the presidential campaigns to more serious discussions of issues.

What is it that I have to offer?

Given my position – having a full-time job and blogging on the side – I cannot do what I would most want to do, in-depth first person research on every topic. ((I am trying to do this though, and to do it more – sending emails, letters, and in other ways trying to contact the subjects of my pieces; and also trying to get more information in this way.)) But I think there are other things I have to offer. I am a voracious consumer of media – especially about news and politics. I listen to many unedited candidate and policy-maker speeches. ((Through C-Span, the Constitution Center, and the Council of Foreign Relations primarily.)) I care deeply about a number of issues and follow them closely in the news including the issue of liberty in America today, the fate of Pakistan, the attempt to create a practical and moral foreign policy, and the construction of a strategy to wage a smart and effective War on Terror. I read opinions from a broad political spectrum, and take them seriously. Or at least most of them. I have read books by Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Barry Goldwater, as well as books by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, and I regularly read both conservative and liberal blogs and magazines, as well as some radicals that are not so easily classified. ((I believe there is a third way in politics – but that neither Bill Clinton nor his wife have found it, relying instead on cynical triangulation and the papering over of large differences with clever rhetoric.)) I believe I have generally sound judgment and a sense of the political winds, as well as a unique and insightful views on current events.

So what I have to offer is this: a funny video every Saturday; analysis of where the politics is headed in the near and slightly-less-near future; and serious policy discussion (leavened with some humor).

What this blog is about

There is one issue which above all shapes my thoughts today and is the impetus behind this blog: the precariousness of the American experiment. I am convinced that America’s status as a liberal ((In the classical sense.)) democratic republic is in existential danger. This danger is not only from terrorism, but from our government’s response to terrorism. I have come to believe that the Bush administration has undermined and subverted many of the institutions and ideas that have kept executive power in check since our founding: the media, the Supreme Court, the independence of executive agencies, the military, the Congress, and the rule of law. At the same time, the Bush administration has posited monarchical powers for the presidency, they have been relatively reticent in using them. ((Only relative to what they have asserted is their power. For example, the Bush administration has asserted that it does not need Congressional approval to go to war, but it still asked for it.)) For example, while Bush has asserted the authority to declare any person a terrorist and enemy combatant and hold them secretly and indefinitely without trial or charge and torture them for information, and given such a broad definition of terrorism as to include anyone who even criticizes him, he does not seem to have used this power to the extent he has asserted he can. This has led many people to see the rhetoric of those raising the alarm about these issues as unhinged from the reality of their lives. But because Bush has asserted such powers and undermined every check on his power, we are closer than ever to a police state.

Let me be clear – I think in every practical sense, America today is far from a police state. But with the theoretical foundations laid down by this administration, and the subversion of any check on executive power, we seem to be only one 9/11 away from a fall from authentic liberal democracy. It is this concern that is the prism which affects how I see every issue: it is why I became a Barack Obama supporter; why I am afraid of Rudy Giuliani; why I am so opposed to torture; why I am so concerned about our strategy in the War on Terrorism; why I started this blog; and why I will continue to write and seek other ways to affect America’s fate.