John Scalzi | September 29, 2006 12:41 AM

I'm grumpy enough at the moment, incidentally, that I very nearly disabled the comment thread, because frankly, I don't actually want to argue with anyone about this point. Honestly, if you don't see moral cowardice all over this thing, on all sides, I suspect you may be a complete idiot, and I don't really want to talk to you about it.

However, I was less comfortable about not keeping the comment thread open than I was in the possibility that someone would want to argue the point. So it's open. However, I won't be participating in the thread. I've said what I feel like saying on the subject for now. But, please, converse amongst yourselves. I'll be reading (and patrolling for trolls, so please be civil) but probably not kicking in comments. I trust you all will get along fine without me.

Buck | September 29, 2006 12:55 AM

I'm glad I'm not the only one with a throbbing forehead vein over this. In the summer of 2001, if someone would have told me that in a mere five years, substantial bulwarks of the American civilization would have been dismantled by a feckless, incurious, unpopular president and his gang of lick-spittles, I would have laughed at the absurdity. However, look what happened to Zimbabwe under Mugabe: when the very government is coopted and dismantled from within, the citizens find themselves in a kind of unbelieving stupor. The sad thing here is that more Americans could tell you about the finer points of the the latest episode of "Dancing with C-grade Celebrities Trying to Jump Start their Careers" than have given any notice to this.

Well, Scalzi, I'm in the Detroit area, you're in Ohio. When the whole thing collapses into the dustbin of history, do we try and organize a Republic of the Great Lakes? I'd trade Ontario for Texas any day of the week.

Harry Connolly | September 29, 2006 01:03 AM

John, thanks for posting that.

Chris Smith | September 29, 2006 01:04 AM

John, I'd been watching this one for a few days, figuring that some sort of grand compromise was going to come down the pike from McCain et al, and sure enough it did. I'll say that my reaction as a recent college grad was that I wanted to drink myself into a stupor so I could forget about the shredding that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights took today. I read the editorials page of the Indianapolis Star every morning, and it absolutely drives me crazy how many columns the paper pays for and runs that say, "If you don't trust that the president is going to hunt down the terrorists, then you're a Democrat who wants us all to die." George Will, Jonah Goldberg, Kathryn Lopez, and more, so many people who years ago traded intellectual credibility for the "You're either with us or against us" mentality that makes for great electoral politics, especially when you run on the side of fear.

You should consider becoming a syndicated editorialist. Your ability to argue far outweighs 95% of people who are already paid for it, and more than likely moderately outweighs the other 5%.

Adam | September 29, 2006 01:05 AM

Count me in. I'm in Akron (just south of Cleveland).
I had this discussion with a few coworkers the other day. If, by some miracle, we can get a competent and decent body of government in 2008, it makes me ill to think about how hard it is going to be to fix everything that these past 6-8 years have broken. These are dark days and I can't see a light at the end of this tunnel. I'm not afraid of terrorists destroying our buildings. I'm afraid of our leaders destroying our country.
I don't even know what we can do to stop it anymore. The whole thing is simple a game to them.

Jeena | September 29, 2006 01:19 AM

Hi, I found my way here via a link to Schadenfreude Pie.

I can't say enough how much I appreciate what you've written here because it really echos what I feel--especially, "I'm proud to be an American, but I'm tired of being ashamed of my government." One of the many transgressions of this administration--and a particularly nastily clever one--has been to link the notion of patriotism with blind allegiance. Well, I'm proud to be an American, too, and I hate what's happening to my country, and how badly this administration has represented us to our neighbors, to the world, to ourselves.

It makes me crazy, and I feel utterly helpless watching outrage after outrage pass by, treading water until the next election. I just wish there was a strong contender (from well, actually, either party--Democrat or Republican) ready to stand up for this country and against what's been done to it.

Whew. Sorry to be so wordy. Looking forward to reading more here.

SAP | September 29, 2006 01:23 AM

Thank you, John.

Jenny Rae Rappaport | September 29, 2006 01:29 AM

Scalzi, your comments are very similar to what Keith Olbermann has been saying in his Special Comments on Countdown lately, and I have to say that I agree with both of you.

gRegor | September 29, 2006 01:32 AM

I cannot comprehend how someone could disagree with you here.

And I cannot comprehend how anyone can, with a straight face, make the argument that torture ("extraordinary means") should be available for alleged terrorists, but we don't need to worry about the government expanding that to the American citizenry. No, the government never expands its authority; it is always wise and reserved in the use of its powers.

*sigh*

Right You Are | September 29, 2006 01:38 AM

"It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties which make the defense
of our nation worthwhile." - Earl Warren

What he said.

Ginny | September 29, 2006 01:41 AM

I couldn't have said how I feel better than you have, and since I rarely shut up that's saying a lot. I voted against Bush--TWICE--and I am inconsolable over what he and his entire party have done to America.

I often wonder what America would have been like had Al Gore won.

Suzanne M | September 29, 2006 01:48 AM

Oh thank god. I was getting a weird impression that people were okay with this 'compromise' detainee bill, and it makes me sick. I just don't understand how this administration is allowed to get away with pretty much anything they want time and time again.

Byron | September 29, 2006 02:08 AM

My theory and I don't think it's a bad one, is that we no longer have two political parties. The fact that someone is a Democrat or a Republican doesn't matter in any real sense as, for the most part, they are career politicians first and leaders of our cities, states and nation second. There are exceptions and I don't think that most of them went into it with this result in mind, there are probably a few but probably not even a sizable majority intended this to happen. Unfortunately, it has happened and now we get things like McCain pissing away what remaining street cred he had left, probably in some deal for his '08 run. Even more unfortunately, I'm not sure how you'd go about fixing this sort of problem.

Jon | September 29, 2006 02:08 AM

The administration gets away with whatever it wants because Congress won't stop them. And Congress won't stop them because in a contest between "I kept the President from torturing people" and "I voted to keep illegal immigrants from stealing your tax dollars through welfare" or "I voted to allow you to save 10% on your drugs by buying them from Canada", guess which ad's gonna get someone re-elected?

In fact, in my town (a college town in a blue state), the political ad I've been hearing the most of is that drug ad. Nobody really knows about the torture bill -- I didn't know about it until today, for instance.

Jonathan | September 29, 2006 02:15 AM

Agreed. And you can replace 'American' with ‘human’, and 'Constitution' with 'morality' and we are still good.

I call myself a patriot and these term have meaning for me, yet I fear both are losing standing in the world and history. Yet your sentiment will endure when both the Constitution and the meaning of American fades.

Lisa | September 29, 2006 02:32 AM

Yeah. Thanks for articulating this. When I hear things like, "But there are terrorists out to GET US! Any means of protection is justifiable" I often want to suggest mental health treatment for PTSD. That can be the only explanation for people following this line of crap. Some kind of mental thought process gone defunct due to extreme and irrational fear.

I've sometimes mused about what I would do if I met the president. How I could be in the same room with him and even pretend to be gracious. I know I couldn't pull it off. Then I'd probably wind up 'detained' myself.

Mitch Wagner | September 29, 2006 03:14 AM

Great post, John, but I have two major points of disagreement.

I wish I shared your conviction that this nightmare will be over January 2009, but my fear is that I'm living right now through the end of the American experiment in liberty and freedom, and the beginning of the American police state.

The other point I don't agree with: "I'm proud to be an American, but I'm tired of being ashamed of my government." I'm heartsick, today, to be a citizen of a nation that permits secret trials and torture.

RONW | September 29, 2006 03:21 AM

Elizabeth Holtzman of the Chicago Sun says the torture bill's real purpose is to legislate a presidential pardon (for Bush) for war crimes to be redeemed in the future...."Under cover of the controversy involving the military tribunals....hoping that no one will notice."

Scott | September 29, 2006 05:08 AM

"I'm proud to be an American, but I'm tired of being ashamed of my government."

Many years ago, I was in Barcelona, late at night, in an alley. A drug dealer, after some other assorted offers says to me, "You're American right? You Americans like crack, right?" Which is really the funniest story I had from spending a couple months as a shiftless bum in Europe. I do not look forward to sitting around a dining table and hearing the new & improved version of that comment. I do not look forward to the sad droop that will come to my eyes and lips, or even the flush of honest embarassment. What will I be embarassed about? That so much of the rest of the country isn't embarassed by G.W.Bush advocating torture. I'm pretty much numb to the idea that McCain, who was himself a victim of inhumane treatment would budge on the issue. It's kind of a square-peg round-hole thing for me right now.

Let me be clearer about my feelings. I'm not proud to be an American, it wasn't my doing really (see also: Bill Hicks). I'm pleased with the way America was founded, and for a while it offered comfort to me about the human condition. I am ashamed of my president, and I'm ashamed of the people who support him in his reprehensible, callous, and base actions.

Mary Robinette Kowal | September 29, 2006 05:53 AM

"I'm proud to be an American, but I'm tired of being ashamed of my government."

Everytime I meet someone here (in Iceland) and have to admit that I'm an American, I feel like I need to follow it up with an apology. I don't think that any nation is perfect, but I want to live in a society that is moving forward, not backwards.

Chang who lives on Bagels | September 29, 2006 06:22 AM

Wow, as if I was not already nauseous from suspect marinade on last night's tune steaks.

The mighty consitution has been gang-raped and systematically totured and slowly dis-emboweled by the administration.

I had faith in Mcain for a while and now he's completely failed me. Man spent years in a bamboo cage undrgoing the very same thing he now has completely caved on. Nice going, John.

These days...

Anamika | September 29, 2006 06:33 AM

I live in Dubai - close enough to Iraq.

