Jonah Goldberg wrote this morning that he is unpersuaded that Republican fears that closing the prison facility at Gitmo poses An Imminent Threat to The Children are justified. Andy McCarthy responded:
The running down of Gitmo involves its reputation with the Left — not with “the international community” — because it’s a symbol of America defending herself by military force.
What!? Of all the possible symbols for American strength and resolve in the past few years, Gitmo would never even have crossed my mind. How about a dishevelled KMS trussed-up and staring down at the floor in sadness? How about American tanks driving under the statue of Saddam’s sword-weilding arms? There are so many tangeable symbols of our power, why is this one singled out?
I think the claim that you need to close what everyone now concedes is a first rate facility because it is a symbol of wickedness and a blight on our “reputation in the world” is about the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. First, our reputation with whom? Europe with its savage legacy? China? Russia? And the Muslim world? I always wonder how that conversation goes: Ahmed and Nidal are on their way home from the Friday stonings when Ahmed turns and says, “You know, these Americans really offend me. They’re so insensitive to human rights …”
So is Gitmo a source of fear and awe for terrorists, or is a comfy place that no Euro-weenie could possibly object to? I’m honestly confused.
[L]et’s remember why we chose Gitmo in the first place. The thought was that if they were outside sovereign U.S. territory, the alien combatants would be outside the jurisdiction of the courts, so federal judges couldn’t interfere with and micromanage this aspect of warfare. It was a good idea, but then the Supreme Court changed the rules. If we’d known the Supremes would reverse precedents and say federal judges have just as much power at Gitmo as they have in Hoboken, I doubt we’d have put the jihadists there in the first place. Then most of them would already be in federal prisons and military brigs in the U.S. Again, had that happened, we’d now just be arguing over releasing them here — which would be worse than our present posture, in which transferring them here is still proving to be a big headache for the Obama administration. But we’d already have been holding them here for several years, the prison system would have done a good job, and that aspect of the security issue wouldn’t have much resonance.
McCarthy — and, here, I am not being snarky — deserves credit for saying this so clearly: we chose Gitmo as our prison site because it’s a legal black hole where the president could act with neither oversight nor intervention. I’m perfectly accept this this might have been the least of all possible evils during the rough-and-tumble years immediately following 9/11. But nearly eight years after the Twin Towers fell, I am deeply, deeply uncomfortable with America running an island prison because it’s too frightened to bring a couple of hundred prisoners to its own soil under military auspice.
McCarthy worries that legal sheninigans by activist courts will enevitably lead to the Gitmo prisoners being released into the general prison population and, possibly, the general populace if we move them state-side. If this worry is justified, then perhaps we should keep them in Gitmo, despite all my other objections. But if our judicial system is truly that broken, then we’ve got bigger problems than I ever imagined.
NB In answer to the old canard of “If not Gitmo, then what?” I retort “I would do whatever your second choice is after Gitmo.”
Tom posted this at 5:37 PM EDT on Friday, May 15th, 2009 as Liberty and/or Security
5 Comments »
Charles Krauthammer’s column last week arguing in favor of torture under limited circumstances is far better than most on the subject. Not only is it well-reasoned, it’s actually willing to state clearly what it wishes to argue: that torture, without the quotation marks, can be justified under two circumstances:
The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent’s life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy. Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable torture opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, “You do what you have to do.” And then take the responsibility.
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.
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. This case lacks the black-and-white clarity of the ticking time bomb scenario. We know less about the length of the fuse or the nature of the next attack. But we do know the danger is great. (One of the “torture memos” noted that the CIA had warned that terrorist “chatter” had reached pre-9/11 levels.) We know we must act but have no idea where or how — and we can’t know that until we have information. Catch-22.
I whole-heartedly agree with his first argument and — for the same Krauthammer offers — would question the fitness of anyone who refused to waterboard or do worse under when confronted with a genuine ticking time bomb. As I have stated elsewhere, I am not aware of this situation ever taking place during the War on Terror.
