The Belgravia Dispatch: Dynastic Prerogatives

October 06, 2007

Dynastic Prerogatives

Andrew Sullivan (and Peggy Noonan) make some very good points here (related, Cunning too had a good turn of phrase recently, speaking of "the backdrop of a Bush-Clinton dynastic perpetuation"). Yes, these de haut en bas revolving restorations are growing tiresome, aren't they? Speaking of, did anyone catch Bill Clinton's MTP interview last weekend, when we were treated to the former President expounding on one Jack Bauer, and how the commoners among us would do the right thing in the fancifully hotted up adolescent 'ticking-time bomb' hypothesis (which then slippery slopes into lugubrious Krauthammer's KSM carve-out and so on and on...) so as to protect regal POTUS from such assorted pre-Enlightenment ugliness (go to the 3:45 mark).

As reader MR wrote in (who flagged this for me):

I haven't checked the blogs, but has anyone been talking/commenting on Bill Clinton's meet the press interview on sunday where he discussed Jack Bauer in detail as a model of how torture should be handled, the Commander in Chier "opposing" it, but then hoping that "rogue" officers will step up, do their duty, and understand the (prosecution even) consequences? It has to be seen/discussed as the absolute height of hypocrisy/confusion from those who formulate/lead on the wrenchingly difficult issue, and the 2 standards applied for those who are in charge vs. those who are to carry out/defend. Its just like throwing American troops to the cannon fodder, really. The "class" and hierarchy implications of this kind of talk are endless, ultimately a complete corrosive, imho.

Indeed. For 'let them eat cake', why not allow (wink-wink) the underlings a little spot of torture, some Yoo-style organ failure, say (but only as strictly necessary, of course), the better to ensure the Oval Office isn't tainted by such nastiness (Mr. Clinton might have instead broached how standard Army Field Manual interrogation tactics work better than the fantasy-land of such Bauerian excesses, but no, better to divine policy re: issues of critical import like torture via cheap resort to such reality-style television claptrap).

Still, I guess HRC at least is on the right side of this issue, so kudos to her on that score. And the former President also is legions ahead of the Rudyesque gaggles eager to get their legally-enshrined 'enhanced interrogation' on, or still the outlandish fare of Mitt "Double Gitmo" Romney and ilk. After all, Bill Clinton at least pointed out that no ticking-time bomb scenario occurred on his watch, nor The Decider's. That's because it's dressed-up sci-fi type fare, not real world. Still, there are unintended benefits for us amidst all these feverish cogitations, it does allow Alan Dershowitz to pen bien pensant pieces about: 'torture warrants' and the like...yippie!

Posted by Gregory at October 6, 2007 12:23 PM

Comments

While Clinton could obviously have handled the question better, his answer does get to the heart of something pro-torture folks have been saying since this debate started: Somewhere out there, it's going to be NECESSARY to torture in order to save the lives of a million nuns and schoolkids!

The answer to this is simple: "Perhaps it is, at some point, necessary. Because of the profoundly exceptional nature of that scenario, however, and the danger of cracking the door open on legalized, institutionalized torture, it must continue to remain illegal. If you feel you're in a situation so critical, so exceptional, so out of the ordinary that torture is justified, then be a hero, save millions of lives, defuse the ticking bomb, and trust that a jury of your peers and the President will be willing to acquit or pardon you."

It's calling the bluff of the folks who claim that True Heros Would Be Punished If Torture Was Illegal. Would a true hero be willing to risk jail time to save the lives of millions of people? Arguably, yes. Would a decent society allow that hero to go free based on the extenuating circumstances? Probably so. Would a whole lot of non-heros start torturing folks for a wide variety of terrible reasons if the door were 'cracked open?' We already know this to be the case.

Posted by: Jeff Eaton at October 7, 2007 06:51 AM | Permalink to this comment

Greg,

I think that Jeff is right. I know that there are some extremely rare instances when torture might possibly be nesesary. But a blanket authorization for "Enhanced Interrogation" will eventually degenerate to torture on-demand for any perceived advantage. If you make it legal, people will justify it's use for any reason.

I want those people who are in the position to interrogate prisoners to KNOW that they will be exposed. That their lives will be extremely uncomfortable with the press hounding them, their names dragged through the mud, every detail of their past exposed. Not to mention the legal trouble, the possible jail time and perhaps referral to a war crimes tribunal. I want them to make this kind of decision with a clear head and full knowledge that there will be consequences for their actions.

