[Psudo]

One of my favorite authors, Orson Scott Card, calls himself a Democrat, but holds the unusual stance for that party of supporting the war in Iraq. As such, he's more of a Joe Lieberman or (in his own words) a "Tony Blair Democrat". (He followed up that comment with the complaint that no one in US national politics really represented his views.)

Apparently he has very recently switched his support from Barack Obama to John McCain, and has published a column describing why. He has some unusual views in there, and I'd like to see your responses to his whole column. For the lazy, here's some selected quotes:

Orson Card wrote:

Sarah Palin is called "unqualified" when she has far more executive experience than Obama -- more, in fact, than McCain. Not foreign policy experience. Not Washington political mill experience. But she has actually governed something.
[. . .]
Where and when has Obama taken anybody on in his own party? Where is his vote that flew in the face of his party's discipline, like many of McCain's?
[. . .]
But when we invaded terrorist sponsoring, WMD-using Iraq -- an Arab country and a major player in the Middle East -- Al Qaeda's situation changed completely. Here was America, goaded into action by Al Qaeda, attacking and toppling a vicious dictator in the heart of the Arab world. As I wrote at the time, this was exactly the way to make Al Qaeda hated by Muslims in the Middle East. "Look what you brought down on us by attacking America!"
[. . .]
Here's the problem, Mr. Obama. Back when you were still saying nothing, you looked very promising to people like me, who thought of you as what you claimed to be -- a great conciliator. But since Hillary took the gloves off and bloodied you at the end of the primary season, you have been forced to take firm positions on issues and to defend yourself against criticism -- you have been forced to let us see who you are. And who are you?
[. . .]
McCain was not my choice for President at the beginning of the campaign a couple of years ago, Mr. Obama. You were. I rooted for you. I voted for you as recently as the North Carolina primary. Obviously, I have changed my mind. Why? I learned a little more about McCain. I learned a lot more about you.

I really recommend reading the whole thing.

[CKASlacker]

Psudo wrote:

One of my favorite authors, Orson Scott Card [. . .]

I really recommend reading the whole thing.

Interesting, I thought he made a few good points, until this doozy:

Quote:

If we had invaded only Afghanistan, then Al Qaeda could claim to be martyrs, who bravely attacked the Great Satan and now were paying the penalty, along with the brave Taliban who supported them.

But when we invaded terrorist sponsoring, WMD-using Iraq -- an Arab country and a major player in the Middle East -- Al Qaeda's situation changed completely.

As I wrote at the time, this was exactly the way to make Al Qaeda hated by Muslims in the Middle East. "Look what you brought down on us by attacking America!"

So invading Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda has and does have various recruitment centres, training camps, etc. was a bad thing, since it made Al Qaeda look like martyrs. But invading Hussein's Iraq *which had nothing whatsoever to do with Al Qaeda and 9/11* is a good thing since it makes the average person in the Middle East hate Al Qaeda for the war America started in Iraq?!? For WMD's that aren't even there?!? Does anyone else found this line of logic completely baffling?

(seriously, does anybody actually still believe that the US has found the slightest evidence of WMD's in Iraq since the war began?)

Quote:

The fact is that the single most effective tool the government has had in fighting foreign terrorism is precisely the tapping-without-warrant of phone calls between noncitizens that the Democrats -- and the leftist media -- have so savagely and absurdly attacked, as if Americans should be willing to die to protect the nonexistent constitutional rights of noncitizens.

I'd like to see the stats on this one, as to whether it's actually as effective as Mr. Card would like us to believe. I find it incredible that Republicans can defend the Bush adminstration's blatant flaunting of the Bill of Rights (in this case, I believe the 4th ammendment), while the Office of the President is supposed to *defend* the Constitution and (by extension) civil liberties.

It's *because* America defends the civil liberties of potential terrorists in their custody (and here I'm referring specifically to Gitmo) that they have the moral authority to try criminals. Once you start pissing on civil rights (innocent until proven guiltly, access to a lawyer, can't be forced to testify against themself (ie. no torture)), you start looking less and less like a crusader of justice, and more and more like a bully.

[CanadianJeff]

doesn't anyone else here realize one basic thing.

