Andrew Sullivan compares our methods with those the Brits used against spies during the blitz:
My great aunt was blind in one eye from a bomb blast in the blitz; my grandfather lived with a brain injury when he was a prison guard in the war and was attacked by a prison inmate during an air-raid; my mother was knocked over by the impact of a rocket at the end of the war; my parents and aunts and uncles were evacuated. Most ordinary people lived through the Blitz, a random 9/11 a week, from an army poised to invade, and turn England's democratic heritage into a footnote in a Nazi empire.
As all that was happening, and as intelligence was vital, the British captured over 500 enemy spies operating in Britain and elsewhere. Most went through Camp 020, a Victorian pile crammed with interrogators. As Britain's very survival hung in the balance, as women and children were being killed on a daily basis and London turned into rubble, Churchill nonetheless knew that embracing torture was the equivalent of surrender to the barbarism he was fighting.
The terrifying commandant of Camp 020 refined psychological intimidation to an art form.
Suspects often left the interrogation cells legless with fear after an all-night grilling. An inspired amateur psychologist, Stephens used every trick, lie and bullying tactic to get what he needed; he deployed threats, drugs, drink and deceit. But he never once resorted to violence. “Figuratively,” he said, “a spy in war should be at the point of a bayonet.” But only ever figuratively. As one colleague wrote: “The Commandant obtained results without recourse to assault and battery. It was the very basis of Camp 020 procedure that nobody raised a hand against a prisoner.”
Stephens did not eschew torture out of mercy. This was no squishy liberal: the eye was made of tin, and the rest of him out of tungsten. (Indeed, he was disappointed that only 16 spies were executed during the war.) His motives were strictly practical. “Never strike a man. It is unintelligent, for the spy will give an answer to please, an answer to escape punishment. And having given a false answer, all else depends upon the false premise.”...
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
"The President of the United States says this is the way to put out the fire"
During the first week of FDR's presidency, while the country was dealing with a massive banking crisis, the President sent a bill to Congress asking it to grant him new powers over banking and currency to stem the tide of panicked bank-runs. Bertrand H. Snell, the Republican floor leader of the House, told his caucus "The house is burning down, and the President of the United States says this is the way to put out the fire." The House then passed FDR's bill without a record vote, it was passed by the Senate a couple hours later, and signed into law later that night.
Just take a moment to contrast Snell with John Boehner or Eric Cantor, and then consider whether today's Congressional Republicans really give a damn about their country.
Just take a moment to contrast Snell with John Boehner or Eric Cantor, and then consider whether today's Congressional Republicans really give a damn about their country.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Specter switches parties, Dems now filibuster-proof!
The Senate Dems get their 60th vote (once Norm Coleman winds up his pathetic grasping in MN) today, with PA Senator Arlen Specter switching parties.
"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."
"Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."
I have to imagine that Schumer and the DSCC will clear the decks for Specter in the Democratic primary- and that this was probably part of the deal for Specter coming over. Specter was in an untenable position before his switch- he almost certainly would have won the general election as a Republican, but was facing an almost unwinnable primary challenge from former Congressman and Club-for-Growth president Pat Toomey. Specter, as a D, should cruise to victory- he has support from organized labor- which he can now deploy without fear of Toomey stirring up anti-labor issues in a primary. I suspect that in a general-election matchup with Toomey, Specter will keep much of his support from independents, some of the moderate Republicans, and pick up a lot of votes from yellow-dog dems who liked him but wouldn't vote for him as a Republican in the past.
Now the Dems can break a filibuster, so long as they can keep Ben Nelson and co. in line...
"I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary," said Specter in a statement. "I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election."
"Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."
I have to imagine that Schumer and the DSCC will clear the decks for Specter in the Democratic primary- and that this was probably part of the deal for Specter coming over. Specter was in an untenable position before his switch- he almost certainly would have won the general election as a Republican, but was facing an almost unwinnable primary challenge from former Congressman and Club-for-Growth president Pat Toomey. Specter, as a D, should cruise to victory- he has support from organized labor- which he can now deploy without fear of Toomey stirring up anti-labor issues in a primary. I suspect that in a general-election matchup with Toomey, Specter will keep much of his support from independents, some of the moderate Republicans, and pick up a lot of votes from yellow-dog dems who liked him but wouldn't vote for him as a Republican in the past.
Now the Dems can break a filibuster, so long as they can keep Ben Nelson and co. in line...
Friday, April 24, 2009
What torture advocates have to prove
Anonymous Liberal considers what torture proponents would have to prove, even if everyone conceded the human rights argument against it:
Among other things, you would have to prove that 1) such information could not have been extracted using other means, 2) that the misinformation produced by such methods doesn't overwhelm the accurate information to the point of rending the whole exercise pointless, 3) that the strategic costs of using such techniques (international outrage, increased radicalization of the Muslim world, increased danger to U.S. troops, etc.) don't outweigh the benefits, and 4) the value of the information produced is worth the tradeoff of never being able to use that information (or the fruits thereof) in court and severely jeopardizing any hope of ever convicting that individual in any constitutionally compliant legal proceeding.
Among other things, you would have to prove that 1) such information could not have been extracted using other means, 2) that the misinformation produced by such methods doesn't overwhelm the accurate information to the point of rending the whole exercise pointless, 3) that the strategic costs of using such techniques (international outrage, increased radicalization of the Muslim world, increased danger to U.S. troops, etc.) don't outweigh the benefits, and 4) the value of the information produced is worth the tradeoff of never being able to use that information (or the fruits thereof) in court and severely jeopardizing any hope of ever convicting that individual in any constitutionally compliant legal proceeding.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Ron Paul wants the US to hire Pirates to fight Pirates
According to Politico, Ron Paul and various other "national security experts" are calling on the US to revive the practice of granting Letters of Marque and Reprisal to private citizens, which would allow them to hire ships of war to hunt down the pirates plaguing the Somali coast and the Gulf of Aden:
In a YouTube video earlier this week, Paul suggested lawmakers consider issuing letters, which could relieve American naval ships from being the nation’s primary pirate responders — a free-market solution to make the high seas safer for cargo ships. “I think if every potential pirate knew this would be the case, they would have second thoughts because they could probably be blown out of the water rather easily if those were the conditions,” Paul said. Theoretically, hiring bounty hunters would also be a cheaper option.