I do not agree with his second conclusion that torture is (legally? morally? Krauthammer never quite says) permissible to torture or waterboard “a high-value enemy” simply by his virtue of being one. Why, for instance, should we not waterboard a medium-value prisoner, when his information could likely lead to the capture of his superiors? It’s too slippery, and it’s only going to got down hill. When it comes to torture, I think we should insist on the kind of black-and-white certainty Krauthammer mentioned earlier.
Tom posted this at 8:48 PM EDT on Monday, May 4th, 2009 as Global War on Terror, Kraut-hammered, Liberty and/or Security
6 Comments »
The Department of Homeland Security isn’t engaged in “ideological profiling,” except when it says that “right-wing extremism” is a security threat. I suppose if a police chief said his department wasn’t engaged in “racial profiling,” but then sent out a paper to all of his officers detailing the threat from “black street gangs,” the Obama administration and the mainstream press would accept that.
Apollo posted this at 8:40 PM EDT on Wednesday, April 15th, 2009 as Liberty and/or Security
No Comments »
Caller: You’re a chickenhawk Nazi.
Rush: You’re not a “real” conservative.
Read the rest of this entry »
Tom posted this at 9:45 AM EDT on Wednesday, April 8th, 2009 as Global War on Terror, Liberty and/or Security, Possession by the Coultergeist
3 Comments »
To write a highly sarcastic post arguing that the Bush administration has gotten soft in its old age, as evidenced by this article on CNN. “How do we know this family isn’t tied to al Qeada?” I’d write. “Shouldn’t we be willing to ‘take the gloves off’ on these people” I’d ask. “Why don’t we book them a one-way ticket to Cuba where they can enjoy an all-expenses-paid stay at Club Gitmo until this situation is, uh, resolved?” I’d suggest.
Unfortunately, such a post would be in extremely poor taste. What’s more, at least one commentator wouldn’t get the joke and would make some snidely approving post. I have no interest in reading that post and am, hence, refraining.
Tom posted this at 9:37 AM EST on Friday, January 2nd, 2009 as Global War on Terror, Liberty and/or Security
No Comments »
In an update to the Damian Green arrest, cats and dogs started living together The Guardian and The Telegraph both are furious at Labour’s abuse of power. (H/T Roger Kimball, whose whole post should also be read in full.
Hubbard posted this at 5:52 PM EST on Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008 as Liberty and/or Security, Those Wacky Foreigners
No Comments »
Does this bother anyone else?
Jamie posted this at 1:51 PM EST on Monday, December 1st, 2008 as Liberty and/or Security
3 Comments »
As I have previously noted, there has been an ugly tendency since 9-11 to define terrorism so broadly that it includes not merely groups like al-Queda that seek to change American policy through threats of violence against civilians, but any kook with a weapon and a grudge. We can now add delinquent teenagers to that list:
Two Pembroke teenagers have been charged in connection with a series of playing cards that were defaced with threatening writing and left at stores in Christiansburg and Pearisburg — a gesture police said the teens admitted had been inspired by this summer’s Batman movie, “The Dark Knight.”
Justin Colby Dirico and Bryan Eugene Stafford, both 18, admitted to leaving cards that bore handwritten messages inside the Pearisburg Wal-Mart, according to police Chief J.C. Martin.
Martin would not say how they identified the suspects but said the teens admitted Tuesday during police interviews they were responsible for the cards, which they patterned after elements of “The Dark Knight.” Both were charged with conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism.
Since 2002, an act of terrorism is defined as follows in Virginia*:
“Act of terrorism” means an act of violence as defined in clause (i) of subdivision A of § 19.2-297.1 committed with the intent to (i) intimidate the civilian population at large; or (ii) influence the conduct or activities of the government of the United States, a state or locality through intimidation.
