von

Song number one is not a f— you song.

by

Matt Yglesias, explaining why record companies need to relax on this whole P2P thingy, states: As I’ve been urging, protecting the profits of the record industry is not the appropriate aim of intellectual property policy. Rather, the point of intellectual property law is to ensure that adequate incentives continue to exist for the production of … Read more

We are asking you to kill us.

by

Put it in with the law of unintended consequences, and shove it back in the closet with the rest of the cliches.  In my extended family, the most significant fallout from the Schiavo case is a sudden rise in the number of requests that I (not) involve myself in the deaths of loved ones. 

This is not meant to be callous towards Ms. Schiavo, whose experiences have been an unmitigated tragedy.  Rather, this is a bit of cinema verite — a glipse into the unguarded way that we talk about the end of life.  Some of the respondents are Democrats of the FDR school.  Some were Republicans before being Republican was cool. Some are very religious; others, not so much.  And one comment actually predates the Schiavo affair — yes, I know, it’s hard to believe that people could be thinking about such things without the involvement of the U.S. Congress.

Read more

Schiavo: They said it better.

by

John Cole: When Terri Schiavo is finally allowed to slip past her cruel fate and move on to a better place, she will not be the only one to have died this month. At another gravesite, this marker should be erected: Barry Goldwater’s Conservatism in America 1964-2005 John Derbyshire (!): Watching Hannity & Colmes Tuesday … Read more

The Rule of Law? Eh.

by

This is a post about process.  Boring, I know.  You’d rather be talking about conclusions.  You’d rather be arguing right and wrong.  You’d rather be debating ends, not means.  (God knows I would.) 

But this is a post about process.  Because process — boring,  banal, bureaucratic process — is what’s really important.  If you want to do this you must do it that way.  No, you may not jump to the head of the line.  Yes, you must fill out the form in triplicate.  Civilization is life measured in coffee spoons; and this is, on the whole, a good thing.

(But it’s also why, if you’re wondering, civilization makes the artist in us despair.)

I’ve written on this subject before.  In posts that annoyed nearly everyone, I argued for gay marriage but against finding a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution.  It is annoying, I agree.  Much better would be for me to simply decree that gays should be allowed to marry and be done with it.  But that’s not process; that’s not playing by the rules or tradition.  That’s making it up as you go along and, when the next guy comes along, who’s to say he doesn’t make it worse?  So the means matter.  They matter as much as — and sometimes more than — the ends.

But I don’t come here to fight old fights.  Or to talk about the process being done (or not done) to poor Ms. Schiavo.  I’m here to discuss another abuse of process that is right now happening.  I want to stop the cheering (for there undoubtably will be some) before it begins.

Read more

At Any Moment

by

Before her eyes was the violent blue sky — nothing else. For an endless moment she looked into it. Like a great overpowering sound it destroyed everything in her mind, paralyzed her. Someone once had said to her that the sky hides the night behind it, … Unblinking, she fixed the solid emptiness, and the … Read more

The Gopher

by

And so I pop up, like some sort of unkennable furry rodent, from my piles of briefs and filehistories and pleadings to comment on the least consequential story of the day:

Ramesh Ponnuru is an ass.

I’m not an anti-Ponnuru.  Indeed, I don’t know him from Adam.  I’ve barely read the guy.  I do find it a little weird that everyone at NROnline takes pains to point out how intelligent he is whenever they criticize him — but, then, I find a lot of stuff at NROnline a little weird.  Calling a conservative commentator "K-Lo."  John Derbyshire’s strange affection for the word "buggery."  Donald Luskan. 

Look, man, don’t judge me.  I just read it for the articles.  The Jonah Goldberg articles ….

I digress.  Back to Ramesh Ponnuru, and his recent ass-hood.

For those who have had better things to do with their time, a quick review:

Read more

Sign the Petition.

by

For who have been spending quality time under a rock for the last few weeks (or getting all their news from ObWi, since we haven’t much covered it), the FEC has suggested that it may begin regulating campaign speech on the internet.  That is, blogs.  That is, you and me.  This is a gross and, … Read more

Where in the World?

by

A couple quick housekeeping notes from Von:

1.  My hotmail account has gone inexplicably kaput.  Thus, if you’re trying to e-mail me, please use the work e-mail account.  (If you don’t know either e-mail account, don’t worry.  They’re nonpublic.)