And, well, you bought into all that overblown shit they when "Iraq finally voted", didnt you - I remember you singing hosannas about the Great Iraqi Liberation. It takes something like a we-have-the-right-to-torture-people bill to remind you that this government never meant well - from the beginning.

I read that the latest police station built by a US contractor for Iraqi recruits "has feces raining from the ceilings" thanks to plumbing leaking through. Bravo, what has freedom brought the Iraqi people! As if people in these regions aren't dying enough thanks to their dictators and their domestic tyrants and their combustible social structures, you export war and violence to these countries.

And American citizens buy it - you might have different levels of swallowing bullshit, but you still swallow; maybe you voted republican or maybe you didnt, but you still bought into your own ridiculous, overblown perception as liberators. If you really would like to liberate people from dictators, I suggest starting with Sudan, or Congo, or any of those places where they outclass Saddam in every kind of crime committed. And then, maybe, you could have looked at Iraq with some credibility.

Your pose right now is pretty sad, all considering. You are a pompous ass who believes himself humane. Leave the world alone and spare us your tripe. And I suggest for a little humility, that you read riverbend: baghdadburning.blogspot.com

Catja (green_knight) | September 29, 2006 06:47 AM

I'm proud to be an American, but I'm tired of being ashamed of my government.

And your country can be proud of you and everybody like you who is willing to put words to their disgust with an administration that does not realise that every time it supresses the rights of a human being - whether he be friend or foe, innocent or guilty, accused of speeding or of wanting to blow up a city - it is doing the work of the terrorists for them, making the world a little less free.

Please keep speaking out. Someone has to.

Q | September 29, 2006 07:26 AM

Somehow "Amen" doesn't fully cover it.

Leslie | September 29, 2006 07:41 AM

My only disagreement with you is that McCain has pulled this stunt of moral posturing and selling out repeatedly over the last few years. His desire for the presidency has outweighed any moral compass he once had.

According to Susie Madrak one of Reid's staffer's said they wouldn't fillibuster because they didn't have the votes to prevent cloture http://susiemadrak.com/2006/09/28/16/14/no-filibuster/

To my mind it's inexcuseable to have voted for torture regardless and for any Democrat to see that bill as business as usual is a sad statement about our government.

Shameful, evil, incompetent governance with no opposition - one would have thought these events highly improbably had you written them in a novel. I'm ashamed and outraged.

Adam Ziegler | September 29, 2006 07:55 AM

Thank you for writing this, John. For a short while there, I was afraid that you had stopped paying attention or had given up. You have the opportunity and the talent to make a difference with your voice, and I am grateful that you do.

Sadly, I'm not sure I share your optimism about 2009. And I am weary and angry about this bizzare situation in which so many citizens don't know or don't care about what is being done in their name. But reading your post and the comments of others (thanks to all of you who have posted) have given me a little hope this morning.

Mark J Musante | September 29, 2006 08:00 AM

> the worst part of the my political life will be over in two years and change.

But if Bush has no respect for the Constitution, which includes the 22nd amendment, why would the worst part of your political life end in two years?

Rhiannon_s | September 29, 2006 08:02 AM

I'm not sure I see moral cowardice, apart from anything else that would imply W has morals to start with. What I see is naked opportunism, stupidity and nice dollop of malice on top. Moral cowardice would be knowing you ought to be doing the right thing and doing the wrong thing, this is not caring what right and wrong is.

Ann S. | September 29, 2006 08:05 AM

Absolutely, John, well expressed.
Now, for all people commenting on this thread who live in the U. S. of A., I have a request: Please write to your senators and representatives right now. They all need to hear the views that are being expressed here. They need to know that they have constituants who do not agree with the actions the Washington crowd are taking.

corina | September 29, 2006 08:38 AM

Scalzi for State Senator

Jeff Hentosz | September 29, 2006 08:41 AM

Vote this November for change and for oversight. Encourage those who agree with you to vote. Press them to urge others. Do not sit this one out. Do not say Diebold will just change your vote (they're not that ubiquitous). Do not say "they're all the same." Do you really believe the strident right-winger in your office or family considers "Speaker Pelosi" the same as "Speaker Hastert"? Third parties, protest votes and write-ins are great. But not now. If you have to wait in line, wait. Take a good book; there should be something new out by then. Overwhelming, unified turnout is the only defense.

BIll Marcy | September 29, 2006 08:57 AM

So you are tired of it, what are you going to personally do about it?

Or is it only other peoples cowardice that you can see?

You have it better today than at any other time in history, and you, personally, are rather comfortable, aren't you? You are deathly afraid of losing what you have and you are more than willing to allow the status quo to continue on.

But you do enjoy bitching about the good times, about pounding your chest over it being the best of times, of expressing yourself over other peoples moral cowardice.

What are you going to personally do?

Josh Jasper | September 29, 2006 09:03 AM

Oh, and there's also the part that absolves Bush, and anyone under his orders, or violating the standards of the Geneva conventions retroactivley.

I'm with the weary chorus on this one. I don't see much hope for democracy in America. I wish just ONE Democratic senator had the nerve to stand up to this and at least try a fillibuster. I don't care if it would have invoked cloture, and overturned the concept of the fillibuster. Democrats could use that against Republicans if they retake congress.

John Scalzi | September 29, 2006 09:25 AM

Bill Marcy:

"So you are tired of it, what are you going to personally do about it?"

Vote, for a start.

"You have it better today than at any other time in history, and you, personally, are rather comfortable, aren't you? You are deathly afraid of losing what you have and you are more than willing to allow the status quo to continue on."

Bill, you haven't the slightest goddamned clue what you're talking about, and I wish you wouldn't pretend that you know what I think about anything that I don't specifically write about because you don't, in fact, actually know me, and apparently your assumptions about me are appallingly wrong.

If you can point to an example of my own moral cowardice, Bill, particularly on this issue, then I invite you to do so. If you can't, then you can take your insinuations of my moral cowardice and shove them up your ass.

Vardibidian | September 29, 2006 09:27 AM

I can't imagine he won't be the worst president of the 21st Century

The thing that I think is the worst part of this bill is that it gives the President sole authority to decide what constitutes torture, or a breach of the Geneva Convenstions, or circumstances where habeas corpus can be ignored. Now, I dislike Our Only President a lot, but I think in practical terms, what's going to come out of this is a few hundred people tortured (most of whom have already been tortured), and a few hundred people held for years without trial or charge, in secret prisons (most of whom are already so held). That is bad, and disgusting, and it disgraces us.

But what if he isn't the worst president of the 21st Century? There's nothing to prevent the president elected in 2028 from being far worse than this fellow. Do you really want to bet that won't happen? And this framework, which I can't imagine being repealed once it's passed, allows President Dada to pick people up off the street and lock them up forever. And to build secret prisons to do that. All just as legal as houses. All he has to do is ask himself if it is legal and necessary, and tell himself it is, and then go out and do it.

I have friends who have been arrested on "terrorism-related charges". Maybe other readers here have, as well. Protesting the war, causing trouble at the political conventions, doing stupid shit. All were either charged or let go, and the ones who were charged were acquitted. Because, you know, none of them are terrorists. And as bad as this administration is, in the end, they let people go out and oppose them. But under President Caligula, my friends could—again, legally—be locked up forever, possibly without anybody knowing where they are, without charge or trial or lawyer or nuthin', because they mouthed off about the invasion of Terrorist Venezuela.

The thing about our Constitution is that it, on the whole, doesn't trust our presidents. I can't think why the Congress does. Has our history since Washington been one of uninterrupted integrity in the Oval Office?

Thanks,
-V.

Charles Smarr | September 29, 2006 09:31 AM

Thanks John. I thought no one had noticed that this administration and this bill in particular had trumped the constitution. This bill has created a new secret court system under which a person can be held, tortured and sentenced for such "terrorist related crimes" as marketing cellular phones.

clvrmnky | September 29, 2006 09:31 AM

BIll Marcy: I've heard a variation on this sentiment all my life, and it just doesn't wash. There is only so much personal responsibility (and define that how you like) I can take for the actions of my government.

If we are supposed to be ultimately responsible for ourselves because we are the government, and merely ask agents to act on our behalf, then our agents have failed us, again and again. And there doesn't seem to be much we can say or do to convince those agents of change.

I _refuse_ to take responsibility for the current mode of governmentality, and that refusal is a moral stand. I will criticize, bitch, rant and defend anyone who does the same, regardless of political affiliation. I will not accept responsibility for the actions of these agents because we have lost the ability to direct them in a reasonable manner.

They no longer respond to due process or the law of the land. This much is clear.

It is not our attitude that has to change. It is the structures under which governmental process and machinations work that have to change.

Direct action is one thing. Personal responsibility is another. But it is naive to suggest that only personal, moral-driven direct action can change the current state of affairs.

The wolves have been in the henhouse so long, we are starting to thank them for the eggs.

[And John, I apologize for soap-boxing so early in the morning. Let it be said I concur with every one of your conclusions, above. I'm just grumpy from the news.]

Jason Erik Lundberg | September 29, 2006 09:32 AM

Well said, Mr Scalzi.

BIll Marcy | September 29, 2006 09:37 AM

No John, that doesn't count as reasoned discourse, but thats OK, Strum und drang are what are to be expected.

The economy has never been better, you have the freedom to say any silly thing that pops into your head and you are comfortable enough in your life to post about yourself and your family. So you have a deranged attitude, you are American and as such you can have that attitude, and the amazing thing is, you can find other people who will share and support that. Isn't America great?

