Governing through Reason
Riding Assassination to Reëlection?
Editor’s note: We’re pleased to announce that Bart DePalma will be contributing articles to Logarchism, expressing the conservative libertarian viewpoint on events of the day.
Celebration outside the White House after the President announced that Osama bin Laden had been killed.
Progressives were literally dancing in the streets upon the news that President Barack Obama ordered a SEAL team to successfully assassinate Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. Not that they particularly care about bin Laden. Progressives are instead grasping for any good news to boost the cratering reëlection prospects of their President.
A cold splash of perspective is in order. Let us compare President George W. Bush’s job approval bump after the Army captured Saddam Hussein with that of Obama after the SEALs killed OBL:
Both the Bush and Obama events occurred in the middle of a CNN multi-day rolling poll. Obama’s job approval inched up by 1% to 52% from the day before, while Bush’s job approval soared 9% to 63%.
Factoring in all polling, Obama appears to be receiving a 5% bump from offing bin Laden, compared to a 15% bump for Bush from capturing Saddam.
The electoral map of the 2004 Presidential election. Blue represents John Kerry, while red represents George W. Bush
More importantly for this discussion, the Bush bump did not get close to assuring the President a landslide or even comfortable reëlection margin. The Bush bump lasted all of seven weeks. Despite enjoying a galloping economy near full employment, President Bush won reëlection against a mediocre Dem candidate with only 50.7% of the vote.
This begs the question of what are Obama’s reëlection chances with a lesser “rally round the president” bump while the nation suffers from a seemingly never-ending Great Recession with the highest long-term employment since the Great Depression?
Progressives, good luck on that plan to ride assassination to reëlection.
Bart DePalma is an attorney, a veteran, a writer, and an active member of the Tea Party. He publishes the Citizen Pamphleteer blog (where this article is cross-posted) and his new book, Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste—Barack Obama and the Evolution of American Socialism, is scheduled to be released during the Fall of 2011.
-
#202 written by GROG 2 years ago
-
#203 written by maxakabirdpilot 2 years ago
I am quite secure in my evidence and citations.
As you have seldom shown any ability to back up YOUR assertions when challenged, please do not transfer YOUR faults to me. And typically, you fall back on insult, as you do now, before running off and hiding.
Perhaps you have some verifiable evidence, as Bart and rgb BOTH have proven incapable, with which to contradict the evidence I’ve presented?
Or are you just a “Me too!” flunky?
You have your opinion.
I have mine.
-
#204 written by Mainer 2 years ago
I personally see no reason for some of you to continue to try to educate those that refuse to learn (though I have found it interesting). The initial premise of this thread was to look at what the effect might be in Novemeber of 2012 of the recent demise of one OBL. That is a date so far out that it is most likely going to be a topic that will be over taken by events between then and now but a curious thing is happening that could play a role even then and most likely will force Republican contenders to slide ever more to the right and backwards at the same time.
Consider the course this has already taken on this thread, or what Mr. exvice President has been bleating or some of the garbage on Fox comment boards or others of their type. They can not let Gitomo and torturing go. Much of the right seems to be obsessed with the process that was chosen after 9⁄11 to sort this mess out and any one that is more concerned with the mission than with the process is going get villified.
Now the following is my opinion but I would wager we screwed up with ever calling this a war, we screwed up with invading Iraq, we screwed up with going Gitmo, we screwed up with ever allowing torture, we screwed up with even once not using out own legal system to sort this mess out. But find me one real serious hard righter candidate or candidate wannab that would back up on even one of those items and I’ll show you a candidate that will never make it through the primaries. That is what is going to have an effect. The country is by and large moving on. Americans don’t generally like this be afraid vote vote for me campaign style and while they went with it for a time I find it ever more doubtful that it will ever play that well again unless some thing really awful again occurs.