This is the man that wrote speaker for the dead and Ender's game. Half the plot of those books is exactally how voicing the total oposite of what you beleive well to have someone tear the good well written argument to peices can be effective to sway the crowd's minds.

Frankly who knows what he's really thinking. I've read enough of his books to understand how tricky he can get.

[Psudo]

He is great, isn't he Jeff?

CKASlacker wrote:

So invading Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda has and does have various recruitment centres, training camps, etc. was a bad thing, since it made Al Qaeda look like martyrs. But invading Hussein's Iraq *which had nothing whatsoever to do with Al Qaeda and 9/11* is a good thing since it makes the average person in the Middle East hate Al Qaeda for the war America started in Iraq?!?

Technically, he didn't say invading Afghanistan was bad, just that invading ONLY Afghanistan would have been bad. His reasoning is that bringing the heat down on anti-Americans in the area generally rather than just on the specific attackers turned Arab public opinion against Al Qaeda.

Quote:

I find it incredible that Republicans can defend the Bush adminstration's blatant flaunting of the Bill of Rights (in this case, I believe the 4th ammendment), while the Office of the President is supposed to *defend* the Constitution and (by extension) civil liberties.

Technically, the Constitution is only legally binding on US citizens. As such, protecting the Constitution clearly requires defending US citizens' rights to life and such, but takes some finagling to apply to non-citizens trying to kill citizens.

Quote:

can't be forced to testify against themself (ie. no torture))

I greatly doubt anyone being waterboarded or whatever is waiting to testify in a trial. The motivation is to stop terrorist attacks, not convict terrorists in a court of law.

Even so, I much prefer the warrantless wiretaps method to the waterboarding method. I can't defend escalation in the bad treatment of prisoners. I could argue that they started it with the live beheading of Nick Burg and such and that we never reached that level of vicious treatment, but I still don't think we should be playing along.

[BartSimpson]

Myself, once a person commits, sponsors, or applauds an act of terror their rights should be forfeit. Period.

[CKASlacker]

Psudo wrote:

Technically, he didn't say invading Afghanistan was bad, just that invading ONLY Afghanistan would have been bad. His reasoning is that bringing the heat down on anti-Americans in the area generally rather than just on the specific attackers turned Arab public opinion against Al Qaeda.

I still don't see how the US in occupying Iraq is going to win them any favours in the Islamic, non-Al Qaeda world. Surely it's easier for Al Qaeda to paint the US-troops as evidence of "Western, Christian Crusaders occupying our land", than it is for the average Iraqi citizen to blame the US-occupation and war zone on Al Qaeda (regardless of where the truth actually lies)?

Psudo wrote:

Technically, the Constitution is only legally binding on US citizens.

Letter of the law vs. spirit of the law - I doubt the letter of the law is what Jefferson, Adams, Madison et al meant. There's a fair bit of evidence that the founding fathers always intended America to be an example, a new hope for peace, liberty and prosperity, indicating that it would be reasonable to extend the Bill of Rights to non-citizens (I realize the the Supreme Court may not have taken this view in every situation since then).

As a Canadian citizen, I sincerely hope I would be given the same, basic rights to a speedy trial, lawyer, etc. were I ever to be arrested in the US, for a crime I may, or may not, have committed.

Psudo wrote:

As such, protecting the Constitution clearly requires defending US citizens' rights to life and such, but takes some finagling to apply to non-citizens trying to kill citizens.

*Potentially* trying to kill citizens (innocent until proven guilty, and all that). It's difficult to take the US at their word right now considering what they've been doing to prisoners in Gitmo. Give them a trial and access to a lawyer - what's the harm? If they are guilty (and I have no doubt that the vast majority are at some level), they'll be found as such and punished accordingly. If they're innocent... why are they prisoners in the first place?

Psudo wrote:

I greatly doubt anyone being waterboarded or whatever is waiting to testify in a trial. The motivation is to stop terrorist attacks, not convict terrorists in a court of law.

I doubt that the threat of torture in Gitmo will make the slightest difference to a committed, Jihadist suicide bomber.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson wrote:

Myself, once a person commits, sponsors, or applauds an act of terror their rights should be forfeit. Period.

Even Ronald Reagan?

[Scape]

Psudo wrote:

One of my favorite authors, Orson Scott Card, calls himself a Democrat, but holds the unusual stance for that party of supporting the war in Iraq.