But, to get down to brass tacks, besides your posing and bluster, what are you going to do about it? Are you willing to bet your 'sacred honor and life', just like your forefathers did to change an intolerable situation, or, are you willing to make posts on the internet and being somewhat snarky to people that hold a slightly un-canon view of the world from yourself? Yes, I know, attacking people via the internet is quite the sport, and sometimes it is even rather satisfying. But, again, what are you going to do?

I have a suspicion, and nothing more than a suspicion, but i gather you aren't willing to risk what you have to actually do *anything*, since you do have it rather good.

The only thing I fear, is that when you do not have a Bush in the White House to rail against, what are you going to blame your supposed misery on?

. Thanks John for the entertainment, good monkey.

JC | September 29, 2006 09:38 AM

Thank you.

Your powerful expression of outrage and moral condemnation on a highly read blog does a lot to keep the focus where it should be, on the weakness of those who think eliminating human rights is the correct response, not where the administration would like it. It is heartening to see someone take a forthright and unequivocal stand on this, even if it is something which had thought didn't need it. (I mean, being against torture ought to be like being against slavery. Oh, wait...) I hope those who inevitably will come and call you names will exhibit similar courage by saying in no uncertain terms that they are for torture and the abrogation of human rights.

One place where I might disagree with you is that it's not at all clear to me that the nightmare ends in January, 2009. But at least we can hope and work to elect an administration which supports human rights. Also, I've seen McCain do this sort of thing before so I wasn't surprised when he did it again. I hope was that the Democrats would pick up the ball when McCain would inevitably drop it but that doesn't really seem to have happened.

Thanks again.

tommyspoon | September 29, 2006 09:42 AM

The economy has never been better, you have the freedom to say any silly thing that pops into your head and you are comfortable enough in your life to post about yourself and your family.

Really, Bill? When President Bush signs this abomination into law sometime today, that "freedom" you speak of may well cease to exist.

Beware the knock on the door, Bill. They may be coming for you.

Nathan | September 29, 2006 09:45 AM

"Honestly, if you don't see moral cowardice all over this thing, on all sides, I suspect you may be a complete idiot, and I don't really want to talk to you about it."

I've tried to respond on this thread five time. Each time, I've deleted a lengthy incoherent rant.

Usually, I feel like I've got something to contribute to the conversation. I got nothing.

Unless, "We're fucked" is a worthwhile contribution?

I'm really, really, REALLY depressed over this and I don't have the first clue how to speak to anyone who isn't.

Dlgreen | September 29, 2006 09:47 AM

>Scalzi for State Senator

Amen. I'm an Ohioan, and I know I would vote for him if he ran.

John Scalzi | September 29, 2006 09:52 AM

Bill Marcy:

"The economy has never been better, you have the freedom to say any silly thing that pops into your head and you are comfortable enough in your life to post about yourself and your family. So you have a deranged attitude, you are American and as such you can have that attitude, and the amazing thing is, you can find other people who will share and support that. Isn't America great?"

Nice to know, Bill, that you seem to have the opinion that as long as you have your toys it's okay to throw our freedoms and our moral position out a window. That you seem to feel this is a superior position to my own is interesting, and also why I don't feel the need to look to you for moral guidance, or worry that my moral stance doesn't meet up to your standards. Clearly, your standards suck, so I'm delighted to disappoint you.

As for trying to goad me into taking up arms (or whatever), nice try, but don't be silly. If it comes to the point where I have to sacrifice my own life and liberty to make the point I want to make, I'll deal with it then, and I hope that I will have the moral courage to do the right thing. We're not at that point yet. As I said, my first line of action is voting; I'm not sure why you don't seem to think that's a worthy endeavor.

Likewise, I'm not entirely sure why you have such contempt for me exercising my right to speech; belittling it as "posing and bluster" shows both that you misunderstand me and what it means to have the freedom to speak your mind.

Back to your toys, Bill; you seem to be content with those.

Jay Lake | September 29, 2006 09:53 AM

Thank you.

tommyspoon | September 29, 2006 10:03 AM

I'm really, really, REALLY depressed over this and I don't have the first clue how to speak to anyone who isn't.

Nathan, my heart is broken today. I haven't felt this bad since my Mom died. But that's neither here nor there.

My fear is that there may be no reasoning with people like Bill. They don't seem to understand that this bill gives our enemies permission to torture the brave men and women who protect this country. If that bit of enlightened self-interest can't persuade them, then I don't know what can.

Of course I'm voting in November. But I don't know what else to do.

clvrmnky | September 29, 2006 10:03 AM

BIll Marcy to Luther:

"You are doing better than ever as a member of the growing burgher class. You can worship in any one of our fine Catholic establishments, which you can afford to support. What are you going to do other than posting silly broadsheets on the doors of churches?"

Chang | September 29, 2006 10:06 AM

Bill Marcy: You have it better today than at any other time in history...

Say what?

Where do you live?

How do you have it better off now than ever before or any other time in history?

Where is it better right now than any other time in history? I will agee to some advances in medicine and science. But politically, we as Amricans are more unsafe than ever abroad (Re; The recently release report on how the War in Iraq has given rise to global terrorism).

Domestically, interest rates are up so even though house prices are dropping because no one can sell them houses are still too expensive for me to buy right now. Fewer and fewer people each day can afford to get basic medical care. One party wants to turn us into a police state like the rogue naitons it fights, and the other is too chicken-scratch to do anything about it.

I personally would gladly take an alduterous president with an excellent foreign policy during a booming economy where folks are making better livings than a incurious buffoon only interested in feathering the nest for his friends and family. I was better off in a lot of ways ten years ago than I am now.

Nathan | September 29, 2006 10:13 AM

Bill Marcy,

WTF are you talking about. At one point you talk about us being better off than at any other time in history. Are you telling us we should bend over and be glad we've got a tube of KY?

At another point you're telling Scalzi that he's your definition of a moral coward. Are you telling us he should be running down Pennsylvania Avenue with a shotgun?

WTF are you talking about?

Chris Billett | September 29, 2006 10:27 AM

John, this is superb. Your views are right.

Bill Marcy nearly touched on a good point, then fell into a vat of insanity and went off on one... but I've a little question. What can you Americans do? What can the likes of me do in the UK? I hate Blair in the same way you hate Bush, and I'd love to help him out the door SOONER than he or the law has planned. I think we owe it to morality and the world to get these fucktards out of positions of power.

People are dying.

I don't have the answer, however. I'm just interested in hearing other people's thoughts. Hell, the most I ever do is agree over and over and over with Karen Traviss over on her blog when she highlights the government's ineptitude and corruption.

I guess we can't resort to torture...

John Scalzi | September 29, 2006 10:32 AM

Chris Billett:

"Bill Marcy nearly touched on a good point, then fell into a vat of insanity and went off on one..."

To be fair to Bill, I do think he's absolutely correct that just whining and kvetching about the situation is not an appropriate response -- one should be willing to back up one's beliefs with actions. As I noted, it's not time for armed rebellion, and indeed the goal would be to avoid that if at all possible. But certainly political action and protest would be a damn fine thing.

As for what can Americans do: As I said, voting is a good start. Demanding that one's representatives actually respect the Constitution is another. As for what you can do in the UK: Got me. What can you do?

Chris | September 29, 2006 10:53 AM

Amen.

Chris | September 29, 2006 10:55 AM

Amen (to the original post). There are a lot of us that feel the way you do.

Christopher Davis | September 29, 2006 11:05 AM

Things which the War on Terror is more important than, according to the Republicans: habeas corpus, the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment....

Things which are more important than the War on Terror, according to the Republicans: getting rid of the estate tax, keeping gay Arabic translators out of the military.

Yeah, we "must do anything to win"...except anything that might inconvenience the GOP base.

Stephen G | September 29, 2006 11:06 AM

Vote. Donate money to organizations fighting against the Constitution's dismantling. Write and call your congresspeople. There's a lot good that can be done between the poles of do-nothing and armed rebellion.

Buck | September 29, 2006 11:09 AM

Selling freedom and morality for material well being is a false solution, and in the end, eventually cracks. It wasn't until the end of WWII that the German people realized many of the ramifications of the Nazi regime, in part because all of Europe was plundered to keep the homeland fat and comfortable. Pinochet gutted Chile, which had had a long history of democratic rule, and hypnotized the nation with an explosion of middle class and upper class wealth, in part a result of sweetheart deals with a cooperative US regime.

It's foolish to maintain that open discourse and calls to voting action are somehow not enough in the face of eroding freedoms, and that unless one is ready to move straight to violence, his resolve is somehow inadequate.

Under the Soviet thumb, the Hungarians and East Germans took relative economic prosperity in exchange for toeing the political line. The Poles took moral and to a certain degree political freedom, and their economy was diminished by Moscow as a consequence. In the end, it was the Polish fulmination that started to unravel that corrupt system.

Gary Boyd | September 29, 2006 11:14 AM

John, I started to comment immediately after reading your post but decided to read the comments first instead.

First, thanks for writing what you did. I agree with your sentiments. I can’t understand where this country got off track but somewhere along the line we seem to have forgotten who we are. I grew up proud to be American; proud that we didn’t do the easy thing…instead we did the right thing. Somewhere along the way we started doing the easy thing, now we can’t seem to retrace our steps back up that steep slope to the moral high ground. I think the first steps down that slope started when we decided it was easier to back corrupt dictators in our “fight” against communism…we are still following those same tracks in our new “war”. How can you explain to the people of the world that Sadam was OK in the ‘80’s but not the ‘90’s? The cat didn’t change his spots, we just changed our sunglasses. Hell, over and over we back the opposition to the legally elected leaders around the world. Folks, democracy doesn’t mean America gets a veto…democracy means we get to learn to live with the governments that their populous elects.