But then the rub. If a strong majority of Americans don’t buy the torture works memo and millions more are forced to alter their lives to fit additional security (see new security coming to a train station near you) so that politicians can try to show they are doing some thing then the candidate (what ever candidate) that appears to have done more with less intrusion into folks lives could be ridding some very good campaign issues. But a libertarian like Bart should be all over that for would it not be the true libertarians that would want to see the intrusions into our lives in the name of security rolled back, and these wars brought to an end, and the bad guys punished in the open in a court for all the world to see as the viscious thugs that they are? At some point we have to stop giving the extreamists all the recruiting posters they want. This type of engagement is as much psyops as it is bombs and bullets or it should be. One well placed round to the noggin of an OBL is easily worth more than the gazillions of rounds expended in Iraq. We need to be smarter than the enemy to win. Would the Republican candidate with that capacity please stand up?
-
#205 written by dcpetterson 2 years ago
Instead, CIA program opponents here cite to a small handful of very old military law cases concerning either different interrogation methods or privileged POWs prior to the GCs and often prior to the Hague Conventions, none of which are relevant.
In fact, since those cases are the only ones that exist, they are the only ones that ARE relevant, and the Yoo / Bybee “logic” is not.
You can always find some detail (The interrogators were wearing a different color! Therefore, the situation is entirely different!) But the cetnral point is that the act is an act of torture, and the US and its agents are forbidden to engage in torture.
International law and treaties which the US is party to are quite specific. Waterboarding is torture. According to the US Constitution, treaties to which the US is a signatory take precidence even over the Constitution. Since waterboarding is viewed as torture by the Geneva Conventions, then it is viewed as torture by US law.
The debate is settled. There is no question, and no issue here. Waterboardng is torture, and is forbidden under US law, international law, and the US Constitution. It is absurd and dishonest to pretend otherwise.
-
MW:
Allow me to break down my criteria for relevant case law now that I have a few moments:
There are two grounds for charges here — the criminal torture statute and a warcrime based upon a violation of the GCs.
The torture stature prohibits the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain against anyone, with the proviso that the mental pain must be lasting. It is almost universally agreed that SERE coercive interrogation methods are not criminal torture in violation of the criminal code. This is why CIA adopted the SERE program in toto as discussed extensively in the OLC memos. Even if you believe SERE is a generation long criminal violation, the torture statute itself is void for vagueness because the element of severe pain is entirely subjective.
The other possible charge is for statutory warcrimes based upon a violation of the GCs. Under this law, both the act of interrogation and the nature of the target are critical.
Members of a irregular military organization like al Qaeda are considered to be combatants under GC3 and not “protected person” civilian non-combatants who fall under the control of an occupying signatory under GC4.
Prisoners of war fall under two categories in GC3 — privileged and non-privileged. In order to gain privileged status, irregular militaries must wear identifying insignia, openly carry weapons and observe the GCs. al Qaeda does none of these. Thus, the prohibition against using coercive interrogation on privileged POWs is not extended to al Qaeda. Rather, they obtain the base protections against murder and torture extended to all prisoners. Once again, the SERE interrogation methods used by CIA are not torture as defined in our statute and treaty law.
Because there is no basis to prosecute the CIA under the statutes prohibiting torture and warcrimes, there are no cases discussing this law.
Max’s prior cases involving Japanese interrogation of privileged US Army and Marine POWs and a non-cited earlier courts martial against US Army personnel for using the water cure filling the lungs and stomach of the Moro prisoners with water until they suffered pain and injury are inapposite because they deal with different law, different acts and different classifications of prisoners.
Max’s citation to various opinions concerning what is or is not torture merely demonstrates why the torture statute is void for vagueness. Everyone draws the line at a different place based entirely upon personal preference. Criminal law cannot be based upon such arbitrary criteria.
That concludes Max’s “flogging.” I am sure Max will now have a clever retort involving “poopy.” The retort will not include any actual statutory or interpretive case law, however.
