Torture and the electorate

And then there was one.

With the withdrawal yesterday of former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, there remains only 1 candidate to replace George W. Bush as U.S. President who is consistently supportive of Bush's post-9/11 detention and interrogation policies. That fact suggests that voters may be far more concerned about, ashamed about, revolted by, those policies than is typically recognized.

Assumption that the policies don't matter derives from polls like this one, which found last November that 40% of Americans would approve of torture "to try to get information from suspected terrorists." But it's my guess that poll results on such a highly charged question are unreliable. The politics of fear have dominated America's public discourse far too long for pollsters to expect full, honest, rational responses. "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists," Bush declared almost immediately after the attacks of September 11, thus drawing a rhetorical line in the sand. As late as 2004, many judged it unpatriotic to oppose Bush. It seems likely then that when asked their thoughts on detention and interrogation by pollsters, many Americans may hesitate to express concerns they feel lest they be seen as "soft on terrorists" or "too hard on our troops."

Is it only a coincidence that the only candidates left in the running are critics of post-9/11 practices?

Both remaining Democratic candidates, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, called for closure of Guantánamo soon after announcing their official campaigns last year. Every time I have heard Obama speak I have heard him repeat this call, to every audience, even in "conservative" areas. It is part of Obama's condemn-torture-close-Gitmo-this-is-not-who-we-are-as-Americans mantra, one that I've yet to hear being met with anything other than bursts of applause. (The only exception came once when he added restore-habeas-corpus to the mantra; then I detected a few vibes of "Huh? Who's Havia Scorpus?")
A question that voters seem to be asking candidates this year goes like this:

Will you bring back civil liberties?

or, phrased another way,

America seems to have lost her way. What are you going to do about that?

The question surely signals disquiet, if not outrage, at the way the United States has treated captives in what the Bush Administration calls the "Global War on Terror."

It is not just diehard liberal Democrats asking the question, either. I heard it repeatedly a couple weeks ago in Nevada. About 116,000 women and men cast Democratic ballots, shattering the Nevada record by 107,000 votes. Many of those I saw and met changed their registration to vote Democratic; it was they who were asking the question, they who cheered in a gymnasium in Reno when Obama proclaimed:

I used to teach the Constitution. I revere the Constitution. And as President I will obey the Constitution.

Look too at what's happened in the GOP.

The candidate who staked his claim on supertough counterterrorism -- Giuliani -- never came close to winning in any state. The candidate who now seems the likely nominee, Sen. John McCain, has, as we've posted here and here, been strong, steadfast, and outspoken in his condemnation not only of torture but also -- in keeping with international obligations the United States assumed on ratification of treaties like the Convention Against Torture -- cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Another still standing, Mike Huckabee, goes back and forth on these issues, and in any event does not center his campaign on preserving current antiterrorism policies.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney does support those policies. He wants others to endure the treatment Khalid Sheik Mohammed has, wants to double Guantánamo, too. He's the only remaining candidate to espouse these views consistently; it thus deserves note that his star also appears to be fading.

Is it only a coincidence that voters seem to be gravitating toward other candidates? Even, at times, away from their traditional party and toward a party more certain to bring an end to post-9/11 excesses?

For the Undecided Voter

If you, like me, have not yet decided which candidate to support in the primaries and care deeply about their foreign policy positions, you may be interested in the series of articles that Foreign Affairs has been running since the summer. In each issue, a Democratic and a Republican candidate present their foreign policy platforms. It makes for interesting reading.
The two candidates on my short list, Obama and Clinton, took many of the same positions – multilateralism, participation in international institutions, engagement with China and Russia, military withdrawal from Iraq – but with rather different tones. While Obama emphasizes partnership over patronage as our mode of interaction with other states and seeks to pursue “the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders” as the best means of ensuring American security and well-being, Clinton talks about “build[ing] the world we want,” and contrasts ideological decision-making with fact-driven analysis as our mode of determining our course of action. Obama calls upon the images of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy as visions of inspired, world-changing leadership, while Clinton calls emphatically for “more than vision” in outlining her policy prescriptions.
Of course, there’s more: check out Huckabee, McCain, Giuliani, Edwards, and Romney for the full array of would-be presidential views thus far.

Wishing KSM's fate on others

No less than one on which we posted back in May, last night's GOP presidential debate revealed much about candidates' views on how the United States ought to combat terrorism. Most notable was this exchange (video here), among moderator Anderson Cooper and 2 candidates, Gov. Mitt Romney (below right) and Sen. John McCain (bottom right), which ensued after a college student noted McCain's opposition to waterboarding and then asked, "[C]onsidering that Mr. McCain is the only one with any firsthand knowledge on the subject, how can those of you sharing the stage with him disagree with his position?"

