Greg Sanders

Hillary Clinton backtracking on torture?

Kevin Drum notes a troubling response that also disturbed me when I read it in the Post today.

[HRC’s Quote]

"It is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn’t doing. We’re getting all kinds of mixed messages," Clinton said. "I don’t think we’ll know the truth until we have a new president. I think [until] you can get in there and actually bore into what’s been going on, you’re not going to know."

Politics is politics. Spin and ambiguity are part of the game. But if
you can’t even take a full-throated, non-weasely position against
torture and abuse of prisoners in American custody, what the hell good
are you?

Hillary Clinton has actually been pretty good in the past, so I’m not sure why she’s being weasely now. I think she might be reserving the right to keep doing some cruel, inhuman, or degrading, procedures that are not as widely known. But that can’t be how you lead the argument. Drum earlier noted that Obama got it right quickly and forcefully.

The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security....It’s time to stop telling the American people one thing in public while doing something else in the shadows.

UPDATE: Drum was actually commenting on Sullivan, who to put it mildly, is no fan of Hillary Clinton. Also I threw in this link to a time when she made a strong stand in the debates. If she was misrepresenting in the interview I hope she’ll clarify.

Justices League

There’s been a recent pair of Supreme Court Justices fighting enemies of rule of law.

The PCR project reports on developments from Pakistan:

In a positive shift, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court demanded the release of political detainees, while also demanding the opening of the roads leading to Islamabad.

The PCR project has actuallyfollowed the Justices issue for a while:

The PCR Project has argued for the past year, in our A Perilous Course report, that the Chief Justices of the five Supreme Courts (national and four provinces) are among the key figures in restoring a rule of law culture in Pakistan, partially because of their ability to oversee the police... Yesterday, Chief Justice Chaudhry of the Supreme Court ordered the suspension of three senior police officials, including Islamabad’s police chief.

Meanwhile, according to the Washington Post another Chief Justice is stepping up to the plate.

The Philippines, scarred by political assassinations and corruption, is looking to its new chief justice for salvation. And in his first nine months in office, Reynato Puno has moved with lightning speed to set up a more independent judiciary charged with enforcing a new code of legal responsibility.

Hoping to use the courts to remake Philippine society, Puno has embarked on a campaign to end the widespread assassinations of journalists and political activists.

Back in America, Slate covers the 24-esque adventures of Justice Scalia the battle of rule of law versus the Injustice Gang Department continues.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

There’s a new NYTimes piece about how the Bush administration put into place America’s torture policy. The short version is that even after the Justice Department declared torture abhorrant in Dec 2004, the Department, now Albert Gonzales "stewardship" was unleashing new classified opinions allowing it. The opinion was signed by Steven G. Bradbury who is now head of the Office of Legal Counsel at Justice. In July of this year President Bush signed an executive order authorizing "enhanced" interrogation techniques and apparently restarting the overseas "black sites" where the CIA keeps prisoners.

Kevin Drum notes that "The Times says that "most lawmakers" didn’t know about this secret opinion. That means that some of them did. I’d like to know which ones."

JB over at Balkinization notes that regardless of scandals, Supreme Court rulings, or new laws the administration keeps churning out new opinions justifying their war crimes. Scandal will not be sufficient to stop them. New laws will not be sufficient to stop them. Forcing resignations and then exerting tight controls over replacements can do something. That said, there’s some reason to worry about the new Attorney General candidate. He at least seems qualified, but according to Mike Isikoff (via Marty Lederman who provides the emphasis)

According to three sources, who asked not to be named discussing the private meetings, Mukasey said that he saw "significant problems" with shutting down Guantánamo Bay and that he understood the need for the CIA to use some "enhanced" interrogation techniques against Qaeda suspects. Mukasey also signaled reluctance with naming a special prosecutor to investigate Bush-administration misconduct, according to one participant.

Andrew Sullivan summarizes the issue nicely:

There is no doubt - no doubt at all - that these tactics are torture and subject to prosecution as war crimes. We know this because the law is very clear when you don’t have war criminals like AEI’s John Yoo rewriting it to give one man unchecked power. We know this because the very same techniques - hypothermia, long-time standing, beating - and even the very same term "enhanced interrogation techniques" - "verschaerfte Vernehmung" in the original German - were once prosecuted by American forces as war crimes. The perpetrators were the Gestapo. The penalty was death. You can verify the history here.

I don’t have that much hope that this bunch will be tried in America anytime soon. That said, they may be disappointed if their retirement plans involve a lot of European vacations.

Burma Round-Up

First here's a great background on Burma by the Christian Science Monitor.  Short version: Military rules since 1962, first socialist then switching to market based after 1988 elections with switch from one leader to Junta, 1990 opposition wins election and Junta doesn't acknowledge the results (via Sullivan who has an anecdote with more history).