In my humble opinion, we started sliding down this slippery slope in the days of the Nixon administration. Isn’t it kind of funny how all of the current administration seemed to have begun their political careers there?
As for Bush, I have the enviable position of sharing the Dixie Chicks’ concerns about my ex-Governor. The man I have had the privilege of voting against 4 times now. I have wondered to this day how his record as Governor was rewritten prior to 2000 and no one in the “Mainstream Media” could tell the rest of the country about it. Come on folks I’ve lived in Texas my whole life. We rank in the last 10% on every metric you wish to use for quality of life, environmental concerns, wages…oh, hell everything. And you thought a Texas Governor was going to make America better? Stronger? Get real…
I am also not very trusting of this administration. My feeling is that this “War on Terrorism” is going to come in real handy when it comes to postponing the festivities of November 2008. So forgive me if I don’t hold out much optimism for getting’ quit of these people any time soon. But I’ll be doing my part this November to try to pack the houses of government with as many friendly eyes as I can being in Texas. And I’ll be spreading the word far and wide…

Teresa Nielsen Hayden | September 29, 2006 11:17 AM

Who's this Bill Marcy sshl? Is he one of your regulars, or is this a drive-by?

Patrick Nielsen Hayden | September 29, 2006 11:20 AM

In Ohio, your Democratic challenger to pro-torture incumbent Republican swine Mike DeWine is...Sherrod Brown, who forever stained his hitherto decent record by voting for the detainee bill in the House this week.

I don't envy you. It would take all the strength I have to march into the polling place and vote for Brown.

Make no mistake. I'd do it, and I hope you do too. Twelve Democratic senators and 34 reps voted for this disgrace, but if the Democrats controlled even one house of Congress, it would never have passed. It's a fact of the American system that narrow legislative majorities lead to lopsided votes.

So vote for the pathetic, self-dishonoring cur. It's important.

John Scalzi | September 29, 2006 11:20 AM

TNH:

He's here regularly. He and I get along fine in other comment threads but his politics and mine don't mesh.

PNH:

I'll be voting for Brown. I'll also be giving him a piece of my mind about his vote.

Joe Hass | September 29, 2006 11:23 AM

John:

Excellent post. I told my wife last night that tonight was "one of the darkest days in American history."

In reponse to the question of what we can do, I'm going to bring up the one suggestion that you can't stand: encourage our representatives to impeach the president.

I was in your boat on impeachment until the last month (that is, impeachment does very little good, would take too long, and would leave us wit President Cheney).

Of all things to change my mind, it was the excerpt from Bob Woodward's new book, printed in the Houston Chronicle: "I will not withdraw even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me."

I say impeach 'em all. If the GOP wants to use the boogeyman that this is a bad thing, my instant response would be this: "You impeached Bill Clinton over lying about oral sex. We think the death of 3,000 soldiers is just a little worse."

I've written my senators and told them that I believe that the only way to stop this president is to impeach him. That he's done so much damage that even trying to neutralize him over the next two years is too dangerous. The man has "Gulf Of Tonkin II" written all over him.

Hilary | September 29, 2006 11:31 AM

John I think you have captured the issue rather nicely, I will comment later.

For a very cogent article on torture go to this link
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115898810938213828
Search down to: Friday, September 22, 2006 - Unleashing The Beast

The site doesn’t seem to support stand alone entries so you have to search down for this, but it is worth a thorough read.

Vladimir Bukovsky’s experience with torture is a must read. I don’t always agree with Digby but this one is right on the money.

Lisa | September 29, 2006 11:42 AM

"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under."

--H.L. Mencken

Harry Connolly | September 29, 2006 11:49 AM

From the Onion:

Senate Wins Fight To Lower Allowable Amperage Levels On Detainees' Testicles

I laughed when I read it. It was bitter laughter, but I laughed.

Steve | September 29, 2006 11:54 AM

John,

You have said exactly what I feel...and said it far better than I could have. Thank you.

Q | September 29, 2006 12:11 PM

The economy is better than any time in history? I'm sure you have some sort of definition in which that might be true... but I don't see it.

TomB | September 29, 2006 12:16 PM

Damn right, Mr. Scalzi. Thank you for taking a stand.

Hilary | September 29, 2006 12:20 PM

Concerning Macy’s we are better off comment. We are not, we just think we are. We have lots of stuff, tv’s, chipboard furniture, and plastic oh so much plastic. The metric I use is that in 1959 my dad an upper level civil service scientist bought a 5 bedroom, 3 story 150 year old Victorian house in very affluent suburb of Boston (Wellesley) for about his annual salary.

Today it would take a 10 years of double income from this same scientist to buy the same house. That is the real erosion of our buying power. The rest is plastic crap.

The Romans invented Bread and Circus, we Americans really refined it. We watch the game, Dancing With Celebutants, and Paris doing what ever it is that she does. We let the morons take control and we have only ourselves to blame. We have allowed the “those damn politicians” mentality to fester, we have not demanded more, more integrity, more intelligence, more accountability, more morality; the real kind not some pithy quote from an ancient text.

When you set the bar so low, when you worship the almighty buck, when you can’t be bothered to participate in your local elections, then this is what you get. Democracy is a contact sport of minds and issues, if you outsource you opinions to talking heads whose interest is to get you to buy the new and improved unguent de jour, you are signing away your rights to play.

John is doing more that bitching about it, he is a professional writer, with an audience and a feline festooned with piggy goodness, he gets people’s attention, in a number of ways. This is a good thing, the debate here is good, the people smart, and the positions espoused here help clarify thoughts into actions. These next two election cycles are for all the marbles folks, put your money where your mouth is, pull up your waders and buckle your seatbelt it going to be a bumpy ride.

Q | September 29, 2006 12:31 PM

Somehow I don't think TNH's acronym "sshl" means what I imagine it means... but thinking it does makes me smile.

Janiece | September 29, 2006 12:39 PM

John, you wrote, "I simply can't conceive of a worse president than this one;"

This surprises me, because I sure as hell can, and I don't have a writer's imagination. I firmly believe things can ALWAYS be worse.

tommyspoon, you wrote, "this bill gives our enemies permission to torture the brave men and women who protect this country."

What makes you think Bush and Company give a crap? While I consider this particular consequence to be one of the worst things that will come out of this bill, I simply do not believe that Bush cares one way or the other. He appears to have adopted the attitude that the end justifies the means, so those servicemen and women will just be more casualties to him. His actions have proven to me that his concerns over the well-being of our military are lip service, nothing more. Why change now, at this late date?

Grr.

Adam Lipkin | September 29, 2006 12:40 PM

The problems with the "we have it so much better today" argument are:

1. It relies on economics, a field in which any three experts, given a chance to study the data, can put together six mutually exclusive conclusion.

2. (More seriously) It relies on a cowardly, lazy notion of what mankind (or America, depending on which "we" was being used here) can be. It's great that women can now vote (here, at least), that the black plague isn't something to fear (much), that slavery (at least the concept as it was defined 300 years ago) is essentially dead, etc. But humanity has an amazing ability to regress (the Dark Ages, anyone), and still has a long way to go. If we sit there and say, "hey, it's okay that we countenance torture, because we're much more civilized about it that the Inquisition was," we're not aiming high in our aspirations.

Janiece | September 29, 2006 12:47 PM

Adam Lipkin,

How sad that you make a good point. Saying that we no longer die in droves of amoebic dysentery and that we now view the all-too-common hate crimes that occur in our country as things to be prosecuted is not exactly a glowing recommendation of our civilization.

Prozac, anyone?

JD | September 29, 2006 12:54 PM

I would like to comment on this as a small part of our larger "war on terror" I found an applicable quote.

Why of course the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship ... voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Hermann Goering April 18, 1946 - Nuremberg trial Taken from "Nuremberg Diary" by G.M. Gilbert

Sounds chillingly familiar. "Just pick 3 of the 10 rights in the Bill of Rights that you can live without and we will keep you safe from the big bad terrorist"

Janiece | September 29, 2006 01:00 PM

Whatever happened to the idea of the loyal opposition? Just because I don't like or approve of the current administration does NOT make me unpatriotic. I've served this country longer than Bush, so I think I'm qualified to question HIS patriotism!

Laurie Mann | September 29, 2006 01:13 PM

I'm in violent agreement with everything you said, John.

I wrote "No Thank-You" letters to Warner, McCain and Graham this morning after writing them thank-you letters two weeks ago.

Completely disgusting.

As Jim points out, we managed to win the Cold War without dumping habeus corpus...

Gwen | September 29, 2006 01:18 PM

I commented over on my blog, and I don't want to post it here because my post was very, very long. It's at http://gwenspot.blogspot.com/2006/09/can-we-move-to-canada-now-in-which.html .
How I'm feeling: there are no words. Despair, depression, anger, fear, disgust. Bewilderment. Like someone said above, if you'd told me that we'd fall this low in 2000, or 2004, I'd've laughed in your face. Paranoid, delusional, go move to Canada if you want but I'm staying right here. How was I to know that come 2006 we'd have thought police? How was I to know that a year in Guatanamo would turn to two, four, six...that Abu Ghraib wasn't just an isolated incident...that Bush really wasn't just incompetent but either mind-bogglingly stupid or actually evil? I don't think I even really believed in evil, within or without. I understood Hitler being elected but I couldn't understand him staying in power.
Who am I kidding? I still don't understand. I don't understand why no one in power is doing anything. I don't understand how McCain can live with himself. I don't understand how people can still delude themselves that rational discourse is still possible, that calling for impeachment is overreaction, that this is at all about party politics anymore. It's not Republican versus Democrat, with we independents picking one or the other depending on our beliefs. Bush said it himself, and I didn't understand when he did: You're either with us or you're with the enemy.
At the time I was just annoyed that he could turn such a tragedy into us versus them; obviously any good person was on the side of the United States, even if they didn't agree with what the administration was doing. Obviously I was with "us" but against "our" policies.
Now that "our" policies have metaphorically shredded, burned, jumped on the ashes of, and buried the Constitution (they'd have to do it literally before some people would be outraged, I think, judging by the fact that the literal flag is more important than the freedom to burn it that it represents...), I'm wondering, is it too late to change my answer?

