Torture, Morality, and Law: A Gchat

So... since I haven't been writing in this blog lately, I thought I'd post part of a verbose chat I just had with my good friend Danielle about why it's better to play by the rules than to torture people (in which I am accused of eloquence).

Danielle: So, speaking of torture...
I'm in heated message-board debate about it right now :)
I saw your facebook post! As far as you know, has any of the "enhanced interrogation" of suspected terrorists led to legitimate, viable information in the war on terror?

Me: Probably.
By the way, most of them weren't "suspected."
Actually, scratch that.
I don't know that.

Danielle: I'm still a firm believer in "innocent until proven guilty" bud

Me: In what court?

Danielle: honestly? I'd love that sentiment to be worldwide

Me: Yeah, and I'd love a blow job from Angelina Jolie every night when and wherever I go to bed.

Danielle: And I honestly don't believe we, as Americans, should be purporting any form of law that isn't equal to what we'd approve of in our own nation, among our own citizens

Me: Yes, but our government was created to protect the rights of its citizens.

Danielle: Yes, that's true. But hundreds of years later we are also a world leader who is looked upon as a beacon of hope, democracy and freedom. In my opinion, if we get to invade a country and say "now you're a democracy" we had damn well live up to our legal system in every.single.way

Me: Yeah, but we don't get to do that. Not legally, anyway.
Anyway... since we are a modern democracy that has embraced the idea of universal human rights, we have ratified treaties and enacted our own laws that enjoin our agents from violating those specific rights, even when dealing with foreign nationals who aren't technically part of the social contract that obliges our government to respect those rights.

Danielle: So when I shred the rhetoric, you're saying you don't agree with torture, yes?

Me: I'm saying torture is illegal. I think it's immoral.

Danielle: so, as the devil's advocate...what if it works? should it be used if it produces actionable intelligence? This the argument I'm getting right now, and I have NO good answer - torture worked, so it should be used

Me: The problem is, none of those treaties or laws apply directly to the people we're holding at Guantanamo.

Danielle: um, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Geneva Convention say otherwise?

Me: The Geneva Convention is an 105-year-old treaty between nation-states. It has sections that enjoin signers from mistreating an enemy country's non-uniformed personnel.
But al-Qaeda isn't a nation-state. It's not a country.

Danielle: i get that

Me: The terrorists we capture are basically soldiers without a formal army or a country.

Danielle: But the rules of war should adapt, should they not? We are in "war" on terror...

Me: There is really no framework in current international law that says (a) what they are, and (b) how (a) should be treated when captured.

Now, there is the UN Convention on Torture, which the US ratified back in the 40's.

Danielle: so, torture is okay against an enemy without a nation-state?

Me: No...It's immoral and wrong.

Danielle: So it's immoral and wrong, but not illegal?

Me: No, it's illegal as well. We signed the UN Convention on Torture.

Danielle: okay. I'm gonna have to google that in a minute

Me: Here's the question, though: It's a war.

Danielle: right

Me: War is barbarism.

Danielle: But you haven't helped me in my message-board fight!
:p
How do I logically combat "interrogation worked, so let's use it"?

Me: We can write all the "laws of war" that we want, but eventually we will find ourselves faced with the decision to break those laws or lose lives.

Danielle: I meant, "Torture worked, so let's use it."

Me: Ok... think of it this way: Your opponent is arguing that torture, though both illegal and immoral, can be OK if it produces intelligence that saves lives.
Now, let's say that it's OK. That only means that it's not immoral. The act of torture itself is, by definition, still illegal.

Danielle: Yes, that is true

Me: Wait. Let me finish.

Danielle: But apparently, from my opponent's viewpoint, the other side isn't abiding by the "rules", so why should we, when it (torture) will save American lives?

Me: Because holding ourselves to a higher standard - abiding by a system of law that's based on respect for fundamental human rights, and applies equally to everyone - is what makes us the good guys and them the savages. So what you have to ask is, if it's necessary (or OK) to break the law in order to save lives, how far are you willing to go before you abandon the moral authority of the very principles on which your society is founded?

Danielle: Thank you
That is SO what i wanted to say, but you said it so much more eloquently

Me: Are you willing to make a guy watch his child get a drill taken to her skull to stop a terrorist plot?

Danielle: no

Me: Well, once you've allowed yourself to break the law in the name of expediency, your behavior in a wartime environment is at the mercy of your sense of morality.
And war has a way of skewing one's sense of morality. That's why we have laws that prevent us from behaving immorally during the times when we can't tell wrong from right.

