AN ESSAY
Two weeks ago, I watched Paul Greengrass' searing Green Zone. Although the movie masquerades as a pure action thriller, it actually deeply criticizes American involvement in Iraq, especially the manufactured casus belli that led us to war. At several points during the movie,my emotions surged. I have always spoken out against the War in Iraq. I always considered it an illegitimate, illegal, unethical, imperialist venture without justification in law, justice or good policy. The movie showed raw American power at work. And that reawakened my slumbering vitriol about the war.
Green Zone opens in the din of an air raid. It is March 19, 2003, the day the U.S. air force began bombing Baghdad. Sirens wail. We hear the buildings shudder as explosions rip through the city. Iraqi men and women frantically run through hallways, shouting and screaming. We see lights flickering. Dust falls from ceilings. Windows break. Then the shot pans out to a vista over the city. Massive fireballs light up the night. Buildings burn. Anti-aircraft fire streaks into the sky. Jet engines and cruise missiles boom through the air before yet another explosion rips the skyline.
That scene choked me up. So that's American power, isn't it: The power to bomb a city into oblivion. The power to make civilians scramble in panic as the house next door explodes into a million pieces. The power to knock out electricity and destroy infrastructure. And for what? In hindsight, I knew there was no justification for the war. There were never any weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did not plan 9/11, nor did any Iraqis hijack the planes that attacked the United States. No, America flexed its muscles against Iraq simply because it could. It ignored the United Nations and its weapons inspectors. It acted with breathtaking defiance, even if it mumbled about "reliable independent intelligence" concerning an Iraqi nuclear arms program.
Worse, we're still there, seven years and 6000 American dead later. That's to say nothing about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and countless more lives ruined for nothing.
War apologists will inevitably label be a socialist for making these observations. They will tell me that "intelligence was uncertain" about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in early 2003, so it was better to be "safe than sorry." They will also tell me that America had "good reason" to attack Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant who tortured and murdered his own people. In fact, they will stress the fact that America "fights for freedom" around the world; even if we did not find nuclear weapons in Iraq, at least we gave Iraqis democracy.
I recoil from this facetious "freedom" explanation for the invasion. The argument is not just illogical; it also shows American involvement in Iraq for what it really is: A selective, hypocritical, arbitrary application of brute force. It is illogical because America does not really care about "worldwide freedom." In the first place, it is presumptuous to even suggest that "American-style freedom" can work in diverse cultures around the world. And even if such a thing as "freedom" were universal, why stop with Iraq? George W. Bush said that the war was necessary because "Iraqis needed freedom from a murderous tyrant who tortured and gassed his own people." Yet there are many nations across the globe that need the same treatment. The "freedom" rationale--if believed--would require U.S. military involvement in virtually every sub-Saharan African nation, as well as Saudi Arabia, several southeast Asian countries and even Russia. There are "tyrants" in all those nations who "murder their own people."
So why haven't we attacked all these other countries? If we truly care about "freedom," we should attack Rwanda, Uganda, the Congo, Pakistan and Malaysia. The fact that we haven't shows that our involvement in Iraq is purely selective. And because the freedom rationale is so weak, it begs the real question: Why Iraq? Only a naïve idiot could believe that America had a genuine interest in "Iraqis' freedom from tyranny." So what was the real reason?
For a long time, I thought that America invaded Iraq to gain access to its lucrative oil reserves. The cynic in me can never really suppress the thought. Yet after seven years of occupation, oil prices are no lower than they were in 2002. In fact, they have even spiked several times in the ensuing years. With oil men like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush in the White House, Iraq's oil must have been one reason why they decided to invade. In retrospect, it should have been an easy assignment: Knock out Saddam, capture the oil fields, set up some pipelines and start pumping.
But it did not work out that way. The war planners encountered a set of problems they did not anticipate: Sectarian strife. They must have underestimated how difficult it would be to occupy Iraq. They could not set up their pipelines or build their oil-carrying infrastructure because the Iraqis did not just roll over and allow the Americans to have their way with their country. They sabotaged roads, blew up tankers, ambushed convoys and beheaded "contractors." And because men like Donald Rumsfeld woefully miscalculated how much force would be needed to subdue Iraq, the U.S. military never had sufficient strength to pacify the countryside. Rumsfeld thought a "small, rapidly mobile force" with overwhelming air power could claim Iraq.
He was wrong. In the end, U.S. forces in Iraq wound up fighting a desperate "fire brigade" war in which they struggled to respond to local hotspots without bringing overall stability to the country. As a consequence, America could not realize its initial commercial war goal: Oil mercantilism.
Still, I am not writing today to summarize America's strategic failure in Iraq. Rather, I am writing to stress that America's failure was far larger than mere military stalemate. America sacrificed much more than young soldiers' blood to occupy Iraq. It also sacrificed its historically "moral high ground" in war by engaging in illegal, unethical behavior on an unprecedented scale. In the end, American occupiers showed themselves little better than the Baathist torturers they set out to depose in 2003.
Green Zone alludes to this. In brief, the movie follows an army officer (Matt Damon) assigned to locate nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" at various sites throughout Baghdad. After coming up empty every time, he begins to wonder whether his intelligence is sound. He decides to investigate his sources and gradually uncovers a tangled web of official deceit running all the way down from the Pentagon. When he realizes that the Pentagon has basically misled the army into supporting the war, he sets out to locate an Iraqi general who met with a senior Pentagon official (Greg Kinnear) prior to the war. The general told the Pentagon official that Iraq had no WMD program. The Pentagon official lied about what the general said and told Washington that Iraq did have such a program. To prevent the truth from emerging, the Pentagon official sends a hit squad to kill the general. Meanwhile, the army officer rushes to save him and expose the truth.
Green Zone's plotline makes for a good thriller. But it also makes a valuable point: America's case for war against Iraq was marred from the outset. It was built upon official deception. It threw ethics to the wind and committed American blood for fabricated reasons. The movie shows the American government working in a criminally underhanded manner. It shows senior American officials manipulating the truth and authorizing murder to conceal it. While Green Zone might just be a movie, it is certainly based on real events.
I thought America was supposed to be better than this. What ever happened to America as the "White Knight" of international politics? There was a time when America went to war for good things--and only as a last resort. There was a time when people around the world looked to America as a beacon of freedom and justice. During that time, no one would have dared think America could be tyrannical or evil. America did not lie, cheat, deceive, torture, murder or kill. It punished those who did while remaining true to its ethical principles. Hitler tortured, killed and invaded. America liberated the death camps and freed Europe from Nazi domination. That was noble and just. That was America's international reputation. That America could never act a villain.
Sadly, America did act a villain in Iraq. In a telling scene, Green Zone reminds us that American forces committed atrocities against Iraqi prisoners. It shows us a "detainee camp" in which U.S. forces hold allegedly "high-value" Iraqis in a stockade. It shows U.S. troops brutalizing prisoners with clubs, barking dogs and extremely loud music. It shows them forcing prisoners to sit in uncomfortable positions. We hear prisoners crying out in pain from darkened solitary cells. Some even lie bleeding on the floor without medical care.
Ironically, a sign over the stockade reads: "Camp So-and-So : Honor-Bound to Defend Freedom."
What kind of freedom is this? What kind of honor? It is as if the American army in Iraq still believed that it was the "White Knight" of 1945, even though its "intelligence division" members acted more like SS torturers than noble liberators.
There is no honor in torture or inhumane treatment. America said it waged war in Iraq to overthrow tyranny and torture. Yet within weeks, it began committing the same outrages on Iraqi prisoners that Saddam committed against his own people. Of course, war apologists will say that troops in the field must discover valuable battlefield intelligence "by any means necessary." That may be so as a practical matter. But America used to draw ethical strength from its refusal to engage in the unsavory tactics of its enemies. America acquired a sterling reputation because it refused to be Machiavellian.
We have drifted far from our ethical moorings. The war in Iraq has cost this country more than individual soldiers. It has also cost us our international reputation. We are no longer noble liberators committed to justice. Rather, we are now petulant rogues who wage war simply because we want to, without regard to ethics or international law. Our involvement in Iraq is a very dark chapter in American history. It is the chapter in which America became just another Machiavellian State determined to do its will, no matter the cost in blood or principle.
I wonder whether we will ever repair the damage we have done to ourselves.
Showing posts with label Torture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Torture. Show all posts
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Friday, October 16, 2009
THE LAW HAS NO POWER OVER SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT CARE ABOUT HIS BODY
AN ESSAY
In many essays over the last year, I have paraphrased Martin Luther's argument that the law has power only over the body and property. See, e.g., On Governmental Authority (1523) at p. 23: "The temporal government has laws which extend no further than to life and property and external affairs on earth[.]" Luther draws a distinction between "worldly authority" and "divine authority." He says that the "world is God's enemy" and that a wise prince is a "mighty rare bird." Id. at pp. 60-61. Yet at the same time, he asserts that worldly authority fulfills God's will because it targets "wickedness" and protects meek Christians from violence. Thus, while worldly authority may be crass and unappetizing, it performs a "Christian" function by restraining criminals from inflicting violence.
These ideas influenced me. They further weakened my already weak respect for the law. I shared Luther's low estimation of the law precisely because of the law's base subject matter. In the final analysis, the law's power derives solely from its ability to impact men's bodies and their property. These are external things. They do not transcend time. They have nothing to do with men's beliefs, conscience or thoughts. They are ephemeral, even petty. Human beings who live only to satisfy their bodies and gain property are superficial creatures. Some might even call them hedonists, or at least fatally selfish. Ironically, however, commercial success depends solely on gaining property, which translates into bodily comfort. Commerce typifies "the world." It scarcely warrants surprise, then, that Luther said "the world is God's enemy."
Despite its superficial powers, the law relishes its authority. And for good reason: Because people value their bodies and property so much in this world, it makes sense that they respect the law. After all, the law can seize their property, injure their bodies and take away the things that give them pleasure. True, it cannot compel them to believe things or have honor. But most people could care less about those things. They just want to use their bodies as they wish and buy things that make them feel good. The law influences them because they know the law can impact their bodies and property. It holds them in check because no one wants to experience bodily pain or discomfort, nor does anyone want to lose property. The law works because people are superficial: They like their bodies and property, so they are afraid to lose them.
But what would happen if someone had utter contempt for his body or property? What possible influence could the law have on a man who did not care whether he suffered pain, or whether he owned anything? In a word, the law would wield no power over such a man. If he truly did not care whether someone imprisoned him, beat him, tortured him or executed him, nothing could possibly restrain him from acting in a way that would give rise to those penalties. In the same way, if he did not care whether he lost everything he possessed, the law would not impress him with garnishments, judgments, forced sales or seizures. Put simply, men who do not value their bodies or property can live beyond the law's influence.
That is not to say that the law would not take action against such a man. If the man committed a crime warranting imprisonment, it would imprison him. But the man would not care. In a strange way, his apathy and indifference to punishment would deny the law's effect. The law proceeds on the assumption that it inflicts suffering on an offender for acting in a way it condemns. It asserts its power by doing something to the offender that the offender does not like, just as a parent asserts its power over a wayward child by spanking him. The offender does not like bodily pain, just as the child does not like spanking. Yet if the offender really does not care whether his body experiences pain, what power does the law really have?
In short, anyone with pure contempt for his own body or property can deny the law's effect. Although the law rarely admits as much, it asserts power over its subjects by doing painful things to their bodies and property. How else would it maintain control if it did not threaten to take things away that people enjoy? How else would it force compliance if it did not threaten physical misery for failure to comply? Laws might seem "objective," but they really depend on basic human aversions to pain. By the same token, laws only function because they assume that people do not want to suffer bodily pain. Like any power institution, they enforce their will by threatening to do something the subject does not want. Legal scholars can talk all they want about "neutral laws." But in the end, laws depend on subjective reactions to threatened consequences. People don't like it when their bodies suffer or when they lose their property. So the law threatens those things in order to enforce its commands.
But what about the man who refuses to care whether he feels pain? The law cannot intimidate him. It cannot "entice" him to act as it commands. This is the purest possible rebellion against the law, for even if the law penalizes his body, he does not feel he is losing anything he wants. A penalty only asserts true power when the violator feels that he is enduring something he does not like. Most people do not like bodily pain. That is why the law generally works when it inflicts physical pain: It forces the subject to feel something he does not like. That is real power.
Not so for the man who accepts pain without caring. The law asserts no power over him. It does not force him to experience anything he does not want. By remaining indifferent to physical pain, he denies the law's power. He does not allow it to make him feel any worse than he would on his own. That is rebellion.
Still, how many people can truly ignore their bodies and their property? Nerve endings do not lie. From a theoretical standpoint, however, the best way to revolt against the law is not to care about your body or your possessions. That is a very hard thing to do in this society.
On the other hand, think about "martyrs" and "noble men." Jesus Christ endured excruciating physical agony but did not let it affect him. So did all the "Christian heroes" who willingly suffered torture and death because they had contempt for their bodies and the "things of this world."
