No Future for the GOP?

[rumble]

to clarify, before I get jumped on - I'm not saying this isn't an outrage. but really, is it so much more outrageous b/c this dude's an American citizen, or b/c Jose Padilla was, & so on?

Well, this is my take: I've never invested a lot of faith in international law or governance, as it seems to be a work-in-progress and is mostly still just voluntary. The reason that this is important is that the same thing doesn't hold at the national level where we do have strong institutions and a long legal tradition. Although there isn't a legal system to enforce human rights internationally, I don't think that is reason to allow American rights to be trampled for the sake of consistency. A double-standard is better than no standard at all.

when have Americans ever really cared about the rule of law or due process when it did was an obstacle to their goals? like many things, they are "cherished [nationality] values" mostly when it is expedient.

Internationally that's true, but again, domestically I think that there is actually a high level of support for strict procedural standards. Take for example laws on evidence: people are mostly OK now with letting people off when the police collect evidence improperly, even in quite serious cases, and allowing for a reasonable doubt standard, rather than a balance of probabilities standard for criminal law. If we can let murderers off on technicalities and improbable alibis, then I'm not sure why it is such a nuisance to give an American terrorist a trial.

 

[Dr Awesome]

If we can let murderers off on technicalities and improbable alibis, then I'm not sure why it is such a nuisance to give an American terrorist a trial.

Because criminals aren't at "war" with America.

 

[crackerjack]

If we can let murderers off on technicalities and improbable alibis, then I'm not sure why it is such a nuisance to give an American terrorist a trial.

I'm assuming they've considered the extradition option and it's not really a runner. You keep making out like it's a choice between assassination and a fair trial.

 

[rumble]

There are plenty of criminals hiding out in countries that don't have extradition treaties, but I don't see any DOJ assassination program being launched. I find it incredibly alarming that people are willing to just throw away centuries of hard-fought-for protections just to get someone that the TV tells them is a bad guy.

It's a choice between assassination of a US citizen, fair trial and doing nothing. I'm advocating doing nothing, because the alternative is illegal and wrong.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Internationally that's true, but again, domestically I think that there is actually a high level of support for strict procedural standards.

I take the point about international v. domestic standards. tho tbc, you're no longer arguing from a moral standpoint (if you even were in the first place) but purely from one of application of points of law. which is a fine & valid argument to make. I think the real issue is that for many people this dude (or Padilla, Lindh, etc.) ceased to be Americans - de facto, if not de jure - when they did [insert alleged treasonous act] and hence many are not bothered when they don't receive fair legal treatment, whereas similar treatment to a secular felon would not be tolerated in the same way. similar to the division of IRA/etc prisoners & "ordinary decent criminals" by the English. again, this isn't my position. I agree w/you, everyone should get trial. not b/c I care at all about these dudes (f**k 'em, for real), but b/c, like you I think if you're going to have rules you have apply them universally or not at all & if latter, get rid of them.

unfortunately it's hard to see Americans, by & large, being swayed by cogent, dispassionate calls for an application of uniform legal treatment. especially when the t-word is involved, and when fearmongering has developed into a quasi-legitimate political strategy.

on a similar note, good luck with your call to "do nothing". not exactly a line politicians can espouse, you know?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

also, I should say, there are (very limited) exceptions where I'd be just fine w/assassination regardless of legality. I'd stand up & cheer for Bin Laden hanging from a gallows, as I think many, many people (including a fair # of Muslims - if perhaps in private) would. I didn't shed any tears for Zarqawi. nor would I for Mullah Omar or Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (who we'll probably strike a deal with before the year's out, anyway). tho tbc, nor would I have for Pinochet, or Franco, etc etc

admittedly, it seems like it political assassination rapidly becomes a very slippery slope.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Sorry to butt in on a thread where I've not contributed much, but: it's interesting to see pro-death-penalty views expressed on Dissensus, I think. Just out of interest, Padraig, how did/do you feel about Saddam's execution?

I gather there were concerns about the legality of the proceedings (edit: cf. the entire war, of course...), but as far as the morality of the hanging goes, he must have got off pretty lightly compared to what a lot of people might (not illegitimately) have wanted to see done to him.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Just out of interest, Padraig, how did/do you feel about Saddam's execution?