Phillip J. Birmingham | September 29, 2006 01:21 PM

Somehow I don't think TNH's acronym "sshl" means what I imagine it means... but thinking it does makes me smile.

I suspect that TNH is dis-emvoweling herself here.

I'm in the same boat as John concerning reps -- Melissa Bean, my rep, also voted for this travesty. For me, though, this is the last straw after a dismal series of shitty votes on her part. I will be voting for the third-party guy this time.

Annalee Flower Horne | September 29, 2006 01:34 PM

John, thanks for posting this. I really appeciate it.

Anamika: Actually, the US is not standing in the way of ending the genocide in Darfur. Bush and Blair are actually some of the two most vocal advocates of sending UN troops into Sudan. It's China and Russia that haven't come to the table on that particular horror. I'm not going to argue with you about the invasion of Iraq, but sending troops into Sudan without Khartoum's support would be a violation of international law (Article II of the UN Charter-- the same article Bush threatened to violate in 2003 if the security council wouldn't get behind resolution 1441 in regards to Iraq). Since 2003, the US has lost a lot of the political capital that permitted it to act unilaterally on the world stage. It can't effectively circumvent the security council the way it did with Iraq.

Just as it was the UN and not the US that proved instrumental in brokering an end to the Lebanon crisis, it's going to need to be the UN and not the US that offers the African Union assistance in disarming the Janjaweed and ending the genocide in Darfur.

So while I'm not going to argue that it was right for the US to strong-arm the international community where Iraq was concerned, they are no longer capable of doing so where Sudan is. The international community in general and Russia and China in specific are to blame for the inaction in Sudan. If Bush thought he could get away with thumbing his nose at the security council where Darfur was concerned, he'd have done so already.

Also, please keep in mind that there were Americans protesting the invasion of Iraq well before it actually happened. We did not all "buy into our own... perception as liberators." At the time of the Iraq invasion, Bush had been elected to office by 49% of the popular vote. I as an American can assure you that I never for a second thought that invading Iraq was a good idea, and I wasn't even old enough to vote at the time. If you want to hate all Americans for the actions of a government we didn't even elect, it's no real skin off my nose, but your assessment of the situation is incorrect at best.

Nora | September 29, 2006 01:41 PM

John, thank you for this. Reading your entry has put a voice to the horror that I've had - such voices are few and far between, which baffles me.

Also, reading people's comments and support is somewhat reassuring as well, as reassured as one can be with these bills passing with seemingly no dialogue, debate, or resistance.

Nothing this presidential regime/administration does surprises me anymore. My shock is now reserved for the Democratic party leadership and membership, who have absolutely no idea how to mobilize against the administration or communicate to the public without playing the game by the rules the neo-cons have laid out. They could change the terms of this debate. They refuse. It's more important to win elections, elections that don't mean anything anyway because they refuse to DO ANYTHING once they are in office. Theirs is the moral cowardice I'm most angry about.

Janiece | September 29, 2006 01:53 PM

Just finishing up my letters to Tancredo, Allard, Salazar and McCain. My voice will be louder come November, and I hope, as others have commented, that we have a better turn-out than we have in years past.

"Silence is Consent."

Adam Rakunas | September 29, 2006 01:57 PM

Jonathan Rauch has an article (behind a subscription wall, sorry) in this month's Atlantic saying that, while Bush is certainly a bad President, the damage he's done won't take as long to fix as, say, Carter's damage.

I hope he's now writing a follow-up with the title, "Holy Crap, Was I Ever Wrong."

Political organizing is boring, unsexy and (for the most part) frustrating as hell. It's also what the assclowns in power have been doing since Goldwater's day, which is why they're beating the Dems like rented mules. I know I'm going to make phone calls and raise cash and pound the pavement this election cycle, and I hope everyone out there who's feeling hopeless and afraid and pissed off like nobody's business will do the same. Find that candidate or issue or party that speaks to you (and, I might add, with you), and get to work. The hours suck, the pay sucks, and the work itself sucks, but it's much more satisfying than yelling at trolls.

And I would argue, John, that a writer of your skill and passion (not to mention one who has trained debating mojo) should find a candidate or group or movement of some kind and say, "Hi. I like your candidates and your ideas. I'm your new position paper/speech writer. Let's get cracking." Not only because it'll be pretty satisfying, but out of a moral obligation to use your talent to make for a better country.

Of course, I'm only an amateur arguer, so what the hell.

Brian Greenberg | September 29, 2006 01:59 PM

My instinct is to just stay out of this echo chamber, and let John's opinion resonate over & over again so that everyone feels really good about themselves. I'm jumping in, though, because it bugs the #&!^ out of me when people just streamroll right over the facts. So many legitimate things to be pissed at Bush about, and yet people still need to invent new ones...

First, the constitution has NOTHING to do with this. The constitution doesn't apply to non-American detainees anymore than the Geneva Conventions apply to us as citizens. We may choose to grant non-citizens the same rights we have (1st, 4th, 5th ammendment), but we do that at our own discretion, not because the constitution compels us to.

The constitution DID have to do with the Supreme Court's June ruling, because the constitution does not grant the President (who is a citizen) power to hold military tribunals of this kind. And since the constitution explicitly denies the President any powers not specified in its text, the only legal way to proceed was to get Congress to pass a law.

Which is precisely what he did.

At the time, there were Whatever commenters speculating that Bush would ignore the Supreme Court and proceed with the trials anyway. John came to his defense at that point, correctly predicting that he has enough respect for the law to abide by the Supreme Court ruling, and work with a friendly, Republican congress to pass the required law. After all, to have done otherwise would have been "incomprehension of and contempt for the United States Constitution."

Argue, if you want, that we should be doing more to maintain the moral high ground we once enjoyed in the world, and I'll agree with you. But spare me all this talk of constitutional violations when none actually exist.

Second, it's competely disingenuous to suggest that this bill advocates or promotes torture. The bill puts specific definitions around the language in the Geneva convention, and leaves interpretation of anything else to the President. Before this bill, interpretation of ALL activities were left to the President. The bill adds restrictions, it does not remove them.

(Also, I'd just like to add that it takes some impressively large balls to suggest that you know what constitutes torture, and John McCain does not.)

Argue, if you want, that our self-imposed "clarifications" of the Geneva Convention are still too vague and as such, put our troops at risk in future conflicts, and I'll agree with you. But all of this "Bush promotes torture" crap is just election year, political doublespeak.

Finally, this notion that we aren't better off today than in any time in our history is astounding to me.

The life-improving services we have at our disposal today were the things of science fiction just a generation ago. The low-income housing of today is of higher quality than the average home of 50 years ago, not to mention what most of the world lives in today. The medical coverage we provide, even to people without health insurance, is more accessible and of higher quality than what most of the world has today as well. The poor in this country would generally be considered middle class in most of the world. For these and a thousand other reasons, we remain the only country in the world with a consistent record of net immigration going back decades.

Argue, if you want, that we should never be satisfied and always strive to seek out and improve the flaws in our system, and I'll agree with you. But don't jump all over people who point out our strengths alongside our weaknesses, just because it helps to make your case against the President.

Apologies for the rambling, but I get the feeling I'm as bothered by this now as John was when he wrote the original post...

John Scalzi | September 29, 2006 02:07 PM

Brian Greenberg:

"But spare me all this talk of constitutional violations when none actually exist."

BURIED IN THE complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.

Brian, do try to know what you're talking about before you pontificate.

aphrael | September 29, 2006 02:26 PM

A minor disagreement: the Senate Democrats could not filibuster because they could not muster enough 'no' votes to sustain one. It's not that the people opposed to it didn't have the courage to filibuster; it's that there weren't enough Senators opposed to it to have a filibuster, full stop.

That's depressing in its own way, but it means that the Senators-in-opposition may not be the moral cowards you imply they are.

John Scalzi | September 29, 2006 02:30 PM

Aphrael, I suspect that if the Senate Democrats made it a priority to filibuster the bill, there would have been a sufficient number.

Todd Stull | September 29, 2006 02:33 PM

Let me tell you all a quick story that may be germane to the issue of a lack of discernable parties and politicians being careerists first, upright citizens second.

My best friend’s mom (Christine Cegelis) ran for Congress in 2004 and was beat by Henry Hyde in Illinois. Not a big shock as he was an incumbent with a long track record, disgusting in various ways as it might be. She did so because she was tired of watching Bush and Co. destroy aspects of our democracy.

So, she lost in 2004, but kept running full-time for the 2006 election after Hyde decided to retire. She spent the better part of two years spending time in her Congressional District actually talking to regular people like you and I, getting to know the issues, debating, participating in the great democratic experiment of our country. She was scrappy, determined, and honorable, even if you did not agree with any, all, or some of her positions. She was a former IT professional who wanted to make the country better.

