The blind leading the willing

[eyrei]

I couldn't come up with a better title than the author, so here it is:

jurisprudence
The Blind Leading the Willing
A compromise between those who don't care and those who don't want to know.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Wednesday, Sept. 27, 2006, at 6:11 PM ET


Is it still called a compromise when the president gets everything he wanted?

A major detainee bill hurtling down the HOV lane in Congress today would determine the extent to which the president can define and authorize torture. The urgency to pass this legislation has nothing to do with a new need to interrogate alleged enemy combatants. The urgency is about an election.

Last time Congress rubber-stamped a major terrorism-related law no one had bothered to read in the first place, we got the Patriot Act. That alone should lead us to wonder whether there shouldn't be a mandatory three-month cooling-off period whenever Congress enacts broad laws that rewrite the Constitution.

The White House version of the detainee bill met with some resistance among ranking GOP members of Congress last week, but not enough to matter. And now, with a "compromise" at hand, nobody seems to agree on the meaning of the bargain we've struck. Sen. John McCain still believes that he's won on the bedrock principle of U.S. adherence to the Geneva Conventions. The Bush administration sees it as granting the president the authority to decide what Geneva really means.

That led to all the confusion last Sunday, when, appearing on Face the Nation, McCain claimed that the current bill "could mean that … extreme measures such as extreme deprivation—sleep deprivation, hypothermia, and others would be not allowed." This, on the same weekend that the editors at the Wall Street Journal crowed: "It's a fair bet that waterboarding—or simulated drowning, the most controversial of the CIA's reported interrogation techniques—will not be allowed under the new White House rules. But sleep deprivation and temperature variations, to name two other methods, will likely pass muster." So, what did we agree to? Is hypothermia in or out? What about sexual degradation or forcing prisoners to bark like dogs? Stress positions?

I'd wager that any tie goes to the White House. One hardly needs a law degree to understand that in a controversy over detainee treatment between the executive and legislative branches, the trump will go to the guy who's holding the unnamed detainees in secret prisons.

That brings us to a second stunning aspect of the so-called compromise: Not only do our elected officials have no idea what deal they've just struck, but they also have no idea what they were even bargaining about. In his Face the Nation interview, McCain revealed that he was in fact quite clueless as to what these "alternative interrogation measures"—the ones the president insists the CIA must use—actually include. "It's hard for me to get into these techniques," McCain said. "First of all, I'm not privy to them, but I only know what I've seen in public reporting."

Asked whether he had "access to more information about this than any of us because you've been in the negotiations," the senator was not reassuring. He knows "only what the president talked about in his speech." To clarify: McCain, the Geneva Conventions' great defender, is signing off on interrogation limits he knows nothing about. And so, it appears, will the most of the rest of Congress.

But that's not all. Congress doesn't want to know what it's bargaining away this week. In the Boston Globe this weekend, Rick Klein revealed that only "10 percent of the members of Congress have been told which interrogation techniques have been used in the past, and none of them know which ones would be permissible under proposed changes to the War Crimes Act." More troubling still, this congressional ignorance seems to be by choice. Klein quotes Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican, as saying, "I don't know what the CIA has been doing, nor should I know." Evidently, "widely distributing such information could result in leaks."

We've reached a defining moment in our democracy when our elected officials are celebrating their own blind ignorance as a means of keeping the rest of us blindly ignorant as well.

Over at the National Review Online they exult that the CIA torture program isn't just the president's project anymore. "Now it is just as much the program of Congress and of John McCain." Not quite right. Now it's the president's program that John McCain chooses not to know about.

And just to be completely certain, Congress is taking the courts down with it. No serious reader of the detainee-compromise bill can dispute that the whole point here is to sideline the courts. This bill immunizes some forms of detainee abuse and ignores others. It strips courts of habeas-corpus jurisdiction and denies so-called unlawful enemy combatants (a term that sweeps in citizens and noncitizens, Swiss grandmothers and Don Rumsfeld's neighbor if-that-bastard-doesn't-trim-his-hedge) the right to assert Geneva Convention claims in courts. Many detainees may never stand trial on the most basic question of whether they have done anything wrong. And courts will apparently now be powerless to do anything about any of this.