ROMNEY: Well, he certainly is an expert and I certainly would want to get his counsel on a matter of this nature, but I do not believe that as a presidential candidate, it is wise for us to describe precisely what techniques we will use in interrogating people.
I oppose torture. I would not be in favor of torture in any way, shape or form.
COOPER: Is waterboarding torture?
ROMNEY: And as I just said, as a presidential candidate, I don't think it's wise for us to describe specifically which measures we would and would not use.
And that is something which I would want to receive the counsel not only of Senator McCain, but of a lot of other people.
And there are people who, for many, many years get the information we need to make sure that we protect our country.
And, by the way, I want to make sure these folks are kept at Guantanamo.
I don't want the people that are carrying out attacks on this country to be brought into our jail system and be given legal representation in this country.
I want to make sure that what happened ...
(Applause)
... to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed happens to other people who are terrorists. He was captured. He was the so-called mastermind of the 9/11 tragedy. And he turned to his captors and he said, "I'll see you in New York with my lawyers." I presume ACLU lawyers.
(Laughter)
Well, that's not what happened. He went to Guantanamo and he met G.I.s and CIA interrogators. And that's just exactly how it ought to be.
(Applause)
COOPER: Senator McCain?
(Crosstalk)
(Unknown): There were reports Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded.
McCAIN: Well, governor, I'm astonished that you haven't found out what waterboarding is.
ROMNEY: I know what waterboarding is, Senator.
McCAIN: Then I am astonished that you would think such a -- such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our -- who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention. It's in violation of existing law...
(Applause)
And, governor, let me tell you, if we're going to get the high ground in this world and we're going to be the America that we have cherished and loved for more than 200 years. We're not going to torture people.
We're not going to do what Pol Pot did. We're not going to do what's being done to Burmese monks as we speak. I suggest that you talk to retired military officers and active duty military officers like Colin Powell and others, and how in the world anybody could think that that kind of thing could be inflicted by Americans on people who are held in our custody is absolutely beyond me.
COOPER: Governor Romney, 30 seconds to respond.
(Applause)
ROMNEY: Senator McCain, I appreciate your strong response, and you have the credentials upon which to make that response. I did not say and I do not say that I'm in favor of torture.
I am not. I'm not going to specify the specific means of what is and what is not torture so that the people that we capture will know what things we're able to do and what things we're not able to do. And I get that advice from Cofer Black, who is a person who was responsible for counterterrorism in the CIA for some 35 years.
I get that advice by talking to former generals in our military...
COOPER: Time.
ROMNEY: ... and I don't believe it's appropriate for me, as a presidential candidate, to lay out all the issues one by one...
Cooper: Time.
ROMNEY: ... get questioned one by one: Is this torture, is that torture?
COOPER: Senator McCain...
ROMNEY: And so, that's something which I'm going to take your and other people's counsel on.
COOPER: Senator McCain, 30 seconds to respond.
McCAIN: Well, then you would have to advocate that we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions, which were for the treatment of people who were held prisoners, whether they be illegal combatants or regular prisoners of war. Because it's clear the definition of torture. It's in violation of laws we have passed.
And again, I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not "24" and Jack Bauer.
Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The Army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn't think they need to do anything else.
My friends, this is what America is all about. This is a defining issue and, clearly, we should be able, if we want to be commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, to take a definite and positive position on, and that is, we will never allow torture to take place in the United States of America.
(Applause)

'Nuff said.

'Nuff said

(Occasional item taking context-optional note of thought-provoking quotes.)

Headline regarding the GOP Presidential candidate at right:
"Romney calls for U.S. to boycott U.N. council it already boycotts"

Gitmo on the GOP campaign trail

It "revealed a stunning failure to understand" "the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp," wrote 2 Marine Corps generals, 1 the former Commandant of the Corps, the other former commander in chief of the U.S. Central Command. It was a contest "to see who could do the best impersonation of Jack Bauer, torture enthusiast and the central character on Fox's hit show '24,'" wrote Rosa Brooks. "It" was the commentary on Guantánamo -- a term clearly understood to include the question of coercive interrogation -- delivered by candidates at Tuesday's Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina. The remarks of a few were measured, many were not, and all have proved hard to shake. So here's a sampling how Gitmo's faring on the GOP campaign trail:

U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona:

The use of torture -- we could never gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people. When I was in Vietnam, one of the things that sustained us, as we went -- underwent torture ourselves, is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed and we were the captors, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them.
It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are. And a fact: The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to know.
It's about us as a nation. We have procedures for interrogation in the Army Field Manual. Those, I think, would be adequate in 999,999 of cases, and I think that if we agree to torture people, we will do ourselves great harm in the world.

Former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani:

... I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of. It shouldn't be torture, but every method they can think of -- ... well, I'd say every method they could think of, and I would support them in doing that because I've seen what -- I've seen what can happen when you make a mistake about this, and I don't want to see another 3,000 people dead in New York or any place else.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney:

I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there.
Some people have said, we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo. We ought to make sure that the terrorists -- and there's no question but that in a setting like that where you have a ticking bomb that the president of the United States -- not the CIA interrogator, the president of the United States -- has to make the call. And enhanced interrogation techniques have to be used -- not torture but enhanced interrogation techniques, yes.

Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson:

Is your primary concern U.S. lives or is it how you're going to be perceived in the world? And my standard is U.S. lives, and I'm going to do everything within my power to protect U.S. lives, period.
I will do it. I'll move aggressively forward on it. If we have to later ask and say, "Well, it shouldn't quite have been done this way or that way," that's the way it is. But the standard must be protection of U.S. lives.

U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter of California:

I would say to SECDEF, in terms of getting information that would save American lives, even if it involves very high-pressure techniques, one sentence: Get the information. Have it back within an hour, and let's act on it. Let's execute with Special Operations or whoever else is necessary, and I will take full responsibility. Get the information.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas:

... I think it's interesting talking about torture here in that it's become
enhanced interrogation technique. It sounds like Newspeak.
Nobody's for the torture, and I think that's important. But as far as taking care of a problem like this, the president has the authority to do that. If we're under imminent attack, the president can take that upon himself to do it.

U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado:

Well, let me just say that it's almost unbelievable to listen to this in a way. We're talking about -- we're talking about it in such a theoretical fashion. You say that -- that nuclear devices have gone off in the United States, more are planned, and we're wondering about whether waterboarding would be a -- a bad thing to do? I'm looking for "Jack Bauer" at that time, let me tell you.
... I mean, we are the last best hope of Western civilization. And so all of the theories that go behind our activities subsequent to these nuclear attacks going off in the United States, they go out the window because when -- when we go under, Western civilization goes under.

'Nuff said for today. Gitmo on the Democratic campaign trail tomorrow.