Post: Shocked, Shocked By Mukasey on Torture

This Washington Post editorial on Michael Mukasey's "tortured testimony" would sit a whole lot better with me if the Post had taken the same line back during Mukasey's confirmation hearings. After all, all this was perfectly clear back then -- asked directly whether he would condemn torture as torture, he declined to do so. So why are we surprised when, as AG, he refuses to do it?

There's some kind of weird sense in which to maintain your respectable Village ID card you need to both resolutely oppose torture and oppose all the political steps that might actually put a stop to it. Instead, you're supposed to have childlike faith that Bush and his henchmen are going to stop it themselves because, after all, they're sweet and wonderful people. Or something.

Comments

So why are we surprised when...

I don't think anyone's actually surprised by this.

There's some kind of weird sense in which to maintain your respectable Village ID card you need to both resolutely oppose torture and oppose all the political steps that might actually put a stop to it.

This baffles me as well (although it is not restricted to the media "village"; see, e.g., John McCain, Chuck Schumer, Scott Horton, etc.). Obviously, there must be some sort of pessimistic political calculation going on to justify this (i.e., "Well, we can't impeach without a lot more Senate votes, so let's roll the dice with Mukasey and hope that his professionalism does some good"), but this is thin gruel when the latest half-assed attempt at restoring the rule of law fails again.

Posted by S.G.E.W. | February 1, 2008 10:28 AM

Maybe it's just me but all the use of the word "village" by liberal bloggers is starting to grate on my nerves as an annoying tic more in line with the way conservatives use nicknames to put down people they dislike.

Posted by Ron | February 1, 2008 11:12 AM

Maybe it's just me

From where I'm sitting, its just you. These people deserve to be disparaged for the ongoing damage they inflict on democracy.

Posted by mpowell | February 1, 2008 11:48 AM

It is not just trust that they are sweet. It is one thing for a blogger or commenter to call someone a torturer or fascist or whatever, it is another thing to condemn someone in that way to his face. They just cannot get over the hump of reconciling how ordinary or vaguely respectable people can do evil. It is kind of ruled out as a possibility. So they just nibble at the edges, and struggle to maintain their illusions which are so very much more comfortable.

Posted by Doug | February 1, 2008 11:54 AM

This fits in well with economist Dean Baker's post yesterday in the U.K.'s Guardian Unlimited: "The U.S. Economy, Pravda Style". It also notes the WaPo's tendency to say one thing and then contradict it shortly thereafter without apparently noticing that they've said something different.

Posted by Craig | February 1, 2008 11:55 AM

"Village" seems to trace back to when the Left worshipped Hillary as the wise Co-President of decades of progressive leadership and repeated her words and thoughts like sacred scripture.. "Village" then infected nearly every Lefty do-gooder screed.

Mukasey is the AG. Who in charge of civilian law enforcement and justice. He is tending to his sphere while leaving what is done in war to unlawful enemy combatants to be addressed by other parties. That is a fairly good stance to take, no matter how much the Left, the Jewish human rights lawyers, media, and John McCain wish to drag enemy rights into civilian jurisdiction.

Remember, we who are in or were in the military kill people without trial!!. Without even a hearing with Kenneth Roth or Chuck Schumer! We kill unarmed men fleeing an ambush by shooting them in the back if we suspect they are hostiles. We empower 20 year olds to stop a car that fails to halt in keeping with ROE, with 20mm cannon.

On the battlefield, we sometimes elect to kill and maim people we possibly could have captured instead but which involved risking our men Why, we even kill people we know who are innocent if they are in close proximity to enemy and their slaughter is unavoidable if we are to take down our targets.

We seek to deprive enemy of their "freedom of speech" by eliminating broadcast from TV and radio with bombs. We search homes and people in enemy country without warrant issued by some lawyer in robes.

But we are supposed to treat captured enemy Jihadis by civilian rules?

Mukasey is wise to avoid entering that controversy and staying on safe ground that we of course do not torture lawbreakers who fall under existing civilian law...

