That Which We Are, We Are...

Diagnarfl links to me on the Bush Torture Bill, which provokes a... disturbing thought:

diagnarfl: The State of the Union: Brad DeLong says of the torture bill:

This is bad. Very bad. I can't underscore how bad this is. This is our Fugitive Slave Act, our Sedition Act, our Korematsu. This is a danger to our domestic liberties and a terrifying threat to our national security--for its impact on our international standing and on our alliances may be terrible indeed.

[..]

Daniel Webster will certainly walk tonight, for nobody today can say that the Republic is rock-bottomed and copper-sheathed. But she nevertheless does stand as she stood. Things have been just as bad, and things have been almost as bad in the memory of men yet living.

And then [Brad] talks about the events of the McCarthy era. Let's hope that the Edward R. Murrow's of today are hard at work against these latest crazed fear & hate mongers.

My thought: We are the Edward R. Murrows of today. It's up to us (for some broadly construed value of "us", of course).

---

Though much is taken, much abides
And though we are not now that strength
Which once moved heaven and earth
That which we are, we are...

Comments

[Eli Rabett]

As long as John Yoo is a professor at Berkeley all of your nashing of teeth is just posing. If the faculty does not toss him out then clearly the reward for sponsoring torture is a position at one of the formerly best universities in the US.

[kid bitzer]

hmmm--I don't completely endorse what Eli Rabett says....

But it is a question. Hasn't there traditionally been a clause in the AAUP guidelines for tenure, saying that it can be revoked for "moral turpitude"?

And doesn't Yoo meet that standard, handily?

[walkingtheline]

From Bitter Searching of the Heart
by F.R. Scott

From bitter searching of the heart,
Quickened with passion and with pain
We rise to play a greater part.

This is the faith from which we start:
Men shall know commonwealth again
From bitter searching of the heart.

We loved the easy and the smart,
But now, with keener hand and brain,
We rise to play a greater part.

The lesser loyalties depart,
And neither race nor creed remain
From bitter searching of the heart.

Not steering by the venal chart
That tricked the mass for private gain,
We rise to play a greater part.

Reshaping narrow law and art
Whose symbols are the millions slain,
From bitter searching of the heart
We rise to play a greater part.

[vtcodger]

***We are the Edward R. Murrows of today.***

No offense, but Brad DeLong can't be an Edward R. Murrow because he is clearly partisan. Not necessarily wrong in any respect, but partisan. The nation's newscasters strike me as being an unlikely candidate for Murrowism. People like Tim Russert, Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs, et al have, between them, the character and razor sharp intellect of a Krispy Kream donut.

It is refreshing to see that Bob Woodward seems to have crossed over to the Dark Side. But the US really needs is for Democrats to show some spine, and for Republicans and Independents with character and some semblence of a functioning brain to stand up and say that Bush's judgement is lousy and his conduct is abominable. We finally got rid of McCarthy when the NorthEastern Republicans started denouncing him. We should be able to get rid of Bush in a similar fashion. But, deplorably, it isn't happening.

Y'know what? There may be no Edward R Murrow in this generation.

***As long as John Yoo is a professor at Berkeley all of your nashing of teeth is just posing.***

Is it allowed to disagree? Yoo is certainly a disgrace to the Human race. But is he not entitled to have the same freedom of speach, and expression that those on the left wish to exercise? As long as he shows up where he is supposed to be when he is supposed to be there; isn't caught plaigerizing; doesn't make up facts in his teaching and research; keeps his hands off the undergraduates; and whatever weird agency warps his intellect doesn't push him completely over the edge, what valid reason could there be to get rid of him?

[Dean Baker]

there's an angle on this issue that has been largely overlooked. While the law ostensibly applies to shady foreign types, implicitly it gives a green light to any
government in the world to hold and torture any U.S. citizen any time it finds it to be convenient.

Bush and Co. say that this law is entirely consistent with the U.S. obligations under the Geneva Convention and other international agreements. If this is true, then it would mean that any other country could also detain someone (including U.S. citizens) at any time, without any legal recourse, because they believed this person to be an enemy combattant. They could also waterboard them and subject them to all the other creative interrogation techniques developed at Gitmo and elsewhere.

I think we should be clear that all the members of Congress who supported this bill all support having our sons and daughters face the threat of arrest and torture any time they leave the country.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/us/30detain.html

September 30, 2006

Detainee Bill Shifts Power to President
By SCOTT SHANE and ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — With the final passage through Congress of the detainee treatment bill, President Bush on Friday achieved a signal victory, shoring up with legislation his determined conduct of the campaign against terrorism in the face of challenges from critics and the courts.

