If They Fold On Torture, What Won't They Fold On?

Count me in the 80% of American who think the Democratic Congress is doing a crappy job. Craven, quivering and apparently devoid of anything like a conscience, the Democrats have consistently refused to do what they were elected to do: Stand up to the President and his systematic rape of the American system of governance.

From his first days in office, President Bush has attacked open government and the balance of powers. He has consistently refused to uphold his Oath of Office to preserve and protect the Constitution. The September 11 attacks gave him the perfect cover for doing what he was doing anyway: Expanding the power of the Executive Branch to do whatever it wanted without the meddling of Congress, the courts or the people.

At every shameful step, the Bush Administration has pushed us closer to autocracy, setting precedent after precedent that only a few years ago would have been unthinkable. We have come to a place where lots of formerly small-government Republicans accept that the President should have the power to imprison people with no legal recourse and, if necessary, torture them for information.

The Founders understood that Americans would periodically fall prey to epidemics of insanity, and they built into the system checks and balances to thwart those fevers. It is particularly the job of the opposition party in the Senate to put a stop to nuttiness-of-the-moment. And it is in the Senate where the Democratic Party has finally proved it's uselessness.

The Democrats are in charge of Congress because the American People didn't like the direction the Republicans were taking the country. In the elections a year ago, the message was clear. Since then, Democrats have managed to do almost nothing to thwart the Republican agenda. Sure, Democrats have made a lot of noise about change, but there have been no significant policy changes and barely even a slowing down of the Republican juggernaut. 

We find ourselves now in the absurd position of facing an Attorney General nominee who won't stand up for the fundamental human rights that were the basis of the founding of this nation. We're not talking, here, about fine points. This isn't an argument about enforcement of the Voting Rights Act or the interpretation of a particular Supreme Court ruling. We're talking about whether the government has the power to use a form of torture developed during the Spanish Inquisition and perfected by the Khmer Rouge.

All the inside-the-beltway folk say that Michael Mukasey is a good man, but I, for one, don't buy it. Good men don't have a hard time affirming what their country has stood for since its inception. Good men don't put loyalty to party and President before loyalty to their country, and they don't waffle when asked if a particularly odious torture technique has a place in the American repertoire. They stand up for what is right. Michael Mukasey didn't' do that, and he isn't a good man and he doesn't deserve confirmation.

Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." I disagree. I believe that good men and women don't stand by while evil triumphs. I believe that each of us is confronted with moments when our actions decide for us whether we are good or not. Michael Mukasey is ostensibly a good man, but when called upon to declare a fundamental truth about this country he failed to speak up.

And the Democratic Congress, when called upon to act as if the fundamental beliefs of this country were worth protecting, has turned away time and time again. They claim reservations about actions they subsequently endorse. There is a special place in hell for people like Senators Charles Schumer and Diane Feinstein, who believe they should get credit for standing up to the President when they did no such thing. After weeks of hand-wringing and tough talk, they will vote to confirm Mukasey because, as Schumer put it, Mukasey is "the best we will get" out of this Administration.

What they ought to do is send Mukasey's suit back to the White House wrapped around a dead fish. What they ought to do is say in no uncertain terms that this country is worth fighting for, and that the next nominee the President sends up had better be committed to the Constitution and not the President. What they ought to do is say, "Send us someone good or it'll be the shortest confirmation hearing in history."

But that's not what the Democrats are doing. Instead, they're making nice with people who are hell-bent on the abandonment of the basic principles on which this country was founded. (We have to argue about detention without legal recourse and torture? Seriously?) This is not the time to make nice. This is the time to stand fast. And this Congress is not doing that even a little.

Comments

[Conrad]

The tragedy of BDS. Rendering otherwise sensible Americans completely incoherent.

Perscription: take two asprin, put a cold compress on your forehead and lie down until January 2008. Opening a bottle of wine and maing love to your wife can also mitigate symptoms. Under no circumstances watch a Democratic debate or surf the Daily Kos. Exposure to Paul Krugman can result in serious side-effects including death. Other side-effects can include Sullivanitis, characterized by wild mood swings and excitability and O'Donnellism, a severe form of mental retardation.

[Trop]

Typical response... name call, point fingers, assign guilt by presumed association, but NEVER argue the points.

Well said Tom. I totally agree.

[Conrad]

What's wrong with name calling, pointing fingers and assigning guilt by presumed association, you Un-American, MoveOn.org loving, twat?

[Wally]

I'm in trouble. Conrad made me laugh/snork wine through my nose. Nice one, 'Rad.

[Squidley]

Excellent comments, Conrad.

Tom,

I like your point in paragraph three. You're arguing against holding prisoners of war.

Normally, prisoners of war were men who were in foreign armies, wore uniforms, and had the "right" (such as it were) to shoot at our army guys in their uniforms. What we have now at Gitmo are guys who aren't in foreign armies, don't wear uniforms, and therefore don't have the "right" to shoot at us.

The traditional nomenclature for such individuals is spy; the traditional disposition of them is military tribunal and summary execution.

Tom, do you realize that by arguing against the current system of detention, you ended up arguing in favor of the other system of execution? Either that, or you argued in favor of releasing our nation's enemies to go about their business of killing our troops.

Now, I'm sure that's not what you intended; I don't believe you're an anti-American pinko. But tell me, just what do you want here? Do you think that the Gitmo detainees should be allowed to use our court system? Why should they have access to something that no prisoner of war has ever had access to?

If that's not what you're suggesting, what do you propose to do with them?

[Conrad]

Actually Squid, I believe what Tom is arguing for is the application of all or some of the customary and constitutional criminal justice procedures to enemy combatants.