For the five years since 9/11, we have been in the dark in this country. This president has held detainees in secret prisons and had them secretly tortured using secret legal justifications. Those held in secret at Guantanamo Bay include innocent men, as do those who have been secretly shipped off to foreign countries and brutally tortured there. That was a shame on this president.

But passage of the new detainee legislation will be a different sort of watershed. Now we are affirmatively asking to be left in the dark. Instead of torture we were unaware of, we are sanctioning torture we'll never hear about. Instead of detainees we didn't care about, we are authorizing detentions we'll never know about. Instead of being misled by the president, we will be blind and powerless by our own choice. And that is a shame on us all.

Dahlia Lithwick is a Slate senior editor.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2150495/
Copyright 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC

Is this really what our politics are coming to? Are the American people too lazy to delve into complicated moral questions, and have our politicians picked up on this, making them lazy as well?

Legislation that affects the very foundation of our democratic 'rights-based' legal system should be scrutinized, torn apart several times from different angles, and then finally put back together into a coherent and definitive law by the congress. Further, congress should be honest with the citizenry, and do away with the disgusting rhetoric and obfuscation when communicating the meaning.

Instead, we have a rubber stamped bill based on a sort of neglectful paranoia, that shows our enemies and friends throughout the world that the USA stands for one thing, and that is security for our assets and citizens even if it means sacrificing the very fabric of our justice system.

Among other things, this bill opens up to detainment those people who have lived peacefully in the US, but who are not citizens, who might have contributed to a suspect charity. It also gives congress' approval for people to be tried by any 'tribunal' the president wishes to set up without access to the evidence against them.

It amazes me, this fear a few dedicated terrorists have managed to blanket this country with. Of course, they did have the help of our sensationalist media, politicians desiring only reelection, and an ignorant and morally lazy populace.

On a positive note, Senator Arlen Specter has once again shown he is probably the last respectable statesman in the cesspool we call congress.

Citizens of the USA should be very wary of their government in the years ahead, but that warning is probably falling on deaf ears, because most have already decided what 'side' they are on without use of reason or respect for the hope this country once offered the world.

 

[Trajan12]

I think we should really take a step back and reevaluate this information war, beside that I dont mind if some guy has to listen to loud music, stay up for a month, or get his wrists bruised for refusal to cooperate. While I dont believe we are in any serious danger in respect to our constitution youre right we should be careful

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

McCain basically rolled over. Nobody wanted to listen to the Democrats (not to say that they were vocal, either). The President ended up getting exactly what he wanted originally, only now he can say that the "Republican moderates" reached a "compromise" with him. Yeah sure.

 

[eyrei]

I think we should really take a step back and reevaluate this information war, beside that I dont mind if some guy has to listen to loud music, stay up for a month, or get his wrists bruised for refusal to cooperate. While I dont believe we are in any serious danger in respect to our constitution youre right we should be careful

The problem with that is the new law bars 'grave breaches' of the Geneva conventions...it is extremely vague.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

If the conduct of your enemy is governed by a different set of rules than yours, when fighting against him, what rules should you be governed by?

 

[C~G]

From my point of view, this law is disgrace for the US.

Haven't seen the actual text though but if those claims are true, it's exactly so bad as you could expect it to be from people who support the existence of GITMO.

Goodbye, Geneva conventions.

 

[Stegyre]

If the conduct of your enemy is governed by a different set of rules than yours, when fighting against him, what rules should you be governed by?

Our rules of warfare should not change depending upon our opponent. If they rape women and murder babies, do we? Of course not.

