What Would Reagan Do?

NOT TORTURE:

Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, today: "When to Torture":

Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. . . . The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. . . .

Some people, however, believe you never torture. Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect by exempting them from war duty. But we would never make one of them Centcom commander. Private principles are fine, but you don't entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the safety of the nation. It is similarly imprudent to have a person who would abjure torture in all circumstances making national security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million countrymen.

Ronald Reagan, May 20, 1988, transmitting the Convention Against Torture to the Senate for ratification:

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.

Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, April 29, 2009:

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified.

The views that Ronald Reagan not only advocated, but signed a treaty compelling the U.S. to adhere to, are ones that are now -- in the view of our dominant media narrative -- the hallmarks of The Hard Left: torture is never justified; there are "no exceptional circumstances" justifying it; it must be declared to be a serious criminal offense ; and -- most of all -- the U.S., as Ronald Regan put it, "is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution." Reagan's explicit view that the concept of "universal jurisdiction" permits signatory nations (such as Spain) to prosecute torturers from other countries (such as the U.S.) is now considered so fringe that it's almost impossible to find someone in mainstream American debates willing to advocate it.

All via Glenn Greenwald, my new favorite lefty.

My Take on Boumediene

Ok. While I should be going home to clean my apartment, the temptation is just too great to write this now.

As I mentioned before, the opinion is over 130 pages. I'm not about to hash through it bit by bit, but I will address Scalia's dissent, already being fully embraced by the Right.

From the beginning, our beloved "Nino" distorts the entire concept of the case. Several times throughout his venomous dissent, he refers to the "war" against "radical Islamists" and various attacks the U.S. has suffered at the hands of Muslims: the Khobar Towers attack in Dharan, the embassy attacks at Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, the USS Cole and...the Marine barracks in Lebanon? (For my younger readers, that was an attack near the beginning of the Reagan administration.) Er, one of these things is not like the others...

Conflated responsibility for attacks aside, the fact is that the "War on Terror" is a war on an abstraction--it is a policy catch-phrase that, outside of an actual battlefield, serves only as rhetoric and a rationalization for the growth of the security state and reckless foreign policy. Not dissimilarly, it is no more a "war" than the war on illicit commodities, also known as the "War on Drugs." Certainly, there are tangible and substantial costs of blood and treasure for the victims and perpetrators of both of these "wars"--but neither is a war in any real sense.

9/11 wasn't an act of war--it was a heinous crime. 20 men, mostly Saudis, stole airplanes and murdered over 3,000 people. The Right has been all-too-quick to assign war powers to a president and Congress when, in fact, most of the acts they site are of a criminal nature. A "war on terror" would have to include a war on the Timothy McVeighs of the world, whom--by virtue of citizenship--are afforded constitutional protections and given trials. But this case doesn't even involve proper trials; it concerns whether or not foreign citizens--not to be confused with POWs--may challenge their incarceration in federal courts. Boumediene is one of several men who were imprisoned in Bosnia, by Bosnian authorities, held without charge, and then released for lack of evidence. After their release, they were picked up by Bosnian officials and transferred into U.S. custody--six years ago.

These men were not captured on the battlefield. These men were not, as far as anyone can tell, caught in the middle of some dastardly plot against the United States. Indeed, there is no evidence that, even if they are criminals, they had any intention of doing harm to the United States whatsoever. How they (legally speaking) came into the custody of the U.S. Military is quite a mystery to me. And, due to the legal black hole they found themselves in, as neither U.S. citizens or proper POWs (protected by the Geneva Conventions), they had no sufficient legal recourse to challenge their detentions.

Those whom have not followed this case closely may not be aware that Boumediene v. Bush had actually been denied certiorari before it was granted. (background here.) The testimony of a high-ranking military lawyer, Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, has been speculated to have changed the mind of Justice Anthony Kennedy to grant cert, as he testified that the CSRTs were, for all intents and purposes, worthless--thus nullifying the substantive and procedural due process the CSRTs were designed to provide. (I'll find the link later. kind of in a hurry at the moment.) Abraham link here.

The Right is howling as if this is the end to military justice as we know it. In reality, the Boumediene decision safeguards the rights of people whom have been held (and in several cases, tortured) for years without any sort of legal justification as to why...and thus rebukes the attempts of the government to overstep its prerogative yet again. I'm all for being tough on terrorists, but not at the expense of a cornerstone of personal liberty by an over-reaching collusive alliance of the Legislative and Executive branches of the federal government.

Way to go, SCOTUS.

Boumediene v. Bush: The Result

In what is undoubtedly a victory for freedom, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision granting habeas rights to detainees at Guantanamo.

I'm reading the a 130+ page decision right now, but it looks good so far. I'll write more after I've read it fully, but it seems that the legal black hole the administration created for detainees has been effectively destroyed...and that is a very good thing.

Best quote so far:

In considering both the procedural and substantive standards used to impose detention to prevent acts of terrorism, the courts must accord proper deference to the political branches. However, security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles, chief among them being freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers.

A Peek Inside Gitmo

A detailed and disturbing look inside the facilities in Guantanamo. Pictured here, a "recreation facility" that looks strikingly similar to the cages you'd find in professional wrestling.