Rather than reining in the formidable presidential powers Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have asserted since Sept. 11, 2001, the law gives some of those powers a solid statutory foundation. In effect it allows the president to identify enemies, imprison them indefinitely and interrogate them — albeit with a ban on the harshest treatment — beyond the reach of the full court reviews traditionally afforded criminal defendants and ordinary prisoners.

Taken as a whole, the law will give the president more power over terrorism suspects than he had before the Supreme Court decision this summer in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that undercut more than four years of White House policy. It does, however, grant detainees brought before military commissions limited protections initially opposed by the White House. The bill, which cleared a final procedural hurdle in the House on Friday and is likely to be signed into law next week by Mr. Bush, does not just allow the president to determine the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions; it also strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to his interpretation.

And it broadens the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" to include not only those who fight the United States but also those who have "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." The latter group could include those accused of providing financial or other indirect support to terrorists, human rights groups say. The designation can be made by any "competent tribunal" created by the president or secretary of defense.

In very specific ways, the bill is a rejoinder to the Hamdan ruling, in which several justices said the absence of Congressional authorization was a central flaw in the administration's approach. The new bill solves that problem, legal experts said.

"The president should feel he has better authority and direction now," said Douglas W. Kmiec, a conservative legal scholar at the Pepperdine University School of Law. "I think he can reasonably be confident that this statute answers the Supreme Court and puts him back in a position to prevent another attack, which is the goal of interrogation."

But lawsuits challenging the bill are inevitable, and critics say substantial parts of it may well be rejected by the Supreme Court.

Over all, the legislation reallocates power among the three branches of government, taking authority away from the judiciary and handing it to the president....

[anne]

"The president should feel he has better authority and direction now," said Douglas W. Kmiec, a conservative legal scholar at the Pepperdine University School of Law. "I think he can reasonably be confident that this statute answers the Supreme Court and puts him back in a position to prevent another attack, which is the goal of interrogation."

[Notice how fear insinuates and carries all reason away.]

[anne]

Where was there a lone Senator who would set the leadership agreement to limit debate aside to speak till removed against this bill?

[Dan K]

Dean Baker: brilliant!

So all we need to do is find some hapless American Maher Arar (preferably a visiting U.S. congressman!), have a vaguely "friendly" foreign government apprehend him and try him under the exact same language as this bullshit Senate bill.

Within 2 weeks, we'd either be calling for a reversal to this bill or invading Kazakhstan!

[steve mann]

Brad,

you are right, it's up to us.

"Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us." - Jerry Garcia

[janinsanfran]

Yup. Us, broadly understood.

And there should be a way to make John Yoo depart from Berkeley. That this enabler of tyranny should be allowed to teach, by students and his academic peers (not the administration which has rules), is a disgrace to my alma mater.

[Bill]

***We are the Edward R. Murrows of today.***

> No offense, but Brad DeLong can't be an
> Edward R. Murrow because he is clearly
> partisan. Not necessarily wrong in any
> respect, but partisan. The nation's
> newscasters strike me as being an unlikely
> candidate for Murrowism. People like Tim
> Russert, Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs, et al
> have, between them, the character and
> razor sharp intellect of a Krispy Kream
> donut.

How about Keith Olbermann?

And partisan surely doesn't mean having an opinion or coming down on one
side of an issue, does it? Doesn't partisan mean that you're "for" one
side regardless of the merits of that position?

What makes Brad or me or someone else "partisan", if our positions are
evidence and reason based? If we refused to change our position when
presented with compelling evidence, I see how we could be considered
partisan.

Isn't it the case that one's conclusions are unchangeable that is a
requisite characteristic of being partisan? i.e. my party, right or
wrong. Shouldn't you have to demonstrate that Brad has refused to change
his position in the face of compelling evidence (something I haven't
seen as a regular reader of his blog) before you call him partisan?

In fact it seems to me that so many of us are called traitors (or, at
best, spineless) because we will change our minds? Whereas those who
will "stay the course" in spite of the evidence are considered resolute.
Wasn't in Keynes who, when criticized for changing his opinion, said
something like: I change my mind whenever the facts change? Wouldn't he
get crucified today!

In short, being partisan is not about having a position, but rather,
having no reason to hold that position.

You seem like such a reasonable person in light of your Rousseau-like
comments regarding the John Yoo's "freedom of speech, and expression"
that, while acknowledging that you don't consider him "necessarily wrong
in any respect", I would you to clarify for me please why you consider
Brad partisan?

[liberal]

vtcodger wrote, "As long as he shows up where he is supposed to be when he is supposed to be there; isn't caught plaigerizing; doesn't make up facts in his teaching and research; keeps his hands off the undergraduates; and whatever weird agency warps his intellect doesn't push him completely over the edge, what valid reason could there be to get rid of him?"

Uh, the fact that he's a war criminal?