Redstate

kudos to you, sir.

right on. thanks for this excellent post.

You make a compelling case for why torture is wrong but in a way it is a strawman because the sections of the bill in question do not advocate torture.

Right now there are at least two Chechen terrorists in the US with known ties to the Chechen terror organization behind the Beslan school massacre. They entered the country illegally and asked for asylum based of fear of (righteous)persecution. Russia has asked for extradition. We've said no to extradition but inexplicably yes to harboring terrorists.

There a several Egyptians in this country under similiar circumstances. They have ties to terrorist organizations in Egypt and Egypt has requested extradition. We have declined it.

Essentially we have created a situation where once a terrorist reaches the US they achieve safe harbor because 1) we can't send him home to face whatever passes for justice there and 2) we can't deport him because no sane nation will take a suspected terrorist.

So our current position seems to be that terrorism is okay in YOUR country but we want you to help us fight terrorism against OUR country.

Right now it is legal for the CIA to carry out renditions to the same countries that we can't extradite to. In fact, we are returning people from Guantanamo to those nations for trial and punishment.

So forgive me if I am more than a little underwhelmed by the idea of forbidding deportation of people who are trying to kill us.

There is certainly a moral argument to be made against torture. Philosophically I would never support the use of torture to extract information or a confession from a common criminal. In my mind even an 'ordinary' serial murderer might be considered a 'common criminal'.

But we are talking about terrorists not 'common criminals'. These are not bank robbers or swindlers. These are people whose goal is to kill as many of us as they can for some distorted political goal.

And I know the arguments that have been made about the efficacy of torture in getting information. But it may also be that we are simply not very good at it.

Arguing in favor of torture is difficult but arguing against preventing an attack that would kill hundreds, thousands or perhaps even hundreds of thousands of innocent people is just as difficult.

In dealing with terorrism the use of torture may be similar to the preemption doctrine. If you view terrorism as just another crime then you use law enforcement. If you view it as war by another means then you use the military.

In our civilization law 'enforcement' generally does not stop crimes, only investigate and punish the perpetrators. But what can law 'enforcement' do about a terrorist attack involving a nuclear weapon? What kind of punishment do you deliver after the blast?

Using torture to extract information to prevent a bank robbery 'feels' wrong. But what about preventing a nuclear or chemical weapon attack? If there is even a remote chance that torture might prevent such an attack would you really recoil? More than you would recoil at the death of tens of thousands of people?

As we have seen with the past few years, our government has not very good at telling the difference between a terrorist and someone who was just unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I would prefer that we not extradict an indicted criminal to the country of his crime if there is the possibility of torture, but I don't want those people going free in America. Given those alternatives, we need to send them back. What we cannot do is deport someone who has not been indicted either in the US or in the other country to a country where we know they will face torture.

I'm no fan of the idea that America should become even more barbarous in dealing with accused criminals whether American or foreign. As a people, we already run the most brutal prison system in the developed world. We have a poor record of protecting the rights of accused criminals and, as a result, we do imprison and execute people who were not guilty of the crime for which they were convicted. The 'War on Crime' has become a war on the poor. The 'War on Terror' within the US is becoming a war on the poor and the foreign. There are good ways to help protect against terrorism, but, like a real attempt to decrease crime, they cannot be done with simplistic laws and bigger prisons.

At least we still have courts that are willing to protect our civil liberties against an overreaching government.

I would prefer that we not extradict an indicted criminal to the country of his crime if there is the possibility of torture, but I don't want those people going free in America. Given those alternatives, we need to send them back. What we cannot do is deport someone who has not been indicted either in the US or in the other country to a country where we know they will face torture.

The options you lay out here are mutually exclusive.

An Saudi terrorist, not a suspect but a terrorist, can claim political asylum once he reaches the US and an immigration judge would be perfectly justified, if not obligated, in granting it. And if anyone thinks this discretion is not abused you need to examine the sordid history of immigration judges granting political asylum to IRA and Provo gunmen who had entered the US illegally when Britain requested extradition.

So you can't have it both ways. Either you are in favor of having terrorist and terror suspects roaming free in the US or you are in favor of deporting them. There is no way to thread the needle on this.

You can indict them and prosecute them here.  

Those sections of the bill don't support torture by name, they support torture by A) circumventing the current procedure for avoiding custody transfers that implicate torture, and B) making the burden of proof almost impossible for those who allege that torture is likely to be a part of their reception upon transfer of custody.  

I'm in favor of the rule of law. If we are presented with a proper request for extradition, we should extradite, and if there is a problem with the law in that area, I will not object to a tightly written reform of it. I do not support deportation of people who are merely alleged to be terrorists.

There is no US law that says an Saudi can't blow up a Saudi police station.

There is no US law that says a Chechen can't take over a Russian school and hold hostages.

Even the idea that US courts could prosecute a foreign national for killing a US citizen on foreign territory is a relatively new development. That's why we did not immediately extradite Abu Abbas from Iraq where we captured him to stand trial for murdering Leon Klinghoffer. The murder took place in international waters on an Italian flagged vessel and we had no laws to cover it.

you shouldn't blow up women and children if you're afraid of losing a couple of fingernails if you get caught.

... composed a lengthy rebutal to this but scrapped it.