-
#207 written by Mainer 2 years ago
Oh lord DC you had to say “treaties to which the US is a signatory take precidence even over the Constitution.” and now a word from the news desk:
.…..after a blog statement earlier tonight that said treaties to which the US is a signatory take precidence even over the Constitution, explosions of various magnitude have been heard as right wing craniums have imploded at the thought. Film at 11.Damn DC be carefull for the pen can be very powerful.
-
So, Bart, your argument is that in all cases in which waterbaording has been considered, it has been determined to be torture. But since you can distort the current situation involving al Qaeda into one in which you believe the persons involved should not be considered “protected,” it’s okay to do to them a thing that all legal precedent which does exist considers torture.
I.e., it is a-ok to torture, as long as we pretend it isn’t torture because we don’t like the people we’re torturing.
Put aside that it is morally wrong, that it doesn’t work, that it encourages and emboldens our enemies, that it alienates our friends, that it helps turn us into the people we deplore, and that it is illegal in every other circumstance. Put all that aside. We should torture, simply because we dislike the people we’re torturing, and get some kind of sadistic pleasure out of doing so. What a bankrupt rightist position.
By the way, the people in the SERE program can stop the experience at any moment, so it’s hardly the same thing. Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier, it is included in the SERE program because it is considered to be torture. Your homework is to find a single participant in the SERE program who has claimed it is not torture. If you cannot, then you are invited to drop this particularly absurd aspect of your absurd argument.
-
#209 written by maxakabirdpilot 2 years ago
Bart,
I am not going to dance with you. Lex ipsa loquitur for the convictions cited and for current law. As you are trying to re-argue settled law, everything you attempt to put forward is only your opinion.Worthless in the debate.
Welcome back. I look forward to “out-citing” you more in the future. You are a persistent, capable opponent, but one who let’s his ideology run ahead of his rational abilities, therefore one relatively to easy to defeat in debate.
-
#210 written by shiloh 2 years ago
Would the Republican candidate with that capacity please stand up?
Most of the Rep wannabes are totally confused, waiting to see which way the teabagger wind is blowing in 2012, much like Grog, w/his current flyby ie in his own words:
Maybe we should just let them have their little echo chamber ~ March 24, 2011
I love you guys! ~ April 6, 2011
~~~~~Let’s be kind and say Grog doesn’t hold a grudge …
-
#211 written by Mainer 2 years ago
Bart, DC, Max etal an interesting evening. I do feel I know more than when this discussion started. For that I am pleased to be here.
Bart, I can follow that which you are saying and I think you actually put forth effort to try and sway the jury but I also think that you need to go back and read one of my posts. At present sir I think you are preaching to the choir, and to again try and return to the focus of this entire piece, that choir is already in your counted vote total next time around. Your problem is not with the 25% of the electorate that is faithful nor is it with the 25% of the electorate you will never get but yet once again the 50% more or less in the middle that are up for grabs. It is with that group that I think you have a problem on this issue. Now admittedly I think it will depend on sustinct Democratic messaging but I can see more ways to use this against your side than your side can use it as a positive. But instead of heaving a sigh of relief and a good feeling for the great skills of our fellow Americans in this mission there are those of your persuasion that see this as a vindication of actions a large number of Americans would really rather put in the past and you and yours are now going to great lenghts to dig up and defend stuff that is quite likely going to be vote losers down the road.
The President called Mr. Bush as was right and appropriate and thanked him for his efforts in this long mission. That was good and appropriate. That should have been the end of it. But no it was not. One of the worst enemies your side has right now is team Cheaney and any right wing ideologue that can’t see that America is moving on.
Bart we are approaching 10 years of this mess being waved in front of us. We went into WWII in 1941. By 1951 what were our relations with Japan and Germany? Unless we envision another 100 years war we need to be working on how to end this and move on and I can assure you it isn’t going to start with trying to resell America on the benefits of torture, Gitmo, renditions, attacks on nations that didn’t need to be or subverting our Constitution for political expediency.
