Monday Blogroll: Torture Edition

Being that I called in sick today due to allergies and allergy-induced nausea (seriously, everybody I know is having worse allergies than they’ve ever had before...), I figure I can sit in front of a computer and whip out some extended blogroll posts while attempting to keep my stomach in check. Then again, reading about torture’s probably not the best way to do that. Oh well. And if you see any typos or strange leaps of logic here, blame it on the Benadryl.

Dana B. has a great post about the recent torture legislation being this generation’s Dred Scott. Meanwhile, David at Debate Link looks at the legislation from a legal standpoint.

[A]s was pointed out by Stanford Law Professor and detainee expert Jenny Martinez, it is an inversion of basic principles of justice to apply said punishment as part of the procedure for determining who deserves the punishment itself. Or to use her rhetoric:

Holding military commission trials that do not afford basic due process is...like saying that the best way to deter street crime is by subjecting street criminals to kangaroo courts. The necessary deterrence ought to be provided by the ultimate punishment imposed, not by the process itself. [emphasis added]

Or in otherwords, "you're a terrorist, so you can't challenge whether you're a terrorist, because that would give terrorists rights." It's unreal.

It seems there are two minds among commenters opposed to this radical abuse of power. The basic question is whether or not the Senators and Representatives really recognized the gravity of what they've done. Two of the most respected legal scholars in America today could barely contain their shock over the bill's provisions:

University of Texas constitutional law professor Sanford V. Levinson described the bill in an Internet posting as the mark of a "banana republic." Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh said that "the image of Congress rushing to strip jurisdiction from the courts in response to a politically created emergency is really quite shocking, and it's not clear that most of the members understand what they've done."

On the one hand, it seems impossible that anyone could dispassionately look at these provisions, realize they are essentially disregarding the basic panoply of rights that have been protected since the 13th century, and still vote in favor of the bill. I can't believe that there are over 60 senators that really have that little respect for basic legal protections. On the other hand, this debate was public, open, and it seems equally impossible to believe that our elected representatives wholly ignored the huge cry of alarm that arose from those who recognized this bill for what it was. What exactly have they been doing over these past few weeks?

...

Whatever the reason, these people are not living in reality.

And as far as I can tell, I'm not living in America.

While we’re at it, Len Hart chips in in a lovely “Week in Review from Republican Occupied America” post.

[T]he Bush "administration" is the only administration in some fifty years that's had a problem understanding what is meant by the language of the Geneva Convention, specifically, outrages to "human dignity". That Bush doesn't know what that phrase means says more about Bush than it says about billions who haven't had a problem with it. Indeed, the "Military Commission Act of 2006" is an outrage to standards of military conduct universally agreed upon by civilized peoples all over the world. Obviously —Bush's willful ignorance and his inability to experience empathy sets him apart from the rest of humankind.

The US attempt to re-interpret Geneva is, of course, unconstitutional under Article VI of the US Constitution which makes of our treaty obligations "supreme law" on the same level as the Constitution itself. Bush's fraudulent bill denies habeas corpus and it will most certainly be cited by Bush when he tries to absolve himself of crimes ex post facto. It also establishes a dangerous precedent! How many other tin horn, would be dictators are now encouraged to rewrite or even abrogate their own responsibilities. One of them will most certainly and conveniently fail to understand the meaning of the word "torture"; another may not be able to get his brain around the word "humane". Certainly —Bush's feeble mentality has failed us all. But the American electorate has no one to blame but itself. We knew from the git go that Bush did not do "nuance".

And Susie digs up the money quote from Bush’s legal adviser:

In Yoo’s debate with Doug Cassel, the Notre Dame law professor asked: “If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?”

John Yoo: “No treaty.”

Doug Cassel: “Also no law by Congress—that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo [while Yoo was a Justice Department attorney].”

John Yoo: “I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that.”

And somewhere Lee Greenwood sings...

And in case you were curious, as always Roy at Alicublog summarizes rightwing views on torture so you don’t have to. (And while we’re on the subject of those brave, patriotic Keyboard Kommandoes...h/t Avedon, who has a series of solid links in this post...)

And since I really don’t have any other place to put this link, I want this shirt.