And in any case, the people who designed these "enhanced interrogation" techniques (i.e., the Soviets) used them to extract false confessions of dubious intelligence value. Al-Qaeda is a decentralized terrorist network that's largely dependent on electronic communication and personal relationships. If we were to focus our resources on proactive intelligence-gathering activities, we would likely be just as, if not more, successful in preventing acts of terrorism. Any interrogator who knows the nature of his work will at least admit that's a possibility. We weren't so quick to torture after 9/11 because we needed that intelligence to save lives. We started torturing because we were afraid that following a moral code made us soft. We were scared and lashing out.

We wanted revenge.

We're only human. But we're civilized humans, who recognize that we can't always trust ourselves to behave morally. Once again, that's why we have laws, which we should be following.

Nervous thoughts on the penultimate Monday...

"My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over."

-Gerald Ford


Gerald Ford was wrong back in 1974: America had successfully purged Richard Nixon and his cronies from government, but a long national nightmare was just entering its third act. Today, it would be just as wrong to assume that our next national nightmare is even close to over.

Tomorrow, we can almost safely assume, Barack Obama will return to Chicago to put his signature on the biggest story in the modern history of American elections. I will watch it on TV, and I will be one of the millions of Americans who will be cheering, laughing, jumping, and perhaps crying. After eight years in the wilderness, we will have finally taken our government back from a mercenary cabal of Republican ideologues, whose mission in life was to enrich themselves while diminishing the power and prestige of American government and driving millions of its most vulnerable constituents closer to financial ruin.

We will have elected our country's first president of color.

We will have - hopefully - delivered a death-blow to the political viability of the religious right.

Tomorrow night, our efforts and our votes will culminate in one of the greatest moments in American history. It will take a greater effort to ensure that, in fifty years, that moment is not thought of as our country's last gasp of greatness.

We are heading into the first real recession in my generation's experience, and the consensus of economic opinion is that it will take at least two years before the country emerges from it. In the meantime, we can expect the financial contagion that has swept the world's developed economies to continue spreading throughout the developing world, inhibiting growth and development, fomenting poverty, and contributing to a global climate of political instability. America's economy is weak, and our military is overextended; the scope of our power and influence is contracting, and there are a number of players on the world stage trying to fill the void it leaves. The incoming administration will have a diminished array of options available to it to counter the moves that these players are preparing to make, especially in the Middle East and South Asia.

I believe that historians will judge the Obama administration by asking the following question: under President Obama, was America able to re-establish and apply the legitimacy of American leadership, both domestically and internationally? Did it restore confidence in the financial system? Did it prevent the global financial turmoil from wiping out the hard-won gains of developing economies? Did it craft a diplomatic strategy that established it as the leader of the developed world, allowing the world's democracies to confront the challenges posed by extremism and an oncoming global energy crisis?

What will our country, and the world, look like in 2012, and how will that affect the course of our country's history? No one should expect things to get better before they get measurably worse. I expect that Barack Obama will prove to be one of the most intelligent and capable men who has ever served as President of the United States, but I fear that his promises of change and his message of hope will take more time to fulfill than he will have time for. He will not assume his office in circumstances that lend themselves to transformational policy initiatives; in all likelihood, his administration will spend its first term in office troubleshooting the problems created by his predecessor's.

I worry about all of these things, but I do not despair - not yet, at least. Thanks to the current political climate, American democracy may well be on the verge of one of its greatest triumphs: President Obama will be able to claim a broad mandate, and if everything goes right for him tomorrow, he will have the legislative support needed to back it up. He will have a brief window in the next two years to position his government as a trustworthy domestic and international leader, and he possesses the poise and political instinct he needs to pull it off.

What he will not have is room for mistakes. If the consensus economic predictions are right, Americans will go to the polls in two years with very little reason to be happy with the ruling party, and anything the Obama administration does wrong will be ammunition for Republicans in the mid-term elections. Obama must gamble on taking bold, but considered, steps, and rely on his rhetorical genius to help him sell them to the American electorate, which may be judging his leadership for the first time before he actually has a chance to demonstrate it.

This is, therefore, a time for those of us who have supported and believed in Barack Obama to celebrate but for the briefest of moments before we start the real work. The task of restoring our country has only begun, and it will prove more difficult than any moment we endured during the last eight years.

This time, it will be our responsibility.

What if they gave a Starbucks and nobody came...

For three glorious hours yesterday, I lived in a dream: every Starbucks in the country was shut down. Apparently, they needed to re-train their "baristas" on the proper use and operation of the push-button abortions they call espresso machines; so the company has admitted, in essence, that their espresso operations have become so abysmal that their people are managing to fuck up pushing buttons more often than they get it right. That doesn't surprise me at all, but I hope that the coffee laity can recognize this for the publicity stunt that it is: Starbucks closing every store for three hours to retrain their 'baristas' is like the Nazis closing every gas chamber for three hours to retrain the Sonderkommando.