In general, the law strikes fear because it targets the things that most people live for: Bodily comfort and property. But it loses all its power when it punishes people who do not care about those things.
In many essays over the last year, I have paraphrased Martin Luther's argument that the law has power only over the body and property. See, e.g., On Governmental Authority (1523) at p. 23: "The temporal government has laws which extend no further than to life and property and external affairs on earth[.]" Luther draws a distinction between "worldly authority" and "divine authority." He says that the "world is God's enemy" and that a wise prince is a "mighty rare bird." Id. at pp. 60-61. Yet at the same time, he asserts that worldly authority fulfills God's will because it targets "wickedness" and protects meek Christians from violence. Thus, while worldly authority may be crass and unappetizing, it performs a "Christian" function by restraining criminals from inflicting violence.
These ideas influenced me. They further weakened my already weak respect for the law. I shared Luther's low estimation of the law precisely because of the law's base subject matter. In the final analysis, the law's power derives solely from its ability to impact men's bodies and their property. These are external things. They do not transcend time. They have nothing to do with men's beliefs, conscience or thoughts. They are ephemeral, even petty. Human beings who live only to satisfy their bodies and gain property are superficial creatures. Some might even call them hedonists, or at least fatally selfish. Ironically, however, commercial success depends solely on gaining property, which translates into bodily comfort. Commerce typifies "the world." It scarcely warrants surprise, then, that Luther said "the world is God's enemy."
Despite its superficial powers, the law relishes its authority. And for good reason: Because people value their bodies and property so much in this world, it makes sense that they respect the law. After all, the law can seize their property, injure their bodies and take away the things that give them pleasure. True, it cannot compel them to believe things or have honor. But most people could care less about those things. They just want to use their bodies as they wish and buy things that make them feel good. The law influences them because they know the law can impact their bodies and property. It holds them in check because no one wants to experience bodily pain or discomfort, nor does anyone want to lose property. The law works because people are superficial: They like their bodies and property, so they are afraid to lose them.
But what would happen if someone had utter contempt for his body or property? What possible influence could the law have on a man who did not care whether he suffered pain, or whether he owned anything? In a word, the law would wield no power over such a man. If he truly did not care whether someone imprisoned him, beat him, tortured him or executed him, nothing could possibly restrain him from acting in a way that would give rise to those penalties. In the same way, if he did not care whether he lost everything he possessed, the law would not impress him with garnishments, judgments, forced sales or seizures. Put simply, men who do not value their bodies or property can live beyond the law's influence.
That is not to say that the law would not take action against such a man. If the man committed a crime warranting imprisonment, it would imprison him. But the man would not care. In a strange way, his apathy and indifference to punishment would deny the law's effect. The law proceeds on the assumption that it inflicts suffering on an offender for acting in a way it condemns. It asserts its power by doing something to the offender that the offender does not like, just as a parent asserts its power over a wayward child by spanking him. The offender does not like bodily pain, just as the child does not like spanking. Yet if the offender really does not care whether his body experiences pain, what power does the law really have?
In short, anyone with pure contempt for his own body or property can deny the law's effect. Although the law rarely admits as much, it asserts power over its subjects by doing painful things to their bodies and property. How else would it maintain control if it did not threaten to take things away that people enjoy? How else would it force compliance if it did not threaten physical misery for failure to comply? Laws might seem "objective," but they really depend on basic human aversions to pain. By the same token, laws only function because they assume that people do not want to suffer bodily pain. Like any power institution, they enforce their will by threatening to do something the subject does not want. Legal scholars can talk all they want about "neutral laws." But in the end, laws depend on subjective reactions to threatened consequences. People don't like it when their bodies suffer or when they lose their property. So the law threatens those things in order to enforce its commands.
But what about the man who refuses to care whether he feels pain? The law cannot intimidate him. It cannot "entice" him to act as it commands. This is the purest possible rebellion against the law, for even if the law penalizes his body, he does not feel he is losing anything he wants. A penalty only asserts true power when the violator feels that he is enduring something he does not like. Most people do not like bodily pain. That is why the law generally works when it inflicts physical pain: It forces the subject to feel something he does not like. That is real power.
Not so for the man who accepts pain without caring. The law asserts no power over him. It does not force him to experience anything he does not want. By remaining indifferent to physical pain, he denies the law's power. He does not allow it to make him feel any worse than he would on his own. That is rebellion.
Still, how many people can truly ignore their bodies and their property? Nerve endings do not lie. From a theoretical standpoint, however, the best way to revolt against the law is not to care about your body or your possessions. That is a very hard thing to do in this society.
On the other hand, think about "martyrs" and "noble men." Jesus Christ endured excruciating physical agony but did not let it affect him. So did all the "Christian heroes" who willingly suffered torture and death because they had contempt for their bodies and the "things of this world."
In general, the law strikes fear because it targets the things that most people live for: Bodily comfort and property. But it loses all its power when it punishes people who do not care about those things.
Monday, July 27, 2009
JUSTICE SCALIA EXPLAINS : "NOBODY TORTURED ME LAST WEEK"
By : Mr. Antonin G. Scalia, Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court (Appointed by President Ronald Reagan 1986); Law Professor, University of Chicago (1977-1982); Annual Hero of the Federalist Society (2007); Defender of 21st Century constitutional liberty by reference to 18th Century grammar; Founder, the Justice Antonin Scalia Institute for Insulting, Degrading and Denigrating Your Professional Colleagues (Pursuant to Law and Ethics Rules, Common Decency Notwithstanding) (2008-present).
You may have heard that government agents took me into custody last week and subjected me to interrogation. For some odd reason, senior officials in our intelligence community obtained information linking me to an al-Qaeda plot to poison children’s lunches in Washington, D.C. public schools. During my custody, I was asked many questions. Since then, the wildest rumors have been circulating about it. Today I write to put these rumors to rest. Put simply, I am fine. A little tired, yes, but otherwise fine.
Nobody tortured me last week. Rather, agents from the Department of Homeland Security, the CIA and the FBI came to my home last week and informed me that they had “information” linking me to a terror plot. I responded that this was nonsense. The agents ignored my response. They told me they had to “take me into custody” to ask further questions. They said that “the safety of American children” was at stake. It angered me that someone provided false information linking me to a conspiracy to kill children. But I did not blame the officers for arresting me. After all, they were merely acting to protect American children. What did they know? They had to get the truth. If I had to suffer temporary incarceration to dispel their suspicions, I was prepared to pay that price for living in a democracy committed to safety for all.
After surrendering to the agents, they handcuffed me and put a black hood over my head. I remember being pushed into an automobile, then an airplane. The airplane took off. We were airborne for what seemed an eternity. No one spoke during the flight. When we finally landed, I was led down from the plane. I heard the agents speaking. Men answered them in a foreign language. I think it was Polish or Bulgarian, but I do not know for sure. It was Slavic, but I don’t think it was Russian. I was put into another car. I no longer heard the American agents. Now, I only heard Slavic voices.
We stopped after driving about two hours. At this point, I was taken from the car. Someone finally took the hood off my head and uncuffed me. It was early morning. I looked around. I was in a forest near an old concrete bunker. There were several trucks and jeeps parked outside the bunker. About fifteen armed men wearing green uniforms milled around the bunker entrance. I had no idea what they were saying. My eyes hurt; I could not look directly into the light because they were still sensitive. I had not slept during the whole trip. After about a minute, two soldiers with slung rifles approached me and said in accented English: “Come with us. We have some questions to ask you.”
I was taken into the bunker. A stairway led about two stories underground. There was a long hallway with steel doors lining either side. Lamps hung overhead, casting a pale white glow from above. The soldiers opened a door on the left and pushed me in. It was a large room. It smelled musty, as if there was not enough ventilation. There was a single steel table in the middle of the room, with a chair on either side. A few old-looking file cabinets stood against each wall. There was a small door at the back of the room.
“Wait here,” said one of the soldiers. “Make yourself comfortable,” he added, pointing to the chair. I sat down. The soldiers left the room. They closed the heavy steel door and locked it behind them. I sat alone for several hours. There was no bathroom and I desperately needed to relieve myself, since I had no opportunity to do so during my journey up to this point. Finally, I had to relieve myself on the floor.
Several more hours passed. I could not sleep. The chair was too uncomfortable. Strange, scattered thoughts started racing through my head. I started fixating on the bright fluorescent lights that lined the ceiling above me. They buzzed incessantly. One even flickered a little. I started scratching my head and staring at the flickering light. I wanted desperately to sleep but I couldn’t close my eyes for more than a second. I started pitying myself and cursing the whole situation. After all, I hadn’t done anything. But I immediately caught myself: “No, you have to go through this to protect the children.” Even though I was innocent, I willingly absorbed my adversity because I knew our agents had to protect Americans from terror.
Finally, the door in the back of the room creaked open. Two officers came into the room. I looked up at them. One of the officers held a file folder. The other one held a rusty steel device that looked like a leg brace. It had screws on either side and two jagged-looking “jaws.” A moment later, two soldiers came into the room with rifles. After them, another man came into the room. He was black. He was not wearing a green uniform. He looked American; the others did not. He closed the door behind him. The two officers looked back at him. “Are you ready, sir?” They asked. “Yes. Go ahead,” he responded. By his voice, I knew he was American.
“Well, Antonin,” began the officer in accented English, setting his file folder onto the table. “We can make this as easy or as difficult as you want. We know you’ve been speaking to al-Rahwiri.”
“I don’t know what this is all about,” I responded. “You obviously don’t have the right man here.”
The officer looked at me blankly. Then he turned to the other officer and gestured with his head toward the table. The other officer threw the steel device onto the table. “You were saying?” He paused, then continued: “There is no point lying to us. We know you spoke to al-Rahwiri. We know about the D.C. school district. We know you discussed cyanide with him.”
“I don’t know where you got that information, but it can’t be accurate.”
“Antonin, I don’t want to be a bad guy with you. Just tell us you plotted to kill the kids in D.C. and you can go home. If you don’t confess, this is not going to be a good day for you. Please, be easy on yourself. There’s no way out of this. I know you think you’re smart and you know about constitutional law. You think you have rights, even though you routinely deny them to others. Look, don’t be hard on yourself. Just tell us you know about the plot, then we can start talking like two civilized human beings.”
“I’m sorry, but I can’t admit to that. It’s just not true. And I will not be coerced into saying otherwise.”
“All right. Have it your way.” The officer gestured to the two soldiers, who violently restrained me. Meanwhile, the second officer picked up the metal device and dangled it in front of my face. The two soldiers strapped me to my chair with ropes. The second officer pushed the chair away from the table and grabbed my right arm. Although I tried to struggle, he placed my right thumb into a slot on the metal device. He started screwing the two jagged “jaws” together around the thumb.
At this point, I was mildly alarmed. The two jaws met around my thumb and slowly crushed it. I could literally feel the bone shattering inside my hand. It hurt quite a lot, but it was bearable. I knew that the officers were simply trying to protect children from terrorists, and that justified my physical suffering. The jaws continued to press together until my thumb was virtually squashed. But I did not cry out, nor did I confess. After all, I hadn’t done anything.
“Why don’t you just say you talked to al-Rahwiri?” asked the officer.
“Because I never talked to him,” I responded despite the bearable pain.
“Well, I don’t believe you,” the officer replied. He then turned to the American behind him. The American nodded and pointed toward a file cabinet. The officer nodded. He said something to the soldiers in his language. They let me go. They opened the file cabinet and removed what looked like garden shears. Then the second officer slowly unscrewed the device from my thumb. I did not have much of a thumb left, but I was managing well.
“Now, Antonin. You can’t hold out forever. You are pretty good liar. You are even willing to take some pain to defend your lies. But no one leaves this room without telling the truth. All right, now where were we? Oh yes, the D.C. school district. Tell us that you bought cyanide with the intention of collaborating with al-Rahwiri to poison children’s lunches.”
“I never did that. I never bought cyanide. And I never intended to poison children. I have just been writing judicial opinions and questioning lawyers at oral argument for the past 10 months.”
He looked at me incredulously. “Well, we’re asking the questions now.” He then picked up his file folder, flipped a few pages and picked one out. “If you did not buy cyanide, why do we have this order ticket from CyanID Co. Inc. memorializing the sale of 500 gallons of liquid cyanide to you, Mr. Antonin G. Scalia on July 1, 2009? You see, Antonin, don’t try to deceive us. We have evidence.”
“That’s a forgery. I never did business with that company. I never bought cyanide.”
“Antonin, please. Evidence is evidence. We even have evidence showing that you transferred funds to CyanID Co. Inc. Now, either you tell us the truth or we will draw it out of you.”
“Go ahead. I never did anything wrong.”
The officer sighed. He nodded to the two soldiers, who again braced me. The second officer tore off my shirt. He then took the garden shears and clipped off my right nipple. “Still don’t know anything, do you, Antonin?”
I did not let the officer intimidate me. “No, I don’t. I will not lie to you.” Although it hurt to lose my right nipple, clipping it off was a necessary measure calculated in good faith to protect American children from terror.