Card is a good sci-fi writer but describing himself as a dem takes the cake. I used to read his blog quite a bit and frankly he is about as much of a dem as Zell Miller.

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

One of my favorite authors, Orson Scott Card, calls himself a Democrat, but holds the unusual stance for that party of supporting the war in Iraq. As such, he's more of a Joe Lieberman or (in his own words) a "Tony Blair Democrat". (He followed up that comment with the complaint that no one in US national politics really represented his views.)

Apparently he has very recently switched his support from Barack Obama to John McCain, and has published a column describing why. He has some unusual views in there, and I'd like to see your responses to his whole column. For the lazy, here's some selected quotes:

Orson Card wrote:

Sarah Palin is called "unqualified" when she has far more executive experience than Obama -- more, in fact, than McCain. Not foreign policy experience. Not Washington political mill experience. But she has actually governed something.
[. . .]
Where and when has Obama taken anybody on in his own party? Where is his vote that flew in the face of his party's discipline, like many of McCain's?
[. . .]
But when we invaded terrorist sponsoring, WMD-using Iraq -- an Arab country and a major player in the Middle East -- Al Qaeda's situation changed completely. Here was America, goaded into action by Al Qaeda, attacking and toppling a vicious dictator in the heart of the Arab world. As I wrote at the time, this was exactly the way to make Al Qaeda hated by Muslims in the Middle East. "Look what you brought down on us by attacking America!"
[. . .]
Here's the problem, Mr. Obama. Back when you were still saying nothing, you looked very promising to people like me, who thought of you as what you claimed to be -- a great conciliator. But since Hillary took the gloves off and bloodied you at the end of the primary season, you have been forced to take firm positions on issues and to defend yourself against criticism -- you have been forced to let us see who you are. And who are you?
[. . .]
McCain was not my choice for President at the beginning of the campaign a couple of years ago, Mr. Obama. You were. I rooted for you. I voted for you as recently as the North Carolina primary. Obviously, I have changed my mind. Why? I learned a little more about McCain. I learned a lot more about you.

I really recommend reading the whole thing.

I don't know--from what I've read in the past, Orson Scott Card has always been a supporter of Republican causes, like most other religious fundamentalists. Maybe he's just saying he's switched sides to garner some press. "Orson switches sides" sounds better than "Orson sticking with Republicans." I just glanced at a few of his previous columns and sundry blog entries and I highly doubt that he's switched sides at all.

Certainly Mr Card shows the normal amount of neo-con remorse for the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq--that is to say, none. On the contrary, he seems to keen to continue the Muslim pogroms throughout the Middle East.

[Quantum_Wizard]

Psudo wrote:

]Technically, the Constitution is only legally binding on US citizens.

I don't really agree. I would rather say that the US Constitution is legally binding wherever the US has jurisdiction. The protection by the Bill of Rights applies to everyone in United States, including foreigners (even if they are illegally present).

[Psudo]

CKASlacker wrote:

I still don't see how the US in occupying Iraq is going to win them any favours in the Islamic, non-Al Qaeda world. Surely it's easier for Al Qaeda to paint the US-troops as evidence of "Western, Christian Crusaders occupying our land", than it is for the average Iraqi citizen to blame the US-occupation and war zone on Al Qaeda (regardless of where the truth actually lies)?

Why wouldn't the same reasoning we use work on their side? "If we stop provoking them, they'll stop attacking us." That's the argument against going into Iraq, isn't it? It works just as well as an argument for them not support al Qaeda.

Unless you think it's an unfair treatment of them for me to consider them my intellectual and moral equals.

CKASlacker wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Technically, the Constitution is only legally binding on US citizens.

Letter of the law vs. spirit of the law

Yes, that's what 'technically' means.

CKASlacker wrote:

As a Canadian citizen, I sincerely hope I would be given the same, basic rights to a speedy trial, lawyer, etc. were I ever to be arrested in the US, for a crime I may, or may not, have committed.

An Iraqi citizen arrested for a crime would also have their rights preserved. An man of unknown citizenship captured on a battlefield defying the international laws of combat wouldn't necessarily. Civil crime and military combat are not comparable, even in a metaphoric sense.