Posted by: Powdermonkey at October 7, 2007 09:39 AM | Permalink to this comment

One recalls how recollections of interrogation policy in the Times and in News Week are strikingly out of context fancy that, guv'nor.
The Times brings up the Peru debacle (courtesy of proud dissenter
Rand Beers, when he manned the counter narcotics branch) but
it leaves out Guatemala; the Torricelli obsession which provoked
a mini Halloween massacre among the Latin American division, Christopher Dickey's News Week piece leaves out Dickey's own
exclusive about 'Captain Crunch, a fmr. Marine and CIA official
who tracked down the facilitator of the Beirut Embassy bombing;
a Maronite Christian named Elias Nimr; who died in the course of
interrogation . Interestingly Bob Baer, no stranger to the work of
the Lebanese Deuxieme Bureau, left that part of the story out in his anti-torture monologue. Mark Bowden, actually did identify him
as Keith Hall. This is what Mark Addington, former CIA counsel was
dealing with when he drafted his proposals. Let us not forget the
Pakistani AQ figure, Akbar who gave up Ramzi Yousef's details of the Bojinka plot, under aggressive interrogation.

Seriously, now do you think either Cheney of Bush relish having to do this, No of course not, but it a world where Marines can be tormented for justifiable shooting, where AQ documents like the
Birmingham manual, recommend exploitation of claims of misconduct. One needs to provide cover for those employees who need not be thrown under the bus.

Posted by: narciso at October 7, 2007 03:36 PM | Permalink to this comment

Jeff Eaton:
I wonder if Bill Clinton has read any of George Washington's writings.

Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience at October 9, 2007 01:35 AM | Permalink to this comment

Sometimes I wonder if narciso makes interesting points, and I wish someone would translate his posts into legible and rational English, because they have interesting nouns and names in them, and I do wonder what they would say if they were made coherent.