Unfortunately, the latest from the WPost says that there's less people in the streets so the crackdown may be starting to be effective.  That said there's a site with hourly updates on Burma thats still talking about tens of thousands in the streets (found via Sullivan).

There's some coup talk that Sullivan linked to which was seconded as a possibility over at Democracy Piece which has some issue matter expertise.  His logic was that the leader is 74 years old, sick, and that what's already happened is likely a demonstration of splits in the junta.  Too early to credit them though.  Reports of mutiny are probably more credible, but some of that is going to happen in this sort of situtation.   I recall hearing about some during the Tienanmen protests.  As Yglesias points out, the question is will enough troops mutiny.  It wouldn't have to be a majority but would need to be a critical or highly visible mass.  I also heard a rumor on NPR that the wives of top officials have been flown out of the country to swank Middle Eastern hotels but that was from yesterday morning.  Unfortunately, AP seems pessimistic (via a commentor at Pandagon).

Picture blogs: Something in a non-european character-set, WPost slideshow, a Burmese blogger (note: some pictures quite graphic), a Youtube channel with videos of protests, account from Good Magazine (via Yglesias), great photo round-ups by Saffron revolution and Burma Digest(via Sullivan)

How to help? Sullivan linked to a Burmese blog that endorses a site calledgivetoburma.org  and while there isn't much to establish credentials either way (and no tax deduction) that's probably about as good as you can get in this sort of situation.  That said, any donation at this point is a definite gamble.

Two quick voting posts

Looks like the attempt to get an initiative in California to split its electoral votes is falling apart.  I do generally support splitting, but this is a mutual disarmament issue.  In addressing a similar problem, Maryland has passed a law that would give its electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote if a majority of other states followed suit.  Alternately, California's reform could just be paired with a few other big states.  I'd be willing to extend an assumption of good faith to the sponsors, except that apparently the people behind it giving big money are in Missouri.  Now, I'm not opposed to supporting voting reforms in other states, but they really should originate in the state in question.  If you want a reform, start with your state.

Second, Kevin Drum has a post on an Indiana Voter ID requirement law.  These laws are an attempt to address the rampant crime of voter impersonation.  In fact, voter impersonation in Indiana that the government  "couldn't document a single case of voter impersonation at the polls."  So really, these laws are an attempt to address the problem that poor people without IDs are voting. I'm actually perfectly fine with having some sort of requirement, just give a convenient alternative or spend the money to provide IDs to all registered voters.

U.S. not just critical of unfriendly autocrats

The PCR Project reports that happily the U.S. has broken its silence and has criticized President Musharraf's crackdown in Pakistan.  I don't know if it will make a difference, but at least we're on the record.

Marching in the Streets

Today 50-100,000 some people turned out in monk-led demonstrations in Burma.  Apparently the government is now prepping for a harsher confrontation by moving in the army and establishing a curfew.  President Bush is laying down new sanctions and pushing for support at the UN.  Based on the articles I've read, China is apparently quietly urging restraint in the handling of protests but publicly standing by the military dictatorship. 

It's important to note that there is legitimate opposition movement that has won elections, so if a change in government comes there will be people who can step up:

The fleeting appearance of Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi at the gate of the Rangoon residence where she is under house arrest squarely identified the protests with the longtime peaceful struggle of her party, the opposition National League Democracy. She has been under detention for about 12 of the past 18 years.

Obviously being under house arrest that long is a terrible thing, but it also probably means she maintains much more domestic ties and credibility than do expatriate dissidents.

If you want to learn more about Monks in Burma check out this article in Slate.  There's ~300-500k of them and "like in other Southeast Asian countries, it's customary for a male to enter a monastery at some point in his life. Some might remain a monk for just a few days, while others—an estimated 15 percent—stay for life."  About 10,000 of the 50-100k protesters were Monks.

Image by racoles redistributed under the Creative Commons 2 License.

Pakistan Update

I'll leave this one to the experts over at the PCR project who have been doing good work on this for some time.  I'm planning to make their Monday event and will throw in my two cents with a summary then.

• They recommend a policy blog: http://www.pakistanpolicy.org/
• A piece by Amb. Teresita  Schaffer that as I read it argues that President Musharraf's is shifting from soft to hard authoritarianism but that he may well not be in power for long.  This runs contrary to advice from Gen. Zinni who wrote an article called "Stand by our Man in Pakistan." Not surprisingly, I'm going to back the ambassador on this one.  We should first and foremost stand by the Pakistanis.
• They specifically recommend the reporting of Salman Masood who reports for the NY Times from Islamabad for those that want to learn more (he also gets an endorsement from a local reporter in comments).

My main takeaway from all this is that the U.S. will probably be playing a secondary role, if any, in determining the outcome.  We probably will influence how much staying power Musharraf thinks he has.  Our actions will probably mainly influence will probably be over how we are perceived by the Pakistani people.