National security experts estimate that this week’s ship captain rescue by Navy SEALs cost tens of millions, although a Navy spokesman says the military cannot confirm the exact cost of the mission. Instead, privateers would be incentivized to patrol the ocean looking for key targets — and money would be paid only to the contractor who completed the job.
“If we have 100 American wanna-be Rambos patrolling the seas, it’s probably a good way of getting the job done,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow and security expert Eli Lehrer. “Right now we have a Navy designed mostly to fight other navies. The weapons we have are all excellent, but they may not be the best ones to fight these kinds of pirates. The only cost under letters of marque would be some sort of bounty for the pirates.”
Look, as a naval history geek I'm as excited about a revival of letters of marque as anybody. However, I think in this case it's a situation of way too much faith that the free market is the way to go. First of all, the situation described by Paul would not really be letters of marque and reprisal, because those authorize people to sieze enemy ships. Nobody wants some pirate's leaky fishing raft- basically he's suggesting putting bounties on the pirates.
This is problematic for a couple of reasons. The first is that we no longer have the bureaucracy of "Prize Courts," which were used by Western navies from the 1500s through the late 1800s, and had administrative judges that determined whether a seized ship was actually an enemy's ship- and if it wasn't it would be given back. These institutions were around for a long time, and had experienced judges and lots of credibility, which would be hard to duplicate with some kind of jury-rigged office in the Navy Department. The second, more critical problem, is that they would have to operate without even a ship as evidence. If some modern-day buccaneer shows up at the Navy Department or wherever with bits of a sunken boat and the scalp of some Somali teenager, how do we figure out if he killed a pirate or a fisherman?
I'm sure the Competitive Enterprise Institute fellow meant it to sound like a good idea, but does the concept of "100 American would-be Rambos" ramming around the Somali shore sound like something that would actually help? Sure, piracy might fall, but at what cost? What Paul is describing seems somewhat more like the bounties-for-Indian-scalps policies of colonial America and Mexico... and we know how that worked out:
Sonora was the first state to enact a scalp bounty law; in 1835, offering 100 pesos for the scalps of braves (with a peso roughly equal to an American silver dollar). An American named James Johnson sparked the boom period in 1837 when he fired a concealed canon at close range on unarmed Apaches. The blast tore into Apache warriors as well as women and children, and Johnson and his troops swarmed into the mass of natives, killing and scalping. While this event occurred in Hidalgo County, New Mexico, the scalps were cashed in Sonora, and the entire incident proved how profitable scalp hunting could be. It also flamed native animosity towards both Mexicans and Anglos, encouraging more raids and greater violence (a cycle that continued throughout this era). Soon afterward, Chihuahua enacted a similar law offering a graded bounty: $100 for braves; $50 for squaws; $25 for children under fourteen (although the latter two were ostensibly for live captives).
In a YouTube video earlier this week, Paul suggested lawmakers consider issuing letters, which could relieve American naval ships from being the nation’s primary pirate responders — a free-market solution to make the high seas safer for cargo ships. “I think if every potential pirate knew this would be the case, they would have second thoughts because they could probably be blown out of the water rather easily if those were the conditions,” Paul said. Theoretically, hiring bounty hunters would also be a cheaper option.
National security experts estimate that this week’s ship captain rescue by Navy SEALs cost tens of millions, although a Navy spokesman says the military cannot confirm the exact cost of the mission. Instead, privateers would be incentivized to patrol the ocean looking for key targets — and money would be paid only to the contractor who completed the job.
“If we have 100 American wanna-be Rambos patrolling the seas, it’s probably a good way of getting the job done,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow and security expert Eli Lehrer. “Right now we have a Navy designed mostly to fight other navies. The weapons we have are all excellent, but they may not be the best ones to fight these kinds of pirates. The only cost under letters of marque would be some sort of bounty for the pirates.”
Look, as a naval history geek I'm as excited about a revival of letters of marque as anybody. However, I think in this case it's a situation of way too much faith that the free market is the way to go. First of all, the situation described by Paul would not really be letters of marque and reprisal, because those authorize people to sieze enemy ships. Nobody wants some pirate's leaky fishing raft- basically he's suggesting putting bounties on the pirates.
This is problematic for a couple of reasons. The first is that we no longer have the bureaucracy of "Prize Courts," which were used by Western navies from the 1500s through the late 1800s, and had administrative judges that determined whether a seized ship was actually an enemy's ship- and if it wasn't it would be given back. These institutions were around for a long time, and had experienced judges and lots of credibility, which would be hard to duplicate with some kind of jury-rigged office in the Navy Department. The second, more critical problem, is that they would have to operate without even a ship as evidence. If some modern-day buccaneer shows up at the Navy Department or wherever with bits of a sunken boat and the scalp of some Somali teenager, how do we figure out if he killed a pirate or a fisherman?
I'm sure the Competitive Enterprise Institute fellow meant it to sound like a good idea, but does the concept of "100 American would-be Rambos" ramming around the Somali shore sound like something that would actually help? Sure, piracy might fall, but at what cost? What Paul is describing seems somewhat more like the bounties-for-Indian-scalps policies of colonial America and Mexico... and we know how that worked out:
Sonora was the first state to enact a scalp bounty law; in 1835, offering 100 pesos for the scalps of braves (with a peso roughly equal to an American silver dollar). An American named James Johnson sparked the boom period in 1837 when he fired a concealed canon at close range on unarmed Apaches. The blast tore into Apache warriors as well as women and children, and Johnson and his troops swarmed into the mass of natives, killing and scalping. While this event occurred in Hidalgo County, New Mexico, the scalps were cashed in Sonora, and the entire incident proved how profitable scalp hunting could be. It also flamed native animosity towards both Mexicans and Anglos, encouraging more raids and greater violence (a cycle that continued throughout this era). Soon afterward, Chihuahua enacted a similar law offering a graded bounty: $100 for braves; $50 for squaws; $25 for children under fourteen (although the latter two were ostensibly for live captives).
Friday, April 17, 2009
Bush NSA tried to wiretap a Congressman
The Times reported earlier this week that the Justice Department's investigation into warrantless wiretapping revealed an attempt by the Bush NSA to wiretap a member of Congress:
And in one previously undisclosed episode, the N.S.A. tried to wiretap a member of Congress without a warrant, an intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said.