She worked her ass off, recruited volunteers and found paid staff to run a campaign, and was dealing with all the insanity that is a modern campaign. In response, a few months before the April primaries, the Democratic National Convention pulls out any support for Christine and decides to put all of its money and weight behind Tammy Duckworth, a woman from out of the district!! Because she was a disabled veteran, the DNC apparently decided that Duckworth could capitalize on that and get some moderate Republican votes that Christine (perhaps) would not have gotten.

Now you might argue that was some sort of shrewd political move by the DNC. To me, it seemed like a slap in the face to a woman who really does love her country, and who quit a well paying job to do something about the political situation in this country. I wanted to vomit when I found this out. I almost disavowed any association with the Democratic party, except, what is the viable alternative?

So, to John, I feel the same way as you do on a number of issues. What we need to do now is channel our anger into local involvement in politics. If we can get invested enough in local politics, and attack the machine built by the DNC and RNC, we can, as Bono from U2 has said, wrestle our country back from these stupid, pathetic, and spineless politicians (admittedly I have embellished his quote).

Chris Gerrib | September 29, 2006 02:39 PM

I agree with Scalzi - I am not a fan of declaring US citizens as "enemy combatants." Unfortunately, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in 1861, so there is a precident. Although, you will note Padilla is in a civilian jail now, chiefly because Bush didn't want to re-argue the case before the Supreme Court.

Greenburg's point is also well-taken. You may not like the law (not sure I do), but it was passed by Congress in persuance to a Supreme Court decision. There is a long precidence to military tribunals, especially for trying people who engage in warfare without following the rules of war. Don't forget that the alternative is we declare the Gitmo detainees POWS and hold them until the war is over - an effective life sentence.

Maybe it's because I served in the military, but I have some faith that the officers assigned to these tribunals will do their best to rule fairly.

Paul | September 29, 2006 02:39 PM

Just a few points:

1. For the people who are concerned that this gives our enemies permission to torture our soldiers: Have you noticed that they are already doing that? Including all of those video taped beheadings; dragging bodies through the streets; kidnappings; and dancing on our injured GI's. Do you think that they will stop doing those things if we pass a law that says we won't do those things? Are you suggesting that they are currently doing those things because we are too?

2. To suggest that we have somehow lowered ourselves to "their" level or somehow debased ourselves is hyperbolye at best. You will not see us broadcasting public beheadings; or condoning honor killings, or conscripting suicide bombers, or shooting politicians etc as a result of this bill.

3. For those who are concerned that this shreds the constitution: You will be happy to know that the bill specifically states that it only applies to non-citizens and so therefore has zero impact on our constitution. We are a nation "by contract" and only parties to the contract are subject to the terms.

4. For those who are concerned about the Geneva Conventions: We haven't fought an enemy who was a signer since WWII and we have never fought an enemy who abided by the rules. Ever. Just ask McCain.

5. And for those of you who think that the idiot savant George Bush has done this all by himself: You should note that the bill went through the full legislative process and was passed by large bi-partisan margins. It was not filibustered because more than a majority of the elected representatives thought that it was a good idea.

6. You may not like his politics but Bush is a very competent politician who has accomplished more than enough to be considered one of our most significant presidents. To suggest otherwise is simply sour grapes.

7. I find it interesting that people who profess no faith in God or any other higher power can be so dogmatic about "morality". Morality is simply a recognition that some things are right and others are wrong based on some accepted standard. On what do you base your morality? Who sets the rules for you? How do you "know" that something is wrong?

8. Moral Cowardice is a serious charge and one I don't think you can support if you are honest. Bush may be a lot of things but he is not a coward. As a politician he has taken principled stands and stuck with them in the face of overwhelming hostility. Nor can you dispute that he has a set of personal moral principles that he operates by consistantly. Moral cowardice would suggest that he is intentionally doing something that he knows is wrong because he is afraid of the consequences of doing the right thing. Bush clearly thinks that he is doing the right thing in this instance and is willing to stake his political capital on it.

What you are really saying then is that you don't like the decisions that he has made, but you can't make the case for the universality of your position so you have to employ an ad hominem to express your frustration that things didn't go your way.

fishbane | September 29, 2006 03:00 PM

Just another adding, "amen". The thugs running things now are worse than moral cowards. Not only are they self-aggrandizing arrogant power whores, they are also trashing the very nation they swore to protect. Between the destruction of our legal system, the economic damage and the trashing of our international reputation (not to mention a country or two that now produce more people that violently hate us), I have difficulty imagining how someone could have done more damage in 6 years than they have.

Janiece | September 29, 2006 03:06 PM

Paul,

Point 3: Please read Scalzi's 2:07 p.m. comment. This does in fact apply to American citizens in some cases.

Point 6: "Significant" does not equal "great" or even "good."

Point 7: Please read something about morality and the human condition other than the religious text of your choice before making the assumption that non-religious people have no credibility in defining "morality." A standard Google search on "atheist morality" will provide you a place to start.

John Scalzi | September 29, 2006 03:13 PM

Paul:

"I find it interesting that people who profess no faith in God or any other higher power can be so dogmatic about 'morality.'"

I find it interesting that people who take orders from an imaginary creature who lives in the sky find it interesting that people who don't have a moral sense.

"Bush may be a lot of things but he is not a coward."

Bullshit. The man is as morally cowardly as they come, both as a Christian, as he so often claims to be (because he certainly doesn't live up to Christ's dictums when he authorizes torture) or as a citizen of the United States, whose founding document he goes out of his way to subvert primarily because he can't be bothered to do things in a manner consistent with the Constitution. You may find his insistence on pissing all over the Constitution admirable; I will choose to disagree.

"What you are really saying then is that you don't like the decisions that he has made, but you can't make the case for the universality of your position so you have to employ an ad hominem to express your frustration that things didn't go your way."

If you believe that you don't have very good reading comprehension, Paul. Go back and try again. I don't like the decisions he's made, and among the reasons I don't like them is that they are a betrayal of that which our nation of laws is founded upon, and of the moral system Bush mouths so piously for his own political gain. He's a moral coward, all right, and I have all the concrete reasons I need to believe that.

Chris Gerrib:

"You may not like the law (not sure I do), but it was passed by Congress in persuance to a Supreme Court decision."

I certainly agree this gives Bush better legal cover than he had before, although I suspect it is still largely unconstitutional; I additionally suspect it will be in front of the courts in relatively short order.

Anonymous | September 29, 2006 03:23 PM

*As a Canadian* I was dumbfounded as hell that Bush got re-elected. I won't comment on our government being weak and giving in to him so much, but we do have our own problems.

Things have been going steadily down the crapper for the US government for years. Yet funnily enough, now that the US citizens are standing up more *and louder* against their own government, I've never been so happy to have them as my neighbors. Recognition is the first step. Voicing it is the second. I can't wait for the third when true action comes about.

*linked to you by lotus-faery*

Adam Ziegler | September 29, 2006 03:37 PM

Paul, just a few points:

1. My moral standards do not depend on who we are fighting. This is not about the terrorists. It is about us, our country, and what we stand for.

2. See #1. I am not going to lower the bar just because our enemies have done so.

3. You are an ignorant tool. As John has already pointed out above, this bill "authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."

4. See #1 and #2.

5. Bi-partisan? Only if the words have no meaning. An actual "full legislative process?" Whatever.

6. To suggest that Bush is competent is simply more evidence that you have your head sandwiched between your butt cheeks.

7. If you are so ignorant of the ethical and philisophical underpinnings of secular morality that you would start torturing and killing people if you didn't believe in God, then by all means, please continue to believe in God. On the other hand, it doesn't exactly seem to be detering you now.

8. We are saying exactly what we are saying. You can take your attempts to reframe our words and go hang yourself.

Anonymous | September 29, 2006 03:44 PM

To add to Adam Ziegler's thoughts:

"Paul, just a few points:

1. My moral standards do not depend on who we are fighting. This is not about the terrorists. It is about us, our country, and what we stand for."

You know, like what McCain said. Again - McCain is an oppurtunistic assclown, and Paul, to the extent you agree with him, I'll be fighting your ideas tooth and nail for the rest of my life.

CoolBlue | September 29, 2006 03:44 PM

H.R.6166
Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

Period.

Chris Gerrib | September 29, 2006 03:47 PM

John - the only copy of the bill that I can find online, specifically applies ONLY to "unlawful alien combatants."

It defines "alien" as "not a US citizen" and uses the same language as the Geneva Convention regarding what constitutes an "unlawful combatant." (No uniform, not member of army / militia, etc.)

The habeaus corpus provision doesn't cover US citizens because 1) the bill doesn't apply to US citizens and 2) the text of the bill modifies habeas corpus for "alien detained by the United States."

Obviously, this online version may not be the most updated one that just passed, and yes, I suspect that it will be challenged in court.

JC | September 29, 2006 04:22 PM

CoolBlue: The section you quoted says nothing about whether or not non-alien unlawful enemy combatants are subject to trial by military commision under this chapter.

However, if one looks at section 948d, subsection c:
"(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter."

I read this as saying that the president is able to decide whether or not the military commision under this chapter has jurisdiction or not.

This is consistent with the news reports.

Gwen | September 29, 2006 04:29 PM

>Don't forget that the alternative is we declare the Gitmo detainees POWS and hold them until the war is over - an effective life sentence.

Except which life sentence would you rather have, the one under the Geneva Conventions, or the one where you get held indefinitely under who-knows-what conditions and can't complain about those conditions later when you (eventually) get to go in court? At least for the former, you get out when the police operation ends; for the latter, as long as they want. Habeas corpus? Who cares?

