Ex Patria

John Scalzi on Moral Cowardice

John Scalzi, Author of the Old Man's War and The Ghost Brigades I recommended to you some time back, wrote a piece on moral cowardice on his blog Whatever:

The Senate Democrats are moral cowards for not filibustering this bill as they ought to have, fearing Republican retribution at the polls and figuring that it'll be tossed out by the courts anyway. I simply cannot understand the sort of rank and pervasive incompetence Democrats have to have in order to allow themselves to be politically flummoxed time and again by the least popular and least competent president in modern political history. The Democrats ought to have stepped on this bill's head and killed it, not only because they could have, but because they should have. Someone should have stood up for the Constitution and for the moral standing of the United States and its practices. Someone should be up there calling Bush what he is: A tiny man so frightened of the terrorist boogyman that he's willing to shred our moral standing to keep him away, and so dead-eyed hateful of what it means to be American that he can't find a way to protect this country without urinating on what it is that makes us great. Merely pounding on a podium for C-SPAN is not sufficient to do this. This bill should have been stopped. It wasn't.

Read the whole thing, it's not long.  Oh, go on, and read the whole blog.

 

On a brighter note

My "View from your window" picture made it on the Daily Dish.  Neat, eh?

That's the west shoulder of Mt. Ararat, by the way.  If I were an actual terrorist, I'd blow up the house of the oligarch in front of us and we'd have a spectacular view.  But I'm not, so I won't.

Better late than never

I wished she had spoken earlier.  One week ago, maybe this would have made a difference. It's a great speech in any case.  Just, you know.  Late.

"The light of our ideals shone dimly in those early dark days [of the Revolutionary War], years from an end to the conflict, years before our improbable triumph and the birth of our democracy. General Washington wasn't that far from where the Continental Congress had met and signed the Declaration of Independence. But it's easy to imagine how far that must have seemed. General Washington announced a decision unique in human history, sending the following order for handling prisoners:

"Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their Treatment of our unfortunate brethren."

Therefore, George Washington, our commander-in-chief before he was our President, laid down the indelible marker of our nation's values even as we were struggling as a nation – and his courageous act reminds us that America was born out of faith in certain basic principles. In fact, it is these principles that made and still make our country exceptional and allow us to serve as an example. We are not bound together as a nation by bloodlines. We are not bound by ancient history; our nation is a new nation. Above all, we are bound by our values.

George Washington understood that how you treat enemy combatants could reverberate around the world.  We must convict and punish the guilty in a way that reinforces their guilt before the world and does not undermine our constitutional values.

Now these values – George Washington’s values, the values of our founding – are at stake. We are debating far-reaching legislation that would fundamentally alter our nation's conduct in the world and the rights of Americans here at home. And we are debating it too hastily in a debate too steeped in electoral politics.

The Senate, under the authority of the Republican Majority and with the blessing and encouragement of the Bush-Cheney Administration, is doing a great disservice to our history, our principles, our citizens, and our soldiers. The deliberative process is being broken under the pressure of partisanship and the policy that results is a travesty," Senator Hillary Rodham-Clinton, September 28, 2006

Via The Daily Dish.  Andrew also has the complete speech on YouTube.  Watch it.

Scrod

The bill, approved 65 to 34, establishes far-reaching new rules on the treatment of terrorism suspects and is expected to go to the president by week’s end.
New York Times, 1 minute ago

I had some hope.

I said to Doug, "Well, that concludes the issue with the US citizenship".  He answered, "It won't matter, they can come after you anyhow".

How bitter is that.

Improvements

Back in -- oh, was it so long ago? -- in early July Michelle wrote me a long letter full of good advice about having a child with other than mainstream characteristics.  And I paid attention! 

We had Alan evaluated, though -- for reasons that had to do with the school he's attending here in Yerevan.  The school can react only with a paper in hand.

We also changed a few things in his life.  First and foremost we hired a teacher to do some work on his fine motor skills.  She's coming in three times a week and mostly does exactly what I tell her to do.  I hear you asking why I couldn't do it then myself?  Well, I'm not the most patient of people, and I would quickly lose my cool with Alan, and I don't want him to have childhood memories of long afternoons with Mommy yelling at him.  So, the teacher. 

She's working on some different planes.  Alan does tracing, coloring and cutting to hone his fine motor skills, and there's some work on social behavior, and simple kindergarten stuff.  He's a smart cookie, so he needs a bit of a challenge.

It's working.  As they say, a picture says more than a thousand words.  This is Alan's drawing style in June of this year:

It's a typical drawing of his.  He never did draw a thing, it was always scribbles and mostly in one color, and that one mostly black (so this one is not quite that typical after all).