The agency believed that the congressman, whose identity could not be determined, was in contact — as part of a Congressional delegation to the Middle East in 2005 or 2006 — with an extremist who had possible terrorist ties and was already under surveillance, the official said. The agency then sought to eavesdrop on the congressman’s conversations, the official said.
The official said the plan was ultimately blocked because of concerns from some intelligence officials about using the N.S.A., without court oversight, to spy on a member of Congress.
It's great that the plan was ultimately blocked, but extremely problematic that the only thing standing in the way was "concerns from some intelligence officials."
I've been a bit cavalier about the warrantless wiretapping issue in the past. I realize it's a FISA violation, but there's no constitutional requirement to get a warrant if one of the callers is outside of the country. I also don't see a huge problem if the NSA listens to a minute while I call my friend in Australia. There really didn't seem to be evidence that this was a concerted effort to either a.) use info from the calls for general domestic criminal purposes (ie- they don't hear you talking terrorism, but do hear about your embezzlement and bust you for that) or b.) abuse of the wiretaps to target political opponents or legit domestic groups (as Nixon did tapping Dr. King, etc.).
Going after a member of Congress for contacts made during an official trip abroad really crosses that line for me. It indicates that there may have been some political motivation, or at least a serious lack of thinking on the part of some of the wiretappers about who in fact needs to be tapped.
And in one previously undisclosed episode, the N.S.A. tried to wiretap a member of Congress without a warrant, an intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said.
The agency believed that the congressman, whose identity could not be determined, was in contact — as part of a Congressional delegation to the Middle East in 2005 or 2006 — with an extremist who had possible terrorist ties and was already under surveillance, the official said. The agency then sought to eavesdrop on the congressman’s conversations, the official said.
The official said the plan was ultimately blocked because of concerns from some intelligence officials about using the N.S.A., without court oversight, to spy on a member of Congress.
It's great that the plan was ultimately blocked, but extremely problematic that the only thing standing in the way was "concerns from some intelligence officials."
I've been a bit cavalier about the warrantless wiretapping issue in the past. I realize it's a FISA violation, but there's no constitutional requirement to get a warrant if one of the callers is outside of the country. I also don't see a huge problem if the NSA listens to a minute while I call my friend in Australia. There really didn't seem to be evidence that this was a concerted effort to either a.) use info from the calls for general domestic criminal purposes (ie- they don't hear you talking terrorism, but do hear about your embezzlement and bust you for that) or b.) abuse of the wiretaps to target political opponents or legit domestic groups (as Nixon did tapping Dr. King, etc.).
Going after a member of Congress for contacts made during an official trip abroad really crosses that line for me. It indicates that there may have been some political motivation, or at least a serious lack of thinking on the part of some of the wiretappers about who in fact needs to be tapped.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Chuck Norris may run for President of a seceding Texas
You really can't make this stuff up...
In an article entitled "I may run for President of Texas," Norris writes:
I'm not saying that other states won't muster the gumption to stand and secede, but Texas has the history to prove it. As most know, Texas was its own country before it joined the Union as its 28th state. From 1836 to 1846, Texas was its own Republic. Washington-on-the-Brazos (river) served as our Philadelphia, Pa. It was there, on March 2, 1836, where a band of patriots forged the Texas Declaration of Independence. (We just celebrated these dates last week.)
In an article entitled "I may run for President of Texas," Norris writes:
I'm not saying that other states won't muster the gumption to stand and secede, but Texas has the history to prove it. As most know, Texas was its own country before it joined the Union as its 28th state. From 1836 to 1846, Texas was its own Republic. Washington-on-the-Brazos (river) served as our Philadelphia, Pa. It was there, on March 2, 1836, where a band of patriots forged the Texas Declaration of Independence. (We just celebrated these dates last week.)
More on Texas Seceding
Per Adam's previous post, Governor Perry apparently was unhappy with how the federal government was "thumbing its nose" at America by its attempts at stimulating the economy to avoid a massive depression. Perry, however, was not unhappy enough to turn down the $38.9 billion in federal stimulus dollars that were directed to Texas. As much as I like my Texan co-blogger, I'm tempted to tell Perry "Go right ahead."
"Dumb" just doesn't capture the sentiment...
In the nine years that Rick Perry has been the governor of Texas (he's planning to run again in 2010, btw), this could be just about the dumbest thing he ever said:
"There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."
He said when Texas entered the union in 1845 it was with the understanding it could pull out. However, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Texas negotiated the power to divide into four additional states at some point if it wanted to but not the right to secede.
It's factually incorrect for sure, but it's insulting and disreputable to an awful lot of his fellow Texans to a degree that just seems to totally evade him.
Sam Houston (who was basically the George Washington of Texas) served as Governor when Texas seceded to join the Confederacy, and he begged and pleaded with the Legislature and the Citizens to keep it from happening. Finally, the man who commanded the army that beat Santa Anna and who served as President of the Republic of Texas was evicted from the Governor's office.
Who wasn't represented at the Leg when those votes were taken? How about the hundreds of thousands of then enslaved African-Americans who were actually pretty keen on that Lincoln fella. How about the hundreds of thousands of Mexican Americans who's families had been farming and ranching here since the Escandon settlement - starting in 1749.
Today, we have a University named after Sam Houston, the largest city in the state named after him, and a sixty foot statue off I-45 in the Piney Woods between Houston and Dallas. Yet not even those of us who made and A+ in Texas history remember the names of the Confederates.
I guess we see which side Rick Perry chose to emulate.
"There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."
He said when Texas entered the union in 1845 it was with the understanding it could pull out. However, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Texas negotiated the power to divide into four additional states at some point if it wanted to but not the right to secede.
It's factually incorrect for sure, but it's insulting and disreputable to an awful lot of his fellow Texans to a degree that just seems to totally evade him.
Sam Houston (who was basically the George Washington of Texas) served as Governor when Texas seceded to join the Confederacy, and he begged and pleaded with the Legislature and the Citizens to keep it from happening. Finally, the man who commanded the army that beat Santa Anna and who served as President of the Republic of Texas was evicted from the Governor's office.
