On a news day that included fears of a swine flu pandemic and the fallout of a low-flying government 747 in New York City, it was Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania who topped the headlines. He formally announced Tuesday that he is leaving the Republican Party to become a Democrat. The impact of Specter's decision is both immediate and weighty, the ripples of which will extend into 2010. The substitution of Specter's (R) to a (D) brings the Democrats to 59 Senators, a mere vote away from a filibuster-proof majority that will assure them swift policy decisions. That single vote, by the way, will inevitably arrive in the form of Al Franken out of Minnesota. Though Franken is not technically seated yet, it is pretty clear that former Senator Norm Coleman is not going to win the seat through litigation. At some point in the coming months the Democrats, including Arlen Specter, will have limitless control of the United States government.
The Republicans, at first shocked by the sudden decision, feel betrayed. Perhaps rightfully so. The move leaves Republicans with no recourse against the legislative agenda of President Obama and the Democrats. Already vastly outnumbered in the House, Republicans are not even invited to the table on developing major legislation such as the Stimulus Plan. With the Democrats on the cusp of a supermajority in the Senate, the Republicans will no longer be able to use filibustering as a legislative tool. Is having one party in total control such a good thing for American democracy? Certainly not, as it discourages healthy debate and policy compromises. Specter himself noted the importance of the 41 Republicans in the Senate just last month, calling them "an important asset to the American people."
So why, after 28 years of being a Republican, did Specter switch now?
In his official statement he stated, "As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party." This is valid reasoning for his exodus: the Republican Party is struggling with identity and the hard-right conservatives tend to be more... vociferous as they vie to steer the course of the party's future. However, is Specter really so ideologically distant from his former peers to warrant changing lanes? I suspect that in large part, Specter's decision has to do with his own political future. Waning Republican support for the Senator in his home state due to his vote for President Obama's stimulus package had many polls predicting his defeat in the primary for his seat next year. Will Specter receive a Democrat challenger now that he has switched? He very well may, but don't be surprised if an unchallenged primary bid was part of a bargain to come to the Democrats.
Some may hail him, others spit at the sound of his name. For myself, I believe it would have been more ideologically prudent to become an Independent, though his re-election bid would likely not pan out as Senator Lieberman's did. His disagreements with Republicans would be more palpable if it did not appear he had his own skin in mind. In addition, he will serve the remainder of his term, which was earned through the campaign dollars of Pennsylvania Republicans and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, in opposition to those interests. I have no qualms with any elected official changing parties either direction--I would even prefer they become Independents--so long as they do so at the end of a term or at the start of a campaign. When voters are disenfranchised, to a degree, by the representative they sent to office, then the waters get a bit muddy. Next year the voters of Pennsylvania will get their chance to weigh in on Specter's change of heart. It should be interesting to find out what they say.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Trials and Tribulations: Torture in the Spotlight
The topic of my inaugural post is a tough one. The major headlines this week are not about government spending, failing companies, drug violence along our borders, or even the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This would come as a relief were they not filled instead with stories about torture of terror suspects in the Bush administration.
The first part of the debate is whether or not varying methods used by the CIA are considered torture or enhanced interrogation techniques, which I shall dub "EIT" as a throwback to that other dubious, three-letter justification for the invasion of Iraq. A majority of Americans view the EITs in question as torture, and I agree. However, that is the American opinion now, and we weren't privy to the decision-making then. The definition of these interrogation methods is central to the argument and is essentially where the problem began. Loose guidelines for what defines torture, which is illegal in the United States, gave Bush administration officials and lawyers the wiggle room that they needed in order to approve techniques like water-boarding, wall-slamming, extended sleep deprivation, and phobia exploitation. Before you start painting "War Criminals" signs, plan your protest route, and decide who's bringing the coffee and donuts, remember that Bush's administration was hell-bent on protecting the lives and sovereign soil of our country. You could argue that that qualifies them as "hell-bound" but I would generally diagree if you asserted they should be jail-bound. To prevent future manipulation of the mid-April-thunder-shower grey that surrounds interrogating terror suspects, I suggest the CIA form a review board made up of intelligence officials, phsycologists, human rights academics, and Congressional representation to determine which methods are viable for information extraction, and which go too far.
Defining the EITs as torture aside, the second part of the debate is whether or not to prosecute those in the Bush administration who legitimized those methods. The blame game falls into three different tiers of accountability. The first is the ground level operatives who carried out the EITs, presumably in good faith of the legality of their work. That legality brings us to the second tier: the lawyers who affirmed for the former president and his staff the legal justification of torture. They are also accountable for the authoring of the now infamous legal memos, released by President Obama's administration. The final and highest tier, of course, runs to high-level government officials that approved the use of EITs, up to and including National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, and even President Bush. It is almost unanimously agreed upon that the ground-level tier be exempt from prosecution, excepting the usual extremist opinions. It is actions of the lawyers and administration officials that are up for debate.
