Like many political conservatives - and, also, like more than a few political liberals -- I have been thinking that there is much to like about Gov. Huckabee. (That said, he is not, and has never been, my preferred candidate.) I liked it, that is, that -- in addition to having sound (i.e., my own) views on abortion-regulation, he seemed (for a while, anyway) not to endorse base anti-immigrant rhetoric; that, as Governor, he was willing to commute the sentences of, and pardon, convicted criminals; and that, for a while, he avoided Giuliani-esque over-the-top statements about how tough he is willing to be on detainees, etc. (I have been bothered, though, by his cosy relationship with the teacher unions, among other things.) I even gave him a little (very little) money.
This column, though, by Robert Novak, leaves me very troubled. Now, to be clear, it is not (for me) a reason to worry about Gov. Huckabee's candidacy that, apparently, some Southern Baptist leaders are not endorsing him. What does bother me, though, is (what seems to be) Gov. Huckabee's close relationship with Steven Hotze, Rick Scarborough, and Vision America.
I've been pretty clear, I think, about my disdain for the tedious "the theocrats are coming!" thing that is so popular in some circles. (See Ross Douthat's take-down of the genre here.) But, as I see it, Hotze, Scarborough, and Vision America really do have troubling and misguided views about faith, law, and the political order. We're not talking Fr. Neuhaus's critique of the naked public square here, or John Courtney Murray's We Hold These Truths. These folks are hard-core. And, they are, in many ways, wrong.
Now, I'm confident (should I be, though?) that Gov. Huckabee's own views are more thoughtful and sound than those of these so-called Christian Reconstructionists. But, can anyone doubt that, were Huckabee to be the nominee, these people and their views (read this, for example) -- which would be, I'm confident, regarded as deeply creepy and troubling by most Americans -- would be at the center of the campaign? (Indeed, it would be political malpractice for Huckabee's opponent, or opponents, not to exploit his connection with these people.) Even those of us who have found things to like about Huckabee would, I hope, demand that he repudiate them, their views, and their aims.
I am, of course, pro-life and fairly conservative. I agree entirely with those who insist that religious faith has a role to play in politics and policy. I don't see "theocracy" looming behind efforts to, say, protect unborn children from partial-birth abortions. But, I do worry about Vision America (not that they could actually achieve their aims, but that they will become associated in the public mind with *my* aims).
Also troubling to me - and, I hope, to other Catholics -- is the fact that Gov. Huckabee apparently has no difficulty appearing with, and preaching at the church of, Pastor John Hagee, a virulent and ignorant anti-Catholic polemecist who has, to put it mildly, not yet got the word about "Evangelicals and Catholics Together."
So: tell me, MOJ readers who support Gov. Huckabee, if you think I'm overreacting here. Should I not worry about Huckabee's relationship with the attendees at the event described in the Novak column? About his relationship with Hagee?
Continue reading
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Over at First Things, the "On the Square" blog has been up and running for awhile. Now, it seems they want to get a more "bloggy". And so, here's the new, real First Things blog. Surf over and see who's Man of the Year for the year 1456.
As Michael notes, Francisco Nava faked, and lied about, being assaulted for his conservative views, thereby joining the depressingly-not-small rogues' gallery of hate-crime fakers. This is sad, and bad. That said, preening pieces like this one in The Nation are, in my view . . . not particularly helpful.
To be clear: I'm not, at all, making a Duke-esque "it does not matter if the lacrosse players were railroaded because the charges, though false and destructive, brought to the surface important and often neglected issues of race, gender, class, and justice" argument. (If only Duke's "Gang of 88" were as quick, or even as willing, to confess error as the "conservatives" at Princeton have been!) There's no excuse or justification for what Nava did. More specifically, it does not excuse or justify what Nava did that, at many of our most elite universities, The Nation's sarcasm and Nava's hoax notwitstanding, there is often a "double standard" that disadvantages "conservative" ideas, students, speakers, academic-job-seekers, and faculty.
It is also too bad that that hoax provided an occasion for The Nation writer's detour into cut-and-pasted conspiracy theorizing about Robby George, the James Madison Program, and "right-wing foundations and a shadowy web of front groups for the Catholic cult known as Opus Dei." (The writer forgot the albino monks in Prof. George's basement!) If one of the lessons of l'affair Nava is that the pitched-culture-war character of many on-campus (and off) debates is not particularly conducive to careful debate and enlightening conversation, this lesson seems entirely lost on the folks at The Nation.
Finally, it could be that the writer has some facts not quite right. He writes:
George also congratulated himself for his own calmness in the crisis and sharp-wittedness in uncovering the fraud. "Within seventy-two hours," he said, "we were able to expose this as a hoax."
But of course, Nava's claims were never "exposed" by George or his conservative campus allies. Nava had reportedly confessed to his lying under police questioning. Only hours before George celebrated the "good sense" he and university administrators displayed, he had accused Princeton of upholding a liberal double standard. And while Princeton police investigated dubious details of the alleged assault, George broadcast his confidence in Nava's melodramatic account.
This post, over at First Things, presents a different account (scroll to the bottom).
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Chris Eberle writes:
Just a quick note about Rob Vischer’s recent post. I take it that Rob’s view is that “the creation of the perception of imminent death” by way of “extreme physical suffering” is a sufficient condition of torture – waterboarding is torture because it does just that. That doesn’t seem to be to be right. After all, creating the perception (and reality) of imminent death by way of extreme physical suffering is what soldiers do to enemy combatants all the time, but killing, wounding and maiming enemy combatants isn’t torture. Moreover, many American soldiers undergo waterboarding, during which the aim is to create the perception (without the reality) of imminent death by way of extreme physical suffering. But waterboarding is not torture in those cases, or, if it is, then it’s permissible torture. Perhaps that’s why, as I was wandering through the hall here in Annapolis, it was hard to find someone who thinks waterboarding is torture.