2.  If you’ve been corresponding with me regarding continuing coverage of events in Lebanon, please drop a line to the ObWi kitty; I’ll presumptuously impose on our man Edward Underscore to forward it along. 

3.  Posting is gonna be light or non-existent for me for the next few weeks.  On the other hand, if you’re in Minneapolis, Harrisburg, and/or (possibly) New York, you may catch fleeting glipse of me.  If you know what I look like. 

My best.  Please use this as an open thread.

Read more

Remember the Tigers

by

Fifty years ago, the Crispus Attucks’ Tigers of Indianapolis won the state basketball tournament.  It was the first time — anywhere in the nation — that an all-Black school won an open basketball tournament.  In basketball-hungry Indiana, it represented a sea change: 

For almost three decades Crispus Attucks High School quietly went about its business, serving as Indianapolis’ segregated black high school.

Opened in 1927, Attucks produced mechanics, tailors and stenographers, doctors, lawyers, judges, professors, musicians, military officers and politicians. It was a source of pride for the black community, a center for social activities.

Most of Indianapolis hardly noticed.

That is, until March 19, 1955, when Attucks accomplished what every high school in the state of Indiana dreams of.

Honoring a segregated school for winning a sports tournament seems a bit like missing the lake for the water; the school was segregated, after all.  That should be the lede.

In diverting your gaze to the bigger picture, however, don’t miss the nuances in the focused field.  This was admittedly a small step.  But, in an existence made up almost exclusively of small steps, the small steps — however imperfect — also deserve your attention.  This was one.

Read more

The Short List

by

It’s time for a Friday stroll around the blogosphere: Joe Carter, Evangelical art critic and a usually smart guy, continues to miss the sea for the boat on the Intelligent Design debate.  Today, he points us to a truly silly post by the EnvironGuy that compares … wait for it … "the Bush Doctrine" with … Read more

Intelligent Design

by

Jason Rosenhouse presents a very readable explanation as to why Intelligent Design "theory" has no place in the science classroom.  George Diepenbrock of the Daily Times, a newspaper in Kansas, had asked why Intelligent Design shouldn’t be taught in the science classroom — i.e., why not "teach the controversy."  Mr. Rosenhouse responds: What are the … Read more

Daylight in the Forbidden Dance

by

We still don’t know the extent of Syria’s involvement in the assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri — or even if there was Syrian involvement.   Lebanon is the territory of the Syrian mukhabarat, and it is not clear that the ley-lines of power reach all the way to Damascus.  Time will tell — or, more … Read more

Additions to Von’s Blogroll

by

Norm Geras and Gregory Djerejian (of the Belgravia Dispatch) are new.  Each is worth your time. Hmm.  I must be in somthing of an Anglophilic mood.  (Or, for Djerejian, an ex-pat-ric mood.) <b>UPDATE</b>:  If you’d like to propose other blogs that we all should be readin’, or if you’ve blogrolled us and haven’t received a … Read more

John Fund Blackberry Watch

by

by von John Fund, a Wall Street Journal reporter at this year’s CPAC, seems to be facing some kind of financial crisis.  Via Crosstalk: John Fund highly respected Wall Street Journal columnist did the strangest thing today. He walked right into blogger’s corner (he is not a credentialed blogger). He sat right down at a … Read more

Whaa? Racer X is my brother?

by

Yup.  We’re buying a new car.  Although our Honda Civic (’96, a very good year) is running, well, like you expect — i.e., very well — it’s time to buy something new.  You know.  You get a thirst sometimes; if you’re lucky, you also get the money to quench it.  More importantly, it’s also time to buy something I want, since the car that my wife used to lure me out of Chicago* just looks better when she’s driving it.  (At least, that’s what she tells me.  And we don’t want the car to look bad, do we?  So, you don’t mind driving the Civic, do you hon?  Let me rephrase:  you really don’t mind driving the Civic, [von].  See?  Much better.)

The rest is below the fold, because not everyone is interested in a car-themed ramble.