Who wasn't represented at the Leg when those votes were taken? How about the hundreds of thousands of then enslaved African-Americans who were actually pretty keen on that Lincoln fella. How about the hundreds of thousands of Mexican Americans who's families had been farming and ranching here since the Escandon settlement - starting in 1749.
Today, we have a University named after Sam Houston, the largest city in the state named after him, and a sixty foot statue off I-45 in the Piney Woods between Houston and Dallas. Yet not even those of us who made and A+ in Texas history remember the names of the Confederates.
I guess we see which side Rick Perry chose to emulate.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Upstate Senators blocking path to gay marriage in New York
The Post reports that Democratic Upstate Senators Darrel Aubertine (Watertown/Oswego), David Valesky (Syracuse/Oneida) and William Stachowski (Buffalo) are standing in the way of Governor Paterson's push for legalizing marriage for gays and lesbians in New York. Ruben Diaz (Bronx) who at one point opposed the Gay Games coming to New York because it would be bad for kids to see that gays and lesbians can be athletes, also opposes.
Democrats have 32 of 62 seats in the Senate, so barring some Republicans shifting onboard, the Dems are going to need all their votes. The Assembly already passed an identical bill last year, and Paterson is clearly willing to sign on, so we've got 3 Upstaters who need to be pushed really hard to do the right thing.
Democrats have 32 of 62 seats in the Senate, so barring some Republicans shifting onboard, the Dems are going to need all their votes. The Assembly already passed an identical bill last year, and Paterson is clearly willing to sign on, so we've got 3 Upstaters who need to be pushed really hard to do the right thing.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The GOP teabags itself.
When I was on the lacrosse team in high-school, we would periodically have a word of the day, typically a "cleverly" named deviant sexual practice like the "cleveland steamer" (look it up yourself, preferably not on a work computer), which we would shout to each other during drills, and everybody would laugh and the coaches wouldn't know what we were talking about. One day, which coincided with my co-MCing the junior variety show, the word was "teabag" (again, look it up yourself... try urbandictionary.com). I managed to insert the term into my bit a number of times (and even got a retired ukulele playing teacher to say it), causing my teammates and a few others to sophomorically giggle and the rest of the audience to be wildly confused.
The wingnut elements of the GOP are now standing in the stead of the elderly ukulele player. Inspired by some vague historical analogy to the Boston Tea Party, the right has been holding "Tea Parties" in some kind of vague anti-tax posture. They seem to be missing the point, because a.) taxes haven't gone up on anybody; and b.) we have representation these days. In any event, the tea parties have been followed by an even more strained metaphor of sending tea bags to Congress and the Whitehouse. This practice has been unwittingly labeled "teabagging," as in...
"Teabag the White House," declared correspondent Griff Jenkins last month on Fox News (which is zealously attaching its brand and on-air talent to Wednesday's protests). "Teabag Obama" is the name of one conservative blog. At one rally, a sign read, "Teabag the Liberal Dems before they Teabag you."
This of course leaves the buffoons open to wonderful mockery, which Rachel Maddow deftly handled last night:
The wingnut elements of the GOP are now standing in the stead of the elderly ukulele player. Inspired by some vague historical analogy to the Boston Tea Party, the right has been holding "Tea Parties" in some kind of vague anti-tax posture. They seem to be missing the point, because a.) taxes haven't gone up on anybody; and b.) we have representation these days. In any event, the tea parties have been followed by an even more strained metaphor of sending tea bags to Congress and the Whitehouse. This practice has been unwittingly labeled "teabagging," as in...
"Teabag the White House," declared correspondent Griff Jenkins last month on Fox News (which is zealously attaching its brand and on-air talent to Wednesday's protests). "Teabag Obama" is the name of one conservative blog. At one rally, a sign read, "Teabag the Liberal Dems before they Teabag you."
This of course leaves the buffoons open to wonderful mockery, which Rachel Maddow deftly handled last night:
Monday, April 13, 2009
Waterboarding = Torture?
Over the past couple years we've had an enormous amount of discussion in the press (and particularly in the blogs) about whether waterboarding is torture. Andrew Sullivan posted a letter from a reader who had undergone waterboarding which describes it in great detail.
This brings me to a peculiar passage in "The Lion and the Fox," James MacGregor Burns's political biography of FDR. Burns, when writing about FDR's time as a student at Groton during the 1890s, describes a practice called "pumping":
Another, also permitted by the faculty, was "pumping"- sixth formers (12 graders) would call out the name of an offender in study period, drag him quailing and shaking to a nearby lavatory, bend him face upward over a trough, and pour basins of water over his face and down his throat until he went through the sensations of drowning. (p. 11)
This seems to be awfully close to waterboarding as it has been described. It sounds horribly unpleasant, and I'm completely aware that in the 1890s (as well as now) teenage boys do terrible things to each other. The fact that it was allowed at Groton though seems to draw some kind of line where torture is on one side and pumping/waterboarding is on another. If this is something that schoolboys underwent on a semi-regular basis, (and apparently survived relatively unscathed, else the practice would have been outlawed), then perhaps it's qualitatively different from pulling out fingernails, melting the soles of the feet, etc.
This of course doesn't mean that it's a good idea for the US to engage in it- the perception that it's torture (with all the legal implications that implies for our allies and the PR advantage for our adversaries), along with the fact that coercive techniques seem to be useless for gathering advantage, outweigh any kind of benefit we're getting from the technique.
This brings me to a peculiar passage in "The Lion and the Fox," James MacGregor Burns's political biography of FDR. Burns, when writing about FDR's time as a student at Groton during the 1890s, describes a practice called "pumping":
Another, also permitted by the faculty, was "pumping"- sixth formers (12 graders) would call out the name of an offender in study period, drag him quailing and shaking to a nearby lavatory, bend him face upward over a trough, and pour basins of water over his face and down his throat until he went through the sensations of drowning. (p. 11)
This seems to be awfully close to waterboarding as it has been described. It sounds horribly unpleasant, and I'm completely aware that in the 1890s (as well as now) teenage boys do terrible things to each other. The fact that it was allowed at Groton though seems to draw some kind of line where torture is on one side and pumping/waterboarding is on another. If this is something that schoolboys underwent on a semi-regular basis, (and apparently survived relatively unscathed, else the practice would have been outlawed), then perhaps it's qualitatively different from pulling out fingernails, melting the soles of the feet, etc.