>For those who are concerned that this shreds the constitution: You will be happy to know that the bill specifically states that it only applies to non-citizens and so therefore has zero impact on our constitution. We are a nation "by contract" and only parties to the contract are subject to the terms.

Perhaps I have been transported to a parallel universe, where the founders of our country didn't recognize inherent, natural, God-given rights above and beyond the government, where the Constitution simply lists rights of citizens instead of powers of government (and limits on those powers), where instead of "Congress shall make no law"-type amendments we have "Citizens have the right to", where the eighth amendment doesn't say "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" but rather "the government shall not require excessive bail, nor impose excessive fines, nor inflict cruel and unusual punishment on United States citizens", where the ninth and tenth amendments don't exist.
Or, maybe, the Constitution really is meant to be binding on the government, telling it what it can and cannot do, and reserving all other powers and rights "to the states respectively, or to the people" without any mention of citizenship.
Not to mention that this bill can apply to legal United States citizens in the United States because rather than actually defining "unlawful enemy combatant", the bill says what can be done to alien unlawful enemy combatants and also what can be done to unlawful enemy combatants of any stripe, treating them as two separate groups, with the criteria as follows:
"A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter."
So: who finds the evidence against a person, who arrests them, who holds them indefinitely without habeas corpus, who decides whether or not they can do whatever the president decides short of rape, biological experiments, torture, and cruel and inhuman treatment (defined by the president and the president alone, so those options are still on the table anyway, especially considering Bush's interesting definitions of torture), who does those things to them, who tries them (eventually), who convicts and sentences? Why, the executive branch, of course. All by itself. The judicial branch doesn't even get involved, which is kinda funny considering that it's the one that interprets treaty law (and the Geneva Conventions) and the Constitution, and that it's the branch whose business justice is.
The government is the only signatory of that contract; only government officials are sworn to uphold that contract; and only the government is bound by it. The people are bound under government, not any explicit contract. "And when in the course of human events it becomes necessary"--or am I thinking of "resistance to tyrants is obedience to God"? Well, the idea is the same.
And for now, we might be able to work within the system. But what can you do? when there's no one principled to vote for, when the most you can say about certain senators and representatives is that, hey, we might be torturing people, but at least we're not doing it on video tape! We might execute people, but at least the executions are by invitation only! We're not quite at the level of the terrorists yet! (Emphasis on the "yet"; the Geneva Conventions are, like the Constitution, "just a gddmn piece of paper" in the eyes of our current executive branch.)

John Scalzi | September 29, 2006 04:31 PM

Chris Gerrib:

The link you give doesn't work (I think THOMAS assigns temporary URLs or something), but I'll look into the full text.

Leaving out US citizens for the moment, as I understand it legal residents of the US (who are, so far as I know, generally protected by the US Constitution) could be classified as alien illegal combatants, so there are still certainly constitutional issues there.

On review: A couple comments up JC notes an interesting point, which I suspect was what being referred to in the piece I linked.

Jeremy Lassen | September 29, 2006 04:46 PM

Thanks John, for your eloquence. Sadness and anger in equal parts makes it difficult for me to be articulate on this subject.

CoolBlue | September 29, 2006 04:49 PM

JC

Which part of "Persons subject to military commissions" do you not understand?

Note: Section 948d (from which you quote) is titled Jurisdiction of military commissions

subsection c, which you quote, details how persons who are subject to military commisions may be designated for a military commission.

I would also point out that under subsection c, no individual determines the fate of a detainee's status. This is left to a tribunal.

Additionally, notice that this bill is solely about how a Military Commission is to be conducted and the sentences it can mete.

I would further point out that the bill mandates Congressional oversight in the form of an annual report (section 498e)

charles | September 29, 2006 04:51 PM

John; I agree with and support your charge of moral cowardice on the part of el Presidente. He gets more and more like a dimwitted banana republic leader every day. And the Democrats need to get a spine and some brains. I'm out in California and we had the two Demcratic insiders running for governor gut each other and their election funds in a nasty primary while the Guvernator listened to Maria Shriver and took all of the best Democartic policies as his own. Looks like he will be re-elected big time. I am hoping Maria is planning to turn him into a rightist Democrat over time.
Fight the good fight. And yes I am buying your books, new, in hardcover.

XYZ | September 29, 2006 04:53 PM

Wow, an annual report. I feel safer already.

Steve Buchheit | September 29, 2006 05:04 PM

Sorry I'm late to this rumble. Did I miss anything?

John Scalzi, ditto brother, ditto.

And to Bill M; one, I am part of the government; two, I believe there are still Constitutional remedies to this insanity; three, I'm already relearning things I once knew well just in case two doesn't work out. That's are far as I'm willing say, except, gee, I think speaking out on a fairly popular blog, taking political action and encouraging others to take political action is doing something worth while.

I just can't believe we are arguing barbarism. Considering the back channel talk and recent "leaks" many still in uniform can't believe it either.

As for the Democratic Leadership not attempting a filibuster because they wouldn't have had the votes is cowardice as well. You don't just fight when you know you can win, you fight what needs fighting.

Teresa Nielsen Hayden | September 29, 2006 05:06 PM

Bill Marcy, you're trying to dismiss this subject because it makes you uncomfortable. Both of the rhetorical maneuvers you pulled in your comments are meaningless in terms of the actual informational content of the discussion. Both are commonly used to devalue arguments without engaging with them.

These maneuvers are:

1. Declaring that some argument or statement is worthless unless its author is going to immediately, personally take direct action on the issue. (A variant of this ploy is to declare that the author is unqualified to speak on the subject because he or she hasn't suffered as much as the members of some arbitrarily chosen group that has been affected by issue under discussion.)

Trouble is, neither of those arbitrarily imposed qualifications has any necessary connection with or relation to the validity of the author's statements. Going out and taking action on a statement doesn't make that statement true. Not immediately acting on it doesn't make the statement false.

In normal discourse, the presence or absence of direct personal action, subsequently undertaken, is not normally used as a test of the speaker's authority, or the validity of the speaker's statements. Can you give a reason why it should be especially pertinent here?

2. Pointing out that the speaker is living a comfortable and privileged life relative to the vast majority of humans throughout history, or people alive now.

Like the previously identified rhetorical maneuver, this has no necessary relevance to the validity of the statements it pretends to address. Also, it applies to you just as much as it applies to John Scalzi.

Todd Stull | September 29, 2006 05:11 PM

CoolBlue said:

"Note: Section 948d (from which you quote) is titled Jurisdiction of military commissions

subsection c, which you quote, details how persons who are subject to military commisions may be designated for a military commission.

I would also point out that under subsection c, no individual determines the fate of a detainee's status. This is left to a tribunal.

Additionally, notice that this bill is solely about how a Military Commission is to be conducted and the sentences it can mete.

I would further point out that the bill mandates Congressional oversight in the form of an annual report (section 498e)"

CoolBlue, let me rejoinder in the same sarcastic spirit you answered JC.

Clearly you are able to interpret legislation far better than others here, so please, share your wisdom and answer some questions.

What is meant by tribunal in this bill? Two people? Eight? Officers appointed by the President? His friends and neighbors in the Reserve?

If the President is the Commander in Chief of the military, what stops him from abusing his power and influencing or outright directing how the tribunal will rule?

Other than the report to Congress, what sort of judicial checks and balances are operating on this function of the executive branch of government once this is passed?

I ask these questions because it seems as if you are stating that you know how this bill will be interpreted. I have read many opinions that this legislation will be ruled unconstitutional for a number of reasons. Also, analysis by legal professors suggests the President can in fact direct people living in America to be picked up and detained, "tortured", and tried in secret. You might then understand that I am afraid myself or one of my neighbors will end up on the end of an amazing waterboarding trick.

Teresa Nielsen Hayden | September 29, 2006 05:14 PM

Paul, I find it interesting that every veteran I know disagrees with you.

We are not a nation "by contract". We're bound by our laws. It's not all right for us to torture non-citizens.

This new law doesn't limit torture to non-citizens.

If you think the known instances of U.S. military personnel being tortured are comparable to the extent of our own torture, you don't know jack anyway.

Do you have a surname, by the way?

Chris Gerrib | September 29, 2006 05:23 PM

Todd - in an attempt to de-escalate the sarcasm, please allow me to answer your questions based on the version of the bill I read.

Tribunal will consist of at least 5 military officers and a military judge (non-voting). None of the officers can be involved in the case other then as tribunal members.

>what stops the President from abusing his power?

The same thing that in the end always does - the individuals on the tribunal need to live with themselves.

The bill has an appeals process up to the D. C. District Court of Appeals.

The President can in fact direct people to be picked up, "tortured" and tried. As long as they are not US citizens.

Jon Marcus | September 29, 2006 05:32 PM

John
Let me add another thank you.

CoolBlue
Check here http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/does-military-commissions-act-apply-to.html for an opinion by Jack Balkin (Professor of Constitutional Law at Yale) that this does apply to non-aliens.

As is noted above, these are all only opinion until the Supreme Court rules. That said, I give quite a bit more weight to Balkin's opinions than yours.

Riccardo | September 29, 2006 05:33 PM

I don't know what they were thinking... according to this memo from the Attorney General, we cannot hold citizens forever, even when they plotted against us.


But you can declare them "Unlawful Enemy Combatants", sir.


So?


Just thinking, sir., that if someone is an "Unlawful Enemy Combatant", he doesn't really deserve the honor of being a citizen.


Certainly not... Ungrateful traitors!


Maybe something could be done about that: maybe our people in Congress could pass a law that automatically strips the citizenship from anybody who has been declared an unlawful enemy combatant. Then they no are citizens and you can do with them as they deserve.