I was working the night shift at Tryst yesterday, and I was expecting a bit of added customer volume owing to this event. Unfortunately, the temperature outside dropped about twenty degrees in the hour after I came on and we ended up having the slowest night I've ever seen. Good, as far as I'm concerned, because I'll say this for those Starbucks bastards: they've figured out how to create brand loyalty. If the company hadn't made brainwashing a central tenet of its business model, then I'd love to have their customers come into Tryst: I could steal thirty of them every hour based on drink quality alone, but I don't want a bunch of deluded Starbucks regulars in my shop ordering venti skinny cinnamon stick lattes and "caramel macchiatos," and getting mad when my servers try to tell them how a real macchiato is made.

I get that most people look at coffee as nothing more than a caffeine delivery system, and that's fine - a little disappointing, but fine. The world has worse problems than a widespread misunderstanding of what a real specialty coffee beverage should be. It drives me crazy, though, that a guy who barely speaks English, who can come into work stoned, who does nothing more than push buttons and pour milk for six hours a day, has the same job title that I do, just because his monolithic corporate paymaster says he's a barista. Why does he get to be a barista? Are McDonald's fry cooks allowed to call themselves chefs? My craft deserves a little bit more respect. I've worked hard to get as good as I am at what I do. I should be able to tell other educated people that I'm a barista without having to qualify it, e.g., "I'm a master barista at Tryst," or, "I'm a competition barista." I still say fuck them if they're going to look down on me because of what I do for a living - that's all well and good - but the profession deserves respect. Maybe I'll start calling myself a chef du cafe.

Letter to David Brooks, the New York Times' chief anti-Obamite

Dear Mr. Brooks,

I don't purport to understand your dogged loyalty to a candidate whose time, it's becoming clear, has all but passed, but - in keeping with my personal belief that the absence of dissent is a symptom of a brainwashed electorate - I truly appreciate seeing at least one constant, dissenting voice. I wonder, however, if you've considered the unavoidable political effect of a convincing Obama victory in the general election.

Obama's candidacy is a gamble, to be sure, but politically it promises a rich payout for the country. I was not caught up in the early stages of Obamamania, nor am I enraptured by his charismatic speaking; what is most impressive to me about the candidate is the genuine, unmistakable enthusiasm he generates in his supporters. To be specific, it is the character of this enthusiasm - mobilized and hopeful - that has made me an Obama supporter. It is the first time in my (admittedly short) political memory that I have seen so many different people who each believe that they are an important part of actual history: a movement, they believe, that will take their country beyond its twenty preceding years of partisan malaise. That is the kind of enthusiasm that motivates selfless civic action. From a political standpoint, it is the kind of enthusiasm that delivers a powerful mandate to the politician who manages to generate it. I believe that the character of Obama's campaign will produce one of the most politically empowered first-term presidencies in the country's history; whereas a Clinton victory would have to come after a bruising, bitterly fought general election that would deliver no real mandate, and do nothing in the way of defanging the poisonous hatred that has turned American political life into little more than a well-financed pissing match.

Karl Rove's grand, failed strategy for the Bush administration envisioned a presidency that permanently moved the center of the country's political discourse to the right. That political strategy ultimately failed because of its dissonance with Rove's actual, divide-and-conquer political tactics. By contrast, Obama's main political weapon - his soaring rhetoric of unity which touches both the left and the center alike - is perfectly aligned with the promise of his campaign: shifting the center of our political discourse so permanently to the center-left. If this wins through, the Republicans will be forced - at last - to abandon their fear-mongering charlatanism or be left in the dust forever: nothing more than the voice of the hateful 30% of the electorate who will always believe that they, and their values, are the only ones entitled to own shares in America.

A lot of things have to go right for that to happen. Obama has to win the nomination. He has to hold off a Republican candidate whose biography and strength on national security issues give him the potential ability to tap into the huge bloc of independent voters who have been taken with the Obama campaign during this primary season. Finally, as you have pointed out time and again, he needs to define the change he proposes, then produce and implement policies that will convince all of us that the change is real. Perhaps Obama and supporters are selling themselves the Brooklyn Bridge. Perhaps this election and its ultimate place in the unfolding story of our country's destiny is a craps game, and we've got all of our chips on one number. I believe, however, that this body politic has grown so weary with hedging its bets every four years that it's ready to gamble big: the potential payoff of an Obama presidency is worth the estimable risk it demands we take to achieve it. Personally, I can't wait to throw the dice.