At this point, a cell phone rang. The American answered: “Phelps here.” He stood listening for several minutes, interrupting only to say, “yes,” “oh really” and “un huh” several times. Finally, he said: “Yes, sir” and hung up the phone. He gestured for the officer to approach him. He whispered something to the officer. The officer nodded, glanced over at me, looked back at the American, then saluted. The American pursed his lips, turned around, opened the back door and walked out.
Several silent moments passed. The officer said something to his comrades in his language. The soldiers cut the ropes holding me to the chair. The second officer opened the file cabinet and put away the garden shears. He then took my shirt and put it over my shoulders. Finally, the lead officer said in English: “We have received information indicating that you are no longer a suspect. You may leave now.” He abruptly turned and left the room. The second officer followed. The two soldiers stayed with me. I just sat there.
Within minutes, two doctors came into the room and bandaged my wounds. They gave me a new shirt and brought me a meal and water. Then the two soldiers helped me up, led me upstairs and placed me in a waiting truck. The truck drove to a military airfield, where an American transport jet was waiting for me. Two U.S. Air Force officers greeted me. One said: “Sorry for the misunderstanding, your honor,” then gently helped me aboard the plane. They showed me to a comfortable bed and I laid down for the flight back to the United States.
I recount these details because I believe the American people deserve to know what happened to me. Contrary to all the rumors, I was not tortured. Rather, I was subjected to legitimate investigation calculated to determine whether terrorists planned to kill American children. The Executive Branch of the Federal government has authority to pursue any means necessary to protect Americans from terror, including investigations that may appear harsh. Put simply, when our government has a legitimate purpose—such as protecting children from al-Qaeda—it may pursue any methods necessary to effectuate that purpose. Although I endured some personal discomfort as a result of this investigation, our agents cannot always be perfect. I do not fault them for zealously attempting to root out terror, even in error.
I was not tortured because torture is illegal by treaty. Our government does not act illegally, nor does it ignore its treaty obligations. Under the governing legal standard, “torture” means the “intentional infliction of severe pain for a prohibited purpose.” Applying this definition to my experience, I can say to a legal certainty that I did not suffer torture.
First, I did not suffer “severe” pain. True, the thumbscrew device crushed my right thumb. It inflicted “pain.” But it was bearable pain. Viewed objectively, the pain was not “severe.” I can imagine far worse pain. It also hurt quite a bit when the officer clipped off my right nipple. It also permanently disfigured and degraded me. Again, however, the pain was not “severe.” While no specific case under the treaty has ever addressed nipple-clipping, I am confident that—as a jurist—such mild impositions do not rise to the level of “severe” pain necessary to meet the legal definition.
Second, and more importantly, the agents in this case did not inflict pain on me for a “prohibited purpose.” Cases have held that “prohibited purposes” under the treaty definition include sadism, unlawful information acquisition, revenge and medical experiment. Here, the agents inflicted pain on me in the honest—though mistaken—belief that I conspired to poison children in the D.C. public school system. They were acting to prevent what they reasonably believed to be imminent deadly harm to American children. That is about as legitimate a purpose as you can have. It is certainly not “prohibited” to zealously protect American children. In fact, that purpose justifies everything, including the infliction of “severe pain.” Thus, even if I concluded that the agents in this case inflicted “severe” pain on me, they still would not have committed “torture,” because their purpose was not “prohibited.” To the contrary, it was eminently legitimate.
I am committed to the rule of law. The rule of law in my case clearly indicates that I did not suffer torture. We apply legal definitions as they are written, not as what “we think they mean.” Logic and precedent establish that crushing thumbs and clipping off nipples do not constitute “torture” under the governing legal standard. I therefore reject all the liberal allegations that I wrongfully suffered “torture” while in custody last week. The rule of law suffers when the public irrationally applies “colloquial” understandings to make “legal” conclusions. I refuse to turn my back on the law, even if I endured a personally uncomfortable incident.
Torture is a legal term, not a colloquial one. Under law, I did not suffer torture. In fact, I am proud to live in a society with laws that allow its government to use any methods necessary to protect children from imminent terrorist attack. When our children’s safety is at stake, I think it is entirely reasonable to allow our government to take unrestricted action against the suspected conspirators. Our Constitution is not absolute; after all, our Constitution would be worthless if terrorists could freely attack the population. And what good is government if it cannot protect itself in the most threatening circumstances?
I do not need a right nipple to continue my duties as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. I am ready to get back to work immediately. And I will continue to hold that no one commits “torture” if they inflict pain to protect children from imminent harm.
Friday, May 29, 2009
THE SOTOMAYOR CONFIRMATION : SHOULD WE EXPECT OUR JUDGES TO BE COWARDS?
AN ESSAY
I have little doubt that the Senate will confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor as our next Supreme Court justice. I make this judgment on purely political grounds. After all, the power to confirm “Judges of the supreme court” lies with the Senate (see U.S. Const., Art. II § 2, cl. 2). And if history is any guide, it shows that the Senate party in power wins the confirmation fights. When the Republicans controlled the Senate, they easily overcame Democratic resistance to appoint fellow Republicans Chief Justice John G. Roberts (78-22) and Justice Samuel A. Alito (58-42). Now, the Democrats control the Senate by a healthy majority. They will similarly endorse their fellow Democrat, Judge Sotomayor. This has little to do with legal ability, conscience, honor or principle. It is all about politics. If you have more votes than the opposition, you win. If you don’t, you lose. If Plato were nominated to the Supreme Court by a Democratic President and the Republicans controlled the Senate, he would not be confirmed.
But of course the Republican minority will carp in this case, just as the Democrats carped when the Republicans controlled the Senate. It will not affect anything. It will just fill the air with bitterness and resentment; this is Washington and we should expect nothing less. Still, I always find it interesting when politicians bluster in vain because it gives me an insight into their values. Despite Judge Sotomayor’s obvious “Supreme Court pedigree” (i.e., she went to a top-tier law school; she got good grades; she clerked for the right federal judge; she served as a lower court judge; she curried enough political favor; she never went to prison or owed excessive debt), Republicans nonetheless will find issues to whine about. It is as predictable as the rain.
In a New York Times article today (Sotomayor’s Sharp Tongue Raises Issues of Temperament, May 29, 2009), I read that the Republicans find fault with Judge Sotomayor’s “sharp tongue.” According to several lawyers who practice before her on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, Judge Sotomayor is “occasionally combative,” “difficult” and “nasty” when she hears an argument she does not like. Some even said she is a “terror on the bench” who “behaves in an out-of-control manner.” This, in sum, has led Republican critics to oppose her “judicial temperament” rather than her intellectual qualifications. In other words, she may be smart, but she is not sufficiently polite to be a Supreme Court justice.
I actually like the fact that Judge Sotomayor volunteers her own opinions from the bench, especially when she criticizes a preposterous argument. I turned my back on the law because it is too technical. I reject its formalism, its inequalities and its vapid, hypocritical rhetoric. I reject it because it grandly claims to serve justice, when it generally only serves power. I reject it because it espouses principle, yet denies it to anyone who does not worship “procedure.” I reject it because it advances order over right, even when right is apparent. I generally despise judges because they buy fully into these hypocrisies to support a fundamentally unfair system. But sometimes judges surprise me. When they actually voice respect for justice and right, they redeem themselves. I even appreciate them when they dare to speak their minds about legal issues rather than merely reference arcane procedural rules to avoid the obvious, burning question. See, e.g., F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., Supreme Court Docket No. 07-582 (decided April 28, 2009). Judge Sotomayor does this more often than the Republicans like. This makes her an “activist” and “out of control.” As soon as a judge starts talking about justice, in other words, she has a “problem with temperament.”
What caused the Republicans to question Judge Sotomayor’s “manner on the bench?” They point particularly to her conduct in a recent appellate court oral argument in a case called Arar v. Ashcroft (see video at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1706247655617377220). This is a high-profile case about the Executive’s alleged power to “render” foreign citizens to third-party countries to be tortured for “counterterrorism information.” Mr. Arar is a Canadian citizen who claims he was seized in the United States when transferring to a flight to Canada at an American airport. Arar said there had been a terrible mistake. The agents saw things differently. After a short detention, American agents allegedly sent him to Syria in order to circumvent America’s ban on torture. There, Syrian agents imprisoned him for almost a year and subjected him to various bodily indignities. Finally, they determined he was not a terrorist and sent him back to Canada. Now he sues the American agents who handed him over to Syria, claiming they knew full well he would be tortured there. In response, the United States government denied responsibility and asserted that American courts had no jurisdiction to hear the case because “federal agents” are not liable for “constitutional torts” when “national security and foreign policy” are at issue.
During oral arguments in Arar, Judge Sotomayor questioned the government’s lawyer. She cut him off twice in order to confirm her understanding about the government’s position in the case. She wanted to know whether the United States government truly asserted that American agents face no liability for sending people to be tortured abroad as long as they doctor up some “national security explanation.” This angered Judge Sotomayor for good reason. In essence, the government contended that it was “OK” to render people to countries that allow torture because the Executive has unquestionable “power in foreign relations matters.” Judge Sotomayor did not like that contention. She made her feelings clear that it was an awkward argument to make, especially in a country that professes respect for individual rights and liberties. She did not like the argument that the Executive can “do whatever it wants” simply because it says “national security is at stake.” She thought those sentiments did not sit well with the principles that animate our constitutional system. And because she made her feelings clear, Republicans now call her “sharp-tongued,” “out-of-control” and “nasty.”
Judge Sotomayor won my respect by confronting the government’s lawyer in this case. She was not even disrespectful or “nasty” when making her points. She may have interrupted the lawyer, but she did not insult or humiliate him. That is normal business in American appellate courts. Judges always showcase themselves over the lawyers. The lawyer’s cursory statements simply provide fodder for the judges’ own rhetoric. Judge Sotomayor did the same thing that many Republican judges do every day. But here, she actually took a strong position on an issue that should concern us all: Torture. If a judge does not get passionate about claims that her own government endorses torture, what will spark her interest? Securities fraud? Accounting irregularities? Property disputes? If anything at all arouses a judge’s sense of right and wrong, it should be torture. The United States claims to be a progressive, civilized country that respects rights and laws. Yet torture represents an earlier, not-so-civilized age in which raw, ugly power ruled over principle and reason. America publicly condemns countries that practice torture today. Against this background, if a judge does not fundamentally recoil when confronting allegations that the American government endorses torture, she should be ashamed to call herself a jurist.
This reveals the absurdity in the Republican position. Did they expect Judge Sotomayor to sit inertly by while the government’s attorney tried to justify torture with disingenuous procedural arguments? If they did, what does that say about their values? That torture is “OK” as long as a Republican administration orchestrates it? That “procedure” should win out over “justice?” They would have preferred that Judge Sotomayor said nothing and merely allowed the government’s lawyer to spin his guilty logic. You can even see in the video that the government’s lawyer is uneasy, not just because he is on the hot seat, but because he knows that it is wrong to defend torture. His face contorts. He bites his lip. His eyes dart nervously through the courtroom. When judges confront him about his substantive position, he tiptoes around the real issue and starts talking about procedures and precedents. He cannot bring himself to admit that torture is wrong, yet his demeanor admits it for him. Thus, the contrast between his behavior and his words make him a glaring hypocrite. Only his mechanical legal training prevents him from breaking down altogether. To her credit, Judge Sotomayor showed that she could forgo logic when confronted with fundamental wrong.
She did not sit quietly through this nonsense. No person with a basic sense of justice could have. Yet the Republicans seem to think that speaking out about fundamental injustice makes a judge “out of control.” As soon as a judge departs from vacuous questions about procedure, jurisdiction and statutory authority, she reveals a “poor judicial temperament.” In short, it seems to me that the Republicans want cowardice in a judge. A cowardly judge would allow the Executive to get away with anything. A cowardly judge would resolve a torture case on procedural grounds rather than grapple with fundamental questions of justice. A cowardly judge puts full faith in the “law,” even when the law clearly will not do “right.” A cowardly judge sits by and lets others do the real work later. A daring judge, on the other hand, can at least acknowledge wrong when she sees it and set the country on the right rhetorical path to correct it. I think Judge Sotomayor showed some daring in her exchange with the government’s lawyer in the Arar case.
But in the end, it really comes down to politics. A liberal “daring judge” is a “coward” to conservative eyes, while a conservative “daring judge” is a “coward” to liberal eyes. Here, Judge Sotomayor spoke out about an issue that largely appeals to liberals: The ignominy of torture. Because she spoke out on that issue, liberals label her “daring,” while conservatives call her “out of control.” But if a judge passionately spoke out about an issue dear to conservative hearts, such as “national security,” conservatives would call him “daring,” while liberals would label him “a coward” or “out of control.” Sadly, we see that principle plays nary a role in these judgments. It is simply about who says what, and whether the issue appeals to conservatives or liberals.