The article never describes exactly what was written on the Joker-inspired playing cards, but I would bet good money that it was something far closer to a simple threat of violence (assuming it even went that far). Suffice to say, I am strongly inclined to believe that the Commonwealth — which knows something of real terrorism — could throw the book at the these kids without invoking this clause.
Which they shouldn’t do, and not just for semantic reasons. Our government retains the right to throw American citizens arrested on American soil into military detention without charge if the president deems them an enemy combatant, i.e., a terrorist. So far — and largely thanks to the fact that, despite all his faults, George W. Bush is a fundamentally decent guy — this has only happened a twice, but the cat’s out of the bag and unlikely ever to be put back.
I’m not saying that these kids are not going to be sent to Gitmo; I’m saying that foolishly prosecuting punk kids who — as best I can gather — made a bomb threat they had neither the means nor intention to follow-through on as terrorists invites future government abuses of our freedoms. A nation of laws such as ours should not be so dependent on the benevolence of its leaders.
*NB: This is a fine definition. My objection is its application in this case.
Tom posted this at 1:24 PM EDT on Wednesday, August 20th, 2008 as Liberty and/or Security, The Law Is An Ass--An Idiot
2 Comments »
Drudge today has an update on a story Tom posted a few days ago. The update is galling.
Porter, 50, was cooking artichokes in the kitchen and screamed when she saw the approaching masked men with guns.
The door was kicked in and gunshots rang out, Calvo said. Police killed one dog, Payton — named for football running back Walter Payton — even though Porter was standing next to him.
Good-effing-Gawd. The cops didn’t announce themselves. They were just masked gunmen kicking in the door and shooting. The people in the house would have had every right in the world to return fire on these thugs. When cops put themselves in a situation in which innocent people would be justified (legally and morally – this even passes the stupid test for self-defense proposed by the DC city council) in shooting and killing the cops, then the cops are doing something terribly wrong. Heads should roll and regulations should change.
I note in passing that Maryland in general and PG County in particular has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
That was probably only a marginal factor in letting the cops feel that they could commit this crime. The primary factor is a culture within law enforcement where seeing someone with no other known connection to criminal activity receiving a package of drugs in the mail (what could this guy have done to avoid having his door kicked in and his dogs shot?) constitutes a legitimate reason for a no-knock raid. It’s becoming apparent to me that our law enforcement community cannot fight the drug war and remain respectful of civil liberties.
Apollo posted this at 11:04 PM EDT on Thursday, August 7th, 2008 as Liberty and/or Security
1 Comment »
Let this be a lesson to every dog with the nerve to accost an armed policeman who busts down his masters’ door after his master brazenly carries a package indoors…a package addressed to his spouse.
A police SWAT team raided the home of the mayor in the Prince George’s County town of Berwyn Heights on Tuesday, shooting and killing his two dogs, after he brought in a 32-pound package of marijuana that had been delivered to his doorstep, police said.
Mayor Cheye Calvo was not arrested in the raid, which was carried out about 7 p.m. by the Sheriff’s Office SWAT team and county police narcotics officers. Prince George’s police spokesman Henry Tippett said yesterday that all the residents of the house — Calvo, his wife and his mother-in-law — are “persons of interest” in the case.
The package was addressed to Calvo’s wife, Trinity Tomsic, said law enforcement officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the case is ongoing.
…Calvo described a chaotic scene, in which he — wearing only underwear and socks — and his mother-in-law were handcuffed and interrogated for hours. They were surrounded by the dogs’ carcasses and pools of the dogs’ blood, Calvo said.
Spokesmen for the Sheriff’s Office and Prince George’s police expressed regret yesterday that the mayor’s dogs were killed. But they defended the way the raid was carried out, saying it was proper for a case involving such a large amount of drugs.
Sgt. Mario Ellis, a Sheriff’s Office spokesman, said the deputies who entered Calvo’s home “apparently felt threatened” by the dogs.
I’m sure they did.