Read more

Social Security, Remix Tape IV

by

I came out early in favor of Social Security reform, but gave into despair when I saw Bush’s initial salesmanship.  It’s a crisis, you say?  You mean like Medicare?  The Deficit?  Iraqi WMDs?  Persuasive this line of argument from you is not.  Today, however, Hindrocket of PowerLine provides reason to believe that Bush has settled … Read more

Freedom!

by

I present unto you:  An open thread for the weekend.  Use it wisely.  Use it well. As for me:  I just filed my brief in my all-time favorite international white-collar RICO case.  I’m off to celebrate by having a beer or six, watching a little anti-Cylon propoganda, and sleeping.  Woo!  This "thinking and writing" stuff … Read more

What the heck is Hindrocket smoking?

by

I don’t mean to beat up on Hindrocket of Power Line, but his portrayal of the objections to elevating Judge Gonzales to AG is simply bizarre.  The objections to Gonzales do not consist solely of disagreements with Gonzales’ alleged conclusion that the Geneva Convention does not apply to "enemy combatants" in the service of "pseudo-states," … Read more

On Iraq and other things.

by

Juan Cole’s column on the recent election in Iraq is wrong about nearly everything — but it does make one good point.  This election would not have occurred without the support an insistence of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani.  Had Sistani not brought marchers into the street in January of last year, there likely would not … Read more

This may actually work.

by

On Friday, I praised President Bush for sticking to his guns and keeping to a firm election timetable for Iraq.  It was a difficult thing to do, but it was the right thing to do.  Today, we see the fruits of his steadfastness:  A vote that, by initial accounts, was a spectacular success. The greatest … Read more

Aaargh.

by

The following comes from Von, and only Von: I’m concerned that a double standard is being applied by some (not all or even most) of our lefty commentators in calls to "ban" folks on the right.  (I’m specifically not referring here to e-mails to the site, which have been very helpful, but to comments in … Read more

I’m sorry, Jim

by

…. but pointing out that certain newspapers will spin the coming Iraq elections one way doesn’t mean that spinning it the other is any better: However the election goes will be one thing; how it’s reported is another. The thing to watch is the position of the Damning But, the old DB. The DB will … Read more

The Pro-Toture Right.

by

LGF’s commentators aim low — and hit!  Sully’s the latest target, for having the gumption to suggest that torture is wrong.  Charles responds by proving he’s not really all that clear on such nuanced things as "dictionary definitions," "the issues," and "the kind of website he chooses to run."  So it goes.  If you want … Read more

Full disclosure. Maybe.

by

This is funny (via Glenn Reynolds).  Still, it’s kinda strange that the blogosphere is focused on the coming crypto-pundit invasion, but has wholly missed the enemy already within.  The blogosphere is utterly overrun by lawyers, including yours truly, who are virtual double agents — and bound as fiduciaries to represent their clients’ interests.  (Incidentally, we … Read more

Kos Theory

by

From today: Republicans love [Joe Lieberman, aka the Ninja] for the same reason that Democrats love McCain — because they both spend a great deal of the time beating up publicly on their own party. But for that reason, especially given our minority status (when the party needs to stick together for survival), Lieberman must … Read more

Social Security (Remix)

by

….. As readers of the blog know, I’d like to reform it, revise it, and privatize it.  Social Security was sold as a retirement program, but it ain’t working no more.  It pays a pittance.  Its fundamentals are based on a fetishized version of let’s-rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul.  It’s a simple wealth transfer — not a program of … Read more

Torture Redux

by

Mr. Donald writes further to my post on torture — and the place for government torturers (if any): Your answer suggests that you, like myself, would in that given case promptly set to work torturing the suicide bomber, and would be right to do so. The government’s special privilege to commit violence is already dangerously … Read more

A hopeful sign. Really.

by

As if we didn’t know that our enemies are, indeed, our enemies: "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology," said the speaker, who identified himself as Zarqawi. "Anyone who tries to help set up this system is part of it." It’s always nice … Read more

Legal Bleg

by

This is a terrible abuse of my blogging privileges and surely sanctionable under the Bloggers’ Code, but I have a sincere bleg for my legally-minded colleagues and readers.  I’m positive I recall a case, possibly written by Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit, which makes the point that a complaint doesn’t meet the standards of … Read more

On Torture: A follow-up on my Challenge to the Blogosphere

by

On January 7, 2005, I issued a challenge for a blogger to step forward to defend the following position:

Resolved: in fighting the war on terror, there are circumstances in which a U.S. government agent should be able to torture a prisoner without risking criminal or civil liability.