Yours,
Charles Atkinson
Washington, DC

A Comic Parable of Journalism

There were four men who lived in Canton who died on the same day. One man died when the Klan tossed a fiery cross up against his house. One man, the state executed for assaulting and murdering his neighbor’s young daughter. One man died fighting a gator that was stealing his barbecued chicken. The last man died of cancer. One morning, a week after they all died, the last man’s widow went to the office of the local paper and demanded to see the editor. He offered his condolences.

“To hell with your sympathy!”

“What do you mean, widow?”

“I mean, why in the hell didn’t you run an obituary for my husband?”

“Well, three other men died that day. We didn’t have room on the page for all of them.”

“My husband lived here his whole life. He went to church every Sunday. He worked at the same job for forty years and never missed a day of work. He raised three fine children and sent them off to college. He never turned down a friend in need. He willed half of his fortune to charity before he died. You couldn’t have bumped one of those other three to remember him?”

“Darlin’ widow,” says the editor, “everyone already remembers your husband, but an idiot, a martyr, and a criminal – well, them’s news!”

Whiskeyland

Well, a-way down south in the land of Bourbon,
I’d get drunk ‘til I was swervin’,
Drink away, drink away, drink away,
Whiskey-land!

In whiskey land where I was born
We swill that shit from noon to mornin’
Drink away, drink away, drink away,
Whiskey-land!

Well I wish I had some whiskey,
Hoo-ray, Hoo-ray!
In whiskey-land ‘til I can’t stand,
I’ll drink that Bourbon Whiskey!
Drink up, Drink up,
Drink up that Bourbon Whiskey!
Drink up, Drink up,
Drink up that Bourbon Whiskey!

The V.A.D.C.

Charter of the Venerable Association of Drunken Celts


Whereas we, the undersigned founding members, have determined that, considering our God-given constitutions and purposes, the pleasures and diversions of pedestrian existence will never suffice, and

Determined that drink and debauch should never perish from this Earth,

Whereas, our ancestors have bestowed upon us the obligation of being upright, honorable, tradition-respecting, and devoted men of the drink, and

Whereas, no extant organization currently known to us provides for the fulfillment of the aforementioned, and

Therefore we, in the name of friendship and good times, do hereby declare ourselves The Venerable Association of Drunken Celts, set forth the following rules of our association, and agree to abide by them so long as the drink flows freely.


I. Membership

Any man of Scots, Irish, or Welsh descent is eligible to be a member of the Association, upon the nomination of a current member of the inducting chapter and the subsequent approval of a simple majority of the inducting chapter’s members.

Any man not of Scots, Irish, or Welsh descent, who will publicly forswear all fealty to the British Crown, is eligible to be a member of the Association, upon the nomination of a current member of the inducting chapter and the subsequent approval of the whole of the inducting chapter’s members.

Any man or woman involved in either a romantic or purely sexual relationship with a current member is eligible to be a provisional member of the Association, upon both the nomination of another current member of the inducting chapter, the approval of that chapter’s Chief Drunk, and the subsequent approval of the whole of the inducting chapter’s members. Should the relationship end in breakup, divorce, or marriage, the question of the provisional member’s continued tenure in the Association shall be the sole decision of his or her former partner, unless the provisional member has been a member of the inducting chapter for more than two calendar years.

The nomination and approval of all new members will be conducted in secret among the current members of their inducting chapter. The Chief Drunk of the inducting chapter, along with the respective nominating members, will together extend formal offers of membership to new members only after they have been nominated and approved. A new member shall be inducted into the Association by placing his right hand upon a copy of this charter, his left hand upon a bottle of whiskey, and swearing an oath of loyalty to the Association. The oath may take any form. It shall be composed by the nominating member, and administered by the president of the inducting chapter. For six hours subsequent to taking the oath of membership, a new member, upon the order of any member of the inducting chapter, must take a drink.

A member may be expelled from the Association upon the motion of another member and the approval of the whole of his chapter’s members.

II. Officers

Each chapter will elect its own officers by majority vote. Each chapter may create as many official titles as it wishes, but must have at least the obligatory offices of Chief Drunk, Vice Drunk, and Secretary. Any member may nominate any other member for any office. Elections for the three obligatory offices must be held by secret ballot. All other offices may be voted on by a voice vote.

The Chief Drunk of a chapter shall be responsible for ensuring each member’s adherence to both this charter and to his chapter’s bylaws. He shall preside over meetings, attempting to maintain some semblance of parliamentary procedure for as long as he is able.