Sounds good, but will it pass?


We may have to compromise a bit, maybe you could declare that this is a measure that will be applied only in the most serious of circumstances.


And we are the ones to decides if a case is serious or not... Ok: start working on a draft.


Very good sir.

Jon Marcus | September 29, 2006 05:37 PM

Short explanation of said opinion: CoolBlue is technically correct, but deceptive.

Military commissions only apply to aliens. However, the law would seem to say that citizens can be defined as "enemy combatants" if they have "supported hostilities against the United States." Not just those who have "engaged in hostilities" but those who have supported them.

That's important, because Hamdi was decided with a pretty tight definition of enemy combatant. The new law greatly broadens that definition.

Gwen | September 29, 2006 05:38 PM

Here's how Stephen Colbert, political comedian extraordinaire, reports it in the Word of the Day segment (the bracketed phrases are text on the screen):

[Text here removed for copyright reasons -- JS]

Should I laugh, or cry?

Steve Brady | September 29, 2006 05:39 PM

A couple of legal notes:

The bill strips habeas from aliens only. We've got two kinds of habeas - what the constitution provides, and what Congress has added onto it. To the best of my knowledge, the constitutional part has two elements: it applies only to detentions by the executive branch, and the detainee must be under the jurisdiction of some court. The court previously (Rasul) said that Gitmo counts for this second part, and so the aliens at Gitmo had habeas, even under the current habeas statutes. To my mind, stripping habeas from those at Gitmo, even though they are aliens (the Framers knew how to distinguish between People and Citizens, and this is not one of those places) is unconstitutional because we're lacking a rebellion or an invasion - which is basically what Arlen Specter's complaint was.

The section allowing the designation of "enemy combatant" includes anyone who "purposely and materially" aids terrorism, with no mention of alienage. It could have been worse - the White House didn't want "purposely and" to be in there - leaving the possibility that some little old lady who unwittingly sends a check to a charity/terrorist front group could be labelled an enemy combatant.

John Scalzi | September 29, 2006 05:41 PM

Gwen:

Hate to do this, but I'm going to have to redact your entry because posting that whole bit is a copyright violation. If you want to repost a couple of the best quotes, that's fine.

Jon Marcus:

Thanks for that link. It's interesting and does again bring up the issue of what this ruling means for citizens as well as for non-citizen residents who otherwise had enjoyed Constitutional protections.

CoolBlue | September 29, 2006 05:47 PM

Teresa Nielsen Hayden

This new law doesn't limit torture to non-citizens.

This bill doesn't allow torture at all.

The bill specifically invokes the McCain Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. Why was that bill OK up until this moment?

Jon Marcus

I give quite a bit more weight to Balkin's opinions than yours.

I give more weight to the actual text than anyone commenting about the text. And in this case the text seems pretty clear. Not twiky at all.

Brian Greenberg | September 29, 2006 05:50 PM

Thanks to everyone above for the informative, fact-based discussion about what the law says and doesn't say. It's a nice departure from the tone of John's original post and the ~70 comments that followed it.

As to the constitution: I have not read the bill in its entirety, but from what I'm reading here, it seems its authors (as is likely the case with most bill's authors) have made an honest effort to comply with the constitution, lest it be thrown out in court. At the very least, I don't believe a three line quote from those constitutional scholars at the LA Times is the standard for unconstitutionality.

And, for the record, I hope to God this law gets tested in the courts. And if section 948 is unconstitutional, I hope the law gets shot down like Dick Cheney's buddy on a quail hunting trip. And I hope Congress rewrites the law to rectify the problem, and the process repeats itself.

Because, you see, this is precisely how our democratic nation of laws is supposed to work.

And if/when it does happen, I will do my best to ignore the newspaper headlines that declare "Supreme Court Deals Major Defeat to George Bush," and bloggers who claim "Bush authorized torture again today by..."

It's all just smoke that clouds real, informative debate like the one we're having above.

John Scalzi | September 29, 2006 05:53 PM

Coolblue:

"I give more weight to the actual text than anyone commenting about the text. And in this case the text seems pretty clear. Not twiky at all."

Oddly enough, CoolBlue, the Constitutional expert Jon notes says that the text pretty clearly does apply to citizens, so here's the problem: If you think it's clear, and he thinks it's clear, and yet both of you think it clearly says two different things, a) how clear is it really, and b) whose interpretation of its clarity should be given greater creedence, yours or the Constitutional scholar?

Brian Greenberg:

"I don't believe a three line quote from those constitutional scholars at the LA Times is the standard for unconstitutionality."

Well, see, Brian, the quote came from a law professor at Yale who happens to specialize in Constitutional issues, who just happened to be writing a piece for the LA Times. Which you would have known had you bothered to follow the link, which clearly you did not.

Your problem, Brian, is that you seem to think a certaintly that you know what's going on trumps actually finding out what is going on. Do the legwork before you make the smirky comments. Otherwise your complaints about my tone are both hypocritical and hollow.

Adam Lipkin | September 29, 2006 06:07 PM

Because, you see, this is precisely how our democratic nation of laws is supposed to work.

Brian, that's not precisely true. Checks and balances are there to make sure that the Constitution doesn't get violated, in much the same way that a guard rail is there to prevent a car from going into a ravine.

But how it's "supposed to work," is that our leaders shouldn't attempt to pass laws that violate the Constitution to begin with (or, keeping with my admittedly-forced analogy, a driver shouldn't veer off the road).

The Supreme Court shooting down the law is what happens when something already failed to work. It's a defense against things getting even worse.

Matt Fanny | September 29, 2006 06:10 PM

I hesitate to post, because this is about politics, and over the past several years politics in general have become so polarized, so vitriolic, so downright _nasty_ that it makes me queasy. People who disagree don't seem to listen to each other, just insult one another. They don't talk _to_ one another, they talk _at_ one another- nastily. So I hestitated. But I finally decided to comment, because I have met Mr. Scalzi and I have quite a bit of respect for his intellect and writing. My politics doesn't tend to match his. I do not think this bill is a good idea. I do not condone it. I do understand the reasoning that led to it. It is my understanding, based on the readng I have done, that this bill only applies to non-US citizens. If this is true, then while I still don't care for it; I can live with it. If on the other hand it does apply to US citizens it is an abomination that will be struck down by the Supreme Court post-haste (I trust).
I do not understand the (seemingly) unthinking, unreasoning hatred of President Bush that many commentors have displayed. I do not say this to be offensive or insulting; and if I come across that way I apologize in advance; it just seems like that is their position from what I can gather. I have disagreed with, and continue to disagree with, many of his administrations decisions, but looked at dispassionately, how can any rational person declare him to be evil? (The term "Chimpy McBushitler" comes to mind). I think he has decent intentions but does not implement them well at all. One person up-thread declared he was not competent as a President, and I wondered how do we define competency? I tend to think of it as getting the job done- finishing what you started out to do in the most efficient, timeliest way possible. Looked at with that metric, hasn't Bush accomplished many of his political goals, whether you agree with them or not? I have never met the President, but I do not think him evil and I do not think he thinks that he is acting from moral cowardice. Based on his actions, I judge him as a man stuck with a war he is not sure how to prosecute and determined to do the best job he can. I may not like a lot of his decisions, but to declare him a moral coward because of those decisions is something I am not prepared to do at this point. There is no proof that I can see, that he is acting out of a sense of malice or evil. Absent that, how can I, or we, declare him a coward? I have rambled, and I apologize for it. The whole situation is deeply troublesome.
A final thought- from one perspective (he knows that this is contrary to the Constitution, the laws and traditions of the USA and did it anyway ala the ends justifys the means) then yes, I can see a charge of moral cowardice. From another perspective ( this doesn't apply to US citizens, only terrorists, and even then we will treat them better than they treat us and I need to protect the people of my country the best I can, the best I know how) then I am not so sure. Again, my apologies for the length of this post and if I offended anyone. It was not my intent.

-Matt

Steve Buchheit | September 29, 2006 06:15 PM

CoolBlue, "This bill doesn't allow torture at all."

From your own blog, "HR 6166 also clearly defines what is and is not torture..."

So, now since we have a law that defines torture as non-torture, you're argument is that the bill doesn't allow torture because we've redrawn the line? Where's your moral center? Or are you being disingenuous? Water boarding, cold room, 40-hour standing position, etc have all been defined as torture up until this point.

As for the "deadly killers" there's this Canadian Citizen named Maher Arar that we "extraordinarily rendered" to Syria, after a trip to Afghanistan. Yeah, he's a killer all right. Except that after his treatement, he made not smile so kindly toward us.

As for the "McCain Detainee Treatment Act" being okay, who said so? Especially after the signing statement. Maybe you missed that discussion.

Martyn Taylor | September 29, 2006 06:15 PM

What can we in the UK do? I dunno. How about voting? We've been doing that for a good few centuries now and have almost got the hang of it. We've even got independent electoral commissions rather than leaving it to a candidate's brother do decide whose votes count.

Yeah, I know that's a bit low, but, like I said, we've been a democracy a long time now. It works.

By the way, we're prosecuting soldiers for torture (haven't convicted them yet)

What can you do (pacem Bill Marcy)? What you're doing, exercising your right as a citizen to express your outrage when a government does something as outrageous as this. Vote. Always a good idea. Do it whenever and wherever you can. You might not vote for the winner, but there's plenty who want to remove that avenue from you.

As for taking up arms . . ? I thought that was unconstitutional.

As for those who think that 'their' torture justifies 'ours', go look at the Nuremburg trials. Ends DO NOT justify means. OUR civilisation means that you do not do some things, no matter what the cause