-
#212 written by rgbact 2 years ago
I’d like to add more, but Bart had basically owned the technical/legal portion of this thread.
Max– Re: you questions
a) My exaggeration. It was meant to show how the Left has turned a minor issue into seemingly the human rights issue of the century. Before I paid more attention, the Left had me convinced Bush had mass torture chambers setup. I’m sure this “torture“meme has done wonders for our foreign PR.
b) Yes, I want it fought as a war.…with the recognition that one side is fighting it illegally.
c) Just my impression that if terrorists can’t be interrogated.…no reason to spare their life. Looks like Obama agrees somewhat.
d) I listed the pros/cons before. I’m fine that he was killed though—in light of our slow justice system/we got other intell.
e) Again, I have no problem with the execution. It does strike me as the more “Rambo” option as it couldn’t take much survellience to know that the compound wasn’t being guarded by 200 Al-Qaeda and barring some booby trap–OBL would be easily apprehended. Not involving Pakistan also indicates to me that capture was never on the table.I think we’ve learned…only a Democrat can cut Medicare and wage wars and get away with it. And only a Republican can jack up spending and add entitlements and get away with it.
-
#213 written by Armchair Warlord 2 years ago
-
#214 written by maxakabirdpilot 2 years ago
-
#215 written by maxakabirdpilot 2 years ago
-
DC/Max:
What settled law?
There are less than a handful of prosecutions under the torture statute and none relating to the SERE techniques used by CIA.
There are no warcrime cases relating to the SERE techniques used by CIA as applied to non-priviledged POWs.
DC, your cases do not fall under either category.
-
Bart,
Article 4.1.6 of the Third Geneva Convention says that Prisoners of War include:Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
This means that they do not have to have an identifiable insignia. Recall that the US invaded Afghanistan rather suddenly, and the inhabitants of Afghanistan took up arms to resist, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units.
Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention says:Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
What competent tribunal made the determination that they were not covered under Article 4.1.6? And, while we’re at it, what evidence was there that those detained and sent to Gitmo were taking “active part in the hostilities,” which would make them subject to the Third Geneva Convention, rather than the Fourth?
Incidentally, you keep bringing SERE into the picture. SERE has nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions, because it consists of actions performed by a state on its own people. To the extent that there are any prohibitions against SERE, similar prohibitions covered by the Geneva Conventions would be coincidental at best.
-
MW:
GC3 4.A.6 applies temporarily to uprisings of civilians like that in Libya. AQ was the aggressor in their war on the United States. As a side note, the US properly treated the Taliban as a militia under 4.A.1
The President with the counsel of the OLC made the initial legal determination as to what GC categories AQ and the Taliban fell under. Then the capturing entity — CIA or military — can and did determine whether the capture was AQ, Taliban or a civilian.
Finally, I use SERE to identify the nature of the acts at issue under US law — coercive, but not torture. This determination is important for application of the GCs because GC3 bars coercive interrogation against privileged POWs and torture against anyone.
-
MW:
Members of an irregular military — regardless of their job — are considered to be enemy combatants under GC3 and not non-combatant civilians under GC4. For example, there is no effective difference between OBL’s driver and Gen. Petreus’ driver when it comes to the determination whether they fall under GC3 or GC4.
-
#220 written by shiloh 2 years ago
Hey, he’s convinced rgbact!
Indeed! gatordad’s brother ?!? you decide …
Incidentally, you keep bringing SERE into the picture. SERE has nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions, because it consists of actions performed by a state on its own people.
Besides, there is no draft, hence, ergo, therefore you volunteer to join the U.S. military ie SERE is voluntary depending on if you want to become a pilot, flight crew, special forces, etc.
>
An aside, at my helicopter squadron, one of the AW’s, anti-submarine warfare operator failed SERE school the first time and was required to “pass” er complete SERE school before he was “legally” allowed to be fly. Of course, there are always exceptions made and he continued to fly. Just like a mechanical problem which would “down” the helo back at our squadron, wouldn’t necessarily down the aircraft at sea. I digress.