This of course doesn't mean that it's a good idea for the US to engage in it- the perception that it's torture (with all the legal implications that implies for our allies and the PR advantage for our adversaries), along with the fact that coercive techniques seem to be useless for gathering advantage, outweigh any kind of benefit we're getting from the technique.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
NOM to America: The Gays are Coming to Eat Your Children
In a ridiculous, appallingly deceitful ad by the "National Organization for Marriage" ("NOM"), various actors essentially claim that pro-gay marriage forces want to take away their jobs, close their churches, and force them all into gay marriages.
One guy says that he's a member of a New Jersey church that's been persecuted by the government because it doesn't believe in gay marriage (which is odd, since New Jersey also doesn't believe in gay marriage).
Another claims to be a California doctor who would have to choose between "my faith and my job." I'm not clear on what faith she belongs to that would preclude her from treating gays... or would it only preclude her from treating married gays? In any event, under section 10.05 of the AMA code of medical ethics: "(b) Physicians cannot refuse to care for patients based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other criteria that would constitute invidious discrimination." So I think she probably needs to find a new field either way.
Some other woman is worried that the Massachussetts schools are going to teach her children that gay marriage is OK. Well, lady, forgive me if I don't shed too many tears about the fact that schools aren't going to pass your bigotry onto your kids. On the plus side, the kid's only in school for 7-8 hours a day, so you've got a good 2/3 of the day for brainwashing if you're diligent about putting Hannity clips in the kid's room while he's sleeping.
One guy says that he's a member of a New Jersey church that's been persecuted by the government because it doesn't believe in gay marriage (which is odd, since New Jersey also doesn't believe in gay marriage).
Another claims to be a California doctor who would have to choose between "my faith and my job." I'm not clear on what faith she belongs to that would preclude her from treating gays... or would it only preclude her from treating married gays? In any event, under section 10.05 of the AMA code of medical ethics: "(b) Physicians cannot refuse to care for patients based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other criteria that would constitute invidious discrimination." So I think she probably needs to find a new field either way.
Some other woman is worried that the Massachussetts schools are going to teach her children that gay marriage is OK. Well, lady, forgive me if I don't shed too many tears about the fact that schools aren't going to pass your bigotry onto your kids. On the plus side, the kid's only in school for 7-8 hours a day, so you've got a good 2/3 of the day for brainwashing if you're diligent about putting Hannity clips in the kid's room while he's sleeping.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Taking on Rush about Torture
A caller to Rush's program fights the good fight, but Rush, as the man who owns the mic always does, gets the vaporous last word. Props to the caller for his guts in taking on Rush in his home court. (via Andrew Sullivan)
LIMBAUGH: We're going to go to Chicago. This is Charles. Charles, thank you for waiting and for calling. Great to have you here. Hello.
CALLER: Thanks, Rush. Rush, listen, I voted Republican, and I didn't -- really didn't want to see Obama get in office. But, you know, Rush, you're one reason to blame for this election, for the Republicans losing.
First of all, you kept harping about voting for Hillary. The second big issue is the -- was the torture issue. I'm a veteran. We're not supposed to be torturing these people. This is not Nazi Germany, Red China, or North Korea. There's other ways of interrogating people, and you kept harping about it -- "It's OK," or "It's not really torture." And it was just more than waterboarding. Some of these prisoners were killed under torture.
And it just -- it was crazy for you to keep going on and on like Levin and Hannity and Hewitt. It's like you're all brainwashed.
And my last comment is, no matter what Obama does, you will still criticize him because I believe you're brainwashed. You're just -- and I hate to say it -- but I think you're a brainwashed Nazi. Anyone who could believe in torture just has got to be - there's got to be something wrong with them.
LIMBAUGH: You know --
CALLER: And I know Bush wanted to keep us safe and all of that, but we're not supposed to be torturing these people.
LIMBAUGH: Charles, if anybody is admitting that they're brainwashed it would be you.
CALLER: No, no, no, Rush. I don't think so.
LIMBAUGH: Charles. Charles, Charles --
CALLER: You, Hannity, Hewitt, and Levin are all brainwashed and you know it.
LIMBAUGH: -- you said -- you said at the beginning of your phone call --
CALLER: Yeah.
LIMBAUGH: -- that you didn't want Obama in there --
CALLER: That's right.
LIMBAUGH: -- but you voted for him because of me.
CALLER: I didn't vote for him. I voted for McCain. I voted Republican.
LIMBAUGH: Oh, so --
CALLER: I voted Republican.
LIMBAUGH: -- you're saying I turned people off to --
CALLER: You turned people off with all your -- all this "vote for Hillary" and all this BS, because you must think people are really stupid.
LIMBAUGH: That was Operation Chaos. That was to keep the --
CALLER: You -- no. It didn't work.
LIMBAUGH: -- chaos in the [unintelligible] of the Democrat primaries.
CALLER: It didn't work. And now what we have with you Hannity, Levin, and Hewitt: sour grapes. That's all we have. And believe me, I'm not -- I'm more to the right than I am to the left.
LIMBAUGH: Oh, of course, you are.
CALLER: I am, and that's --
LIMBAUGH: Of course, you are. You wouldn't be calling here with all these sour grapes if you weren't.
CALLER: Well, I'm so tired of listening to you --
LIMBAUGH: Oh, of course, you are.
CALLER: -- go on and on with this -- you've been brainwashed.
LIMBAUGH: I don't know of anybody who died from torture. I do not ever --
CALLER: We are not supposed to torture people.
LIMBAUGH: I do not ever --
CALLER: Do you remember World War II, the Nazis? The Nuremberg Trials?
LIMBAUGH: I --
CALLER: Do you remember the Nuremberg Trials?
LIMBAUGH: Charles --
CALLER: Klaus Barbie?
LIMBAUGH: Charles, let me say --
CALLER: Huh?
LIMBAUGH: Barack Obama --
CALLER: What's the matter with you?
LIMBAUGH: Barack --
CALLER: You never even served in a military.
LIMBAUGH: Barack Obama is --
CALLER: I served in the Marine Corps and the Army.