H/T: Amber
UPDATE: More seriously, some questions:
1) Who was the judge who granted the no-knock warrant and what were reasons for granting it to the SWAT team? Did he fear the mayor would open fire on the police officers? If so, why?
2) Considering that they had staked the place out, the police presumably knew the dogs. Even assuming the dogs acted violently — which doesn’t appear to be the case — shouldn’t the cops have been prepared to use something less-than-lethal force on them? This may be a snarkybastard precedent, but wouldn’t a TASER have been a better choice?
3) A quick google search turned up little of interest about Sheriff Jackson, other than to imply that he’s a stand-up guy, secure in his job, and rather involved politically (all of which is normal). If, however, his office can’t formulate a better response to this, I hope someone runs against him in ‘10.
Tom posted this at 3:04 PM EDT on Monday, August 4th, 2008 as Liberty and/or Security, The Law Is An Ass--An Idiot
1 Comment »
As of yesterday, this was my understanding of where things stood with regards to the Heller decision:
US Constitution: You have the right to own a gun.
Dick Heller: Sweet!
DC City Council: Oh no he doesn’t!
SCOTUS: Oh yes he does!
Dick Heller: Sweet!
Turns out the drama isn’t over. Unwilling to concede defeat, the council has apparently managed to pass a new set of laws that — while granting residents the right to own a gun — deny them any opportunity to use them:
City leaders say the legislation goes as far as it can on gun regulations while respecting the high court’s ruling. Weapons must be unloaded, disassembled or trigger-locked, except when there is a “threat of immediate harm to a person” in the home.
The legislation also requires that guns remain inside homes.
Moreover, DC will — effectively — limit gun ownership to revolvers:
On Thursday, Mr. Heller attempted to register another pistol he owns, a .45-caliber Colt Model 1911 semiautomatic, knowing he would be turned away, to draw attention to an aspect of the D.C. gun law that remains contentious.
Semiautomatic weapons are still banned in the District on the grounds that they can accommodate modified magazines allowing them to shoot 12 or more rounds without reloading. Under D.C. law, these weapons are considered machine guns, even though they are not fully automatic.
Mr. Heller said Thursday he was trying to register the semiautomatic even though he did not bring it with him, saying he feared prosecution.
I involuntarily cringe when the press uses the word “semiautomatic”; they usually use it in a way that implies that this is a particularly powerful weapon, as opposed to a standard, modern handgun. Television anchors also have a habit of pronouncing it with the same malevolence usually reserved for worlds like “torture,” “child rape,” or “Paul Wolfowitz.”
It’s worth noting that a clip-loading handgun can be an extremely powerful weapon, far easier to use to kill multiple people than with a revolver; Seung-Hui Cho could never have murdered so many if he had had to manually reload each bullet, as he would have had to with a revolver. As such, one can sympathize with DC’s intent to limit handgun ownership to revolvers while simultaneously bristling at the attitude that a good citizen is “entitled” to only the narrowest interpretation of the law as possible.
But while handguns can be more dangerous if used offensively than revolvers they also have one huge advantage over revolvers: you can load the magazine without loading the gun. In an emergency, it takes only a few seconds to slide the magazine into the handle, cock the gun and remove the safety, though it also adds enough steps to make it far more difficult to accidentally shoot someone.
But under the new DC law, this is irrelevant because you can’t own a handgun. And if you do own a revolver you have to keep it 1) Either trigger-locked, safe-locked, or disassembled, and 2) unloaded. As if that isn’t bad enough, you also can’t legally load your revolver unless you are certain you’re under threat. As Jacob Sullum describes it:
The new law “clarifies that no carry license is required inside the home” to move a gun from one room to another. It also “clarifies” the District’s firearm storage requirements, saying a gun may be unlocked and loaded “while it is being used to protect against a reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person” in the home.
