Criminalizing Debate
A Spanish court famous for its energetic prosecution of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet is now targeting former officials of the Bush administration. Using a claim of universal jurisdiction well-established but little-used in international law, the court claims extra-territorial rights to prosecute anyone it finds to be complicit in the use of “torture” during the U.S. war against al-Qaeda. (Notably, the court’s applauders in the blogosphere have no interest in prosecuting torture carried out BY al-Qaeda. This alone exposes the anti-American political bias that often lies underneath the pretense of legal neutrality claimed by those asking for “accountability” for former Bush administration officials and it corrupts the legitimacy of a quasi-legal investigatory process for anyone except those already signed up for anti-Bush extremism.)
Predictably, anti-Bush critics are jumping to unqualified praise for the Spanish court and even hoping for more, failing to take even a moment of delay in rushing to their emotional reward for years of hatred against all things Bush-related. Concerns about precedents and inconsistent standards vulnerable to abuse are of no interest to the BDS brigades. But more serious analysts might take a moment of pause even as they grant the legitimacy of concerns about Bush administration policies. It is worth noting that none of the officials targeted is accused of actually torturing anyone, nor are they alleged responsible for personally ordering torture. Rather, the only crime that can be charged against these particular officials is that they wrote legal or policy recommendations that interpreted the Geneva and/or Torture Convention in ways that the Spanish court and other anti-Bush administration critics disagree with and even find contemptible.
The implications of such a process are scary. It isn’t even necessary for an actual crime to be committed to provoke a possible criminal response at the hands of those appointing themselves worthy of unlimited global legal reach, it is only necessary to say things that those people believe might lead to or justify behavior they find criminal. The righteousness and infallibility of their own legal interpretations is deemed so perfect as to make any disagreement a criminal act worthy of world-wide arrest and prosecution. It is not necessary to agree with people like Feith or Yoo to note with concern the eagerness of some leftists and anti-Americans to wield criminal tools in the pursuit of both their political vendettas and their desire to suppress all dissent from their positions.
It is worth wondering who the real authoritarians are here. How long until the speech codes move off campuses and become world-wide restrictions barring any and all dissent on whatever topics that leftists deem important? That seems the direction they are headed. And when we are dealing with people who are willing to draw comparisons between Hitler and pretty much everyone they disagree with, we can’t rely on their sense of perspective to hold the line against potential abuses against basic civil liberties from their side, now can we?
“Notably, the court’s applauders in the blogosphere have no interest in prosecuting torture carried out BY al-Qaeda.”
The US is a powerful democracy who talks a big game on human rights and good times for all. No one, however, can look at AQ and say “Those guys wouldn’t harm a fly”. AQ is a faction, not a country or a government. You’re saying a militia didn’t care for human rights? Stop the presses.
I don’t care if Hitler would have been pleased with persecuting Bush and Cheney. Defending Bush because some of his critics have BDS is like cutting out an eye to spite your face. When a democracy who claims human rights, freedom and decency as rationales for wars and foreign policy starts torturing people with consent from the highest office, a stand has to be made. When a freedom- and equality-hating bunch of mentally ill boys beat up women and burn schools, the world didn’t exactly witness a meaningful institution’s fall from grace. I want AQ antagonized to smithereens. I also want every American person responsible for the torture to be punished hard and justly, even if this would make some *SHRIEK* emotional LEFTY happy. I know which course of action has to be made first. The US is Harvey Dent – he cannot rally people against criminals/AQ if his face and his actions are revolting.
“It is not necessary to agree with people like Feith or Yoo to note with concern the eagerness of some leftists and anti-Americans to wield criminal tools in the pursuit of both their political vendettas and their desire to suppress all dissent from their positions.”
So we don’t let this scary left-wing mob investigate the tortures and war-crimes! Problem solved, let’s get on with justice and human rights!
I don’t agree that just because torture is expected from al-Qaeda that it becomes unimportant to condemn or prosecute it equally.
