"We are cited to no instance where a court, in this or any other country where the writ [of habeas corpus] is known, has issued it on behalf of an alien enemy who at no relevant time and in no stage of his captivity has been within its territorial jurisdiction. Nothing in the text of the Constitution extends such a right, nor does anything in our statutes."So what changed? As Taylor explains,
the Bush team seized on its presumed freedom from judicial oversight, spurned the advice of military lawyers, and denied the detainees any semblance of due process, while subjecting some of them to brutal interrogations.
Rather than taking care to separate the innocent or various categories of suspects from the confirmed terrorists, the Bush administration acted in a clumsy and incompetent manner, with the result that innocent victims were subjected to the same interrogation procedures as the guilty. And it failed to provide "a fair opportunity" for anyone seized by mistake to plead their case and possibly secure release. By failing to create a system to sort the innocent from the guilty, asserting the authority to lock detainees up forever, and using questionable (at best) interrogation techniques on captives regardless of innocence or guilt, it created a backlash that has led to the current situation --where people are actually arguing that hostile aliens should have similar rights to U.S. citizens.
Although I strongly support the option to use extreme measures, including torture, on unmistakably known terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the rest of the Bush administration's record in dealing with detainees is a legacy of incompetence & failure. As Taylor argues, the resulting judicial backlash will hamper the Obama administration in fighting terrorism, and depending on what happens
The potential for disruptive and even dangerous judicial intrusions into military matters is considerable.Just because the Bush administration's incompetence caused all sorts of problems, doesn't mean the situation can't be made even worse by misguided efforts that go too far in the other direction.
Any particular reason this is filed under "gay rights"?
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree the Bush Administration's incompetence, overreach, and lack of due process are what put us into the pickles we're in now. (And for the record, torture will never satisfy U.S. nor international norms of due process)
But the Right doubled down on Bushism with the McCain-Palin farce. Until they disown these mistakes, they'll just have to make do without my vote.
This is a big part of why I found your me-tooism with Paglia to be so laughable.
Heck, if the Bush Administration hadn't been so staggeringly incompetent and overreaching and Republicans hadn't been so stalwart in supporting his boondoggles, we might have gotten another Republican president.
Thanks, that should be "rights," not gay rights. I fixed it.
ReplyDelete"But the Right doubled down on Bushism with the McCain-Palin farce."
BS. McCain wasn't/isn't Bush. The whole McCain = Bush thing was nothing more than Democratic propaganda -- effective propaganda, but still.
"This is a big part of why I found your me-tooism with Paglia to be so laughable."
Just because Bush was incompetent doesn't mean all the bad things about the left don't matter.
Paglia isn't even a Republican, and she can see it.
"Heck, if the Bush Administration hadn't been so staggeringly incompetent and overreaching and Republicans hadn't been so stalwart in supporting his boondoggles, we might have gotten another Republican president."
I definitely agree with that. Obama is president today largely because of Bush.
> BS. McCain wasn't/isn't Bush. The whole McCain = Bush thing was nothing more than Democratic propaganda -- effective propaganda, but still.
ReplyDeleteHe was a little better on the environment, but other then that he doubled down on Bush's policies. He even slid on his signature issue of torture. But picking Ms. Ignoramus was the nail in the coffin. It was like Bush all over again.
> "Just because Bush was incompetent doesn't mean all the bad things about the left don't matter."
I never said they didn't matter, only that the Right is significantly worse right now.
> "Paglia isn't even a Republican, and she can see it."
Anyone can 'see' anything; that doesn't make it a fact. The fact of the matter is Democrats are the more reality-based party right now and have been so for years. You can deny this and throw an ideological tantrum all you want, but it's clear to those of us who actually made a choice between the two parties. I'm a Republican voter when the party can govern sanely. It hasn't done so since, oh, roughly 9/11/2001.
In ideological terms, Radley Balko put it this way: "Here’s why I preferred Obama to McCain: The GOP gave up all pretense of any limited government principles. They’re no longer trustworthy on the issues where they’re supposed to agree with me. Obama, on the other hand, made some promises about government transparency, hinted at a less bellicose foreign policy, and I like what he said about Guantanamo, torture, and executive power. In other words, he was better on the issues where Democrats are supposed to agree with me. It’s really that simple."
"He was a little better on the environment, but other then that he doubled down on Bush's policies."
ReplyDeleteObviously since he's a Republican there are going to be similarities. But there were significant differences as well.
"But picking Ms. Ignoramus was the nail in the coffin. It was like Bush all over again."
That was a purely tactical move that made sense at the time. He just didn't check her out well enough.
"The fact of the matter is Democrats are the more reality-based party right now and have been so for years. You can deny this and throw an ideological tantrum all you want,"
No tantrum necessary. I just find that laughable, much less a "fact." The whole "reality-based" thing is a complete joke. Most positions of the left are based on little more than wishful thinking, emotionalism, and the fervent belief in government do-gooderism.