Must our judges be cowards? If we adopt conservative rhetoric, judges must be cowards when addressing questions concerning individual rights, dignity and justice. If we adopt liberal rhetoric, judges must be “out-of-control” when addressing questions concerning procedure, unfair power relationships and judicial restraint. If I had to choose, I would prefer a judge to be daring about liberty, dignity, individual rights and justice. Despite all my cynicism and suspicion, I still believe that the Constitution stands for good. I believe that it stands for evolving liberty and gradual improvement in society through advancing principle. I would prefer a judge be passionate about those ideas rather than cowardly and technical. Unfortunately, modern “judicial thought” counsels strongly against “expansive judging” and “unnecessary explications of principle” in court opinions. But why even bother having a Constitution if we do not have daring judges to expand upon the liberties enshrined in it? How do we advance as a society when our own constitutional arbiters take a narrow view on liberty? Should we not expect our jurists to advocate for us, “We the People,” the ones who created the Constitution in the first place? The ones who delegated its authority after the Revolution? If Congress and the President fail us—as I think they did on the torture question in the Bush years—who will speak for us?
I think we should expect our jurists to advocate for us. Judge Sotomayor showed that she at least cares about how our government acts with respect to our rights as citizens in a constitutional system. She recoiled from the suggestion that the Executive can “do whatever it wants” whenever it conjures up a shadowy “national security reason.” In essence, she showed that individuals matter more than the government. That is certainly an advance over Roberts and Alito, who could care less whether government swallows up individuals, or whether innocent people die at the hands of the State. In other words, Judge Sotomayor’s conduct at the Arar argument shows that she cares at least something for justice. In my view, that is an auspicious qualification for serving on the Supreme Court. And among at least four of its current members, it is a qualification sorely lacking.
Having said all this, I am glad I am not a judge. I like thinking for myself, not attempting to shoehorn my beliefs into precedent and prior judgment. Judicial work lends itself to obedience and cowardice far more than it does to daring. After all, judges work with others’ words, not their own. It is hard to be creative when someone else tells you how to paint. I echo Nietzsche on this score. Judicial work is like “dancing in chains.” Menschliches, allzu Menschliches Teil II, Der Wanderer und Sein Schatten Aph. 140 (“For what we call ‘Invention’ [in art] (metric rhyming, for example) is always just another chain that we lay upon ourselves”). Judges constantly imprison themselves in others’ logic and arguments. It is what they do. Yet when some passion escapes the chains, we should embrace it with full hearts.
I have little doubt that the Senate will confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor as our next Supreme Court justice. I make this judgment on purely political grounds. After all, the power to confirm “Judges of the supreme court” lies with the Senate (see U.S. Const., Art. II § 2, cl. 2). And if history is any guide, it shows that the Senate party in power wins the confirmation fights. When the Republicans controlled the Senate, they easily overcame Democratic resistance to appoint fellow Republicans Chief Justice John G. Roberts (78-22) and Justice Samuel A. Alito (58-42). Now, the Democrats control the Senate by a healthy majority. They will similarly endorse their fellow Democrat, Judge Sotomayor. This has little to do with legal ability, conscience, honor or principle. It is all about politics. If you have more votes than the opposition, you win. If you don’t, you lose. If Plato were nominated to the Supreme Court by a Democratic President and the Republicans controlled the Senate, he would not be confirmed.
But of course the Republican minority will carp in this case, just as the Democrats carped when the Republicans controlled the Senate. It will not affect anything. It will just fill the air with bitterness and resentment; this is Washington and we should expect nothing less. Still, I always find it interesting when politicians bluster in vain because it gives me an insight into their values. Despite Judge Sotomayor’s obvious “Supreme Court pedigree” (i.e., she went to a top-tier law school; she got good grades; she clerked for the right federal judge; she served as a lower court judge; she curried enough political favor; she never went to prison or owed excessive debt), Republicans nonetheless will find issues to whine about. It is as predictable as the rain.
In a New York Times article today (Sotomayor’s Sharp Tongue Raises Issues of Temperament, May 29, 2009), I read that the Republicans find fault with Judge Sotomayor’s “sharp tongue.” According to several lawyers who practice before her on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, Judge Sotomayor is “occasionally combative,” “difficult” and “nasty” when she hears an argument she does not like. Some even said she is a “terror on the bench” who “behaves in an out-of-control manner.” This, in sum, has led Republican critics to oppose her “judicial temperament” rather than her intellectual qualifications. In other words, she may be smart, but she is not sufficiently polite to be a Supreme Court justice.
I actually like the fact that Judge Sotomayor volunteers her own opinions from the bench, especially when she criticizes a preposterous argument. I turned my back on the law because it is too technical. I reject its formalism, its inequalities and its vapid, hypocritical rhetoric. I reject it because it grandly claims to serve justice, when it generally only serves power. I reject it because it espouses principle, yet denies it to anyone who does not worship “procedure.” I reject it because it advances order over right, even when right is apparent. I generally despise judges because they buy fully into these hypocrisies to support a fundamentally unfair system. But sometimes judges surprise me. When they actually voice respect for justice and right, they redeem themselves. I even appreciate them when they dare to speak their minds about legal issues rather than merely reference arcane procedural rules to avoid the obvious, burning question. See, e.g., F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., Supreme Court Docket No. 07-582 (decided April 28, 2009). Judge Sotomayor does this more often than the Republicans like. This makes her an “activist” and “out of control.” As soon as a judge starts talking about justice, in other words, she has a “problem with temperament.”
What caused the Republicans to question Judge Sotomayor’s “manner on the bench?” They point particularly to her conduct in a recent appellate court oral argument in a case called Arar v. Ashcroft (see video at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1706247655617377220). This is a high-profile case about the Executive’s alleged power to “render” foreign citizens to third-party countries to be tortured for “counterterrorism information.” Mr. Arar is a Canadian citizen who claims he was seized in the United States when transferring to a flight to Canada at an American airport. Arar said there had been a terrible mistake. The agents saw things differently. After a short detention, American agents allegedly sent him to Syria in order to circumvent America’s ban on torture. There, Syrian agents imprisoned him for almost a year and subjected him to various bodily indignities. Finally, they determined he was not a terrorist and sent him back to Canada. Now he sues the American agents who handed him over to Syria, claiming they knew full well he would be tortured there. In response, the United States government denied responsibility and asserted that American courts had no jurisdiction to hear the case because “federal agents” are not liable for “constitutional torts” when “national security and foreign policy” are at issue.
During oral arguments in Arar, Judge Sotomayor questioned the government’s lawyer. She cut him off twice in order to confirm her understanding about the government’s position in the case. She wanted to know whether the United States government truly asserted that American agents face no liability for sending people to be tortured abroad as long as they doctor up some “national security explanation.” This angered Judge Sotomayor for good reason. In essence, the government contended that it was “OK” to render people to countries that allow torture because the Executive has unquestionable “power in foreign relations matters.” Judge Sotomayor did not like that contention. She made her feelings clear that it was an awkward argument to make, especially in a country that professes respect for individual rights and liberties. She did not like the argument that the Executive can “do whatever it wants” simply because it says “national security is at stake.” She thought those sentiments did not sit well with the principles that animate our constitutional system. And because she made her feelings clear, Republicans now call her “sharp-tongued,” “out-of-control” and “nasty.”
Judge Sotomayor won my respect by confronting the government’s lawyer in this case. She was not even disrespectful or “nasty” when making her points. She may have interrupted the lawyer, but she did not insult or humiliate him. That is normal business in American appellate courts. Judges always showcase themselves over the lawyers. The lawyer’s cursory statements simply provide fodder for the judges’ own rhetoric. Judge Sotomayor did the same thing that many Republican judges do every day. But here, she actually took a strong position on an issue that should concern us all: Torture. If a judge does not get passionate about claims that her own government endorses torture, what will spark her interest? Securities fraud? Accounting irregularities? Property disputes? If anything at all arouses a judge’s sense of right and wrong, it should be torture. The United States claims to be a progressive, civilized country that respects rights and laws. Yet torture represents an earlier, not-so-civilized age in which raw, ugly power ruled over principle and reason. America publicly condemns countries that practice torture today. Against this background, if a judge does not fundamentally recoil when confronting allegations that the American government endorses torture, she should be ashamed to call herself a jurist.
This reveals the absurdity in the Republican position. Did they expect Judge Sotomayor to sit inertly by while the government’s attorney tried to justify torture with disingenuous procedural arguments? If they did, what does that say about their values? That torture is “OK” as long as a Republican administration orchestrates it? That “procedure” should win out over “justice?” They would have preferred that Judge Sotomayor said nothing and merely allowed the government’s lawyer to spin his guilty logic. You can even see in the video that the government’s lawyer is uneasy, not just because he is on the hot seat, but because he knows that it is wrong to defend torture. His face contorts. He bites his lip. His eyes dart nervously through the courtroom. When judges confront him about his substantive position, he tiptoes around the real issue and starts talking about procedures and precedents. He cannot bring himself to admit that torture is wrong, yet his demeanor admits it for him. Thus, the contrast between his behavior and his words make him a glaring hypocrite. Only his mechanical legal training prevents him from breaking down altogether. To her credit, Judge Sotomayor showed that she could forgo logic when confronted with fundamental wrong.
She did not sit quietly through this nonsense. No person with a basic sense of justice could have. Yet the Republicans seem to think that speaking out about fundamental injustice makes a judge “out of control.” As soon as a judge departs from vacuous questions about procedure, jurisdiction and statutory authority, she reveals a “poor judicial temperament.” In short, it seems to me that the Republicans want cowardice in a judge. A cowardly judge would allow the Executive to get away with anything. A cowardly judge would resolve a torture case on procedural grounds rather than grapple with fundamental questions of justice. A cowardly judge puts full faith in the “law,” even when the law clearly will not do “right.” A cowardly judge sits by and lets others do the real work later. A daring judge, on the other hand, can at least acknowledge wrong when she sees it and set the country on the right rhetorical path to correct it. I think Judge Sotomayor showed some daring in her exchange with the government’s lawyer in the Arar case.
But in the end, it really comes down to politics. A liberal “daring judge” is a “coward” to conservative eyes, while a conservative “daring judge” is a “coward” to liberal eyes. Here, Judge Sotomayor spoke out about an issue that largely appeals to liberals: The ignominy of torture. Because she spoke out on that issue, liberals label her “daring,” while conservatives call her “out of control.” But if a judge passionately spoke out about an issue dear to conservative hearts, such as “national security,” conservatives would call him “daring,” while liberals would label him “a coward” or “out of control.” Sadly, we see that principle plays nary a role in these judgments. It is simply about who says what, and whether the issue appeals to conservatives or liberals.
Must our judges be cowards? If we adopt conservative rhetoric, judges must be cowards when addressing questions concerning individual rights, dignity and justice. If we adopt liberal rhetoric, judges must be “out-of-control” when addressing questions concerning procedure, unfair power relationships and judicial restraint. If I had to choose, I would prefer a judge to be daring about liberty, dignity, individual rights and justice. Despite all my cynicism and suspicion, I still believe that the Constitution stands for good. I believe that it stands for evolving liberty and gradual improvement in society through advancing principle. I would prefer a judge be passionate about those ideas rather than cowardly and technical. Unfortunately, modern “judicial thought” counsels strongly against “expansive judging” and “unnecessary explications of principle” in court opinions. But why even bother having a Constitution if we do not have daring judges to expand upon the liberties enshrined in it? How do we advance as a society when our own constitutional arbiters take a narrow view on liberty? Should we not expect our jurists to advocate for us, “We the People,” the ones who created the Constitution in the first place? The ones who delegated its authority after the Revolution? If Congress and the President fail us—as I think they did on the torture question in the Bush years—who will speak for us?
I think we should expect our jurists to advocate for us. Judge Sotomayor showed that she at least cares about how our government acts with respect to our rights as citizens in a constitutional system. She recoiled from the suggestion that the Executive can “do whatever it wants” whenever it conjures up a shadowy “national security reason.” In essence, she showed that individuals matter more than the government. That is certainly an advance over Roberts and Alito, who could care less whether government swallows up individuals, or whether innocent people die at the hands of the State. In other words, Judge Sotomayor’s conduct at the Arar argument shows that she cares at least something for justice. In my view, that is an auspicious qualification for serving on the Supreme Court. And among at least four of its current members, it is a qualification sorely lacking.
Having said all this, I am glad I am not a judge. I like thinking for myself, not attempting to shoehorn my beliefs into precedent and prior judgment. Judicial work lends itself to obedience and cowardice far more than it does to daring. After all, judges work with others’ words, not their own. It is hard to be creative when someone else tells you how to paint. I echo Nietzsche on this score. Judicial work is like “dancing in chains.” Menschliches, allzu Menschliches Teil II, Der Wanderer und Sein Schatten Aph. 140 (“For what we call ‘Invention’ [in art] (metric rhyming, for example) is always just another chain that we lay upon ourselves”). Judges constantly imprison themselves in others’ logic and arguments. It is what they do. Yet when some passion escapes the chains, we should embrace it with full hearts.