I think there is a subtle and rather curious kind of racism to the lefty position: At the same time you are biased against Americans and/or the Bush administration in your desire to prosecute, the reason for that bias seems to be that Americans are held to a higher standard because they are more civilized while Muslims are simply beneath the entire process and not responsible for their actions. Alternatively, Muslims are believed to be incapable of moral agency at all with every one of their bad actions blamed on America forcing them to it (this is the same argument Noam Chomsky used to deny any moral responsibility to the Khmer Rouge, to the applause of the left at that time). Either way, it is heavily contemptuous towards Muslims at the very same time it claims to be harsh against Americans. Of course, it turns out that the ONLY truly righteous people in the world are the leftists themselves, so it is also a very self-congratulatory framework in spite of its other internal contradictions.
Anyway, I have no problem with accountability as long as it is equally applied. So far, most leftist zealots going after the Bush administration haven’t even bothered to try for equity.
“I don’t agree that just because torture is expected from al-Qaeda that it becomes unimportant to condemn or prosecute it equally.”
I just don’t think people who persecute American evil-doers have to consider the surly demands for pro forma condemnation of AQ *or any other of the uncountable evil-doers in the world* the second you take a stance against the ultimate and undeniable hypocrisy of the US government. Is that moderation? Do LEFTISTS (LEEEEEFTIIISTS!) have to add a sort of grammatically ordained phrase like “but let’s not forget that Saddam was bad and also tortured” or “but hey those Hamas guys boy do they suck” the minute we condemn evil acts by American right-wingers?! From now on, you (and “all of you people on the right”) have to mention Abu Ghraib or that bombed Afghan wedding every time you speak up against atrocities conducted by Al-Qaeda!
“I think there is a subtle and rather curious kind of racism to your position (which is common on the left)”
Yeah, thanks for generalizing against an entire section of people and flaunting your sense of entitlement to be judgmental in my face.
It would be racist if I said “AQ cannot be expected to behave because their ethnicity carries certain predilections for barbaric behavior”.
“At the same time you are biased against Americans and/or the Bush administration in your desire to prosecute”
I am not biased. I want justice no matter what and I don’t have to “moderate” this demand.
“the reason for that bias seems to be that Americans are held to a higher standard because they are more civilized”
No, it’s because they have used their democratic legacy, their consideration of human rights and liberties and their respect for law and government accountability as rationales and alibis for their actions in the past and now. They talk a different game than the one their playing. Sort of like a priest (or a mufti, or a Torah scholar, or a buddhist monk, etc. – I don’t want to set of your PC-radar) who wants to rile against prostitution while patronizing prostitutes. They want to have their cake and eat it too, and I am saying they can’t have any more cake until they’ve scrutinized themselves and persecuted their own evil-doers.
AQ have not been democratically elected and they do not have a population actively and passively complicit in their crimes (unlike the torturers and war-criminals in the US, who have all mentally aware adults in the US as accomplices to their crimes considering Americans are not morally disgusted or principled enough to persecute them). AQ do not claim to respect ideas like habeas corpus or consideration of civilians while pursing their goals. They don’t play pretend. They don’t try to have it both ways. The US has not realized that its actions does not match its gallant words. The US has misused and weakened its role as a standard-bearer for decency and justice. I want the US to either accept a new role as a maligned and morally hypocritical nation or to persecute its evil-doers and act with principles. I will not let it have it both ways, but then again perhaps this is just what the scary LEEEEEFTIIIISTS want me to feel. Insidious and shapeless glob of people that they are.
“while Muslims are simply beneath the entire process and not responsible for their actions.”
There is nothing in my words that even implies that. I called AQ a “freedom- and equality-hating bunch of mentally ill boys”. That’s what they are to me, and I would have called them that if they were from Norway and acted like they did in the name of Loki. If you make the mental jump to “muslims explicitly” from my mentioned description then that’s something you have to deal with.
“Alternatively, Muslims are believed to be incapable of moral agency at all with every one of their bad actions blamed on America forcing them to it”
The notion that resentment towards America (and France, and Germany, and the UK) by people in the Middle East is somehow justified is not to declare muslims as infantile or devoid of responsibility for any immoral acts inspired by this rational resentment. Saying that muslims supporting AQ is not damning is another matter. Indeed, a number of influential left-wingers are curiously quick to act as if muslims or people from the Middle East are allowed to say or do whatever in response to slights from actions by western governments (I admitted that LEEEFTIIISTS sometimes do stupid things out of bias – can I have my treat now?). Likewise, a number of influential right-wingers have curious conviction that none of the resentment is justified but rather a sort of intrinsic result of Islam itself. Happy now?