Much hinges on what counts as a “reasonably perceived threat.” If you’re awakened in the middle of the night by a crash, may you carry a loaded gun with you as you investigate? Evidently not. The Washington Post reports that D.C.’s acting attorney general, Peter Nickles, “said residents could neither keep their guns loaded in anticipation of a problem nor search for an intruder on their property.” According to Nickles, if you see an armed criminal charging your home, or in the event of “an actual threat by somebody you believe is out to hurt you,” you’re allowed to get your gun, unlock it, and load it. (emphasis added)
If I were a criminal in DC, I’d be slightly more wary of a home invasion. But not much.
Tom posted this at 9:08 AM EDT on Wednesday, July 23rd, 2008 as Liberty and/or Security, We don't need no stinkin' Constitution
2 Comments »
Yesterday morning on NPR, this guy was discussing the results of Boumedeine. He was describing a future where the government had to go before a judge to justify every single person detained in a war: to prove that the detainee had some sort of belligerent connection, and to prove that the detainee was dangerous enough to justify locking up. He then said that the government would have to reaapear before the same judge periodically and justify not releasing the detainee.
To be clear, this applied both to people arrested on the street and to people captured on the battlefield. And, to be clear, this prospect made the commenter giddy.
The longer Boumedeine sets in on me, the more it becomes apparent that it may very well be the single greatest shift of power from one branch to another that our government has ever seen. It happened without a vote being cast, and there are those in this country who have allowed their dislike of the current president to lead them to cheering on the Supreme Court’s usurpation of war fighting powers.
For the first time, I’ll define a Supreme Court decision as scary. Both in its hamstringing of a legitimate war effort, and the in the inter-branch power struggle that will most assuredly result from it. If the judiciary insists on maintaining the unstated premise of Boumedeine – that they are supreme over the wartime decisions of the president regarding how to fight a war – they will lose.
The Founders defended the lack of limits placed on the federal judiciary by pointing out that it was naturally the weakest branch, controlling neither the military nor the treasury. Some on the court seem to remember how ill-prepared they are for a real fight with the other branches. That the wisdom of the Founders is lost on the current Court should come as no surprise.
Apollo posted this at 7:04 AM EDT on Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008 as I, For One, Welcome Our Judicial Overlords!, Liberty and/or Security, We don't need no stinkin' Constitution
2 Comments »
One of the things I’ve always found most attractive about McCain is that he has all of President Bush’s resolve in the war on terror without the weird excesses. Jacob Sullum has evidence that I may have been wrong in this:
…I noted that John McCain seemed to have a less expansive view of presidential authority than George W. Bush. Now the distance between them seems to be shrinking. In a recent letter to National Review Online, McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin reported that the Arizona senator believes President Bush acted within his constitutional authority when he violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by approving warrantless monitoring of international communications involving people in the United States. According to Holtz-Eakin, who was responding to an NRO post by Andrew McCarthy that questioned whether McCain was sufficiently supportive of Bush’s position on this issue, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate believes “neither the Administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the ACLU and the trial lawyers, understand were Constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001.”
Holtz-Eakin added that as president, “John McCain will do everything he can to protect Americans from [terrorist] threats, including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.” The reference to Article II clearly implies that McCain would feel free to violate any statute he believed impeded his ability to conduct anti-terrorist surveillance.
…
There is no ambiguity as to whether FISA required warrants for the sort of surveillance Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct, and the argument that Congress unintentionally amended FISA when it authorized the use of military force against Al Qaeda and the Taliban does not pass the laugh test. The only real issue is whether the president has the constitutional authority to disregard statutes such as FISA when they get in the way of actions he considers necessary to prevent terrorist attacks. In December, McCain said the president does not have that authority; now he says “there’s ambiguity about it.”
Dammit, John. When it comes down to it, the actual wiretapping probably isn’t the hugest deal in the world, though I’ll add that that hardly makes it right. What kills me about the whole business, though, is that the president — upon realizing that the FISA bill was antiquated and unduly impeded necessary surveillances of terrorists — decided to simply ignore it. It never even crossed their minds to go to Congress and say, “Hey, this FISA thing is a disaster. We need to change it.” Unfortunately, this sort of “It’s my constitution, I’ll do what I want!” attitude is perfectly justified in America today, so long as you can plausibly tie it to fighting terrorism.