I had mixed feelings. On the one hand he's another figure I certainly didn't shed a tear for. Obviously I don't need to reiterate the long list of charges against him. However, the fashion of the execution, or more the lead-up to it - American special forces dragging the delapidated figure out of his rathole and into a ridiculous kangeroo court so he could hanged by a puppet regime - leaves an overwhelmingly bad taste in the mouth. there's also the unwelcome feeling that even tho he likely got what was coming to him, he was executed by the wrong people (essentially, the Americans) for the wrong reasons. if you know what I mean. (& honestly, if they were going to do it, better someone should have just taken an "accidental" shot during the capture and ended it right there - I suppose everyone needed their spectacle tho)

assassination isn't quite the same thing as the death penalty, but I'd say I'm against the latter almost all of the time, but that there are exceptions, tho even in those my feelings are more ambiguous than pro. Timothy McVeigh for example; I'm not saying he should have been executed, but I didn't really have a problem with it. I do think opposing the death penalty in all cases on principle is hypocritical unless you're also going to be pro-life - 2 things that don't often go hand in hand - & a pacifist & generally oppose all killing on all grounds no matter what.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

also, I know Scott is w/me at least as regards Bin Laden.

also, a quick story:

A few months after 9/11 I was in Boston - or Cambridge, rather, I think it was in an MIT building - at an anarchist conference (80% punks, like always) & afterwards there was a march of maybe a couple hundred people through Cambridge and Boston. the front banner everyone was marching behind said something like "F**k Bush & Bin Laden: No to the State in All Forms" (yes, it did attract a fair bit of hosility). My feelings about "the state" are a bit more complex (if not altogether positive) these days but I stick with the 1st half of that banner 100%.

(footnote: the destination of the march was, strangely, a Ralph Nader speaking engagement, theoretically to protest, or hand out anarchcommunist - the Boston dudes were really into anarchocommunism - fliers to college students, or something...I think we just wound up hanging out on the Boston Commons and then there was a show)

 

[rumble]

it's interesting to see pro-death-penalty views expressed on Dissensus, I think.

I'll say. I used to lurk around here a good 5 years ago, when the color scheme was green on black. When I posted here again recently, I was expecting to be attacked from the left, but as it turns out Dissensus seems to be center-right now. I was not expecting that.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I'll say. I used to lurk around here a good 5 years ago, when the color scheme was green on black. When I posted here again recently, I was expecting to be attacked from the left, but as it turns out Dissensus seems to be center-right now. I was not expecting that.

first off, I'm not "pro-death penalty", as I made clear. second, please elaborate on how Dissensus is "center-right". or in fact how anything I or anybody else has said is center-right. if you're going to make the claim.

I guess you're talking about k-punk & that whole web constellation of academic Marxism. most of those dudes are gone I think. Dominic Fox pops once in a while. actually, I wonder what josef k's up to these days. anyway - green on black color scheme & k-punk diatribes about raver dads aside, let's not delude ourselves. it's a muso board first & foremost, hardly a hotbed of insurrectionism. there's still a few Marxists (& a whole bunch of people with serious crit theory backgrounds) & the odd cadger with old anarchist sympathies (i.e. me or Matt B or John Eden), but antipolitics.net it ain't.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I'll say. I used to lurk around here a good 5 years ago, when the color scheme was green on black. When I posted here again recently, I was expecting to be attacked from the left, but as it turns out Dissensus seems to be center-right now. I was not expecting that.

I'd take issue with the assumption that it's inherently "right-wing" to be pro-death-penalty without an examination of the circumstances under which someone espousing that view thinks it ought to be applied. I hardly need to point out how many socialist regimes have been pretty keen on executing people, I'm sure.

I suppose it's fair to say that, in a liberal developed democracy, the average death-penalty supporter is likely to be further to the right than the average non-supporter. But averages are only averages, and I'm sure no-one who posts here regularly would describe padraig (the current padraig, I mean!) as "right-wing". (Edit: not that saying you didn't shed a tear over a mass murderer's execution makes you "pro-death-penalty" in any case, as padraig points out.)

 

[Tentative Andy]

you just can't go around commtting genocide and declaring it legal.

Well, not with that attitude you can't.

 

[Leo]

how does a country defend itself against terrorism? what rules should you follow when your enemy follows no rules?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I would argue that AQ etc. does follow rules, as do other groups using terrorism as a strategy. different rules from the ones that sovereign nations follow, but rules nonetheless.

I would think one very obvious answer to your second question is to focus more effort on addressing the root causes that drive people to commit terrorism. Also, I have yet to see the evidence suggesting that torture and drone strikes (I guess the latter are at least debatable) have, on the whole, made the world safer for Americans. or for anybody.

 

[scottdisco]

Rumble is obviously right to stress that IHL is a lip-service area, on the whole (sadly, of course), so it is crucial that national, sovereign laws should be the best that they can.

there's interesting stuff from Cracker here i think

I'm assuming they've considered the extradition option and it's not really a runner. You keep making out like it's a choice between assassination and a fair trial.

i don't know if we ever answered Vim's question from last year here (we started discussing the potential qualitative difference between rendition and extraordinary rendition).

droid -- what I meant is, are the CIA going to continue (withold the ability) to practice "rendition", but not to send suspects to foreign states to be tortured? So, is rendition as it will be practiced under Obama going to be qualitatively different to rendition under Clinton and Bush (i.e. no outsourcing of torture)? Apologies if this has already been dealt with.

a Brookings piece i linked to in that 'Change' thread that Polystyle started (page one here; FWIW, i loved Nomad on page four) clearly had something i thought worth posting at the time.

not something i've even thought about for well over a year, tbc, and i flip-flop all the time, and i should probably not just uncritically repost old links w you sharp minds about (blah blah more typical scottdisco hedging of bets blah blah), but i just thought i'd repost the specific quote below (natural caveats: not necessarily endorsing any or all of this piece, but the below quote is fascinating and timelessly relevant to something Cracker said that really interested me) because Cracker mentioning extradition up above got me thinking 'Didn't Vim have a thread about extradition and renditions from the US pov once...'