Posted by Chris Ford | February 1, 2008 11:58 AM

Chris Ford,
You've outlined precisely why our "strategy" in the Middle East is doomed to failure. We are driving the people of that continent into the arms of extremists.

Posted by ChrisWWW | February 1, 2008 12:09 PM

Nothing surprising.

Lord Saletan decreed lately that (1) both abortion and teen sex are undesirable, and (2) the only way we can tackle these issue is by self-regulation, so leave it up to women and teens.

The common motifs are

(a) a pundit looks at the political and social scene with Olympian detachment, unsullied by partisan passions

(b) a pundit arrives at conclusions that are infinitely deeper and subtler that mere Harvard graduates in Philosophy may comprehend.

If any schmuck straight from college were capable of such deep and subtle opinions, there would be no point of having pundits, would there? Just round up some random unsuspecting citizens, check for at least dim idea about the current events and basic elocution skills, promise expenses, 30 minutes of fame and a good dinner and unleash upon viewing public (or take their written opinion for a column).

One counterintuitive effect of pundits being infinitely subtler than you and me is that while their opinions may seem bizarre, they also seem uniform. One could suspect that an occasional pundit arrives at his or her opinion is some manner that differs from deep Olympian solitary deliberation. But I am to ignorant to speculate.

Posted by piotr | February 1, 2008 12:20 PM

Chris,

By that rationale you would be all right with the army patrolling the streets of the u.s and shooting people any individual soldier decided was an enemy. There is a difference, that has been recognized for centuries, between a combatant on the battlefield and a prisoner. It is disgusting sophistry and cowardice to argue that a man in hand cuffs and a bag over his head, thousands of miles away from any fellow combatant and inside a prison poses the same risks and should be treated the same as a someone shooting at you on a battlefield.

Posted by Doug | February 1, 2008 12:24 PM

Just round up some random unsuspecting citizens, check for at least dim idea about the current events and basic elocution skills...

Sorry, Piotr-- right there is where your plan becomes unworkable. ;)

Posted by James Gary | February 1, 2008 12:31 PM

I, too, commend Chris Ford for his accurate and devastating explanation of why this whole democracy-promotion business isn't going so well in Iraq. Kudos, Chris.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 1, 2008 12:49 PM

But we are supposed to treat captured enemy Jihadis by civilian rules?

Not civilian rules. Military rules. (Those would be the Geneva Conventions.)

Posted by roac | February 1, 2008 1:18 PM

Well, of course Chris is also alert enough to point out that the REAL trouble is that the Elders of Zion are still setting our policies. (It's a bit hard to see why they'd advocate foolishly soft treatment of mortal enemies of Israel, but then everyone knows that Jews are really only interested in money anyway, or something.)

Now that the lunatic fringe has been heard from yet again (one must admire his refusal to give up, at least): exactly why is Matt so puzzled about the ambiguous attitude of the media toward administration wrongdoers? If you DON'T imply that they're fundamentally "sweet and wonderful" -- even if you're also saying that you strongly disagree with them -- they cut off your reporters' access to exclusives, while retaining it for your rivals' reporters. So it has always been, and so will it ever be. This force compelling the press to pull their punches is a simple fundamental of existence with which we will always be stuck, like death or sticky ice-cube trays.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | February 1, 2008 1:59 PM

This is another Democrat copout. If they want waterboarding to be codified as clearly, permanently illegal (as I do) they should pass a law clearly banning it and listing the penalty--instead of leaving the issue to the whims of every attorney general from here to eternity. Sadly, the Democrats saw the bump they got by parading Gonzales before Congress and want to do the same with Mukasey. The Democratic Congress doesn't care one whit about waterboarding.

But we are supposed to treat captured enemy Jihadis by civilian rules?

Not sure, but they worked fine with Moussauoi. I'd be fine if we followed the rules we applied to captured Nazis, whatever those were.

Posted by Shinyk | February 1, 2008 2:48 PM

Doug - By that rationale you would be all right with the army patrolling the streets of the u.s and shooting people any individual soldier decided was an enemy.

Well, yes, as was done in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and War of 1812.