The Vice Drunk of a chapter shall be responsible for nothing, unless the Chief Drunk confers all of his powers upon him, or is removed from office.

The Secretary of a chapter shall be responsible for recording all official business and ensuring that each member has a place to sleep or safe transportation home at the end of a meeting. If the Secretary wishes to abstain from these responsibilities for the length of a particular meeting, he shall declare his intention to do so at the beginning of that meeting. The Chief Drunk will then nominate a replacement from among the members present, to be approved by a majority vote thereof.

III. Meetings

The Chief Drunk shall begin each meeting by calling the members to order.

Each meeting shall commence with the singing of “Flower Of Scotland,” “The Minstrel Boy,” and “Men of Harlech,” along with “The Star-Spangled Banner.” If possible, the singing should be accompanied by a live bagpiper, or failing this, a decent recording.

The Chief Drunk shall conclude the discussion of all official business by declaring, “The Bastards, The Bastards!” Upon this utterance, all official business will conclude, and all members shall proceed to appropriate states of drunkenness and debauch, overseen though not directed by the Chief Drunk.

Each member is responsible for bringing a quantity of alcohol to each meeting sufficient to render a man of average size and above-average constitution drunk.

No member shall ever depart a meeting before he is drunk, unless he is responsible for the safe transport home of other members.

IV. Disputes

Boxing matches shall settle all disputes arising between members during the course of a meeting. Each boxing match shall be officiated by the Chief Drunk, or by a member that he appoints. If the Chief Drunk is a participant in a match, the Vice Drunk or a member that he appoints will officiate the match. If both the Chief and Vice Drunk are participants, they must agree on another member to officiate the match. All matches will be fought in rounds of two minutes in duration with breaks of one minute in between rounds. All matches shall continue until a winner is determined either by submission, or by the decision of the officiant. At no time should the participants hit one another about the head, unless each participant is wearing suitable boxing gloves. Any member throwing a head shot during a match is subject to immediate beating and expulsion from the meeting.

V. Alcohol

Any manner of booze may be consumed during the course of a meeting. However, all manner of fruity or sugary liquors, so-called “malternative” beverages, and wine coolers are strictly forbidden. Those daring to bring them are subject to immediate beating and expulsion from the meeting.

VI. Founding of New Chapters

New chapters may be founded by an emissary of an existing chapter appointed by majority vote of his chapter. The new chapter’s founding, however, must be approved by a majority vote of all chapters’ Chief Drunks. If geography prevents a meeting of Chief Drunks from being held within a month of the proposed establishment of a new chapter, their vote may be conducted via teleconference or electronic mail. If geography prevents the sending of an emissary, the Chief Drunk of a chapter may declare a new chapter founded upon receipt of a copy of the charter that has been signed by all of the founding members of the new chapter.

The cops tase a kid five times, and all he gets is several hundred thousand people watching it on YouTube

So I was just getting ready to go to bed, and I ran into this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3GstYOIc0I&eurl=

The UCLA campus police tased this poor bugger five times because he refused to show his student ID when asked. He's Iranian-American, and he thought he was being profiled. Probably was. Probably should have pulled out his ID anyway, avoided a confrontation with the cops, and filed a lawsuit the next day. Instead, he tried to make a scene, the cops overreacted, and now brown people all over the country have yet another reason to think that the rest of us think they're all terrorists. God Bless America. Morons and Assholes working together and against each other for the betterment of Lord knows what...

Anyway, I couldn't get around YouTube's 500-character limit, and I'm putting my brief thoughts down here:

Everyone on either side of the issue should be able to take the following lesson to heart: if the police give you a command that amounts to a violation of your civil rights, comply with the command and then take the matter to court later. The police won't use force unless they think it's justified. Many policemen, however, aren't that good at figuring out what's justfied and what's not - keep in mind that they work a job that might kill them on any given shift. Don't risk getting your ass beat by the cops. Do what they say, find a few witnesses, and call a lawyer. That's the American way. That's why we have our legal system - so we don't have to resort to mob violence to stand up for what's right. If this kid really thought that he was being profiled, he should have filed a lawsuit the next day. I'd probably feel different about the matter if I were brown and had lived through five years of post 9/11 America, but what the hell did this guy think he was going to accomplish by getting a bunch of hippie-ass Californians riled up?

That all being said, there's no earthly reason that the cops couldn't have subdued a 20-year-old college student without tasing him five times. What happened to the days when the cops knew how to wrench a punk's arm up behind his back to establish control? No damage, no fuss, no muss, and certainly no need to cause a scene in front of several hundred freaked-out liberal college students with cellphone cameras.

Aaagh...