Of course, it was never remotely presumed that such procedures applied to captured German, Japanese, North Korean or Vietnamese troops, nor even to Confederate soldiers during the Civil War. In effect, Tom is advocating granting additional rights to enemy combatants who choose operate in disguise and target civilians, giving them enhanced protection by virtue of the fact they choose not to follow the rules of warefare.

This is, of course, perverse. But it's perverse in a way different than you suggest.

[Pursuit]

Conrad, Squid, well said. My goodness we hold terrorists in Gitmo, give them comfortable accomodations and occasionally through water in their face and the hand wringers think it's the end of democracy as we know it. Geez, we do this to our own people as part of their training!

Tom, why doesn't the Democratic congress just write a law against waterboarding? Answer, because at the end of the day all this Mukasey posturing is political theater. Shameful really, and it's tough to see you fall for it.

Conrad's correct, just take a breather until Jan. '08 and you'll find all will be ok. Nobody is coming for your computer, nobody will incarcerate you for your beliefs, and we might water board a terrorist or two, but even they will be perfectly fine.

[Tom]

I've got a headache and I need to get in bed, but to make things short:

I'm arguing against torture in all circumstances. It is immoral and counterproductive.

I'm arguing against the stated belief that the President can define "enemy combatant" however he likes and then hold whoever he wants forever, including American citizens. I find it fascinating that the party that has no confidence in the government's ability to do anything right is willing to give the President this kind of power in a war that is ill-defined and, for all practical purposes, endless.

No, I'm not saying that POWs should have the right to a trial.

Engage in the discussion. Don't resort to dismissive misreading of what I've said. I understand that's the easy thing to do, and it enables you to protect your beliefs without justifying or questioning them. I understand that's easy and smugly satisfying; it's just not what we need right now.

[Adam]

I think water boarding should be outlawed.

I'm not sure the appeal to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers is based on facts rather than legends, though; the Founding Fathers created the government and immediately set to doing things to each other's political parties that would absolutely horrify (well, we hope) today's Beltway. May I recommend a novelized version of the first couple years of our country's politicS, entitled "Scandalmongers"? It's by William Safire. Starts slow, but becomes impossible to put down as you go on - and the thought keeps going through your mind, "I don't believe this. Most of this really happened."

Mr. Safire even includes a series of notes in the back telling you exactly which bits he made up and what he didn't.

Anyway, point is: President Bush is pushing pretty hard for what he wants, but a lot of what he's done actually fails to make him unique.

Second note, which is actually a question: Tom, I think you've posted a number of times on this board that you're some sort of Christian. Am I mistaken? Is that just your background rather than your current view on life? I ask because some of what you've written here about what decides who a "good person" here is completely at odds with the Christian message, which basically denounces our own actions as the arbiter of our fates ("For all have fallen short of the glory of God," etc.). Just curious.

[Pursuit]

Adam,

I don't know about all of that, but I think, at the very least, we all can agree that Tom is "some sort".

"What sort exactly", is the question!

Happy to help!

Pursuit

[Conrad]

I'm arguing against the stated belief that the President can define "enemy combatant" however he likes and then hold whoever he wants forever, including American citizens.

He can't, and it's not possible to have read ANY of the Supreme or appellate court decisions on the subject and believe that he can. What's next, a post deploring the fact Bush opens cabinet meetings by sacrificing a newborn baby? A rant against Bush's proclimation declaring himself President-for-Life?

Open that bottle of wine now Tom, you're getting perilously close to O'Donnellism.

[Tom]

First, Conrad: The Supreme and appellate courts have decidedly rejected President Bush's assertions of power. That's good, and it's also not relevant to the discussion, which is about the President's attempts to aggregate power in the Executive Branch and Congressional Democrat's refusal to stand up to him. No matter what the courts say, the President is still claiming extra-Constitutional powers in ways large and small, and the Democrats in Congress are still not standing up for what they claim to believe. Court decisions of one sort or another don't get either the President or Congress off the hook.

Also: What's "O'Donnellism"?

Now Adam: "Some kind of Christian" is probably the most accurate description of my own faith I've ever heard. My own, personal, spiritual quest is to define what kind of Christian I am. At this point, in a word, I'd likely say "inefficient" aspiring to "not inadmirable." I went to church this morning, if that counts for anything, and sang loud and shamelessly off key.

As for this: I ask because some of what you've written here about what decides who a "good person" here is completely at odds with the Christian message, which basically denounces our own actions as the arbiter of our fates ("For all have fallen short of the glory of God," etc.).

I'm not sure I understand. What I think you're referring to is the basic Christian (particularly Protestant) belief that we're all sinners who will fall short, and that it is by grace and faith and Christ's sacrifice rather than our own actions that we will be saved. Are you thinking that if I accept that, I also accept that there is no need for anyone to try to be a decent human being? Am I reading that right, or completely missing the point?

Here's what I think about that, anyway: We are all obligated to try to be good people, even though we know that we will not be as good as God would like. We should strive to have faith, even though we know that faith will fail.

In short: You can't go through life being willfully bad and expect a free pass later on; you've got to try to live up to expectations.

That is, in large measure, the point behind the Burke quote. If we are trying to be good, can we allow ourselves to stand by and do nothing as evil triumphs? And if we do stand by, can we still claim to be good?

And, for the record, I try hard when discussing politics and policy to not judge people, but to judge their politics and policy. I do not, for example, question President Bush's faith -- though his apparent answers to "what would Jesus do?" perplex me a great deal. As a citizen in a democracy, I'm entirely qualified to judge his policy. As a Christian, I'm not in the least qualified to judge his faith.