Doug - There is a difference, that has been recognized for centuries, between a combatant on the battlefield and a prisoner.

My argument is not that there is a difference, it is that they should not be treated as civilians in civilian court up on "criminal charges". They are Jihadis convinced the laws of military war do not apply to them and killing infidels or moderate Muslims is good and holy work.

Doug - It is disgusting sophistry and cowardice to argue that a man in hand cuffs and a bag over his head, thousands of miles away from any fellow combatant and inside a prison poses the same risks and should be treated the same as a someone shooting at you on a battlefield.

No one is arguing about killing them without trial. The debate is about "precious enemy rights" not accorded to any prisoners in any past wars.

Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam: 600,000 prisoners. Number who got access to civilian habeas rights and criminal courts? Zero.

Number of Jewish lawyers suing for Nazi prisoner rights ? (we had 400,000 of them, 240,000 inside the USA) Zero. Number of ACLU Jews and other Left activists now suing for Jihadi Rights to civilian justice? Thousands of 'em. Mainly because they hate Bush and think his humbling and their getting power, is worth more American deaths.

The risks that an unlawful enemy poses is quite different than a criminal. When a criminal gang group is arrested, generally, the potential of
the group is neutralized while the processing of leisurely civilian justice goes on - with exceptions for a kidnapping. And the civilian criminals are susceptable to pleas and bargains.

A military-organized terrorist organization remains lethal after members are killed and captured as long as remnant forces can kill. So we are far more interested in stopping plots and rounding up members in a time-critical way that involves coercive interrogation. It must go fast because the intelligence value of the enemy decays exponentially with time.

Stories of German-Jewish refugees befriending Nazis and getting testimony out of kindness at war's end or after the war was over when it was in the Nazi's best interest to kiss butt and make deals - do not apply to religious fanatics from an honor culture. They talk willingly, they betray their faith and Jihad, their tribal honor. They talk after getting slapped around some, or sleep-deprived, their honor is saved through resistance, and some will then freely talk truthfully.

Chris Ford,
You've outlined precisely why our "strategy" in the Middle East is doomed to failure. We are driving the people of that continent into the arms of extremists. Posted by ChrisWWW

Yeah, that goes right along with the hoary Lefty maxim that - except untrue in all previous wars - the more you kill the enemy and take out their support structures, the stronger you make any enemy.

When King Hussein slaughtered Black September and family sympathizers, it didn't strengthen extremism, it extinguished it. Same with Assad in dealing with Hama. The lesson of the great communist slaughters is that the more you kill, the weaker your class enemies become. The more extremists were killed in the 2nd Algerian civil war, the less people wanted to join them. The destruction of cities and enemy centers in WWII did not drive people into the hands of the extremists, it led to people in wartime growing weary of the nazis and Japanese militarists because there were no great victories to cheer, just piles of civilians and sometimes loved ones to bury, day in and out.

War and insurgency may be fought differently, they may be fought the same...but generally, the more enemy and civilian enemy sympathizers you kill or intimidate, the closer you are to winning.

Posted by Chris Ford | February 1, 2008 4:06 PM

War and insurgency may be fought differently, they may be fought the same...but generally, the more enemy and civilian enemy sympathizers you kill or intimidate, the closer you are to winning.

So you recognize the countervalent nature of Nazis and Jihadis in terms of ROE -- yet in the next breath expect a pogrom against Muslim fanatics to lead us closer to victory, as it has worked so many times in the past. How convenient.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | February 1, 2008 5:03 PM

Chris, congrats. Someone has to say it: the Founding Fathers of our country were idiots, and it is high time to rectify their idiocy. Better lessons are available elsewhere: "The lesson of the great communist slaughters is that the more you kill, the weaker your class enemies become."

My problem is this: what was exactly the nature of our bad feelings toward Saddam Husein? And Stalin, for that matter?

Posted by piotr | February 1, 2008 5:09 PM

I'd say Chris's complaint, him being a Ku Klux Klan member, is that Saddam wasn't "white" and Stalin wasn't whatever religious freak Chris is...or something like that.

Ford is a joke.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 1, 2008 11:55 PM