Tom posted this at 11:38 AM EDT on Thursday, June 12th, 2008 as Audacity of Hype, George Bush Sucks!, Liberty and/or Security
No Comments »
Via TJIC, New York’s Nassau county is posting pictures of people arrested for driving while intoxicated. I don’t have a problem with humiliating drunk drivers—unlike the guy at Pajamas media—but shouldn’t these people have the trial first?
A troubling potential abuse of this: a grumpy cop just pulls someone over, the driver gets his picture posted on the wall of shame, and he could well lose his job—even if he wasn’t driving while intoxicated. Without the trial, I think this is a bad idea. Nassau county supervisor Thomas Suozzi (whom I once hoped would upset Eliot Spitzer in the NY gubernatorial primary) should be run out of office.
Hubbard posted this at 5:03 PM EDT on Thursday, June 5th, 2008 as Excruciatingly Correct Behavior, Liberty and/or Security, Philosophy
1 Comment »
We’ve had a spate of killings here in DC. It’s not just that we’re again in the running for murder capital of the country. It’s worse than usual:
In the first five months last year, Ward 5 recorded eight homicides. As of Sunday, there were 22 homicides in those same neighborhoods. Five killings took place over the weekend.
Although not a Ward 5 resident, I’m getting a bit jumpy. It’s not THAT hard to get from ward to ward: I leave one ward, cross another, and finish in a third every day on my walk to work. (For you residents of normality, there’s only 8 wards, so every day I’m in nearly half of them.) Naturally, there’s pressure to do something. This being DC, however, the city government’s response has less to do with effectiveness and more to do with just doing something—sort of like airport security.
Tom noted this story earlier today when it was a rumor. Now it’s official, and even dumber than I’d feared:
Drivers will have to show identification proving they live in the neighborhood, or explain why they are in the area. Valid reasons would include “attending church, a doctor’s appointment or visiting friends or relatives,” the city said in a statement. Those lacking identification or a reason to be in the neighborhood will be forced to leave.
Similar efforts may be made in other neighborhoods as well, if local police commanders request them, officials said.
“In certain areas, we need to go beyond the normal methods of policing.” Fenty said. “We’re going to go into an area and completely shut it down to prevent shootings and the sale of drugs.”
But despite the tough rhetoric, the program as explained seemed fairly limited in scope. Pedestrians will not be subjected to police checks, for example, and loitering will not be addressed. [emphasis added] While Montello Avenue stretches about seven blocks between Mt. Olivet Road and Florida Avenue, the checkpoints will be in effect only along the 1400 block.
Lanier said the approach is modeled after a program used in New York City. She said police are focusing on cars because there have been a significant numbers of shootings from or into vehicles this year.
Police will search cars if they feel they have probable cause to do so. Drivers who don’t cooperate with the request to produce identification or who object to being refused entrance to the block could face arrest for failing to obey police.
So if I’m loitering around, I can keep an eye out for police and they won’t bug me; I’d just wait till the patrol had moved on before getting down to business. Contrariwise, if a tired tourist gets lost while driving around our insane streets, he’ll get the third degree from police. Beyond that, now that any drug dealer who reads the Washington Post knows where the bulk of the police will be stopping people, what’s going to stop them from moving a few blocks away to continue the drug dealing and shooting?
From everything I know about the New York City programs, the emphases were on foot patrols, police knowing the neighborhood and residents well, and computer tracking of crimes to let cops know which areas needed more patrolling. This program looks like it came out of the TSA airport program. Perhaps they can make drivers take their shoes off, too.
Hubbard posted this at 5:39 PM EDT on Wednesday, June 4th, 2008 as Denizens of DC, Liberty and/or Security
No Comments »