Monday, April 27, 2009
DEMOCRATS CANNOT HANDLE HOMELAND SECURITY : ONLY REPUBLICANS KNOW HOW TO KEEP AMERICA SAFE
By : Mr. Mitch McConnell, United States Senator (R-KY); Senate Minority Leader; Obama Opponent; Homeland Security Expert; Member, Agriculture Committee.
THE MINORITY VOICE
President Barack Hussein Obama has led this country for 100 torturous days. During that time, the President has made war on the American people by releasing brutal terrorists from our military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He has also eased restrictions on immigration, flooding our land with Spanish-speaking beggars, criminals and litterbugs. Backed by a majority in Congress, Mr. Obama has dismantled the wall his predecessor erected to defend this country from terror and miscreants, both foreign and domestic. Worse, he has put an emphasis on “fair process for all” and a “commitment to constitutional liberty” over security for American women and children. He has staffed the Homeland Security Department with liberal lawyers and law professors, some of whom are practicing Arab-loving homosexuals. He has committed to quitting the fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq. In short, Obama is a national disgrace; Democrats do not know anything about Homeland Security. As Republicans, we have a duty to protect America. And to protect America during the Obama era, we must strongly oppose anything he does, says or thinks. It is the only way to protect America’s children from terror attacks.
Our Founding Fathers knew that an elected democratic majority could be just as tyrannical as an unelected King. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wrote at length about the dangers inherent in “small majorities.” They knew that a “small majority” could trample on very significant minority interests. For that reason, they provided such measures as the veto override mechanism, the constitutional amendment procedure and the bicameral legislature. They also embodied their commitment to minority rights through parliamentary procedures such as the filibuster, which allows the minority to stop small majorities from voting on key issues. Today, Republicans have a duty to invoke these procedures against Obama and his socialist-terrorist allies. When it comes to national security, Democrats prefer to shake hands with terrorist scum rather than detain, waterboard and kill them. When Republicans see turbans, we shoot; we don’t ask questions. This is the approach we need to defend America. It makes no sense to talk to Arabs; there is no such thing as “friendly relations” with terrorists. George W. Bush understood that.
In 2001, George W. Bush established the Homeland Security Department in order to protect this Nation from all enemies. In the beginning, Mr. Tom Ridge led the bureau. Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Ridge knew that old-fashioned ideas like due process, liberty, privacy, access to counsel, the right to remain silent and fair trials would not defeat terror in the 21st Century. For that reason, the Department suspended civil liberties in order to catch the bad guys. That was the right decision; after 9/11 America enjoyed seven years without terror. We caught many, many bad guys, although national security protocols forbid me from disclosing their names or how many we caught. We foiled many plots, although I cannot say what they were or how many. Despite all the criticism, Mr. Bush proved that his approach to Homeland Security was the right one.
Now the Democrats control the Homeland Security Department. This is the ultimate irony. During Mr. Bush’s term, the Democrats opposed everything the Department did. They said it trampled on civil liberties and increased Executive power. They said it harassed law-abiding citizens and perpetuated ethnic stereotypes. They said the Department did nothing to protect America; rather, they said it simply increased the President’s power to detain citizens without grounding in law. Of course, these Democrats fail to see that the Department did stop terror. The Department did protect America. The Department seized millions of gallons of contraband shampoo at airport security lines. It made tens of millions of Americans and foreigners remove their shoes and flip-flops. It inconvenienced millions of travelers who had no connection whatsoever to al Qaeda. It forced millions of Americans to take off their clothing and submit to searches without probable cause. It even listened in on millions of innocent phone conversations without court authorization, in many cases uncovering other, minor crimes in the process. Those measures doubtlessly foiled a would-be bomber. In any event, they allowed authorities to track down marijuana sellers and petty thieves. Most importantly, they sent a clear message: America takes security seriously. If America is willing to strip-search normal-looking white citizens for no reason, then certainly an Arab would know that he could not move about freely without attracting attention. Homeland Security reduced America’s privacy; and that was a good thing. If it came between safety and privacy, we would take safety every time. The 9/11 plotters conspired in private. Can I be any clearer on my point that privacy is dangerous? Thanks to the Department’s disrespect for both privacy and the Constitution, we lived in a safe society.
Not anymore. Democrats in the Homeland Security Department have already begun easing restrictions established under President Bush. Rather than viewing every American as a potential terrorist, Democrats assume that all Americans are good and peaceful. They no longer eavesdrop on random phone conversations. They allow Americans to travel with hair gel, personal lubricants, shoe polish, water bottles, shampoo and conditioner. They even smile and say: “Welcome to O’Hare International Airport!” to brown people wearing Muslim headdress, veils and Mohammedan robes. Rather than suspecting Arabs, they apologize for them and send them on their way without a boarding pass. They treat everyone with “decency and respect for constitutional liberty.” They say they want to “restore faith in the Constitution” after President Bush’s “abuses.”
This is no way to run a government. A President has one overriding duty: To protect the American people at all costs. President Obama and his Homeland Security Department mock that duty. Now, they view Americans with compassion and respect, not suspicion and rancor. They follow constitutional procedures and the Bill of Rights; they no longer hold terror suspects without cause or counsel. These idiots! We do not protect America by giving everyone liberty. We protect America by imprisoning the bad guys. Although we Republicans believe in the Constitution, we regard it the way it should be regarded: As optional advice. It would be really nice if we could give everyone habeas corpus and obtain warrants before searching them. But we would leave this country open to attack if we did. If we followed the Constitution—as President Obama suggests—our entire government would break down. Worse, terrorists, hoodlums and immigrants would overwhelm our borders, disturbing business and commerce. If torture, indefinite detainment, unlawful searches and eavesdropping protect this country from Muslims, we say: “Give us torture, indefinite detainment, unlawful searches and eavesdropping.” Good citizens have nothing to hide. In the 21st Century, we face many dangers. We believe that liberty is for criminals and terrorists. In that light, we believe that Mr. Obama and his soft-hearted Homeland Security Department are leading us down the path to ruin.
Democrats could not protect their own mothers, let alone the United States of America. They are a bunch of weak-willed, overintellectual cowards who would rather give an insane beggar welfare than tell him to get a job, get moving and get over it. They cannot even protect America from flu-infected pigs in Ohio and New York, let alone from terrorists in Pakistan. Some lesbian in the Homeland Security Department said yesterday: “We must accord proper respect for the dignity of the livestock before rushing to judgment about their health status.” This is Democratic rule for you: They would rather respect a hog’s rights than protect America from disease. Well, we are glad to provide the minority voice about security. When Republicans see a diseased hog, they do not worry about its “health status” or “dignity.” They kill it and bury it faster than you can say: “Don Rumsfeld.” The same goes for terrorists. When we see a terrorist, we do not worry about constitutional liberty or “proper interrogation procedures.” We lock the towelhead up, waterboard him and throw away the key. If some lesbian ACLU lawyer makes a fuss about it, we might let an Army Colonel look into his case. But if not, it’s Game Over for Habib. Democrats say we disparage the principles that define America. We say those principles don’t apply to terrorists. That’s the difference.
We are committed to preserving democracy in America. For that reason, we will resist every Democratic effort to weaken procedures intended to sniff out terrorists, criminals and immigrants. George W. Bush knew that following the Constitution would not protect this Nation in the 21st Century. When Republicans controlled Congress, they certified the President’s belief by eradicating basic liberties in order to bolster security. Now, the Democrats are determined to reverse our work. We will resist to the last man. We would rather die than see every American treated with respect and dignity. We would rather die than follow the Constitution in every case. We will not “cooperate” or “compromise” when it comes to protecting our children from Muslims and liberal university professors. We will not “go along with the program” to increase free speech rights or abolish domestic warrantless wiretaps. No, we are determined to hold the line against liberty, because liberty is dangerous.
In a word, President Obama is playing with fire. He thinks he is defending liberty and principle. He thinks he is restoring America’s honor because he says that President Bush tarnished our image abroad. In fact, he is opening the door to terror attacks, anarchy, discord and moral rot. And who gives a flying fuck what Europe thinks of us? As long as the good people of Kentucky support me, I am happy. I don’t give a shit what the Parisians or Belgians think. Yet Mr. Obama would rather placate some communist in Holland than protect the American people from ruthless Arab suicide bombers. He would rather give the Iraqis wedding cake and free champagne than kill them once and for all. Screw free elections; let’s just kill all of them and be done with it. Who really cares whether some Iraqi goatherder votes for another Iraqi goatherder to represent him in a sham parliament? I certainly don’t. This is the Republican way, and these are the values we intend to serve in Congress as long as the Democratic dictatorship continues: Security over liberty; peace over the Constitution; commerce over dignity; privilege over rights; suspicion and rancor over reconciliation and cooperation. We will not work with the Democrats. To the contrary, we will seek to scuttle every single legislative initiative they put forward.
We look forward to resisting the Democrats. Although we would much rather hold a majority in Congress, it is quite fun to simply sit back and whine about everything the Democrats do. After all, we are not really obligated to do anything. We do not have the votes to pass what we want, so why not have some fun and just frustrate everything the Democrats try to pull? In the process, we can stand up and rail about security and our values. We are the minority voice. We will be heard. And we will never trust a Muslim, no matter how well-dressed, well-educated or well-meaning. He’s just another terrorist, and he can stick our Constitution where the sun shineth not. It wasn’t even written for him, anyway. Despite all this, we worry about this Nation with Democrats running the Homeland Security Department. Before you know it, they will be inviting Osama bin Laden and his children to Chuck E. Cheese® for pizza, beer and a kumbaya singing session with Nancy Pelosi.
This is Homeland Security in the Age of Obama. We want no part of it. Nonetheless, we still have a Second Amendment. If the Homeland Security Department cannot protect our children, then we will do it ourselves with our own rifles, pistols and shotguns. In America, we know how to defend hearth and home. And we will.
THE MINORITY VOICE
President Barack Hussein Obama has led this country for 100 torturous days. During that time, the President has made war on the American people by releasing brutal terrorists from our military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He has also eased restrictions on immigration, flooding our land with Spanish-speaking beggars, criminals and litterbugs. Backed by a majority in Congress, Mr. Obama has dismantled the wall his predecessor erected to defend this country from terror and miscreants, both foreign and domestic. Worse, he has put an emphasis on “fair process for all” and a “commitment to constitutional liberty” over security for American women and children. He has staffed the Homeland Security Department with liberal lawyers and law professors, some of whom are practicing Arab-loving homosexuals. He has committed to quitting the fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq. In short, Obama is a national disgrace; Democrats do not know anything about Homeland Security. As Republicans, we have a duty to protect America. And to protect America during the Obama era, we must strongly oppose anything he does, says or thinks. It is the only way to protect America’s children from terror attacks.
Our Founding Fathers knew that an elected democratic majority could be just as tyrannical as an unelected King. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wrote at length about the dangers inherent in “small majorities.” They knew that a “small majority” could trample on very significant minority interests. For that reason, they provided such measures as the veto override mechanism, the constitutional amendment procedure and the bicameral legislature. They also embodied their commitment to minority rights through parliamentary procedures such as the filibuster, which allows the minority to stop small majorities from voting on key issues. Today, Republicans have a duty to invoke these procedures against Obama and his socialist-terrorist allies. When it comes to national security, Democrats prefer to shake hands with terrorist scum rather than detain, waterboard and kill them. When Republicans see turbans, we shoot; we don’t ask questions. This is the approach we need to defend America. It makes no sense to talk to Arabs; there is no such thing as “friendly relations” with terrorists. George W. Bush understood that.
In 2001, George W. Bush established the Homeland Security Department in order to protect this Nation from all enemies. In the beginning, Mr. Tom Ridge led the bureau. Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Ridge knew that old-fashioned ideas like due process, liberty, privacy, access to counsel, the right to remain silent and fair trials would not defeat terror in the 21st Century. For that reason, the Department suspended civil liberties in order to catch the bad guys. That was the right decision; after 9/11 America enjoyed seven years without terror. We caught many, many bad guys, although national security protocols forbid me from disclosing their names or how many we caught. We foiled many plots, although I cannot say what they were or how many. Despite all the criticism, Mr. Bush proved that his approach to Homeland Security was the right one.