I will simply say that I disagree with almost everything you say and let it go at that.

and you would not agree with the main critique against the bill that rendering persons to nations where they might be tortured is a violation of international law.

But I think you miss a key issue. A Saudi, for the sake of arguement, has a known affiliation in Saudi Arabia with a terrorist group. He arrives in the US with a legal tourist visa. He applies for political asylum and neglects to mention that he has ties to a known and announced terrorist organization. We discover this information. What do we do? He says, rightfully so, there is no warrant for him but his affiliation with a terror group makes it less than likely that he'll get a ticker tape parade in Riyadh. Your position is that we can't deport him. So do we give him a green card? BTW, the case above is now being adjudicated in federal court in Alexandria, VA.

The issue is terrorist suspects.  

they are suspects for a reason.

I think it is nothing short of the height of hypocrisy and the empitome of shortsightedness to tell nations whom we want to cooperate with us on terror: Russia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria (snicker, snicker), Yemen, Qatar, the UAE, and on and on that WE want them to extradite terror suspects to the US but we won't extradite terror suspects to them.

As Justice Jackson observed, "The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact." Neither should treaties between civilized nations.

Suspects for a reason?  Cripes, man.

but I tend to believe that even totalitarian regimes are not prone to invent imaginary enemies. They tend to have enough real ones.

Regardless, we should not be in the business of harboring people with known or suspected ties to terrorism. Today, we are in that business. The misguided campaign to strip these provisions from the bill in question keeps us in that business as a matter of law.

and ask yourself under whose moral universe, the statement "totalitarian regimes are not prone to invent imaginary enemies" is valid.

Hint: "Uncle Joe"

of "Uncle Joe's" imaginary enemies.

question makes me terrified that you're going to say you were talking about your crazy Uncle Joe Grabowski.

"Uncle Joe" saw enemies behind every (red) curtain.

bonus points for why the man referenced above was called "Uncle Joe" by the American public.

Of course, the Japanese internment of World War II is another excellent example, but something tells me you're a Michelle Malkin fan.

Uncle Joe was Josef Stalin.

Joe McCarthy was as senator. He was not a totalitarian ruler. Even of Wisconsin.

I had a feeling you werent going to click the link. You didnt even mouse-over them, did you?

*waits patiently while streiff realizes that the conversation has always been about Stalin and never about McCarthy...

Now, back to your remarkable statement about leaders of totalitarian regimes never inventing imaginary enemies. Still care to defend it?

to accuse me of being condescending from time to time?? Geez.

and if I do get hooked I get hooked professionals not by piddly little amateurs.

Yes. I do stand by the statement.

Name Stalin's imaginary enemies.

a quick history lesson indeed.

start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin (scroll down to 4.6.1)

then go here here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

pay speciall attention to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_58_%28RSFSR_Penal_Code%29

and then conclude with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_trials

You might be interested in this for extra credit:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1937/dewey

Who's scruffy-lookin' ?

Totalitarian regimes are especially prone to imagining their enemies.

Hitler versus Jews and Slavs.

Stalin versus Jews, kulaks, right-deviationists, left-deviationists, Chechens, Volga Germans, etc.

Mugabe versus homosexuals, Britain, whites, and the Ndelebe.

Communists in general versus class enemies.

Et cetera.

waits patiently while Aziz realizes he doesn't mind so much dishing it out but when he thinks he receives it he cries, packs up toys, and goes home.



There is a word for this type of personal double-standard, and I'll leave it to you to work out which word that is. I guess I am taking this as a call for open season on witty condescension. Correct me if I am wrong.

If a country routinely engages in torture of its prisoners, our law tells us that we should not have an extradition treaty with them, though we are not particularly good at following that law. I'm not asking to change that, though it might be nice if we followed it. If a country routinely engages in torture of its citizens, our law tells us that we cannot force a national of that country to return to that country. I'm not asking to change that. The only part I am willing to change is to bar allegations of possible torture from being raised as a defense in the middle of a valid extradition hearing.

In the example that you gave, the general rule has been that we have the right to hold him in confinement until he finds a country that will have him, if he doesn't want to go back to his country of origin or until we receive an extradition request. That wouldn't change.

The further question in your example is whether this man is actually affilliated with a terrorist group or a legitimate insurgent movement that is attempting to overthrow a vile, disgusting, corrupt, brutal, evil royal family that has looted the nation and should have been banished from their desert palaces decades ago. If the Saudis or Homeland Security can show that this is truly a terror organization and that it is not an insurgency, the man has no right to stay. If it is an insurgency, we have different laws that apply. It would be nice if the current administration would not ignore the distinction.

On the one hand, totalitarian regimes do generate awesome numbers of imaginary enemies. On the other, oneof the few things that gives me any hope for Mankind is that they generate real ones, too. (Some of those enemies are worse than the regimes they oppose, or at least as bad, but still...)

Are you trying to argue that Stalin and Hitler did not kill people who were not their enemies?

Abdul Murad that torture wasn't effective.

I argued nothing of the sort. What I said was pretty clear. Try not to read anything into that that I did not say. :)

You appeared to have been snarking on his behalf.

If you read my comment and looked at the linked context, you'd see I was speaking to Aziz not on anyone's behalf other than my own.