>
And did I mention the U.S. military is a voluntary force ie no one is forcing you to do anything. And interesting most voluntary programs within the all voluntary military ie flight training, special forces, SEALS, etc. you can quit er DOR, drop on request.
It’s very hard to get a prosecution within the military re: malfeasance but there have been cases where a recruit has drowned etc. in boot camp or special training where soldiers/sailors died and whoever was deemed responsible was prosecuted and convicted.
But again, transcripts/videos have disappeared at Gitmo, etc. making prosecutions impossible as the military is a very tight group, eh.
>
We now return you to Bart trying to convince himself.
-
Can our Commander in Chief get any more crass than using the SEAL killing of bin Laden as a punch line to raise campaign cash? From the LA Times:
Bin Laden’s name came up a couple of times in Obama’s address Tuesday evening at a fund-raising event in Austin, Texas.Early in Obama’s appearance, someone shouted out, “Thank you for getting Bin Laden!’’
Obama said that was a “case in point’’ – a reason for voters to let him “finish what we started.’’
Later, Obama ticked off what he described as his administration’s accomplishments: lifting the ban on gays in the military; bringing troops home from Iraq.
And then: “And because of the extraordinary bravery of the men and women who wear this nation’s uniform and the outstanding work of our intelligence agencies,’’ Obama said, “Osama bin Laden will never again threaten the United States.’’
The crowd roared.
-
#222 written by filistro 2 years ago
Oh no… not fundraising in politics! Bart is shocked… SHOCKED… that gambling is happening in the casino!
Jon Stewart made me laugh again, mocking the horde of former Bush officials who have come forward to claim it was really THEIR efforts that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden.
“Can you believe these guys?” Stewart chortles. ‘They’re, like… the Winkelvoss twins of getting bin Laden!”
-
#223 written by shiloh 2 years ago
-
-
-
#227 written by mclever 2 years ago
Yes, Bart, there are lows he might plumb that would bother many of us. However, touting SEAL Team Six’s success is hardly a “low.”
To quote:
And then: “And because of the extraordinary bravery of the men and women who wear this nation’s uniform and the outstanding work of our intelligence agencies,’’ Obama said, “Osama bin Laden will never again threaten the United States.’’I’m shocked that you see something “low” in Obama’s praise of our men and women in uniform.
-
-
#229 written by DrFunguy 2 years ago
Bart,
It seems to have escaped your attention, but we don’t grant your premise.
Your whining is duly noted and good for a chuckle.
I take you as surrogate for inumerable wing nuts from freeperville whose heads are currently exploding. Lovely vision that
Wingers get all bent out of shape when a Democratic president accomplishes something and has the nerve to say so. -
#230 written by shiloh 2 years ago
-
#231 written by mclever 2 years ago
LOL! Obama was at a fundraiser. And Bart is shocked–shocked!– that he was touting his administration’s accomplishments?
Seriously??
Whether it was at the beginning of the list or the end of the list, I really don’t see how you can object to him crediting the men and women in uniform.
Oh, wait, I get it. Any Democrat claiming to have accomplished anything good is automatically a “low” to Bart. At least he’s not using the death and suffering of thousands of Americans as justification to prosecute an illegal war at the cost of billions of dollars, more American lives, and thousands of innocent civilians…
-
You must be logged in to post a comment.
- Comment Feed for this Post
Michael,
Red herring from Bart!!!!!! Please take a look at the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and the first three Geneva Conventions, all of which precede the period of the waterboarding prosecutions that have been cited. Note that the 4th Geneva Convention was primarily about civilian treatment, not POWs.
Plus , by constricting his definition, on purpose, to refer ONLY to SERE he is putting such conditions on as to make comparisons worthless.
I know you probably are ahead of me on this, but just in case.