Now the Democrats control the Homeland Security Department. This is the ultimate irony. During Mr. Bush’s term, the Democrats opposed everything the Department did. They said it trampled on civil liberties and increased Executive power. They said it harassed law-abiding citizens and perpetuated ethnic stereotypes. They said the Department did nothing to protect America; rather, they said it simply increased the President’s power to detain citizens without grounding in law. Of course, these Democrats fail to see that the Department did stop terror. The Department did protect America. The Department seized millions of gallons of contraband shampoo at airport security lines. It made tens of millions of Americans and foreigners remove their shoes and flip-flops. It inconvenienced millions of travelers who had no connection whatsoever to al Qaeda. It forced millions of Americans to take off their clothing and submit to searches without probable cause. It even listened in on millions of innocent phone conversations without court authorization, in many cases uncovering other, minor crimes in the process. Those measures doubtlessly foiled a would-be bomber. In any event, they allowed authorities to track down marijuana sellers and petty thieves. Most importantly, they sent a clear message: America takes security seriously. If America is willing to strip-search normal-looking white citizens for no reason, then certainly an Arab would know that he could not move about freely without attracting attention. Homeland Security reduced America’s privacy; and that was a good thing. If it came between safety and privacy, we would take safety every time. The 9/11 plotters conspired in private. Can I be any clearer on my point that privacy is dangerous? Thanks to the Department’s disrespect for both privacy and the Constitution, we lived in a safe society.
Not anymore. Democrats in the Homeland Security Department have already begun easing restrictions established under President Bush. Rather than viewing every American as a potential terrorist, Democrats assume that all Americans are good and peaceful. They no longer eavesdrop on random phone conversations. They allow Americans to travel with hair gel, personal lubricants, shoe polish, water bottles, shampoo and conditioner. They even smile and say: “Welcome to O’Hare International Airport!” to brown people wearing Muslim headdress, veils and Mohammedan robes. Rather than suspecting Arabs, they apologize for them and send them on their way without a boarding pass. They treat everyone with “decency and respect for constitutional liberty.” They say they want to “restore faith in the Constitution” after President Bush’s “abuses.”
This is no way to run a government. A President has one overriding duty: To protect the American people at all costs. President Obama and his Homeland Security Department mock that duty. Now, they view Americans with compassion and respect, not suspicion and rancor. They follow constitutional procedures and the Bill of Rights; they no longer hold terror suspects without cause or counsel. These idiots! We do not protect America by giving everyone liberty. We protect America by imprisoning the bad guys. Although we Republicans believe in the Constitution, we regard it the way it should be regarded: As optional advice. It would be really nice if we could give everyone habeas corpus and obtain warrants before searching them. But we would leave this country open to attack if we did. If we followed the Constitution—as President Obama suggests—our entire government would break down. Worse, terrorists, hoodlums and immigrants would overwhelm our borders, disturbing business and commerce. If torture, indefinite detainment, unlawful searches and eavesdropping protect this country from Muslims, we say: “Give us torture, indefinite detainment, unlawful searches and eavesdropping.” Good citizens have nothing to hide. In the 21st Century, we face many dangers. We believe that liberty is for criminals and terrorists. In that light, we believe that Mr. Obama and his soft-hearted Homeland Security Department are leading us down the path to ruin.
Democrats could not protect their own mothers, let alone the United States of America. They are a bunch of weak-willed, overintellectual cowards who would rather give an insane beggar welfare than tell him to get a job, get moving and get over it. They cannot even protect America from flu-infected pigs in Ohio and New York, let alone from terrorists in Pakistan. Some lesbian in the Homeland Security Department said yesterday: “We must accord proper respect for the dignity of the livestock before rushing to judgment about their health status.” This is Democratic rule for you: They would rather respect a hog’s rights than protect America from disease. Well, we are glad to provide the minority voice about security. When Republicans see a diseased hog, they do not worry about its “health status” or “dignity.” They kill it and bury it faster than you can say: “Don Rumsfeld.” The same goes for terrorists. When we see a terrorist, we do not worry about constitutional liberty or “proper interrogation procedures.” We lock the towelhead up, waterboard him and throw away the key. If some lesbian ACLU lawyer makes a fuss about it, we might let an Army Colonel look into his case. But if not, it’s Game Over for Habib. Democrats say we disparage the principles that define America. We say those principles don’t apply to terrorists. That’s the difference.
We are committed to preserving democracy in America. For that reason, we will resist every Democratic effort to weaken procedures intended to sniff out terrorists, criminals and immigrants. George W. Bush knew that following the Constitution would not protect this Nation in the 21st Century. When Republicans controlled Congress, they certified the President’s belief by eradicating basic liberties in order to bolster security. Now, the Democrats are determined to reverse our work. We will resist to the last man. We would rather die than see every American treated with respect and dignity. We would rather die than follow the Constitution in every case. We will not “cooperate” or “compromise” when it comes to protecting our children from Muslims and liberal university professors. We will not “go along with the program” to increase free speech rights or abolish domestic warrantless wiretaps. No, we are determined to hold the line against liberty, because liberty is dangerous.
In a word, President Obama is playing with fire. He thinks he is defending liberty and principle. He thinks he is restoring America’s honor because he says that President Bush tarnished our image abroad. In fact, he is opening the door to terror attacks, anarchy, discord and moral rot. And who gives a flying fuck what Europe thinks of us? As long as the good people of Kentucky support me, I am happy. I don’t give a shit what the Parisians or Belgians think. Yet Mr. Obama would rather placate some communist in Holland than protect the American people from ruthless Arab suicide bombers. He would rather give the Iraqis wedding cake and free champagne than kill them once and for all. Screw free elections; let’s just kill all of them and be done with it. Who really cares whether some Iraqi goatherder votes for another Iraqi goatherder to represent him in a sham parliament? I certainly don’t. This is the Republican way, and these are the values we intend to serve in Congress as long as the Democratic dictatorship continues: Security over liberty; peace over the Constitution; commerce over dignity; privilege over rights; suspicion and rancor over reconciliation and cooperation. We will not work with the Democrats. To the contrary, we will seek to scuttle every single legislative initiative they put forward.
We look forward to resisting the Democrats. Although we would much rather hold a majority in Congress, it is quite fun to simply sit back and whine about everything the Democrats do. After all, we are not really obligated to do anything. We do not have the votes to pass what we want, so why not have some fun and just frustrate everything the Democrats try to pull? In the process, we can stand up and rail about security and our values. We are the minority voice. We will be heard. And we will never trust a Muslim, no matter how well-dressed, well-educated or well-meaning. He’s just another terrorist, and he can stick our Constitution where the sun shineth not. It wasn’t even written for him, anyway. Despite all this, we worry about this Nation with Democrats running the Homeland Security Department. Before you know it, they will be inviting Osama bin Laden and his children to Chuck E. Cheese® for pizza, beer and a kumbaya singing session with Nancy Pelosi.
This is Homeland Security in the Age of Obama. We want no part of it. Nonetheless, we still have a Second Amendment. If the Homeland Security Department cannot protect our children, then we will do it ourselves with our own rifles, pistols and shotguns. In America, we know how to defend hearth and home. And we will.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
OUR PROUD COLONIAL TRADITIONS : WHAT IS THE SUPREME COURT THINKING?
.jpg)
AN ESSAY
Justice Antonin Scalia fancies himself an “originalist.” In other words, he interprets the United States Constitution as men understood it at the time it was written, whether in 1787 or at the time each Amendment was ratified. In essence, Scalia fossilizes his interpretive craft. In case after case, he praises the “Framers” for their wisdom. Even if he disagrees with some archaic provisions in the text, he implicitly praises the “Framers” by refusing to take a principled stand against outdated values. Scalia—along with his adherents Justice Thomas, Justice Alito and to some measure, Chief Justice Roberts—basically fetishizes this Nation’s Founding Era. They look the to “Framers” as the source of all wisdom and constitutional truth, imputing to them foresight, strength and eternal relevance to modern-day affairs. In so doing, they fetishize men whose values would shock us today. These “jurists” are caught in a “value time warp.” Rather than engage in meaningful dialogue concerning contemporary social questions and their relationship to constitutional order, these backward-looking “scholars” fix their gaze on 1787.
What is so special about men who lived in 1787? Were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison really smarter, more noble and more clairvoyant than people living today? It is quite difficult to say. Yet so much mythology surrounds these men that it is nearly impossible to fault them for anything. But if we dare to slice through myth and look hard at values, we might not like the image we see. I do not deny that the United States Constitution embodies many great principles. It was revolutionary for its day; it replaced a living sovereign with a paper one. Nonetheless, it contained monumental flaws, too. And it tacitly underscored values that would horrify an average man today.
But Justice Scalia and his minions are hypnotized. They mindlessly accept most founding values without a second thought. They constantly “look to the Framers” for guidance. While the “Framers” may help us understand how to read 18th Century English, they should not instruct 21st Century Americans how to understand their own values. Justice Scalia has publicly said that people misunderstand his originalism. He says he “believes in Democracy,” and that his own values have “nothing to do with constitutional interpretation.” Rather, he says, the Constitution provides an overall structure for government, and if the people have not spoken on an issue, then the Constitution controls as it was originally written. Quite simply, the people have not spoken on many issues; it is purposely difficult to amend the Constitution. See U.S. Const. Art. V. This leaves plenty of room for interpretation on murky questions. On these questions, according to Justice Scalia’s formulation, “the original text” should control—along with all its colonial-era values.
Why is this troublesome? What is wrong with “colonial-era values?” In popular understanding, Americans romanticize colonial-era values in much the same way they romanticize the “Framers.” When Americans think about the colonial era, they think about “freedom,” the “Boston Tea Party,” “patriotism,” “The Declaration of Independence,” “self-determination,” “ambition,” “liberty,” and the “pursuit of happiness.” True, these values motivated men in colonial era. But men at this time had values we would prefer to forget, too. They executed virtually everyone for any crime, no matter how minor. They enslaved Africans and butchered Native Americans. These were perfectly legitimate values at the time. They existed alongside the quest for “freedom of the press,” and “representative government.” This is not to say that the “Framers” were bad. It is merely to say that they had very different values than Americans have today. In fact, there is no way to compare life in the 18th Century to life today. Even the English language was different. English speakers used “f” to mean “s;” they spelled words differently. A “hanger” meant a “sword” and a “strand” meant a “beach.” Is it any surprise that our “jurists” on the Supreme Court have difficulty divining meaning in a text written in this antiquated English? Whom can they really consult to understand it? Every generation uses language differently. With each passing generation, it becomes increasingly difficult to decipher the words of earlier ones. Try reading Shakespeare and you get the point. Yet in constitutional interpretation, the stakes are higher than in paraphrasing Macbeth. In short, it is hard enough to understand constitutional language. And mimicking 18th Century values underlying that language is a fool’s quest.
All this makes little sense without an example. I say that four members of our Supreme Court are caught in a “value time warp” that fetishizes 18th Century ideals. Consider Baze v. Rees (2008), the case in which Chief Justice Roberts, for a Court majority, concluded that Kentucky’s lethal injection execution “protocol” did not amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment (“…nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”). Under that “protocol,” the State administers three drugs: one tranquilizes the prisoner, the second paralyzes his muscles and the third stops his heart. The prisoner argued that the first drug sometimes does not fully tranquilize the condemned, then the second drug causes excruciating pain. But no one notices the prisoner’s plight because it paralyzes all his muscles, making it impossible for him to speak or even move his eyelids. The Court rejected this evidence, concluding that the “chance” of an insufficient first dose did not render the entire procedure “unnecessarily cruel.” For its part, the Court said that punishments are “cruel” if they are “intended to result in unnecessary pain,” “involve torture or a lingering death,” or are otherwise “inhuman and barbarous.” If an execution method, viewed in the abstract, is not “sure or very likely” to result in “needless suffering,” then it is not “cruel,” even if safer alternatives may be imagined.
In essence, then, punishments will never violate the Eighth Amendment if they are not calculated to inflict “needless pain” on the prisoner. The focus lies upon the execution method in the abstract. The question is not application; the question is intention: Does the State want to inflict “torture or a lingering death” on the prisoner? If the answer is “no” to the “intent” question, the execution method will survive constitutional scrutiny.
In crafting its “analysis” in this case, the Supreme Court looked to the “Framers.” What did they understand to mean “cruel and unusual punishment?” Chief Justice Roberts was unwilling to use his own conscience to define the word “cruel,” even in the face of evidence that numerous prisoners had suffered unnecessarily before dying at the State’s hands. No, it did not matter what the Chief Justice thought “cruel” meant in 2008; it mattered what the “Framers” thought “cruel” meant in 1791. Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito happily concurred in the Chief’s allegiance to 18th Century ideals. Justice Thomas pointed out that the Court had never struck down any challenged execution method, including hanging, the firing squad and the electric chair. Each of those methods was “intended” to bring about the “mere extinguishment of life,” and according to 18th Century thought on that question, that “intent” was enough to remove it from constitutional scrutiny. In the 18th Century, “cruel” punishments were intended to inflict “slow, agonizing” torture on the prisoner, “superadding” terror to inevitable death. Baze v. Rees (2008), Slip. Op. at p. 68 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment), quoting Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1769). Only “hanging drawing and quartering” (i.e., live castration and disembowelment, then beheading and mutilation) would have violated this definition. Anything else would have passed the “cruel” test under “18th Century values.” Hanging? No problem—it is “intended to cause only death.” Burning? No problem—it is “intended to cause only death.” Firing squad? No problem—it is “intended to cause only death.” Electrocution? Certainly no problem—it is “intended to cause only death,” even if it does not kill you on the first zap. Under this analysis, the question is not the application; it is the method alone.