The interest in investigation varies; polls indicate that Americans are split on whether the Justice Department, under new Attorney General Eric Holder, should pursue legal action against the previous administration. On one side, there are anti-Bush activists that are pushing for investigation and prosecution. Whether or not those for investigation want justice or political vengeance will depend on the individual. On the other side, there are also many that view prosecution of one administration by its successor as an uneccessary and potentially dangerous precedent. I think Senator John McCain of Arizona, a victim of years of torture himself, speaks to the situation very well.
So should the Bush era strategies for interrogating terror suspects be dragged further into the light, or shooed under the rug? Investigation should continue into the details so that we can ensure the same errors are not made in the future. However, I do think transparency of the treatment of terror detainees has to be complete. If we learn of the details of how we obtained information, Americans also deserve to know what came of information. By some accounts, information obtained through EITs prevented the Library Tower, the tallest building in Los Angeles, from being struck by a "Second Wave" plot. Whether this is true or not has yet to be revealed, but at the risk of alienating any readership in my first post, I have to agree with Cheney's call to reveal memos that he says proves that lives were saved. I don't mean to say that anything justifies torturing, but it is in the interest of full disclosure. Mistakes were made in the zealous protection of Americans against terror. In a way, torture is a parallel to Iraq. The Bush administration acted on an impulse to keep Americans safe. In hindsight, invading Iraq may not have been the best choice and torturing terror suspects diminishes our values and global standing. But hindsight is 20/20 and its time for us to move on and assure our government is more transparent going forward.
The first part of the debate is whether or not varying methods used by the CIA are considered torture or enhanced interrogation techniques, which I shall dub "EIT" as a throwback to that other dubious, three-letter justification for the invasion of Iraq. A majority of Americans view the EITs in question as torture, and I agree. However, that is the American opinion now, and we weren't privy to the decision-making then. The definition of these interrogation methods is central to the argument and is essentially where the problem began. Loose guidelines for what defines torture, which is illegal in the United States, gave Bush administration officials and lawyers the wiggle room that they needed in order to approve techniques like water-boarding, wall-slamming, extended sleep deprivation, and phobia exploitation. Before you start painting "War Criminals" signs, plan your protest route, and decide who's bringing the coffee and donuts, remember that Bush's administration was hell-bent on protecting the lives and sovereign soil of our country. You could argue that that qualifies them as "hell-bound" but I would generally diagree if you asserted they should be jail-bound. To prevent future manipulation of the mid-April-thunder-shower grey that surrounds interrogating terror suspects, I suggest the CIA form a review board made up of intelligence officials, phsycologists, human rights academics, and Congressional representation to determine which methods are viable for information extraction, and which go too far.
Defining the EITs as torture aside, the second part of the debate is whether or not to prosecute those in the Bush administration who legitimized those methods. The blame game falls into three different tiers of accountability. The first is the ground level operatives who carried out the EITs, presumably in good faith of the legality of their work. That legality brings us to the second tier: the lawyers who affirmed for the former president and his staff the legal justification of torture. They are also accountable for the authoring of the now infamous legal memos, released by President Obama's administration. The final and highest tier, of course, runs to high-level government officials that approved the use of EITs, up to and including National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, and even President Bush. It is almost unanimously agreed upon that the ground-level tier be exempt from prosecution, excepting the usual extremist opinions. It is actions of the lawyers and administration officials that are up for debate.
The interest in investigation varies; polls indicate that Americans are split on whether the Justice Department, under new Attorney General Eric Holder, should pursue legal action against the previous administration. On one side, there are anti-Bush activists that are pushing for investigation and prosecution. Whether or not those for investigation want justice or political vengeance will depend on the individual. On the other side, there are also many that view prosecution of one administration by its successor as an uneccessary and potentially dangerous precedent. I think Senator John McCain of Arizona, a victim of years of torture himself, speaks to the situation very well.
So should the Bush era strategies for interrogating terror suspects be dragged further into the light, or shooed under the rug? Investigation should continue into the details so that we can ensure the same errors are not made in the future. However, I do think transparency of the treatment of terror detainees has to be complete. If we learn of the details of how we obtained information, Americans also deserve to know what came of information. By some accounts, information obtained through EITs prevented the Library Tower, the tallest building in Los Angeles, from being struck by a "Second Wave" plot. Whether this is true or not has yet to be revealed, but at the risk of alienating any readership in my first post, I have to agree with Cheney's call to reveal memos that he says proves that lives were saved. I don't mean to say that anything justifies torturing, but it is in the interest of full disclosure. Mistakes were made in the zealous protection of Americans against terror. In a way, torture is a parallel to Iraq. The Bush administration acted on an impulse to keep Americans safe. In hindsight, invading Iraq may not have been the best choice and torturing terror suspects diminishes our values and global standing. But hindsight is 20/20 and its time for us to move on and assure our government is more transparent going forward.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)