The US Constitution protects civilians. (QW points this out, too: it's all civilians rather than just US citizens. My mistake.) Geneva protects prisoners of war. What about people captured on the battlefield that fit neither definition? Those are those at Gitmo.

CKASlacker wrote:

It's difficult to take the US at their word right now considering what they've been doing to prisoners in Gitmo.

It's easier to trust the word of men captured aiding the enemy on the battlefield than the soldiers assigned to guard them?

CKASlacker wrote:

I doubt that the threat of torture in Gitmo will make the slightest difference to a committed, Jihadist suicide bomber.

I doubt any of them are the absolute, Hollywood archtype of the fanatical Jihadist. They're still people. I doubt the threat of torture is necessary to persuade some of them.

Even if they are unswayable, at least they lack any access to their allies back on the battlefield. Regular mafia-type organized criminals have been able to get word to their friends on the outside; how much more important is it to restrict the other side's access to information in open military combat?

Scape wrote:

[Card] is about as much of a dem as Zell Miller.

That's pretty true. I assume his loyalty is to the local Democratic Party in North Carolina rather than to the national party.

On the other hand, he's harshly critical of "Rush Limbaugh conservatives" and Bush's deficit spending garnished with a light tax cut sauce, and supports environmentalism and increased immigration to an extent rarely seen in the Republican party. While he's rather Republican on foreign policy issues, he's rather Democratic domestically. Maybe, like our good host JJ, he's more of a political eccentric.

[Scape]

Psudo wrote:

On the other hand, he's harshly critical of "Rush Limbaugh conservatives" and Bush's deficit spending garnished with a light tax cut sauce, and supports environmentalism and increased immigration to an extent rarely seen in the Republican party. While he's rather Republican on foreign policy issues, he's rather Democratic domestically. Maybe, like our good host JJ, he's more of a political eccentric.

OSC asks: Why do we allow them to teach global warming to our children in science class? As Bret Stephens points out, it's really religion


I have my doubts. From reading his diatribes I surmise he talks a good game vs the GOP but his real bent is upon the same people the GOP has issue with. Right or wrong that puts him in their camp along the enemy of my enemy vein no matter how independent he claims to be. I will give him credit in that he makes no claim of being impartial.

[CKASlacker]

Psudo wrote:

Why wouldn't the same reasoning we use work on their side? "If we stop provoking them, they'll stop attacking us." That's the argument against going into Iraq, isn't it?

No, the reasons for not going into Iraq: dubious claims of "imminent" attack with WMD's (which were never found), no credible link between Al Qaeda attacks on 9/11 and Iraq, countless billions and thousands of American and Iraqi lives spent with no definitive results, creating unrest and turmoil in a country where the prospects of permanent withdrawal and Iraqi self-government seem years away. Those are far more pressing arguments against the Iraq war.

Psudo wrote:

The US Constitution protects civilians. (QW points this out, too: it's all civilians rather than just US citizens. My mistake.) Geneva protects prisoners of war. What about people captured on the battlefield that fit neither definition? Those are those at Gitmo.

So the prisoners at Gitmo aren't citizens or soldiers, and therefore the US can do what they like with them, without regard to international law, much less ethics? How convenient.

Psudo wrote:

It's easier to trust the word of men captured aiding the enemy on the battlefield than the soldiers assigned to guard them?

When the prison those soldiers are guarding is Abu Ghraib, yes.

Seriously, you seem to making the defacto assumption that because the inmate is at Gitmo, or any other US terrorist prison, therefore they were captured on the battlefield, AK-47 in hand, ready to shoot US soldiers or blow up innocent civilians. I put to you that there may be many prisoners where the cases against them are not so clear (ie. sympathizers, aiding the enemy via financial or other means, informants, etc.) Surely in these cases, the *alleged* (and I stress that word) terrorist deserves some basic human rights should prevail, and they are entitled to some legal recourse and their day in court? Not just shut away, denied access to a lawyer, with no formal charges against them?

What happens if you get the wrong guy? I suspect 'Jojo' in the article is not the only innocent prisoner of the US war on terror (I'm assuming that since they let him go, the US consider him innocent).

Psudo wrote:

Even if they are unswayable, at least they lack any access to their allies back on the battlefield. Regular mafia-type organized criminals have been able to get word to their friends on the outside; how much more important is it to restrict the other side's access to information in open military combat?