Will you still need me...

... will you still feed me
when I'm sixty-four?

Read the law

So, you heard that there is a compromise?  And you thought the good guys won?

Wrong.  Read the proposed law (pdf file), carefully.  You don't have to be a lawyer to understand, you just have to have some reading comprehension.

(2) PROHIBITION ON GRAVE BREACHES.—The provisions in section 2441 of title
18, United States Code, as amended by this section, fully satisfy the obligation under
Article 129 of the Third Geneva Convention for the United States to provide effective
penal sanctions for grave breaches which are encompassed in Common Article 3 in the
context of an armed conflict not of an international character. No foreign or international sources of law shall supply a basis for a rule of decision in the courts of the United States in interpreting the prohibitions enumerated in subsection 2441(d).

(3) INTERPRETATION BY THE PRESIDENT.—(A) As provided by the Constitution
and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but this means that "slight" breaches are OK.  If you're just hurt a little bit, and only forced to stay awake for a little time, and if it is for the greater good for the nation (or simply if Bush this morning decides that he's OK with some cutting or bruising), then you're out of luck.

(D) the term ‘serious physical pain or suffering’ means bodily
injury that involves—

(1) a substantial risk of death;
(2) extreme physical pain;
(3) a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature, not
include cuts, abrasions, or bruises; or
(4) significant loss or impairment of the function of a
bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.

Think about it.  Waterboarding would be legal.  You are not at risk of drowning, you just think you are.  You don't endure extreme physical pain, you only endure pain and extreme anguish and panic and fear.  It doesn't leave any physical disfigurement.  It doesn't impair any of your organs, much. I can come up with a dozen more torture methods that fulfill above requirements, yet easily breaks a person's will, leaving his personality, character, his sense of self, his integrity, in shreds.

One of the jarring scenes in 1984 is the threat wit the rat.  Remember that?  That would also be legal.

The only thing between this interpretation and reality would be the president.  Now, think about this long and hard.  Do you really want Mr. Bush to be the deciding factor on this issue?  Does he strike you as the sort of person who would reign in an overly enthusiastic CIA investigator who dreams of saving the world US from another 9/11?  How much collateral damage is too much?

It's not a compromise.  It's a whole sale of America's integrity.

Torture, continued

I'm making it easy for you:

Just click on the link, and take action.  Sign a letter, email the page to others, something.

Standing up is hard. No reason not to do it.

It seems the President backs away a bit from his latest idea about torture.  I'm not impressed.  I'm still horrified he seriously considered it in the first place, and I'm appalled by the apparent unconcern for fellow human beings that he displays.  His anger and his scorn in various interviews, the stabbing finger, the repeated "my job is to protect your family", this all makes me wonder about his state of mind.  Has he lost any touch with the real world?  Is he so caught up in his war on terror that he doesn't see where he is leading the US?

Mr. Bush said after conferring with Republican House members that he had “reminded them that the most important job of government is to protect the homeland.” [Emphasis mine.] As part of his plan, the president wants Congress to enact legislation that would authorize tougher interrogations of suspected terrorists.  (NY Times)

I'm an AI member.  I have been writing many letters about the torture issue, have tried to spread the love.  You may have noticed that I have banners and links to AI on my side bar.  I feel very deeply about matters of torture, inhuman treatment of prisoners, the death penalty.  Doug and I are considering to settle down in Vermont one day, not only, but also, because that's one of the few states that doesn't have the death penalty any more.  It would not instantly drive me crazy to live there. (I know, they have a ban on abortion.  That I can work on, though.)

I can tell you the precise instant I became wary of my fellow humans' capacity to act humanely under stressful circumstances.  I think I was twelve or so, when a teacher in an ethics class told us about this famous experiment.  It gave me nightmares.  It still makes me extemely uneasy today.  Remember, I'm German.  Obedience to authority would explain why so many Germans went along with what was a horrible, cruel, inhumane treatment of fellow human beings.  Not that it made things any better -- if "nice" people can be coerced to act in this manner, how safe is anyone of us?  Not at all, would be the answer that recent German history has taught us (and I mean all of us, German or not.)

Rumors

You've heard about this one, right?

And you know, if the President decides to attack Iran (and although my husband does not believe this will happen, I will not put it past Mr. Bush), we would probably not be evacuated.

Because:

• We just live close to Iran but not in it.  [The fact that we have the Iranian Embassy around the corner from us doesn't have anything to do with anything.]
• We are not in any danger.
• Nobody will be mad at Americans for attacking Iran.
• The world will be a safer place.
• Oh, and global warming is a hoax.

Right.  And my name is Velma, there will be no ground troops, and global warming is still a hoax.