Of course, that hardly settles the issue – we can’t rely on the expertise of military folks to determine whether we should engage in waterboarding if for no other reason than that they are divided on that matter. For what it’s worth, I think that we ought not engage in that practice – that’s where my gut is – but it’s very difficult to specify what it is about that practice that’s so heinous. Neither Rob’s post nor the editorial from the Armed Forces Journal helps remove that perplexity.
Readers might be interested, by the way, in this post of mine ("What Is 'Torture'?"), over at the Vox Nova blog, and also in the many interesting comments.
I could be wrong, of course -- and Chris Eberle can certainly speak for himself -- but . . . With respect to Rob's recent post, "Waterboarding is (still) torture": I did not take Chris Eberle to be suggesting otherwise.
As I see it, Rob's initial post quoted the Armed Forces Journal editors' statement that "[w]aterboarding inflicts on its victims the terror of imminent death. And as with all torture techniques, it is, therefore, an inherently flawed method for gaining reliable information. In short, it doesn’t work. That blunt truth means all U.S. leaders, present and future, should be clear on the issue[.]"
In response, Chris said two things: First, he denied the suggestion that practices which "inflict[] on [their] victims the terror of imminent death" are "inherently flawed method[s] for gaining reliable information." He wrote:
Surely, threatening some people with the terror of imminent death works sometimes and doesn’t work other times.
Second, Chris added:
The serious moral question, I think, is whether we should torture even if doing so is an effective means of protecting innocents.
Chris's statement strikes me as both correct and important. That is, it seems correct to say that "terror of imminent death works sometimes and doesn't work other times." And, it is important to be clear that the morality of a particular practice does not, and should not, depend on whether that practice "works." So, Chris is insisting -- as we at MOJ do but the editors of the Armed Services Journal might not do -- that the argument against torture is not a merely consequentialist one.
Rob also writes:
Waterboarding, in my (admittedly limited) understanding, inflicts extreme physical suffering to the point that the subject expects death to result. It is not simply providing information to the subject that they will be killed unless they cooperate. Waterboarding violates the person's physical integrity, inflicts extreme physical suffering, and as a product of that physical suffering, creates the perception of imminent death. I'm open to arguments as to why that's not torture.
I didn't take Chris to be suggesting that a practice which "violates the person's physical integrity, inflicts extreme physical suffering, and as a product of that physical suffering, creates the perception of imminent death" is not torture. His point, it seems to me, was that, if such a practice is immoral, it is not because it does not work, but because of some other, non-consequentalist consideration (one that, I'm confident, Rob would endorse).
But again, maybe I'm mis-understanding Chris's point.
Responding to Rob's recent post, Chris Eberle writes:
Rob Vischer notes that he has “zero expertise on national security issues,” but cites the editors of the Armed Forces Journal, who, he says, are credible and experienced, who assert that waterboarding is torture, and so concludes that waterboarding *is* torture. I wonder though, on several counts.
First, I asked a Marine officer whose opinion I very much respect what he thinks of the Armed Forces Journal. He didn’t know much about it, but when I, after checking the web site, informed him that the same folks who publish the Armed Forces Journal also publish the Army, Navy and Marine Corps Times, he was, to put it mildly, dismissive. The latter three publications have no official or unofficial affiliation with the US military, and are, from his perspective, “the National Enquirer” of their respective services. So a word of caution: just because some journal has is entitled “The Armed Forces Journal” doesn’t imply that its editors are “credible and experienced.” Maybe they are, but there’s at least one very experienced and intelligent officer who uses its sister publications as “fish wrap.”
Second, the substance of the editorial is, at least, unpersuasive – to me. In fact, it’s not clear that the editors even bothered to articulate an argument for their position – they just assert that waterboarding is both torture and ineffective. Well, there is one argument: waterboarding inflicts on its victims the terror of imminent death and is “therefore” an inherently flawed method of gaining information. This is, to say the least, not an impressive argument! Surely, threatening some people with the terror of imminent death works sometimes and doesn’t work other times. The serious moral question, I think, is whether we should torture even if doing so is an effective means of protecting innocents.
Third, I wonder what MOJ readers think about the case of Lt Col Allen West. The short version: the American military learned about a local policeman who had information about a potential attack, apprehended the policeman, Col West shot a pistol past the prisoner’s head, and threatened to shoot the policeman if he refused to divulge details about the plot. The claim is that this policeman complied and the attack was averted. (Here’s a link to one article file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/EBERLE%20DOCUMENTS/West%20would%20make%20'sacrifice'%20again%20-%20The%20Washington%20Times%20Nation-/West%20would%20make%20'sacrifice'%20again%20-%20The%20Washington%20Times%20Nat.htm)
Did Col West ‘torture’ the Iraqi policeman? He certainly threatened him with “the terror of imminent death.” The question is, of course, not whether Col West acted correctly: he thought that he had acted correctly, but illegally, and so was justly punished for fulfilling his moral responsibilities to his troops. I tend to agree with Col West. But that’s not the question in which I’m interested. Rather, did he torture the policemen – perhaps by virtue of threatening imminent death? Is threatening with imminent death, as waterboarding does, always torture? Subsidiarily, should he have been prosecuted for torture?
Continue reading