“this is the same argument Noam Chomsky used to deny any moral responsibility to the Khmer Rouge, to the applause of the left at that time”
More generalizations. Oh boy. Yes, Chomsky did say that and I consider that a stain on his credibility and moral compass. That doesn’t mean I cannot perfectly agree with him when he makes well-made and accountable attacks on S:t Reagan etc. I have seen some left-wing commentators mentioning Chomsky’s poor judgment Re: the Rogues when quoting him approvingly regarding something else. They jump through your PC-hoops like good little apologetic left-wingers.
“Either way, it is heavily contemptuous towards Muslims at the very same time it claims to be harsh against Americans.”
Yeah, good story you wrote. Shame I don’t fit the role of the “muslim-belittling patronizing lefty”. As for the Americans, I am simply saying they play a different game than they talk, and I am not having that.
“Of course, it turns out that the ONLY truly righteous people in the world are the leftists themselves”
The term “leftist” was coined because it rhymes with “fascist, nazist, communist” and other scary words that imply a doctrinal movement rather than a run-of-the-mill political leaning like “right-wing”. The fact that you use it suggests a capacity to adopt purposefully negative and insidious language against people who dare to disagree with you. Perhaps some introspection and consideration of other people’s feelings are in order before you dish out accusations of lofty and elitist anti-muslim prejudice (which I did not exhibit with so much as a word).
“So far, most leftist zealots going after the Bush administration haven’t even bothered to try for equity.”
1. So we don’t let the scary “leftists” tear into their hapless prey. We let people who treat justice and punishment as a science to deal with evil-doers. Problem solved.
2. Prioritizing American evil-doers is not by default an expression of anti-right sentiment or ignorance of the evil conducted by anti-US cliques like AQ. It could also mean that you persecute the criminals you have at hand now, and plan to tear into AQ *once you actually manage to get to them*. Unlike you, I will not assume you overlooked this because of political bias or something. I am just giving you my rationale for wanting the evil-doers in the Bush administration subject to the laws of the civilization they claimed to defend when invading Iraq.
When I attack unprovoked and unjust actions by Israeli settlers, Mossad et al., I don’t have to mention Qassam rockets. If I attack unprovoked and unjust actions by Hamas or their enablers, I do not have to mention bull-dozers. I am categorical that way, and you don’t get to assume anything about me because I refuse to make pro forma admissions when taking my positions. I don’t have to exhibit my awareness of the nuances and complexities of the world just because I am on the left. I think you are so used to dismantling real bias among left-wingers that you have accidentally adopted complimentary biases of your own. Your wasteful, unfair, ungrounded and unnecessary application of the “haughty liberal anti-muslim prejudice”-badge on my forehead suggests you have said badge stored in a cupboard so that you can whisk it out and apply it with a knee-jerk reaction. Well, I’m not a “leftist”. I am a person.
No one is saying that they “have to” apply equal standards of judgement. I am only saying that they must be willing to if they want to avoid being suspected of improper bias and potentially a subtle form of racism.
If all they want to do is “get” the hated Bush administration and if they could care less about the more general principles of how to deal with human rights in a legalistic framework, then by all means, you all should continue to proceed exactly as you have been. But you should be warned that doing so means you debase your own cause with partisanship and render it useless for the future.
Well, you do unless you want to be criticized (fairly) for taking the situation out of context and subjecting one side to more harsh standards of judgment than the other side. But if your only goal is to pursue anti-Israel and/or anti-Semetic projects without any concern for the actual real-world situation that Israelis face, then by all means, continue proceeding with your one-sided standards of “accountability”.
P.S. Your objections to the “leftist” designation strikes me as more than just a little hypocritical since I doubt you have ever objected to leftist bloggers who throw “neocon” around at pretty much everyone they disagree with about anything whatsoever. Or perhaps you believe you are a person, but “neocons” are not?
Let me know when you criticize Glenn Greenwald with as much vigor as you criticize my use of the term “leftist”. Then I will consider your complaint. Until then, it just looks like more double standards from here. And at the point you throw around talk about my supposedly “surly demands” and “PC radar”, I don’t think you get to turn around and ask for kid-gloves treatment.
“I am only saying that they must be willing to if they want to avoid being suspected of improper bias and potentially a subtle form of racism.”