LIMBAUGH: Charles, Barack Obama is president of the United States today because of stupid, ignorant people who think like you do. You pose -- you and your ignorance are the most expensive commodity this country has. You think you know everything. You don't know diddly-squat.
You call me a Nazi? You call me somebody who supports torture and you want credibility on this program? You know, you're just plain embarrassing and ludicrous. But it doesn't surprise me that you're the kind of Republican that our last candidate attracted. Because you're no Republican at all based on what the hell you've said here.
LIMBAUGH: We're going to go to Chicago. This is Charles. Charles, thank you for waiting and for calling. Great to have you here. Hello.
CALLER: Thanks, Rush. Rush, listen, I voted Republican, and I didn't -- really didn't want to see Obama get in office. But, you know, Rush, you're one reason to blame for this election, for the Republicans losing.
First of all, you kept harping about voting for Hillary. The second big issue is the -- was the torture issue. I'm a veteran. We're not supposed to be torturing these people. This is not Nazi Germany, Red China, or North Korea. There's other ways of interrogating people, and you kept harping about it -- "It's OK," or "It's not really torture." And it was just more than waterboarding. Some of these prisoners were killed under torture.
And it just -- it was crazy for you to keep going on and on like Levin and Hannity and Hewitt. It's like you're all brainwashed.
And my last comment is, no matter what Obama does, you will still criticize him because I believe you're brainwashed. You're just -- and I hate to say it -- but I think you're a brainwashed Nazi. Anyone who could believe in torture just has got to be - there's got to be something wrong with them.
LIMBAUGH: You know --
CALLER: And I know Bush wanted to keep us safe and all of that, but we're not supposed to be torturing these people.
LIMBAUGH: Charles, if anybody is admitting that they're brainwashed it would be you.
CALLER: No, no, no, Rush. I don't think so.
LIMBAUGH: Charles. Charles, Charles --
CALLER: You, Hannity, Hewitt, and Levin are all brainwashed and you know it.
LIMBAUGH: -- you said -- you said at the beginning of your phone call --
CALLER: Yeah.
LIMBAUGH: -- that you didn't want Obama in there --
CALLER: That's right.
LIMBAUGH: -- but you voted for him because of me.
CALLER: I didn't vote for him. I voted for McCain. I voted Republican.
LIMBAUGH: Oh, so --
CALLER: I voted Republican.
LIMBAUGH: -- you're saying I turned people off to --
CALLER: You turned people off with all your -- all this "vote for Hillary" and all this BS, because you must think people are really stupid.
LIMBAUGH: That was Operation Chaos. That was to keep the --
CALLER: You -- no. It didn't work.
LIMBAUGH: -- chaos in the [unintelligible] of the Democrat primaries.
CALLER: It didn't work. And now what we have with you Hannity, Levin, and Hewitt: sour grapes. That's all we have. And believe me, I'm not -- I'm more to the right than I am to the left.
LIMBAUGH: Oh, of course, you are.
CALLER: I am, and that's --
LIMBAUGH: Of course, you are. You wouldn't be calling here with all these sour grapes if you weren't.
CALLER: Well, I'm so tired of listening to you --
LIMBAUGH: Oh, of course, you are.
CALLER: -- go on and on with this -- you've been brainwashed.
LIMBAUGH: I don't know of anybody who died from torture. I do not ever --
CALLER: We are not supposed to torture people.
LIMBAUGH: I do not ever --
CALLER: Do you remember World War II, the Nazis? The Nuremberg Trials?
LIMBAUGH: I --
CALLER: Do you remember the Nuremberg Trials?
LIMBAUGH: Charles --
CALLER: Klaus Barbie?
LIMBAUGH: Charles, let me say --
CALLER: Huh?
LIMBAUGH: Barack Obama --
CALLER: What's the matter with you?
LIMBAUGH: Barack --
CALLER: You never even served in a military.
LIMBAUGH: Barack Obama is --
CALLER: I served in the Marine Corps and the Army.
LIMBAUGH: Charles, Barack Obama is president of the United States today because of stupid, ignorant people who think like you do. You pose -- you and your ignorance are the most expensive commodity this country has. You think you know everything. You don't know diddly-squat.
You call me a Nazi? You call me somebody who supports torture and you want credibility on this program? You know, you're just plain embarrassing and ludicrous. But it doesn't surprise me that you're the kind of Republican that our last candidate attracted. Because you're no Republican at all based on what the hell you've said here.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Way to go Vermont!
Congratulates to the Vermont legislature, which overturned GOP Governor Douglas's veto to become the first state in the union to legislatively enact gay marriage. Props especially to the whips in the State Assembly, which managed to squeak through a 100-49 vote (where 2/3 were needed).
As important as previous enactions in MA, CT, IA and briefly CA were, the Vermont situation shows organizers that they don't have to rely on the courts, and can give a road map for how to make this happen in other states. Granted, VT is perhaps the easiest terrain in the country for same-sex marriage, as they passed the first civil union law and have a socialist in the US Senate. Even so- knowing that it's possible and achieveable right now makes a huge difference.
As important as previous enactions in MA, CT, IA and briefly CA were, the Vermont situation shows organizers that they don't have to rely on the courts, and can give a road map for how to make this happen in other states. Granted, VT is perhaps the easiest terrain in the country for same-sex marriage, as they passed the first civil union law and have a socialist in the US Senate. Even so- knowing that it's possible and achieveable right now makes a huge difference.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Jumping the Gun
In the medium of blogging, because there's no editing process or any other delay to publication, the blogger may speculate as ongoing news is being broken. The upside is that it can allow real-time commentary, like live-blogging an election or speech. The downside is that sometimes one can jump the gun and post items that, in retrospect, are completely off-base.
That was the case with my previous post (from Friday) linking the Binghamton immigration center shooting with right-wing anti-immigrant rhetoric. After posting, it became clear that the attack was the work of another immigrant, not an immigrant-hating bigot. I still stand by the general idea that it's very problematic to have mainstream candidates and media sources spewing hate against immigrants, and that this hatred does seep into unbalanced people and lead to violence. But this was not the case in this situation, and perhaps I was too quick to pin the blame for this tragedy (incorrectly) on people with whose ideologies I disagree.