Renditions are necessary and relatively uncontroversial when extradition is not an option and the suspects end up in the United States for trial. Why wouldn't extradition be an option? In some countries, the formal court system isn't trustworthy because judges are sympathetic to terrorists or vulnerable to intimidation. Even more worrisome, because of the United States's rock-bottom approval ratings in much of the world, a highly publicized extradition hearing could increase sympathy for the suspect and damage the government's popularity. Historically, the United States has shielded such cooperative but weak regimes from the adverse publicity associated with extradition proceedings.

Several Pakistani cities saw anti-American demonstrations when Pakistan allowed Mir Aimal Kansi, who had murdered two CIA employees in Virginia in 1993, to be sent to the United States. Many Pakistanis saw Kansi's actions as heroic. Pakistanis' approval of jihadist violence against the United States has grown since then. Imagine if Pakistan captured Osama bin Laden tomorrow. Would the Musharraf government really want to try him in a Pakistani court or even have an extradition request go through the country's legal system? Pakistan would prefer to dodge that political bullet.

P.S.
Padraig'd love this, but i remember Craner and i discussing al-Zarqawi over red wine and pasta during a lunch break in a Euston manifesto conference.

oh if Droid is reading this now!!

 

[vimothy]

Totally and wholeheartedly disagree with everyone on the subject of international law. Saying that the rich and powerful can game the system, e.g., is a non sequitur in my opinion. No different to domestic law.

But anyway,

I note that Jack Goldsmith gave an excellent talk at the University of Texas last week making the argument that in almost all fundamental respects the Obama Administration is continuing the "anti- and counter-terrorism" policies of the "second Bush Administration," i.e., the second-term Bush presidency that freed itself, to at least some extent, from the mad-dog unilaterlism identified with Dick Cheney, David Addington, and John Yoo. It is difficult to disagree with Goldsmith's argument, empirically. Whether we should be cheered or dejected is, of course, another matter entirely.

 

[scottdisco]

Saying that the rich and powerful can game the system, e.g., is a non sequitur in my opinion.

very true Vim.

fascinating article.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Saying that the rich and powerful can game the system, e.g., is a non sequitur in my opinion. No different to domestic law.

no. of course the rich & powerful will by definition always be better able to game any system, but beyond that general similarity they are quite different. domestic law is at least nominally binding. international law binds no one. people care about domestic law, usually enough not to break it or at least to try to not to get caught breaking it or to seem not to break it. again, nobody really cares about international law. most importantly, domestic law is applied by a government to its own citizens. constitutional/legislative/philosophical debates aside, there is at least a clear line of jurisdiction. international law is (haphazardly) applied by (?) to other sovereign nations or citizens thereof, with no clear jurisdiction. witness the way the World Court (ICJ) is roundly ignored when it comes to any matter of importance. another way to say it might be that individuals (& corporations) game domestic law, while nations game (or more accurately, completely disregard) international law, such as it is. there is a big difference. a warrant issued by the district attorney means you're going to jail; a warrant issued by the ICC means you have to restrict your travel plans.

also, let's not pretend that "international" law is anything but a creation of the West, selectively imposed, for the most part on non-Westerners. not that I'm against the prosecution of people who commit severe war crimes, Western or no, but this leaves it open to the double-standard arguments of those who are on trial, as well as (accurate, IMO) charges of paternalism. this kinda delves into a different argument, over interventionism in general, but it's at least an issue that must be raised. as well as another difference from domestic law.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

the first sentence of the Wright column from Vim's link

I wouldn’t have believed you if you’d told me 20 years ago that America would someday be routinely firing missiles into countries it’s not at war with

this dude seems to have completely forgotten Reagan bombing Libya. not to mention the invasion of Grenada, or the invasion of Panama, or half a dozen other incidents in recent history. not that past sins absolve current ones, if sins they be, but just to say it's nothing new. nor, despite the fact that we've led the charge, is this a U.S.-only issue (pointing once again to the weakness of international law).

I do, tho, agree wholeheartedly with the main thrust of the column, i.e. that the cons of the drone campaign outweigh the limited benefits, for a variety of practical reasons. not least of which is - as I said above - it's a slippery slope.