No, saying that American torturers are the best target *as of the current situation* (with AQ members not available for persecution or even investigation) does not make you a viable target for accusations of having “subtle racism”. I don’t have to even mention Al Qaeda when asking for the persecution of war criminals in the past administration. “Improper bias” is definitely something that can be debated, but I gave my own rationale for wanting to prioritize American evil-doers *right now* and it is only when I have presented my rationale that it can be debated whether that rationale constitutes improper bias. Al Qaeda’s crimes are a separate issue from those of the Bush administrations. Al Qaeda are not available for investigation, arrest or prosecution. America’s evil-doers are, and they have been mouthing of the most about human rights and Good Values, I might add.
“If all they want to do is “get” the hated Bush administration and if they could care less about the more general principles of how to deal with human rights in a legalistic framework, then by all means, you all should continue to proceed exactly as you have been. But you should be warned that doing so means you debase your own cause with partisanship and render it useless for the future.”
Well good, we of the Lefty Collective will “get” that Bush administration like in our fevered, partisan visions and then if Al Qaeda’s enemies get a hold of them the same law is applied to them and then they get punished. Why muddle things up?
“Well, you do unless you want to be criticized (fairly) for taking the situation out of context and subjecting one side to more harsh standards of judgment than the other side.”
I said “unprovoked and unjust” actions. By inserting this definition I made it an underlying assumption that the context of the action was completely incapable of justifying or rationalizing the act in question, and therefore unworthy of even mentioning! If an Israeli person/entity does something “unprovoked or unjust” against a Palestinian counterpart, I have already considered the aspects of the situation and reached the conclusion that despite the Qassam rockets and violent rhetoric, the act was “unprovoked and unjust”. If I turn the tables, likewise the Palestinian’s act is labelled “unprovoked and unjust” AFTER my weighing in of bulldozers or illegal settlements. I try my best to be particular, but you have that big tarring brush ready.
“But if your only goal is to pursue anti-Israel and/or anti-Semetic projects without any concern for the actual real-world situation that Israelis face, then by all means, continue proceeding with your one-sided standards of “accountability”.”
Where did you deduce that I could fit into this silly narrative? I mentioned one case for each “side” in that sad conflict. What’s with the knee-jerking? I mean, it seems as if that’s what you are doing because I feel like I am walking around egg-shells and you yell “Crunch!” even if I try to side-step them.
“Your objections to the “leftist” designation strikes me as more than just a little hypocritical since I doubt you have ever objected to leftist bloggers who throw “neocon” around at pretty much everyone they disagree with about anything whatsoever.”
First, “neo-conservative” was not a term invented by enemies of the political philosophy describing it. Second, neo-conservatives are a small but influential group, and the term neo-conservative has been used by other conservatives to describe this subsection. Third, the reason it is a derogative is because neo-conservatives are an easily defined and easily lambasted group who has done a lot of harm and is easily identifiable in many individuals who made these past eight years what they were. They have been studied, mapped and identified carefully, and the term has been used with more precision then the term “leftist” is used. Furthermore, I think that while the term “leftist” is a result of the *culture* war, the term “neo-con” has, despite your claims to the contrary, been used to describe a specific *political* stream wherein which the people have specified political goals and positions. While the influence and the nasty deeds of “neo-cons” have been exaggerated in the past, I do not associate it with conservatives but rather general individuals and think-tanks.
One term is intended to be vague, collectivism-suggesting and pejorative and always carry these connotations despite a lack of intended hostility in the usage, the other is not conceived as such and has not always been used as a smearing brush. I consider neo-cons to include Steyn, Dershowitz and Cheney. They have identifiable traits that make the term appropriate for them.
“Let me know when you criticize Glenn Greenwald with as much vigor as you criticize my use of the term “leftist”.”
You assume I have read Greenwald quite a lot. I vaguely remember him saliently and openly defending his usage of the word “war-monger”. I don’t remember deciding who was right in that debate. You show me an offending paragraph, where he uses a word you feel is equivalent to your usage of the word “leftist”, and I’ll take a stance on that. I aim to please, but I won’t jump through your hoops unless you hold them up. You can’t give me a mission.
“Until then, it just looks like more double standards from here.”