That was the case with my previous post (from Friday) linking the Binghamton immigration center shooting with right-wing anti-immigrant rhetoric. After posting, it became clear that the attack was the work of another immigrant, not an immigrant-hating bigot. I still stand by the general idea that it's very problematic to have mainstream candidates and media sources spewing hate against immigrants, and that this hatred does seep into unbalanced people and lead to violence. But this was not the case in this situation, and perhaps I was too quick to pin the blame for this tragedy (incorrectly) on people with whose ideologies I disagree.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Clarifying my position on an Israeli strike on Iran
A friend brought to my attention that I may have been somewhat flippant in a previous post about a potential Israeli strike on Iran.
To clarify my thoughts, I'll note that I definitely believe that Israel is a major US ally, and as one of the only two real democracies in the Middle East, is certainly worthy of U.S. support. Furthermore, the F-16s and other aircraft that we've sold to the IDF have been critical bulwarks against Saddam and other potential invaders.
That said, I do have serious fears about the repercussions of an attempted strike by Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities. I think that, unlike the strike on the Osiraq facility, which was a complete surprise, Iran has the benefit of looking at previous IDF operations and can defend its nuclear processing operation. Most likely the Iranian nuke operation is spread out, deep underground, and has at least some components in locations that haven't been penetrated by US or Israeli intelligence. If I thought that the strike would do anything more than maybe push an Iranian bomb back a year or two, my calculus on it would change.
I also think that, despite Ahmadinejad's deeply problematic anti-Israeli rhetoric, a nuclear Iran (in a worst case scenario) would still be a rational country that could be dissuaded from using nuclear force through deterrance based on 1.) potential retaliation from the 200-300 nuclear weapons that Israel is believed to possess, and 2.) the threat of retaliation in kind by the US. The Iranian theocracy has demonstrated rational (as opposed to wild-eyed religious irrational) policymaking before- entering into a cease-fire with Iraq when Iraqi forces began firing missiles into Tehran, and partnering (against their co-religionists) with the Christian Armenians vs. the largely muslim Azerbaijan. Despite the rhetoric, I think that deterrance would work. Of course, as I said, this is a worst-case scenario, and a non-nuclear Iran is vastly preferable, but I don't think that they would risk American ICBMs detonating in Tehran in order to make good on Ahmadinejad's threats to Israel.
For the US, an Israeli strike that traveled through American-controlled airspace in Iraq would have an effect far greater than a PR backlash. With hundreds of thousands of American troops in Iraq, who have been working closely with Iraqi Shia, an American blessing on an Israeli raid could have serious consequences on our ability to end the Iraqi war. Increased Shiite beligerence in Iraq coupled with increased Iranian aid could mean thousands more American lives lost.
Ultimately, I think my greatest fear about an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear operation is that it wouldn't be successful, and it would scuttle any attempt by the US and Europe to peacefully roll back Iran's nuclear program- and at the same time vastly complicate America's efforts in Iraq in Afghanistan (not to mention the immediate impact on Israeli citizens from renewed attacks by Iran's puppet Hezbollah, which I've read has four times the number of rockets and missiles that they had before the 2006 Lebanon war).
I think that Israel, like any sovereign state, has every right to defend itself against future threats, particularly those of an existential nature. However, when their leaders take a maximalist defensive posture of preventive warfare (essentially identical to Bush's toward Iraq) that would have serious consequences for their ally the United States, think it's important to question the wisdom of that policy.
To clarify my thoughts, I'll note that I definitely believe that Israel is a major US ally, and as one of the only two real democracies in the Middle East, is certainly worthy of U.S. support. Furthermore, the F-16s and other aircraft that we've sold to the IDF have been critical bulwarks against Saddam and other potential invaders.
That said, I do have serious fears about the repercussions of an attempted strike by Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities. I think that, unlike the strike on the Osiraq facility, which was a complete surprise, Iran has the benefit of looking at previous IDF operations and can defend its nuclear processing operation. Most likely the Iranian nuke operation is spread out, deep underground, and has at least some components in locations that haven't been penetrated by US or Israeli intelligence. If I thought that the strike would do anything more than maybe push an Iranian bomb back a year or two, my calculus on it would change.
I also think that, despite Ahmadinejad's deeply problematic anti-Israeli rhetoric, a nuclear Iran (in a worst case scenario) would still be a rational country that could be dissuaded from using nuclear force through deterrance based on 1.) potential retaliation from the 200-300 nuclear weapons that Israel is believed to possess, and 2.) the threat of retaliation in kind by the US. The Iranian theocracy has demonstrated rational (as opposed to wild-eyed religious irrational) policymaking before- entering into a cease-fire with Iraq when Iraqi forces began firing missiles into Tehran, and partnering (against their co-religionists) with the Christian Armenians vs. the largely muslim Azerbaijan. Despite the rhetoric, I think that deterrance would work. Of course, as I said, this is a worst-case scenario, and a non-nuclear Iran is vastly preferable, but I don't think that they would risk American ICBMs detonating in Tehran in order to make good on Ahmadinejad's threats to Israel.
For the US, an Israeli strike that traveled through American-controlled airspace in Iraq would have an effect far greater than a PR backlash. With hundreds of thousands of American troops in Iraq, who have been working closely with Iraqi Shia, an American blessing on an Israeli raid could have serious consequences on our ability to end the Iraqi war. Increased Shiite beligerence in Iraq coupled with increased Iranian aid could mean thousands more American lives lost.
Ultimately, I think my greatest fear about an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear operation is that it wouldn't be successful, and it would scuttle any attempt by the US and Europe to peacefully roll back Iran's nuclear program- and at the same time vastly complicate America's efforts in Iraq in Afghanistan (not to mention the immediate impact on Israeli citizens from renewed attacks by Iran's puppet Hezbollah, which I've read has four times the number of rockets and missiles that they had before the 2006 Lebanon war).
I think that Israel, like any sovereign state, has every right to defend itself against future threats, particularly those of an existential nature. However, when their leaders take a maximalist defensive posture of preventive warfare (essentially identical to Bush's toward Iraq) that would have serious consequences for their ally the United States, think it's important to question the wisdom of that policy.