 

[JollyRoger]

If the conduct of your enemy is governed by a different set of rules than yours, when fighting against him, what rules should you be governed by?

Exactly. That is the question every nation, from this point forward, will ask itself when deciding how to treat American detainees.

 

[El_Machinae]

If the conduct of your enemy is governed by a different set of rules than yours, when fighting against him, what rules should you be governed by?

Goal 1 is to survive. Given that no terrorist is actually going to defeat America, survival is not really a criteria.

Goal 2 is to be able to withstand history's critique and to be able to sleep at night.

This is sick; tourists seem to have lost their Habeas Corpus right to challenge their detention in court.

 

[Atlas14]

Henry David Thoreau talked about "the blind leading the willing" in Civil Disobedience. Its kind of sad that things work that way.

 

[tomsnowman123]

If the conduct of your enemy is governed by a different set of rules than yours, when fighting against him, what rules should you be governed by?

The ones you have established. I would rather not become a country that uses torture, those who do are considered in the wrong.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Let's just hope our next president is more reasonable . . .

 

[El_Machinae]

Or that this President uses the Golden Rule when determining what is torture and what isn't.

I don't know why people aren't seriously outraged. This certainly has to breach any type of partisan boundaries.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

Let's just hope our next president is more reasonable . . .

Hope? In a democracy?

 

[JohnRM]

There is a clear roadblock to any kind of long-term physical or mental harm to the terrorist prisoners. What has been left on the table is short-term anguish, measures that will make these people so miserable that they will do anything to make it stop, including telling us everything they know about future attacks on Americans and other citizens of the free world.

All this is, is just some self-righteous attempt on the part of the Democratic Party and Liberals to convince the American people that it is somehow wrong and immoral to coerce information out of these terrorists. They try to paint of picture of these people as the equivelant of a soldier with a uniform and flag. These people are not soldiers, they are terrorists. They do not deserve the same rights on the level of soldiers in a war. They would and have not afforded the Geneva Conventions to our troops. How many terrorist-run prisoner camps do you know of? Do you think we'll get any of troops back at the end (as if it will ever end) of the war on terrorism? No, we get them back in several dozen pieces spread out over a few city blocks.

There is a very simple fact that you people need to realize and that is that if we do not start fighting this war and give our intelligence community and our soldiers the proper tools, we are going to suffer for it. We treated Iraqi POWs with respect and accorded them the rights of soldiers, according to the Geneva Conventions (as long as they were uniformed). The whole idea that we are suddenly going to treat everyone, including Americans, like this is simply absurd, and the Democrats know it. They are trying to play on emotions and romanticize about how things ideally should be, but it cannot be that way.

Get on board or get out of our way, cause those of us commited to this fight are not stopping for anyone to protect ourselves, our families, and our country.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Oh for Christ's sake, if you're going to support it that openly just come out of the closet and use the T word instead of mealy mouthed euphemisms like "coercing".

 

[Brighteye]

The problem with that is the new law bars 'grave breaches' of the Geneva conventions...it is extremely vague.

Only grave breaches?!
Surely if America has signed the Geneva conventions then any and all breaches should be banned?
Signing a treaty isn't saying 'sure, we'll give it a go', it's saying "We agree to these principles and will implement them"

 

[Brighteye]

All this is, is just some self-righteous attempt on the part of the Democratic Party and Liberals to convince the American people that it is somehow wrong and immoral to coerce information out of these terrorists. They try to paint of picture of these people as the equivelant of a soldier with a uniform and flag. These people are not soldiers, they are terrorists. They do not deserve the same rights on the level of soldiers in a war. They would and have not afforded the Geneva Conventions to our troops. How many terrorist-run prisoner camps do you know of? Do you think we'll get any of troops back at the end (as if it will ever end) of the war on terrorism? No, we get them back in several dozen pieces spread out over a few city blocks.

There is a very simple fact that you people need to realize and that is that if we do not start fighting this war and give our intelligence community and our soldiers the proper tools, we are going to suffer for it.