Well, accusations of double standards can be applied with double standards. It is a bit like an Ouroboros.
” And at the point you throw around talk about my supposedly “surly demands” and “PC radar””
I’ll take back “surly”. But I definitely feel as if you have a right-wing notion of PC influencing you. Right now in your latest post you instinctively raise the specter of anti-semitism. Get that weak tea out of my face please. I don’t want kid-gloves treatment. I just don’t want labels all over me.
You definitely do set new records for hostility and pejorative mind-reading. You dish out labels and indictments of my supposed motives and give orders about what others are and are not allowed to say almost as fast as you get enraged about your perception that something of the same is being done to you. The standard term for your pattern here so far is “hypocrisy”.
I’ll talk to you when you calm down and knock that crap off. If you can’t maintain a basic civility, you will be made to go away. And if you don’t like labels, try avoiding them yourself for a couple of rounds.
Back to the topic, if a way could be found to investigate torture and other potential violations of U.S. and international law in a forum that was not captured by long-standing partisan vendettas, I would be for that. There is actually very little from the record of the Bush administration that I would be willing to defend. But so far, every proposal to emerge has been grossly biased in both intention and execution, from my perspective. And from my reading of the leftist blogosphere, they seem to prefer it that way.
“You definitely do set new records for hostility and pejorative mind-reading.”
You mind-read that I had a goal “… to pursue anti-Israel and/or anti-Semetic projects without any concern for the actual real-world situation that Israelis face”. Hm.
I haven’t been exemplary in behavior. But I have restrained myself. I have not called you anti-anything, for starters. But you want to quit talking, fine by me. I could only “win” this discourse if I could offer anything positive or thought-worthy to you, or vice versa. This isn’t the case, and I won’t infer anything from that fact.
Nice trick cutting my quote to expunge the conditional that preceded it.
Very dishonest too.
Try knocking that stuff off and responding to my last paragraph above.
“Nice trick cutting my quote to expunge the conditional that preceded it.”
Hm, when I looked at it (comment #6) I was honestly, truthfully, just seeing the first sentence. A browser issue on my part?
“You dish out labels”
Yeah, I labelled you a labeler. Of me. You read my hypothesizing about criticism-worthy and *unprovoked* actions by Israeli/Palestinians (with dual, equivalent examples for each side) as a method for weaseling in “anti-Israel/anti-Semite” sentiments without considering the bigger picture, even though all I explicitly said was that if the context has been considered and is obviously of no extenuating value then the action can be condemned *without* having to mention some *in this case unrelated* sins the other side have committed. I am saying that to go from my comment to your reaction: “to pursue anti-Israel and/or anti-Semetic projects without any concern for the actual real-world situation that Israelis face”, you’d have to read my comment the way Satan would read the bible.
“indictments of my supposed motives”
While this may be my supposed motive of anti-semitism talking, I do feel as if I may have a case when claiming that you are quick to respond to some “standardized leftist template comment” rather than the comments I actually post. For example, suggesting a motive of orientalist liberal soft-racism even though there was nothing in my comment to suggest a hint of such a factor influencing my writing. I don’t want to deal with “ghosts of leftists past”.
“give orders about what others are and are not allowed to say”
I was saying that the term “subtle racism” was utterly uncalled for and impossible to see a hint of in the “offending” post unless some sort of biased thinking was afoot.
I was told, by you, that I lack a defense against the accusation of hypocrisy until I have condemned Greenwald’s usage of certain terms that you have decided was just as bad as your usage of the leftist moniker (The “they do it too”-defense). I said that you cannot expect *me* to find some comparable column of Greenwald’s to scrutinize and then criticize for usage of certain words. It’s your measuring tape, and if you want me to condemn or defend Greenwald’s use of words, you have to bring your measuring tape to me. Is this so tyrannical?
“The standard term for your pattern here so far is “hypocrisy”.”
I react to what is placed in front of me, and I have been the target of unfounded accusations of bias and concealed motives that could only have been leveled against me by a person who has not read my comments properly. As to what prevented said properness of reading, I feel myself the target of someone who is quick to cast me as the starring role of the narrative about the “standard lefty”, and I don’t feel as if I have inferred to much here.
“if a way could be found to investigate torture and other potential violations of U.S. and international law in a forum that was not captured by long-standing partisan vendettas, I would be for that.”