(Or one like it.)  I offered the take the other side — the anti-torture side — in the debate.

I’ve yet had no takers.  James Donald sent the following hypothetical by e-mail, however, which I publish with his permission:

You intercept a car bomber who was about to blow up a mosque full of innocents. His handlers are trying to provoke civil war by committing enormous atrocities.

You know the average suicide bomber is none too bright and none too sane – that his handler is somewhere nearby attempting, not very successfully, to guide him to the desired target. So you ask him. "Who is your handler? Who supplied you with all these explosives, who installed the detonator? Where did the explosives come from? He does not answer. What you gonna do?

I know what I would do, whether or not I am employed by the US government. What would you do?

The question misses the point.  The issue is not what one should do in a given case.  The issue is what rules should generally apply.   

There are situations in which I would torture a captured, powerless foe.  There are situations in which I’d want my government to torture a seeming innocent in my name.  And, as I mentioned in my original post, I can even dream up exceptional situations in which I would happily agree to torture a seven year old child to a slow death.  (So can you, I bet.)

But if we’re going to discuss legitimizing torture, we need to start with the rules that will generally apply.  We can’t start with the exceptions. 

It’s therefore telling whenever a person wants to argue that torture should be legitimized, they rarely argue a rule.  They nearly always argue an exception.  Or they resort to a generalized, "I wouldn’t take anything off the table."  (See, e.g., this old den Beste post.)

They do this because they don’t have a rule to argue.  They don’t have standards to apply.  They don’t want to make an affirmative case.  They want to rely on an ad hoc assembly of examples.  A generalized fear.  A broad concern.  It is because their position is fundamentally weak.  They need to conceal its weakness. 

Well, my position isn’t weak.  So here’s my rule.  Torture is prohibited.  If you torture, you assume the risk of your act — of being prosecuted and of being convicted. 

There is no immunity because you are working for the government or because you believe it’s for he greater good.  A thousand roads have been laid with some variation of such words, and they each lead to a Godwin’s law violation.  There is good reason not to lay another.

Will this mean that every torturer will be punished?  Probably not.  Indeed, in a truly exceptional case no prosecutor would indict and no jury would convict.  But, as I mentioned, the rules are not designed for exceptional cases. 

___________________________

Still, to answer Mr. Donald’s question:  I frankly don’t know what I would do — I mean, other than interrogating the guy to the nines and (ultimately) tossing him in jail.  Would I enhance my interrogation by pulling out his fingernails?  Breaking his fingers with a wrench?  Punching him a couple times in the balls?  Slowly bleeding him to death?  Sodomizing him with a toilet plunger?  Loosing (or threatening to loose) an attack dog on him?  Plunging his face into water?  Threatening to kill his wife, his son, and his month old baby girl?  Actually killing them?

Would any of these things would improve the intelligence that I received from a "none too bright and none too sane" suicide bomber?

And what are the stakes?  If I don’t torture the bomber, I may not be able to locate the leadership of the insurgent group?  Wouldn’t that same standard potentially apply to every insurgent fighter — legitimizing torture against the entire enemy force? 

Is that the rule that I should apply?

UPDATE:  Contrapositive notes some less-than encouraging comments from (now) Secretary Rice at hearing regarding this very subject.  Maybe, if Sens. Boxer and Kerry hadn’t made asses of themselves yesterday, these comments would have gotten more play.  (For the record, I support elavating Rice to State, and thus am having difficulty getting too worked up about this.)

Read more

Tort Reform

by

If you’re thinking about President Bush’s proposal to impose federal tort reform, read this post at Strange Women Lying in Ponds.  I want to find a practical way to limit medical malpractice claims (our own Charles Bird wrote on this a short time ago), but Bush’s proposal for a nationwide cap on tort damages has … Read more

Nuts.

by

This article, linked by Professor Bainbridge, argues that companies should provide "[p]ayment in-kind (perks), deferred compensation (corporate loans)," and encourage "conspicuous consumption" among top employees in order to ensure that they remain loyal to the firm.  If the abstract to the article accurately reflects its argument, however, the authors have lept off the crazy branch … Read more