Aren't the American right-wingers the ones trying to portray them as soldiers? That's how you justify calling it a war, and calling them enemy combatants. If you're not fighting any soldiers, how can it be a war?
They're not soldiers, they're criminals, and they should be treated in the same way you treat any foreign citizens who have broken your laws; deported, if you think that they'll receive justice at home, or punished by a court of law in the same way you'd punish any other criminal.
They do not deserve to be treated as prisoners of war, because there is no war. With which sovereign state is America currently at war? The whole point is that these are not soldiers under a flag, but foreign citizens under a flag, who happen to be criminal citizens.

If you start fighting this 'war' in the manner currently being attempted you will be chasing a ghost for the rest of time (as you yourself acknowledge that the war may not end). Americans are gradually losing the rights and freedoms that are the foundation of their country in exchange for protection from a phantom! That sounds good to me. Keep it up, and soon China will be the home of all that is good in the world and people will look askance at the human rights abuses in America. It's starting already.

 

[C~G]

There is a clear roadblock to any kind of long-term physical or mental harm to the terrorist prisoners. What has been left on the table is short-term anguish, measures that will make these people so miserable that they will do anything to make it stop, including telling us everything they know about future attacks on Americans and other citizens of the free world.

Don't drag the rest of the world to the picture.
Global threat of terror probably has increased because of War on terror and now you're saying you're protecting with these heinous acts the rest of the bunch?

Some people try to educate you about what "free world" means since it's apparently part of american public have forgotten the meaning of the term. Or maybe they never knew what it meant.

All this is, is just some self-righteous attempt on the part of the Democratic Party and Liberals to convince the American people that it is somehow wrong and immoral to coerce information out of these terrorists.

No, but I see it's against your own values of your own country that you love to protect.

They try to paint of picture of these people as the equivelant of a soldier with a uniform and flag. These people are not soldiers, they are terrorists.

No, they try to paint picture of these "terrorists" as human beings such as yourself.

There's also such problems that you don't know how useful the information is and who can be tortured this way. So basically people without being any court of law can be tortured to give information.

They do not deserve the same rights on the level of soldiers in a war. They would and have not afforded the Geneva Conventions to our troops. How many terrorist-run prisoner camps do you know of? Do you think we'll get any of troops back at the end (as if it will ever end) of the war on terrorism? No, we get them back in several dozen pieces spread out over a few city blocks.

Stegyre answered to this quite efficiently.

Of course if the opponent doesn't play by the same rules as you, you can bend your own rules, but there comes a limit. But then again why I'm trying to convince you about it. You probably sing praises about GITMO.

There is a very simple fact that you people need to realize and that is that if we do not start fighting this war and give our intelligence community and our soldiers the proper tools, we are going to suffer for it.

Do you mean giving tools to such organizations like CIA who are now saying that the war on Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism instead of decreasing it?

They are trying to play on emotions and romanticize about how things ideally should be, but it cannot be that way.

You mean little bit like playing with emotions and romanticizing kind of way that visions torture and prisoner keeping without court of law in the name of blind patriotism as justified and rightful thing to do?

Get on board or get out of our way, cause those of us commited to this fight are not stopping for anyone to protect ourselves, our families, and our country.

You forgot you should protect your country's values too.
But I guess they have been kind of forgotten in the haze of government propaganda about the importance of these actions in this war of terror.

And I agree with Brighteye.
Either you call them soldiers or criminals, and whatever the case they deserve to be in court of law just like everyone else. This law IMHO compromises the values of US to the level of the very enemy it fights against.
But then again nothing new under the sun.

 

[Janusi]

This may be a stupid question but, does this new bill make an exemption for US citizens? Because from some of the things I heard, it does not which should make the citizens of a democratic society at least somewhat nervous.

Or is that considered a plus? That even under these new standards of conduct, people are still considered equal under the 'law'?