“Cruel” meant something entirely different to the “Framers” than it should mean to a 21st Century citizen. Frankly, I find it indefensible to categorically stand behind 18th Century values on this issue. No matter how much we extol our colonial forebears, we should look a little more closely into history before adopting their values wholesale. Put simply, we would likely recoil when we hear what passed for “normal” in colonial America. I found a passage this morning in an old history book (Historic Mansions and Highways Around Boston at pp. 169-170 (Samuel Adams Drake 1899)) that encapsulates everything wrong with 18th Century values. According to the book, in 1749, three “negro house servants” allegedly poisoned their master, Captain John Codman, “a respectable citizen and active military officer.” To conceal the crime, they allegedly set fire to his house, attracting suspicion and leading to their arrests. One servant testified against the other two. One was burned alive. The other was hanged, then put on public display—or “gibbeted”—“on the northerly side of Cambridge Road, now Washington Street, a little west and very near the stone quarry now there.” Id. The man’s rotting corpse was allowed to publicly decompose until “just before the Revolution” in 1775—26 years.
Was this “cruel” in 18th Century America? Apparently, no one in Boston really cared that the State burned one black man and hanged another in a tree for 26 years. Perhaps such penalties would have aroused some outcry if practiced upon white colonists. But should that matter? What does it say about 18th Century values if citizens—in the North, no less—did not speak out in disgust against such savage governmental conduct? We gain insights here into what passed for “normal” in the 18th Century. We begin to see how people really “thought” about issues at the time. In this example, we see two things. First, we see a value system that universally treated Africans as an inferior race. The fact that the law dealt so harshly with African “criminals” reveals that contemporary values judged their crime a “revolt against the natural order,” namely “service to their white masters.” Second, we see a value system that did not wink at brutal punishments. In 18th Century America, the State readily meted out death. It burned people. It clapped dead bodies in chains and displayed them for decades. Put simply, we see a value system that viewed race and death in a completely different light than ours does.
Should we so valiantly defend these values, then? It is easy to selectively glean values from our “founding Fathers” without remembering how very different they were. It is even easier to simply say that the “Framers knew best” and now deserve special intellectual indulgences because “they wrote the Constitution.” I venture that this is both foolish and dangerous. We should be skeptical of “18th Century values” because they have a very troubling “dark side.” They include far more than the “good stuff” we learn about in 8th Grade American history classes. And we should never elevate them to guiding principles on matters of broad contemporary importance, such as the death penalty or race. It is no answer to say: “Until the Constitution is changed, I will continue to apply the words as people understood them at the time.” In my view, it does not require much courage to refuse to follow values that condoned burning black men without a trial and public displaying their corpses for 26 years. In fact, I find it perverse to defend a value system that tolerated such atrocities. Yet this is precisely what the “originalists” do. In perpetuating their categorical love affair with colonial values, they put themselves in a regressive—and absurd—intellectual position.
To be blunt, we cannot go back to 1787. If the “originalists” really understood how people acted in those days, I doubt they would want to, either, especially Justice Thomas. We can look to history for clarifications from time to time. But we should never simply blindly imitate ancient values when resolving contemporary problems.
Justice Antonin Scalia fancies himself an “originalist.” In other words, he interprets the United States Constitution as men understood it at the time it was written, whether in 1787 or at the time each Amendment was ratified. In essence, Scalia fossilizes his interpretive craft. In case after case, he praises the “Framers” for their wisdom. Even if he disagrees with some archaic provisions in the text, he implicitly praises the “Framers” by refusing to take a principled stand against outdated values. Scalia—along with his adherents Justice Thomas, Justice Alito and to some measure, Chief Justice Roberts—basically fetishizes this Nation’s Founding Era. They look the to “Framers” as the source of all wisdom and constitutional truth, imputing to them foresight, strength and eternal relevance to modern-day affairs. In so doing, they fetishize men whose values would shock us today. These “jurists” are caught in a “value time warp.” Rather than engage in meaningful dialogue concerning contemporary social questions and their relationship to constitutional order, these backward-looking “scholars” fix their gaze on 1787.
What is so special about men who lived in 1787? Were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison really smarter, more noble and more clairvoyant than people living today? It is quite difficult to say. Yet so much mythology surrounds these men that it is nearly impossible to fault them for anything. But if we dare to slice through myth and look hard at values, we might not like the image we see. I do not deny that the United States Constitution embodies many great principles. It was revolutionary for its day; it replaced a living sovereign with a paper one. Nonetheless, it contained monumental flaws, too. And it tacitly underscored values that would horrify an average man today.
But Justice Scalia and his minions are hypnotized. They mindlessly accept most founding values without a second thought. They constantly “look to the Framers” for guidance. While the “Framers” may help us understand how to read 18th Century English, they should not instruct 21st Century Americans how to understand their own values. Justice Scalia has publicly said that people misunderstand his originalism. He says he “believes in Democracy,” and that his own values have “nothing to do with constitutional interpretation.” Rather, he says, the Constitution provides an overall structure for government, and if the people have not spoken on an issue, then the Constitution controls as it was originally written. Quite simply, the people have not spoken on many issues; it is purposely difficult to amend the Constitution. See U.S. Const. Art. V. This leaves plenty of room for interpretation on murky questions. On these questions, according to Justice Scalia’s formulation, “the original text” should control—along with all its colonial-era values.
Why is this troublesome? What is wrong with “colonial-era values?” In popular understanding, Americans romanticize colonial-era values in much the same way they romanticize the “Framers.” When Americans think about the colonial era, they think about “freedom,” the “Boston Tea Party,” “patriotism,” “The Declaration of Independence,” “self-determination,” “ambition,” “liberty,” and the “pursuit of happiness.” True, these values motivated men in colonial era. But men at this time had values we would prefer to forget, too. They executed virtually everyone for any crime, no matter how minor. They enslaved Africans and butchered Native Americans. These were perfectly legitimate values at the time. They existed alongside the quest for “freedom of the press,” and “representative government.” This is not to say that the “Framers” were bad. It is merely to say that they had very different values than Americans have today. In fact, there is no way to compare life in the 18th Century to life today. Even the English language was different. English speakers used “f” to mean “s;” they spelled words differently. A “hanger” meant a “sword” and a “strand” meant a “beach.” Is it any surprise that our “jurists” on the Supreme Court have difficulty divining meaning in a text written in this antiquated English? Whom can they really consult to understand it? Every generation uses language differently. With each passing generation, it becomes increasingly difficult to decipher the words of earlier ones. Try reading Shakespeare and you get the point. Yet in constitutional interpretation, the stakes are higher than in paraphrasing Macbeth. In short, it is hard enough to understand constitutional language. And mimicking 18th Century values underlying that language is a fool’s quest.
All this makes little sense without an example. I say that four members of our Supreme Court are caught in a “value time warp” that fetishizes 18th Century ideals. Consider Baze v. Rees (2008), the case in which Chief Justice Roberts, for a Court majority, concluded that Kentucky’s lethal injection execution “protocol” did not amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment (“…nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”). Under that “protocol,” the State administers three drugs: one tranquilizes the prisoner, the second paralyzes his muscles and the third stops his heart. The prisoner argued that the first drug sometimes does not fully tranquilize the condemned, then the second drug causes excruciating pain. But no one notices the prisoner’s plight because it paralyzes all his muscles, making it impossible for him to speak or even move his eyelids. The Court rejected this evidence, concluding that the “chance” of an insufficient first dose did not render the entire procedure “unnecessarily cruel.” For its part, the Court said that punishments are “cruel” if they are “intended to result in unnecessary pain,” “involve torture or a lingering death,” or are otherwise “inhuman and barbarous.” If an execution method, viewed in the abstract, is not “sure or very likely” to result in “needless suffering,” then it is not “cruel,” even if safer alternatives may be imagined.
In essence, then, punishments will never violate the Eighth Amendment if they are not calculated to inflict “needless pain” on the prisoner. The focus lies upon the execution method in the abstract. The question is not application; the question is intention: Does the State want to inflict “torture or a lingering death” on the prisoner? If the answer is “no” to the “intent” question, the execution method will survive constitutional scrutiny.
In crafting its “analysis” in this case, the Supreme Court looked to the “Framers.” What did they understand to mean “cruel and unusual punishment?” Chief Justice Roberts was unwilling to use his own conscience to define the word “cruel,” even in the face of evidence that numerous prisoners had suffered unnecessarily before dying at the State’s hands. No, it did not matter what the Chief Justice thought “cruel” meant in 2008; it mattered what the “Framers” thought “cruel” meant in 1791. Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito happily concurred in the Chief’s allegiance to 18th Century ideals. Justice Thomas pointed out that the Court had never struck down any challenged execution method, including hanging, the firing squad and the electric chair. Each of those methods was “intended” to bring about the “mere extinguishment of life,” and according to 18th Century thought on that question, that “intent” was enough to remove it from constitutional scrutiny. In the 18th Century, “cruel” punishments were intended to inflict “slow, agonizing” torture on the prisoner, “superadding” terror to inevitable death. Baze v. Rees (2008), Slip. Op. at p. 68 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment), quoting Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1769). Only “hanging drawing and quartering” (i.e., live castration and disembowelment, then beheading and mutilation) would have violated this definition. Anything else would have passed the “cruel” test under “18th Century values.” Hanging? No problem—it is “intended to cause only death.” Burning? No problem—it is “intended to cause only death.” Firing squad? No problem—it is “intended to cause only death.” Electrocution? Certainly no problem—it is “intended to cause only death,” even if it does not kill you on the first zap. Under this analysis, the question is not the application; it is the method alone.
“Cruel” meant something entirely different to the “Framers” than it should mean to a 21st Century citizen. Frankly, I find it indefensible to categorically stand behind 18th Century values on this issue. No matter how much we extol our colonial forebears, we should look a little more closely into history before adopting their values wholesale. Put simply, we would likely recoil when we hear what passed for “normal” in colonial America. I found a passage this morning in an old history book (Historic Mansions and Highways Around Boston at pp. 169-170 (Samuel Adams Drake 1899)) that encapsulates everything wrong with 18th Century values. According to the book, in 1749, three “negro house servants” allegedly poisoned their master, Captain John Codman, “a respectable citizen and active military officer.” To conceal the crime, they allegedly set fire to his house, attracting suspicion and leading to their arrests. One servant testified against the other two. One was burned alive. The other was hanged, then put on public display—or “gibbeted”—“on the northerly side of Cambridge Road, now Washington Street, a little west and very near the stone quarry now there.” Id. The man’s rotting corpse was allowed to publicly decompose until “just before the Revolution” in 1775—26 years.
Was this “cruel” in 18th Century America? Apparently, no one in Boston really cared that the State burned one black man and hanged another in a tree for 26 years. Perhaps such penalties would have aroused some outcry if practiced upon white colonists. But should that matter? What does it say about 18th Century values if citizens—in the North, no less—did not speak out in disgust against such savage governmental conduct? We gain insights here into what passed for “normal” in the 18th Century. We begin to see how people really “thought” about issues at the time. In this example, we see two things. First, we see a value system that universally treated Africans as an inferior race. The fact that the law dealt so harshly with African “criminals” reveals that contemporary values judged their crime a “revolt against the natural order,” namely “service to their white masters.” Second, we see a value system that did not wink at brutal punishments. In 18th Century America, the State readily meted out death. It burned people. It clapped dead bodies in chains and displayed them for decades. Put simply, we see a value system that viewed race and death in a completely different light than ours does.
Should we so valiantly defend these values, then? It is easy to selectively glean values from our “founding Fathers” without remembering how very different they were. It is even easier to simply say that the “Framers knew best” and now deserve special intellectual indulgences because “they wrote the Constitution.” I venture that this is both foolish and dangerous. We should be skeptical of “18th Century values” because they have a very troubling “dark side.” They include far more than the “good stuff” we learn about in 8th Grade American history classes. And we should never elevate them to guiding principles on matters of broad contemporary importance, such as the death penalty or race. It is no answer to say: “Until the Constitution is changed, I will continue to apply the words as people understood them at the time.” In my view, it does not require much courage to refuse to follow values that condoned burning black men without a trial and public displaying their corpses for 26 years. In fact, I find it perverse to defend a value system that tolerated such atrocities. Yet this is precisely what the “originalists” do. In perpetuating their categorical love affair with colonial values, they put themselves in a regressive—and absurd—intellectual position.
To be blunt, we cannot go back to 1787. If the “originalists” really understood how people acted in those days, I doubt they would want to, either, especially Justice Thomas. We can look to history for clarifications from time to time. But we should never simply blindly imitate ancient values when resolving contemporary problems.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
TOP SECRET MEMO TO THE PRESIDENT
TO : George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.
FROM : Richard B. Cheney, Secure Location in the Eastern Hemisphere
RE : Dawn Johnsen & National Security
This memo is to advise that the incoming 44th President, Barack "Hussein" Obama, intends to appoint Ms. Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. This is a national security threat. I recommend strong action.
