Friday Wrapup (3/14/08)

Last December 23rd, Mark Bowden of the Inquirer wrote the following in this column…

No one should be prosecuted for waterboarding Abu Zubaydah.

Several investigations are under way to find out who ordered the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes, apparently an effort to cover up evidence of (his) torture.
…

In the unlikely event that Zubaydah knew nothing of value and that every bit of information he divulged was false (regarding the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks and possibly the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole), it was still reasonable to assume in 2002 that this was not the case. If his interrogators were able to stop one terror attack by waterboarding him, even if they violated international agreements and our national conscience, it was justified. All nations have laws against killing, but all recognize self-defense as a legitimate excuse. I think the waterboarding in this case is directly analogous, except that Zubaydah himself, although he richly deserves it, was neither killed nor permanently harmed.

I can understand why someone at the CIA ordered the videotapes destroyed. It was both to protect those who did it (more from their own government, I suspect, than from terrorist reprisals) and to prevent the images from ever becoming public. We have seen the disastrous, self-defeating consequences of such pictures, which untethered from context assume a damaging life of their own. Whoever made the call now runs the risk of being prosecuted for obstruction of justice, a risk I am sure was evaluated before making the choice.

Last Sunday, however, Bowden wrote the following here – late getting to this, I know…

With the first two terrorism cases from the Guantánamo Bay detention center in the pipeline at last, the United States has an important opportunity.

Open and honest proceedings could showcase Western values and stand in sharp contrast to the horrid little jihadist snuff videos furtively circulating on the Internet. The opportunity may be squandered, however, if the government proceeds with plans to try inmates with evidence obtained in coercive interrogation.

News that the military has employed "clean teams" to reinterview some inmates who gave self-incriminating evidence under coercive interrogation is hardly reassuring. Such efforts are no more than a fig leaf.

…

It is important here to distinguish between two kinds of interrogation. One kind is for the purposes of intelligence gathering; its purpose is to obtain information to prevent attacks. This is the only circumstance in which coercive methods can be justified morally, if not legally. The other kind of interrogation is for the purposes of criminal prosecution, to prove and punish acts committed in the past. Extracting confessions through torture is the opposite of justice, and such evidence has no place in any fair judicial setting.

I believe the “fig leaf” remark, but my point here is that Bowden is trying to have it both ways, saying on the one hand that, yeah, torture (called “coercive methods” by the author - I don't buy Bowden's attempt to differentiate between the two) is bad if you’re trying to “gather intelligence,” but it’s OK if you’re trying to “prevent attacks.”

Torture is bad under any circumstances. Period (and here’s some appropriate reading material). And I’m not going to waste my time linking to yet another post explaining that the “intelligence” you get from it isn’t any good anyway, episodes of “24” notwithstanding.

I received the following communication from Joe Sestak of PA’s 7th Congressional District yesterday…

Dear Friend,

I now have a very serious Republican challenger. At the 11th hour, the Republicans recruited an assistant US District attorney (who is also a decorated F/A -18 aviator from the First Gulf War; a colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve; and who served as legal counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) to run for this seat.

I am only the second Democratic Congressman to hold this seat since the Civil War -- a District where Republicans outnumber Democrats by almost 2:1. I am asking you to please help me with my fundraising this most crucial quarter.

Please contribute: click here.

It appears that national security views will again play a role in this campaign season, as my opponent has articulated views on Iraq and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) with which I disagree. The campaign season will flush out our other differences on domestic issues, but I need your help now.

Please contribute: click here.

The amount of money that we raise by March 31st is crucial because this quarter will be my opponent's first reporting period. There is no more important quarter for a challenger than his first -- and, therefore, for me also. We know. Two years ago, when I was the challenger, our campaign was viewed as competitive at the outset -- and attracted additional funding in subsequent quarters -- because we nearly out-raised a 20-year Republican Congressman in our first quarter. A particularly strong fundraising effort by the FEC reporting date of March 31st -- whereby we significantly out-raise my opponent -- will prevent him from gaining "financial credibility" and therefore "traction" in terms of future fundraising support in the quarters to come.

Please contribute: click here.

With 35% of the electorate in my District registered Democrat -- and given that I am only the second Democratic Congressman over the last 142 years since the Civil War -- my opponent has been running hard in raising funds this quarter because of the Republicans' belief that this is "their seat". I disagree -- it is the "people's seat". I believe in a new approach to politics that benefits everyone -- not just one party. With your support, significantly out-raising my opponent sends this signal, while at the same time, deterring future fundraising support for him after this quarter.

Please contribute: click here.

I have enjoyed my first year as a Congressman. Please know that I do not ever forget your support, and am forever grateful for all that you have done. I would not be doing this job, were it not for you.

Warmly,

Joe Sestak

No word on whether or not Admiral Joe’s opponent will be Patrick Meehan, who may decide to bail on the Vince Fumo corruption trial since Fumo is stepping down from the PA state house due to health reasons.

Also, I know Admiral Joe has been lending a hand to the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, which seems to define a good day any more as one without any implosions, but at the end of the day, we're all Democrats (well, most of us), so let's not forget that.

And finally, I couldn’t let the week go by without noting the passing of former Ohio Senator Howard Metzenbaum at 90. He won a few battles and lost a few (some of his own making), but he kept fighting (even with John Glenn, who defeated him to win election to the Senate, though they worked together again later in political life to help Metzenbaum get re-elected).

The Inquirer, in the link to his obituary, described the former “Senator No” as an “unabashed liberal,” a badge of honor I would be happy to wear one day if and when the time comes to look back upon your humble narrator with either fondness or disdain (hopefully not for a looong time, though, I want to emphasize).