So, those at Gitmo *are combatants* now? Because you said above the those at Gitmo aren't civilians or military, and therefore are not entitled to protection from either the Constitution or Geneva convention.

[CanadianJeff]

Psudo wrote:

Even so, I much prefer the warrantless wiretaps method to the waterboarding method. I can't defend escalation in the bad treatment of prisoners. I could argue that they started it with the live beheading of Nick Burg and such and that we never reached that level of vicious treatment, but I still don't think we should be playing along."

Frankly well freaking said. That is the most down to earth statement I've seen on the matter. Right up there with the "well if you kill a killer your still someone who has taken a life.".

[Psudo]

CKASlacker wrote:

No, the reasons for not going into Iraq[. . .]

That's a distraction. Sure, there are other reasons not to go into Iraq, but the idea that US soldiers in Iraq improve al Qaeda's recruitment rates has been argued as well. If it's possible for our violence to be seen as provoking Islam to retaliate, why can't the WTC and USS Cole bombings be seen as provoking the USA to retaliate? Arabs may increasingly oppose al Qaeda's apparent provocation the same way many westerners criticize the US's.

Psudo wrote:

So the prisoners at Gitmo aren't citizens or soldiers, and therefore the US can do what they like with them, without regard to international law, much less ethics? How convenient.

I didn't say that. I started this topic with the word "technically", and agreed with your point that it was a discussion of legality only. Ethically and with all else being equal, it's always better to treat them better. Pragmatically, we should worry that mistreatment of our prisoners may encourage mistreatment of our own soldiers captured abroad, and also that releasing them would likely result in dangerous men going free. But from a technical legal standpoint, what is the lawful way to treat unlawful combatants? As of 2003, there are no answers. We've been making it up as we went since then.

Civilians have a right to a fair and speedy trial. Enemy soldiers, however, can be held (in humane conditions) until the end of hostilities; otherwise, there's a reasonable risk of them returning to the battlefield on the enemy's side. Which applies to unlawful combatants?

CKASlacker wrote:

Psudo wrote:

It's easier to trust the word of men captured aiding the enemy on the battlefield than the soldiers assigned to guard them?

When the prison those soldiers are guarding is Abu Ghraib, yes.

We were discussing Gitmo guards, who are not the same people as the Abu Ghraib guards. You're trying to change the subject.

CKASlacker wrote:

What happens if you get the wrong guy? I suspect 'Jojo' in the article is not the only innocent prisoner of the US war on terror (I'm assuming that since they let him go, the US consider him innocent).

The vast majority of the inmates of Gitmo have been released, and I'm sure some of the remaining ones are innocent (or at least not provably guilty). Ethnically, they deserve humane treatment and ongoing investigations to determine their guilt or innocence. But the doors of Gitmo should not be swung open and all of them released; that allows those that really are guilty to go back to killing Americans or aiding those who do. These terrorism suspects should not have any chance of communicating with those that are still fighting a war against the US and it's allies in Iraq.

To distrust a suspect is not a violation of that suspect's rights. Similarly, Michael Jackson has been found not guilty of the sexual abuse of children. Would you invite him to babysit?

CKASlacker wrote:

So, those at Gitmo *are combatants* now? Because you said above the those at Gitmo aren't civilians or military, and therefore are not entitled to protection from either the Constitution or Geneva convention.

The Gitmo detainees often referred to as 'unlawful combatants'. It means people found on a battlefield during battle that do not meet Geneva's legal definition of a soldier. I called them 'terrorism suspects' a moment ago. There may be some technical distinctions between these terms, but I'm not attempting to define them as innocent or guilty. I'm just using whatever term is handy to specify that group of people, namely those that fit into the legal gap where neither Geneva nor the US Constitution technically apply. If you prefer, I can say 'detainees' in the future. But I will not be distracted by a semantics debate.

Scape wrote:

From reading his [OSC] diatribes I surmise he talks a good game vs the GOP but his real bent is upon the same people the GOP has issue with.

I already conceded that his Democratic loyalty is probably to some local, atypical arm of that party rather than to the national party leadership. Though he definitely does not hold the GOP position on immigration, he probably does agree with the national Republicans than the national Democrats on more divisive issues than not.