A. BACKGROUND
Dawn Johnsen is a law professor at the Indiana University School of Law. She has communist, feminist, Islamist and terrorist tendencies. She says she respects the "Constitution and the rule of law," but in fact she is an insurgent. Over the last few years, she has written numerous "internet articles" revealing her view that you have "gone too far as President," that I am part of the so-called "unitary Executive" and that we both have "trampled on liberty." Obviously she is an abortion supporter, too. As you can see, we're dealing with a hammer-and-sickle ideologue here with no idea about national security issues.
It gets worse. Ms. Johnsen will be joining an influential department in the upcoming "negro administration." She will write memos that urge "Hussein" to undo all of our work. She will tell him to lift wiretaps and dismantle our foreign interrogation centers, including the torture chambers in Poland. She even has told Hussein to close down Guantanamo because our detainment policies "violate the Constitution." In our administration, constitutional violations were just a nuisance to be ignored. They were everyday business. Now this communist wants to somehow make the Constitution important again.
Ms. Johnsen intends to target us after we leave the White House. She says she wants "full disclosure" about everything we did since 2001 in order to "restore national honor and human decency" to Presidential discourse. Basically, we're dealing with an estrogen-pumped socialist bitch on wheels here, Mr. President. She is going to make the Watergate tapes look like Sesame Street re-runs. After all, we didn't talk about "third-rate burglaries;" we talked about invading another country knowing that we lied to the American people about weapons of mass destruction. Luckily, our conversations were never taped, and we still have time to burn all our files. I would not worry about prosecution. My men are handling the evidence problem, so sleep easy.
Ms. Johnsen is dead wrong. She thinks our policies "damaged national honor and human dignity." We did what was necessary to protect freedom. The fact that we stripped some Arabs naked and stacked them up for television audiences was all part of the plan. Basically, we said: "You mess with America and we will torture you." No one attacked us after 9/11, so we did the right thing. There is nothing dishonorable about protecting America from foreign marauders.
B. RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. President, we had a good run. We just need to watch out for this Dawn Johnsen she-witch. This fire-breathing lesbo is on the hunt for us. She will not calm down until we face investigation under Hussein's Department of Justice. True, we would stand trial under loyal judges you appointed, but let's try to avoid the problem before it materializes.
We hold executive power until January 20 at 12:01 PM. We still have authority to designate people "enemy combatants" in the War on Terror, no matter what legal niceties the Supreme Court thinks apply to the question. I suggest that you designate Ms. Johnsen an "enemy combatant" and a "national security threat." After all, she is threatening to pilfer our files, reveal CIA practices, secret surveillance protocols and torture discussions. Those are vital weapons in the War on Terror. Without them, national security would be at risk. We must detain Ms. Johnsen so that these practices do not come to light. We need them to protect America.
Additionally, Ms. Johnsen is an avowed Islamist. She studies Middle Eastern history and culture. We can tell the FBI to say she corresponds with Al-Zahrqawi and bin Laden. We can circulate stories that she secretly watches 9/11 footage and cheers in Arabic when the Twin Towers collapse. That will justify her indefinite detention without charge, hearing or access to counsel. We'll see how much her "Constitution" helps her when she is tied up in an orange suit somewhere in the South America.
Act now. Designate Dawn Johnsen an "enemy combatant" and send her to Guantanamo while you still can. Hussein says he wants to close Guantanamo, but that will take a long time. And I think it would be poetically just to send this snooping communist wench to Guantanamo. So you think we violate the Constitution? Let us show you firsthand, lady. How about a little afternoon waterboarding? That would show her who's the man in this relationship. Dousing her with water while she's covered with cellophane would make her stop carping about "human dignity" and "habeas corpus." Unitary executive? Woman, we will show you the nature of executive power--and you won't like it.
Mr. President, you must take action against Dawn Johnsen immediately. This woman is a national security threat. She is dangerous. She must be stopped before she takes office. Please advise through appropriate channels as soon as she has been neutralized.
Say hello to Laura for me. I'm not sure when I'll see you next. If you need me for any reason, contact Colonel Frank Dilbert on the 5th Floor of the Pentagon. He knows how to contact me.
In closing, let me say that I am worried about our country. If Hussein keeps appointing radical left-wingers like Dawn Johnsen, the Constitution might actually mean something in American government again. Thank God we did not have to worry about the Constitution while we were in office. We could not have gotten anything done.
Dick.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
POLITICAL PARTIES FOR A CHANGING WORLD
Liberty Lovers for Freedom of All Speech They Agree With and No More
By : Mr. Milford H. Speakwell, Party Orator and Senior Policy Fellow
Intellectual exchange forms the bedrock of America’s success. Our Founding Fathers fought the Revolution to defend their right to speak out on important issues in their day, and today we continue that bold tradition. In America, we do not silence our citizens; we let them express their views. Our First Amendment declares: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” Through pen, press and internet, every American may freely broadcast his views on any subject without governmental interference. By defending speech, we defend liberty. And America stands for liberty. Nonetheless, we disagree with a lot of speech that we hear. We are good citizens, and if we disagree with speech, it should not be allowed. While we have no problem with speech about patriotism and military affairs, we strongly disagree with jokes about terrorism and Republican Presidents, past and present. While we support speech that praises our free market economic system, we reject speech that advocates socialistic economic policies. Although freedom of speech is a wonderful principle, we must draw the line somewhere. That is why we, Liberty Lovers for Freedom of All Speech They Agree With and No More, promise to protect only agreeable speech. For too long, this Nation has tolerated immoral stand-up comedians, satirists, Islamists, left-wingers and criminals to say whatever they wish. In so doing, this Nation has permitted wrong-headed ideas to take root and flourish, harming our children and our future. This divides the Nation. If division is the price of intellectual liberty, then we must refuse to pay it. We must streamline our Nation’s thought process, and that means allowing only agreeable speech. Speech should cultivate good morals and tasteful behavior. It should not excite lust, inspire disobedience for prevailing social customs or rouse the masses to dangerous political positions. By outlawing disagreeable speech, we will realize the dream of a uniform national consciousness. And with uniformity, we can prevail against any foe, foreign or domestic. If elected, we promise to protect our children by censoring all disagreeable speech before it emerges. We promise to reunite our Nation and to speak with one voice. We love liberty, but only to the extent that we agree with what is said. Everything else is destructive libel. Vote for Liberty in 2008. Vote to put respect back in intellectual discourse. Vote to shield our children from bad ideas. And vote to put a firm cap on disagreeable speech once and for all.
Homeland Defenders’ Alliance to Torture those Muslim Sonofabitches
By : Col. Robert G. “Rack ‘Em” Rickenbacker (U.S.M.C.), Acting Staff Officer and Party Policy Delegate
We are losing the War on Terror. After liberating Iraq in 2003, al-Qaeda has steadily regained its power. Terror cells have sprung up all over the globe with renewed strength. Insurgents harass our forces in Afghanistan. Ungrateful Muslim tribes kill American soldiers every day as they struggle to give them liberty. Every day, the terrorists grow bolder. Every day, the threat to our country grows graver. Unless we act soon, the terrorists will surely strike again, this time with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons. What must we do? Simple: We need to get serious in the War on Terror and start really torturing those Muslim sonofabitches. Until now, weak-willed politicians have balked at the idea of using torture to extract vital information from terror suspects. Even the Supreme Court has meddled in our authority over enemy combatants. They say we must be “humane” and observe “habeas corpus.” Habeas, my ass. What we really need to do is lash a towelhead to an electric fence and run about 1000 low-wattage volts through him until he tells us where bin Laden is. Can you believe what Congress is doing? They are getting all queasy over “waterboarding.” Waterboarding! A terrorist should be so lucky that we’d only waterboard his ass. If we want to start winning the War on Terror, we need to start peeling some Muslim skin off. A Senator got all mad when he heard that we inflicted “sleep deprivation” on a terrorist. Give me a break, you wuss! If it were up to us, we would have rammed a bamboo pole up his rectum, not just denied him his beauty sleep. Politicians piss and moan that we are not making progress against al-Qaeda. Well, duh! You losers have not given us the tools we need to really start roasting some Arabs. We are ready to do what we need to do to win. We are ready to defend our homeland from terror. It is time to take power away from pussy politicians and put it in the hands of capable military commanders. We are in a war. Why should we trust civilians to lead us? To win a war, you need military commanders and you need military authority. There is no time to worry about international treaties and protocols or the stupid Constitution. We need to fight and kill our enemies. Because if we don’t start fighting and killing them, by God they will do the same to us. If you care about your country and your family, vote to Torture those Muslim Sonofabitches. Give the military the power it needs to protect you and your family from terrorists. The time for half-measures is over. It is time to finally win this war. Vote for Torture in 2008.
By : Mr. Milford H. Speakwell, Party Orator and Senior Policy Fellow
Intellectual exchange forms the bedrock of America’s success. Our Founding Fathers fought the Revolution to defend their right to speak out on important issues in their day, and today we continue that bold tradition. In America, we do not silence our citizens; we let them express their views. Our First Amendment declares: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” Through pen, press and internet, every American may freely broadcast his views on any subject without governmental interference. By defending speech, we defend liberty. And America stands for liberty. Nonetheless, we disagree with a lot of speech that we hear. We are good citizens, and if we disagree with speech, it should not be allowed. While we have no problem with speech about patriotism and military affairs, we strongly disagree with jokes about terrorism and Republican Presidents, past and present. While we support speech that praises our free market economic system, we reject speech that advocates socialistic economic policies. Although freedom of speech is a wonderful principle, we must draw the line somewhere. That is why we, Liberty Lovers for Freedom of All Speech They Agree With and No More, promise to protect only agreeable speech. For too long, this Nation has tolerated immoral stand-up comedians, satirists, Islamists, left-wingers and criminals to say whatever they wish. In so doing, this Nation has permitted wrong-headed ideas to take root and flourish, harming our children and our future. This divides the Nation. If division is the price of intellectual liberty, then we must refuse to pay it. We must streamline our Nation’s thought process, and that means allowing only agreeable speech. Speech should cultivate good morals and tasteful behavior. It should not excite lust, inspire disobedience for prevailing social customs or rouse the masses to dangerous political positions. By outlawing disagreeable speech, we will realize the dream of a uniform national consciousness. And with uniformity, we can prevail against any foe, foreign or domestic. If elected, we promise to protect our children by censoring all disagreeable speech before it emerges. We promise to reunite our Nation and to speak with one voice. We love liberty, but only to the extent that we agree with what is said. Everything else is destructive libel. Vote for Liberty in 2008. Vote to put respect back in intellectual discourse. Vote to shield our children from bad ideas. And vote to put a firm cap on disagreeable speech once and for all.
Homeland Defenders’ Alliance to Torture those Muslim Sonofabitches
By : Col. Robert G. “Rack ‘Em” Rickenbacker (U.S.M.C.), Acting Staff Officer and Party Policy Delegate
We are losing the War on Terror. After liberating Iraq in 2003, al-Qaeda has steadily regained its power. Terror cells have sprung up all over the globe with renewed strength. Insurgents harass our forces in Afghanistan. Ungrateful Muslim tribes kill American soldiers every day as they struggle to give them liberty. Every day, the terrorists grow bolder. Every day, the threat to our country grows graver. Unless we act soon, the terrorists will surely strike again, this time with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons. What must we do? Simple: We need to get serious in the War on Terror and start really torturing those Muslim sonofabitches. Until now, weak-willed politicians have balked at the idea of using torture to extract vital information from terror suspects. Even the Supreme Court has meddled in our authority over enemy combatants. They say we must be “humane” and observe “habeas corpus.” Habeas, my ass. What we really need to do is lash a towelhead to an electric fence and run about 1000 low-wattage volts through him until he tells us where bin Laden is. Can you believe what Congress is doing? They are getting all queasy over “waterboarding.” Waterboarding! A terrorist should be so lucky that we’d only waterboard his ass. If we want to start winning the War on Terror, we need to start peeling some Muslim skin off. A Senator got all mad when he heard that we inflicted “sleep deprivation” on a terrorist. Give me a break, you wuss! If it were up to us, we would have rammed a bamboo pole up his rectum, not just denied him his beauty sleep. Politicians piss and moan that we are not making progress against al-Qaeda. Well, duh! You losers have not given us the tools we need to really start roasting some Arabs. We are ready to do what we need to do to win. We are ready to defend our homeland from terror. It is time to take power away from pussy politicians and put it in the hands of capable military commanders. We are in a war. Why should we trust civilians to lead us? To win a war, you need military commanders and you need military authority. There is no time to worry about international treaties and protocols or the stupid Constitution. We need to fight and kill our enemies. Because if we don’t start fighting and killing them, by God they will do the same to us. If you care about your country and your family, vote to Torture those Muslim Sonofabitches. Give the military the power it needs to protect you and your family from terrorists. The time for half-measures is over. It is time to finally win this war. Vote for Torture in 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)