There were no vendettas fueling the proceedings against war criminals in former Yugoslavia, or those against Pinochet. Just ignore the crowds outside the courthouse!
“But so far, every proposal to emerge has been grossly biased in both intention and execution, from my perspective.”
Perhaps, and this is definitely a problem if that is the case. But maybe you are allowing the sounds of the emotional cheer-leaders to meld with the more neutral voice of the prosecutors? As for the “leftist blogosphere” (again with these large collective entities), I think that the entire issue has been politicized by nearly all involved. It’s more of a competition to put the ball (Bush administration) in a hoop (brought to justice or “justice”) with the republicans rabidly on the defense and the democrats just as mindlessly going for the ball. Is there a way to just ignore both silly teams and take the ball for ourselves so we can take a good look at it?
I guess if there’s one thing I would say to you Garland is that you shouldn’t judge people by the one article you happen to see at a given time. However, I would agree with you that a person needn’t cover both sides in every single article or comment they make. For that to be a requirement seems like Fairness Doctrine talk to me. I would say that my record for criticizing and/or defending both sides is apparent in the total collection of my writings. As is Jason’s.
Perhaps the best way would be to appoint a special prosecutor with a record of going after both sides. Patrick Ftizgerald comes to mind. Of course, he has a lot on his plate at the moment, what with the Blago investigation. But there must be others out there.
“I guess if there’s one thing I would say to you Garland is that you shouldn’t judge people by the one article you happen to see at a given time.”
I am judged based on singular accounts, and I guess I’ll have to avoid doing the same, considering how bad it looks.
This sounds similar to Leahy’s proposal for a “truth commission”. My concern is that that political and media environment these days is so toxic that it would require a truly supernatural saint to be able to resist having their process hijacked by the extremists and their vendettas. And such people are in very, very short supply and even if found they would lack institutional support from parties that are both controlled by their extreme wings on this issue.
I wasn’t aware Leahy had brought up something similar, though maybe I had seen it and it came from my back of my mind (it’s happened before). I think you have a point, but I’m more optimistic that it could be done.
And I disagree that the person investigating would lack support (with a caveat I’ll explain momentarily). Maybe you know something that I’m forgetting, but no one tried to stop Fitzgerald from investigating the Plame case or the Blago case, despite the fact that those convicted were of the same ideological leanings as the parties in control of the Executive Branch at the time. Unless you subscribe to the leftist notion that other officials got away with worse crimes than Libby’s perjury and obstruction of justice.
The caveat is, of course, that Obama has already said he’s not going to pursue such things. The Republicans who supported torture measures will surely come out screaming if he ever switches his position on this.
I think Obama made the right decision, not because someone like Fitzgerald may not WANT to be fair, but because the prosecution would inevitably become hijacked into a partisan rush-to-judgment just like the Plame case did. The problem here does not lie with the prosecutors, but rather with the hyper-engaged portions of the elite public that turn everything into a partisan football in service of their various vendettas. Can you imagine what the blogosphere (and the potential jury pool) would look like during a torture inquiry?
The Blago case is easy because it involves basic corruption, not inflammatory comparisons to Hitler.
I just think that the political well is too poisonous right now to avoid seeing any inquiry degenerate into a partisan witch-hunt that would inevitably involve far more than simply questions of real torture. I think the goal of the far left — not even kept a secret — is to outright criminalize ALL policy differences. Let’s remember that these are the same people who think that the PATRIOT Act instituted a police state (ins spite of the fact that they themselves remain remarkably free to dissent). And I don’t see how any special prosecutor could avoid being hijacked by that extreme agenda in practice.
Then I’m not sure the political well has ever been clean enough to bring forward an uncontaminated investigation. I don’t think the country has ever been non-partisan enough to do it. But maybe you know better than I a time when it could have played out differently.
I think there is an important qualitative difference right now. When Hitler comparisons are not only on the table, but commonplace, I think we have reached a uniquely severe degenerate state in our political culture. And I think that degeneracy does undermine the ability of some institutions to function effectively.
What can I say, the Spanish inquisition rises again, some things never change regardless of names.
–
Thanks to the USA for removing saddam, and no thanks to anyone who opposed his removal, yet again, those objectors have shown that they have nothing to do with democracy after all.