"I'm a Republican voter when the party can govern sanely. It hasn't done so since, oh, roughly 9/11/2001."
Yeah, that's a real realistic view, and not a wild overstatement. Almost anything Republicans can do badly, Democrats can do worse.
"The GOP gave up all pretense of any limited government principles."
So he'll support a party that fully identifies with big government instead. Yeah, that makes sense. Plus his assertion isn't even true. There is a strong core of Republicans that is in favor of limited government.
"Obama, on the other hand, made some promises"
Believing political campaign promises -- good idea. Basically libertarians like Balko went with a big government liberal who is opposed to pretty much everything they stand for domestically, because they don't like GOP foreign policy. And now they are finding out that much of Obama's foreign policy might be symbolic change only. Hopefully they are happy.
> Obviously since he's a Republican there are going to be similarities. But there were significant differences as well.
ReplyDeleteThere were?
> Yeah, that's a real realistic view, and not a wild overstatement. Almost anything Republicans can do badly, Democrats can do worse.
Now who's making the wild overstatements?
> a big government liberal who is opposed to pretty much everything they stand for domestically,
Non-defense domestic fiscal matters are important, but they are not "pretty much everything". And the McCain-Palin camp demonstrated no coherence on economic policy.
> now they are finding out that much of Obama's foreign policy might be symbolic change only. Hopefully they are happy.
Certainly much happier than we were under the status quo McCain wasn't going to change, yes.
"Now who's making the wild overstatements?"
ReplyDeleteMore of a general rule.
"Non-defense domestic fiscal matters are important, but they are not "pretty much everything""
It's more than just fiscal.
"And the McCain-Palin camp demonstrated no coherence on economic policy."
Well, that's was unfortunately true. And one of the reasons they lost -- although I'm not sure it could have been won with the big GWB anchor around their necks.
"Certainly much happier than we were under the status quo McCain wasn't going to change, yes."
Do you identify as a libertarian? Just curious, not taking a shot at you.
To clarify, I disagree that Obama's foreign policy is 'symbolic change only'. I actually think it's very significant, and there are only a few areas like state secrets that still need to be sorted out. I don't blame the Obama DOJ for not pulling an immediate 180º here. They have quite a mess on their hands.
ReplyDelete> Do you identify as a libertarian? Just curious, not taking a shot at you.
I've been a member of the Libertarian party and voted Badnarik in '04 because Bush and Kerry seemed equal evils. I hold libertarian principles, sure, and my ideal world is not far from an Ayn Rand's. But we don't live in an ideal world, so I try to take pragmatic positions. As Will Wilkinson puts it: Few say, “There should be no regulation, and so I, as a libertarian, have no opinion about how it should be carried out.” Yet I hear again and again that, since the state should not be in the business of marriage, one should not, as a libertarian, have an opinion about how this business is to be carried out. Increasingly, I find this an obnoxious and shameful form of moral recusal. One cannot use an ideological image of perfect justice to excuse or ignore an obvious injustice within the actual imperfect system. That these injustices could not arise within one’s vision of the best society does not mean that they have not in fact arisen. That a debate would not occur in an ideal world does not mean that it is not occuring or that nothing morally hangs on its conclusion. To decide to sit out the debate, with an eye on utopia, is not a way to keep one’s hands clean.
Similarly while I would prefer government not fund research, I'm pleased the Obama administration will direct scientific research more intelligently than Christianist Republicans on issues like stem cells.
> It's more than just fiscal.
Like what, gun control? I don't expect significant changes. We've won this fight, especially with Heller on the books.
I agree with Democrats on a majority of non-fiscal matters such as abortion, drugs, and gay rights. And of course I agree with them more than Republicans on defense spending, which is well above what I'd pare it down to.
> More of a general rule [that anything Republicans can do badly, Democrats can do worse].
Through your ideological prism, sure. From where I'm standing they're both almost as bad, just on differnet issues.
"To clarify, I disagree that Obama's foreign policy is 'symbolic change only'. I actually think it's very significant"
ReplyDeleteI'm hoping it's mostly symbolic, although I'm definitely worried.
"Like what, gun control? I don't expect significant changes. We've won this fight, especially with Heller on the books."
Let's hope so on guns. Pretty much everything that involves the government here at home -- which is a lot. Healthcare, regulation, other interactions with business, and education policy jump to mind.
"I agree with Democrats on a majority of non-fiscal matters such as abortion, drugs, and gay rights. "
Are Democrats any better than Republicans on drugs? It doesn't seem like it, at least at the national level.
"From where I'm standing they're both almost as bad, just on differnet issues."
Well, I've definitely heard that repeatedly from libertarians.
> Healthcare, regulation, other interactions with business, and education policy
ReplyDeleteAll those involve spending or regulating money, so I consider them fiscal.
A significant number of Republicans are corporate stooges, so while I consider them somewhat better than Democrats on "regulation/interaction with business" the advantage isn't lopsided large. Of course Democrats are stooges for various unions, but that's another story.