The cost of anti-immigrant rhetoric
We don't know too much about the shooting that happened earlier today in Binghamton, NY, where one or more gunmen fired into an immigrant and refugee services association, killing at least ten. One can theorize, however, that when the US becomes a place where major media figures like Lou Dobbs and major political figures like Tom Tancredo and others in the Republican Party spew anti-immigrant vitriol (and in Dobbs's case, lionize government agents who shoot undocumented immigrants), you're bound to have some (already unbalanced) people act on that anger.
I'm not saying that people who make reasoned anti-immigration arguments are at fault, or that there's a direct connection between anti-immigrant rhetoric and this terrible tragedy... but take a look at how the right characterizes immigrants:
As FAIR has noted in the past, Dobbs' tone on immigration is consistently alarmist; he warns his viewers (3/31/06) of Mexican immigrants who see themselves as an "army of invaders" intent upon reannexing parts of the Southwestern U.S. to Mexico, announces (11/19/03) that "illegal alien smugglers and drug traffickers are on the verge of ruining some of our national treasures," and declares (4/14/05) that "the invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans" through "deadly imports" of diseases like leprosy and malaria.
In a culture where this passes for reasonable discourse, tragedies like today's are bound to happen.
UPDATE: Jumping the Gun
I'm not saying that people who make reasoned anti-immigration arguments are at fault, or that there's a direct connection between anti-immigrant rhetoric and this terrible tragedy... but take a look at how the right characterizes immigrants:
As FAIR has noted in the past, Dobbs' tone on immigration is consistently alarmist; he warns his viewers (3/31/06) of Mexican immigrants who see themselves as an "army of invaders" intent upon reannexing parts of the Southwestern U.S. to Mexico, announces (11/19/03) that "illegal alien smugglers and drug traffickers are on the verge of ruining some of our national treasures," and declares (4/14/05) that "the invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans" through "deadly imports" of diseases like leprosy and malaria.
In a culture where this passes for reasonable discourse, tragedies like today's are bound to happen.
UPDATE: Jumping the Gun
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Perhaps the Post should have a lawyer write their story criticizing Yale Law Dean's legal theories...
Post writer Meghan Clyne attacks Obama's nominee for State Department Counsel, Yale Law Dean Harold Koh. Clyne offers a spurious story (which has since been picked up as daily shrieking points for Glenn Beck and Co.) that Koh wants to have Sharia law applied in the US:
A New York lawyer, Steven Stein, says that, in addressing the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007, Koh claimed that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."
A spokeswoman for Koh said she couldn't confirm the incident, responding: "I had heard that some guy . . . had asked a question about sharia law, and that Dean Koh had said something about that while there are obvious differences among the many different legal systems, they also share some common legal concepts."
Score one for America's enemies and hostile international bureaucrats, zero for American democracy.
Huh? So an uncomfirmed claim that appears to completely misrepresent Koh's position is a score for America's enemies? Is it really completely out of bounds to say that Sharia law and US law share some common concepts? I'm not an expert on Sharia, but I'd imagine that it's got some basic "don't steal" principles in their somewhere that match up to American law.
The other charge against Koh is that he wants to abrogate US sovereignty by having US courts look to foreign law. As far as I can tell, he's looking to do it in the same way that many other mainstream jurists and scholars do- in the realm of the 8th amendment. The 8th amendment forbids "cruel and unusual punishment." The word "unusual" needs to be defined in some manner, and as it is a compararatory adjective, you have to compare a punishment regime with those of other states or nations. It's not at all unreasonable for the courts to take notice of the fact that the US is one of the only countries that allows the execution of minors... because the Constitutional term "unusual" demands a comparison with other systems.
Of course Clyne is a writer for conservative hack publications like National Review and the Weekly Standard, and not a lawyer, so I wouldn't expect her to know the intricacies of 8th amendment jurisprudence. On the other hand, perhaps that also means that she's unqualified to offer a lengthy article about the problems with Koh's jurisprudential theories.
A New York lawyer, Steven Stein, says that, in addressing the Yale Club of Greenwich in 2007, Koh claimed that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."
A spokeswoman for Koh said she couldn't confirm the incident, responding: "I had heard that some guy . . . had asked a question about sharia law, and that Dean Koh had said something about that while there are obvious differences among the many different legal systems, they also share some common legal concepts."
Score one for America's enemies and hostile international bureaucrats, zero for American democracy.
Huh? So an uncomfirmed claim that appears to completely misrepresent Koh's position is a score for America's enemies? Is it really completely out of bounds to say that Sharia law and US law share some common concepts? I'm not an expert on Sharia, but I'd imagine that it's got some basic "don't steal" principles in their somewhere that match up to American law.
The other charge against Koh is that he wants to abrogate US sovereignty by having US courts look to foreign law. As far as I can tell, he's looking to do it in the same way that many other mainstream jurists and scholars do- in the realm of the 8th amendment. The 8th amendment forbids "cruel and unusual punishment." The word "unusual" needs to be defined in some manner, and as it is a compararatory adjective, you have to compare a punishment regime with those of other states or nations. It's not at all unreasonable for the courts to take notice of the fact that the US is one of the only countries that allows the execution of minors... because the Constitutional term "unusual" demands a comparison with other systems.
Of course Clyne is a writer for conservative hack publications like National Review and the Weekly Standard, and not a lawyer, so I wouldn't expect her to know the intricacies of 8th amendment jurisprudence. On the other hand, perhaps that also means that she's unqualified to offer a lengthy article about the problems with Koh's jurisprudential theories.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
No easy Israeli routes for Israel to bomb Iran
As the new Israeli PM continues to threaten air strikes against Iran, I figured I'd take a look at how Israeli jets would actually get to Iran. Turns out it's a strategic nightmare for the US.A quick look at the map above shows that there are basically three air routes into Iran for the Israeli Air force- go north through Turkey, south through Saudi Arabia, or due east through Syria/Jordan and Iraq. I'm having trouble seeing any route that's not at the very least a disaster for us. Anything through Turkey or Iraq (where we control the airspace) is going to be assumed by the Iranians and the broader Muslim world to be green-lit by us, and I think that the Saudi route (bypassing Iraq) might be too long to do without multiple refuelings in Saudi airspace...
Remind me again why we sell them the planes with which to vex us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)