Posted by: Zhulid Gayek at October 9, 2007 03:33 AM | Permalink to this comment

	« The Flag Pin Follies \| Main \| Liberal Hawkery » October 06, 2007 Dynastic Prerogatives Andrew Sullivan (and Peggy Noonan) make some very good points here (related, Cunning too had a good turn of phrase recently, speaking of "the backdrop of a Bush-Clinton dynastic perpetuation"). Yes, these de haut en bas revolving restorations are growing tiresome, aren't they? Speaking of, did anyone catch Bill Clinton's MTP interview last weekend, when we were treated to the former President expounding on one Jack Bauer, and how the commoners among us would do the right thing in the fancifully hotted up adolescent 'ticking-time bomb' hypothesis (which then slippery slopes into lugubrious Krauthammer's KSM carve-out and so on and on...) so as to protect regal POTUS from such assorted pre-Enlightenment ugliness (go to the 3:45 mark). As reader MR wrote in (who flagged this for me): I haven't checked the blogs, but has anyone been talking/commenting on Bill Clinton's meet the press interview on sunday where he discussed Jack Bauer in detail as a model of how torture should be handled, the Commander in Chier "opposing" it, but then hoping that "rogue" officers will step up, do their duty, and understand the (prosecution even) consequences? It has to be seen/discussed as the absolute height of hypocrisy/confusion from those who formulate/lead on the wrenchingly difficult issue, and the 2 standards applied for those who are in charge vs. those who are to carry out/defend. Its just like throwing American troops to the cannon fodder, really. The "class" and hierarchy implications of this kind of talk are endless, ultimately a complete corrosive, imho. Indeed. For 'let them eat cake', why not allow (wink-wink) the underlings a little spot of torture, some Yoo-style organ failure, say (but only as strictly necessary, of course), the better to ensure the Oval Office isn't tainted by such nastiness (Mr. Clinton might have instead broached how standard Army Field Manual interrogation tactics work better than the fantasy-land of such Bauerian excesses, but no, better to divine policy re: issues of critical import like torture via cheap resort to such reality-style television claptrap). Still, I guess HRC at least is on the right side of this issue, so kudos to her on that score. And the former President also is legions ahead of the Rudyesque gaggles eager to get their legally-enshrined 'enhanced interrogation' on, or still the outlandish fare of Mitt "Double Gitmo" Romney and ilk. After all, Bill Clinton at least pointed out that no ticking-time bomb scenario occurred on his watch, nor The Decider's. That's because it's dressed-up sci-fi type fare, not real world. Still, there are unintended benefits for us amidst all these feverish cogitations, it does allow Alan Dershowitz to pen bien pensant pieces about: 'torture warrants' and the like...yippie! Posted by Gregory at October 6, 2007 12:23 PM Comments While Clinton could obviously have handled the question better, his answer does get to the heart of something pro-torture folks have been saying since this debate started: Somewhere out there, it's going to be NECESSARY to torture in order to save the lives of a million nuns and schoolkids! The answer to this is simple: "Perhaps it is, at some point, necessary. Because of the profoundly exceptional nature of that scenario, however, and the danger of cracking the door open on legalized, institutionalized torture, it must continue to remain illegal. If you feel you're in a situation so critical, so exceptional, so out of the ordinary that torture is justified, then be a hero, save millions of lives, defuse the ticking bomb, and trust that a jury of your peers and the President will be willing to acquit or pardon you." It's calling the bluff of the folks who claim that True Heros Would Be Punished If Torture Was Illegal. Would a true hero be willing to risk jail time to save the lives of millions of people? Arguably, yes. Would a decent society allow that hero to go free based on the extenuating circumstances? Probably so. Would a whole lot of non-heros start torturing folks for a wide variety of terrible reasons if the door were 'cracked open?' We already know this to be the case. Posted by: Jeff Eaton at October 7, 2007 06:51 AM \| Permalink to this comment Greg, I think that Jeff is right. I know that there are some extremely rare instances when torture might possibly be nesesary. But a blanket authorization for "Enhanced Interrogation" will eventually degenerate to torture on-demand for any perceived advantage. If you make it legal, people will justify it's use for any reason. I want those people who are in the position to interrogate prisoners to KNOW that they will be exposed. That their lives will be extremely uncomfortable with the press hounding them, their names dragged through the mud, every detail of their past exposed. Not to mention the legal trouble, the possible jail time and perhaps referral to a war crimes tribunal. I want them to make this kind of decision with a clear head and full knowledge that there will be consequences for their actions. Posted by: Powdermonkey at October 7, 2007 09:39 AM \| Permalink to this comment One recalls how recollections of interrogation policy in the Times and in News Week are strikingly out of context fancy that, guv'nor. The Times brings up the Peru debacle (courtesy of proud dissenter Rand Beers, when he manned the counter narcotics branch) but it leaves out Guatemala; the Torricelli obsession which provoked a mini Halloween massacre among the Latin American division, Christopher Dickey's News Week piece leaves out Dickey's own exclusive about 'Captain Crunch, a fmr. Marine and CIA official who tracked down the facilitator of the Beirut Embassy bombing; a Maronite Christian named Elias Nimr; who died in the course of interrogation . Interestingly Bob Baer, no stranger to the work of the Lebanese Deuxieme Bureau, left that part of the story out in his anti-torture monologue. Mark Bowden, actually did identify him as Keith Hall. This is what Mark Addington, former CIA counsel was dealing with when he drafted his proposals. Let us not forget the Pakistani AQ figure, Akbar who gave up Ramzi Yousef's details of the Bojinka plot, under aggressive interrogation. Seriously, now do you think either Cheney of Bush relish having to do this, No of course not, but it a world where Marines can be tormented for justifiable shooting, where AQ documents like the Birmingham manual, recommend exploitation of claims of misconduct. One needs to provide cover for those employees who need not be thrown under the bus. Posted by: narciso at October 7, 2007 03:36 PM \| Permalink to this comment Jeff Eaton: I wonder if Bill Clinton has read any of George Washington's writings. Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience at October 9, 2007 01:35 AM \| Permalink to this comment Sometimes I wonder if narciso makes interesting points, and I wish someone would translate his posts into legible and rational English, because they have interesting nouns and names in them, and I do wonder what they would say if they were made coherent. Posted by: Zhulid Gayek at October 9, 2007 03:33 AM \| Permalink to this comment		Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch "Awake" --New York Times "Always-Worth Reading" --Andrew Sullivan Recent Entries A Brief (and Belated) Word on Chas Freeman What Would Real--Rather Than Rhetorical--Change in U.S. Foreign Policy Look Like? Of War, and Tent Hospitals The Obama Imperative Some Addt'l Thoughts Re: Georgia McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder! Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz Search Search this site: About the Author Email the Author English Language Media New York Times Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics Foreign Affairs Commentariat Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Le Monde Diplomatique National Interest Non-English Language Press Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs Across the Aisle Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Law & Finance Barron's Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks AEI Baker Institute Brookings Carnegie Cato CFR CSIS Heritage IISS Intl Crisis Group USIP Security Janes Fed. American Scientists Defense Tech Global Security Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Books LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily The City Curbed Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Archives March 2009 January 2009 November 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 Syndicate this site: Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by: www.vikeny.com Powered by

	© 2007 Belgravia Dispatch