Who’s that smart, astute reader whose e-mail Andrew Sullivan recently posted? You know, the one who wrote about Edmund Burke and balance?

Ah yes, that would be me.

As a principled conservative, I am abstaining from voting in this election.

If you want more details, check out my recent series of Chalkboard Manifesto comics.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4 will be up this Sunday.

You know what, I’ll be honest, I had no clue this was still going on: “The figures are stark. An average of 112 cars a day have been torched across France so far this year and there have been 15 attacks a day on police and emergency services. Nearly 3,000 police officers have been injured in clashes this year. Officers have been badly injured in four ambushes in the Paris outskirts since September. Some police talk of open war with youths who are bent on more than vandalism” (Why 112 cars are burning every day).

In thinking about the recent Military Commissions Act, I’ve been banging my head against the wall, trying to come up with a plan of action.

I considered protest, massive student protests, but they’re anathema to my character as a conservative and I wondered if they’d really have an effect. As I write more for Principles of Agitation, I realize that real, concrete actions have to be taken, and a light must be shone so people know that there are real problems.

Civil disobedience is out of the picture, however, unless you want to try to plot a terrorist attack and bring up a case before the Supreme Court. Alternatively, see how popular you are when you try to defend the rights of a terrorist.

No, I’ve finally realized a better plan. First, however, I must explain a hypothetical I like to call, “The Ticking Time Bomb Gone Wrong.”

In the Ticking Time Bomb Gone Wrong scenario, we open with the typical Ticking Time Bomb scenario. A bomb of some sort is about to go off somewhere. We have a someone we suspect has information about this bomb. The characters in the scenario decide to torture this person to get information. Whilst they go about the torture, the real culprit goes free, unnoticed, except by one plucky investigator. To make the scenario even better, make sure the tortured person is a horrible person, maybe even involved in the plot, but does not know where the bomb is located. The information they get from torture leads them to the wrong place, and/or the wrong person. Meanwhile, the plucky investigator is trying to get their attention about who the real person is, but they don’t listen because they think the information they got from torture is right. The bomb goes off, and there are massive casualties. The authorities have failed because they relied on torture.

If my scenario sounds highly improbable and kind of like a movie or TV plot, you’re exactly right. That’s the point.

My plan involves getting the media to buy into this story. To make this scenario the subject of a TV show. To get a movie to use this story. To convince people that torture doesn’t work.

Or maybe, with our savvy youth media skills, make this catch fire on YouTube or MySpace videos. To make this the subject of a rap song. Essays. Stories. Novels. Newspaper articles. Weblog entries. Anything and everything.

The power of the Ticking Time Bomb Gone Wrong scenario is that it goes one step further than saying torture is merely ineffective, it says that torture actually weakens our ability to fight terror. It does so in a simplistic fashion that most people can understand. I’m sure it has the emotional power to convince people. It is an effective counter to the torture-apologists’ propaganda, especially in its ability to reach the common person.

Will it motivate them to action? Maybe not. But this is but the first step, and I think an important one. Torture only has this strut to stand upon. If we take it away, support will wither, and we can mount an organized attack.

For now, I throw these thoughts out into the void, but I will expand the Ticking Time Bomb Gone Wrong plot, maybe even write up a script, or find someone to write a script. I will try to find my own crew to make a short film, or I will try to find connections to someone, anyone to do it. I will try to find a way to publicize this story.

Maybe I can hold a competition of some sort, with monetary compensation for the winner.

Are there any people out there willing to turn the Ticking Time Bomb Gone Wrong into a film (or other type of) reality?

Lloyd, surely you know some creative minds out there.

EDIT: An interesting plot twist could be to have the real perpetrators be Sunni and the tortured ones be Shiite, or vice versa. Of course, the torturers have no idea what the difference between the two groups are.

EDIT: As always, critiques of my plan are welcomed. However, if you’re here to criticize the Ticking Time Bomb Gone Wrong scenario, stop. It’s just as improbable as the Ticking Time Bomb scenario itself, but unfortunately, most people don’t realize that.

Touchy feely liberal Thomas Hobbes on torture:

“Also accusations upon torture are not to be reputed as testimonies. For torture is to be used but as a means of conjecture and light in the further examination and search of truth; and what is in that case confessed tendeth to the ease of him that is tortured, not to the informing of the torturers, and therefore ought not to have the credit of a sufficient testimony; for whether he deliver himself by true or false accusation, he does it by the right of preserving his own life.” — Leviathan [emphasis mine]

For those unfamiliar with Thomas Hobbes, he’s not a touchy-feely liberal. He’s a 17th century philosopher with a rather bleak view of human nature.

I thought the part I highlighted was interesting. Take it for what you will.

This midterm election, Republicans will be voting with their asses. The GOP’s control of Congress depends on whether people get out and vote, or sit at home, with potato chips, watching Maury. Splendidly entertaining imagery aside, this election will be decided by the success or failure of the Republican “Get Out the Vote” (GOTV) effort.

There are plenty of reasons for Republicans not to vote Republican. I don’t see them jumping out of their seats to vote Democrat (thus, I doubt there will be a Democratic wave akin to 1994), but I do see them perfectly content to sit in those seats and not provide support to the corrupt Republicans. The feature story, Time For Us To Go, of the Washington Monthly openly expresses a sentiment I’m sure is shared by many Republicans. In fact, one I’ve heard expressed by die-hard Republicans on campus. We’re tired about spending and illegal immigration (although my line has considerably softened on immigration). We don’t think we’re winning the war. Not all of us drink the party Kool-Aid.

They keep trying to scare us with “Speaker Pelosi.” Yet, there’s an inherent flaw with that strategy. The reason Bush didn’t lose the election was because Kerry and the Democrats weren’t able to articulate a positive alternative. Yes, the Republicans have a platform, but they’ve dissolved that platform via rampant hypocrisy. Some of us have had it. We’ve come to the conclusion that the Republicans really aren’t any better than the Democrats anymore. You’ve lost your ability to articulate a positive vision.

And so, I will sit home this election day, refusing to vote for you.

It’ll be hard for the Democrats to gain control, though. According to Rasmussen’s Senate Balance of Power, “Democrats have to win all five races leaning their way plus all three Toss-Ups to regain control of the Senate.” Meanwhile, only one seat is listed as “Lean Republican.” Slate’s Election Scorecard shows similar results. It’ll be only slightly less than surprising if the Democrats take control, as opposed to a few months ago, when I would’ve said that there’s no way in hell the Democrats will take the Senate. Still, it’s a tall order. I’ll be not surprised at all if Republicans retain control or if it goes 50/50 (in which case Republicans still retain control because Dick Cheney casts deciding votes). Yes, we’re ranking the election on “How Surprised Will Shawn Be.” It’s a very accurate, scientifically tested scale. In any case, there’s no doubts whatsoever that the Republicans will lose seats.

As for the House, I’m unsure. Again, Republicans will lose seats. It’s just a question of “How many?” And that “how many” has drastically increased since my last musings on these elections. Democrats could take control of the House. However, I think it’s more likely that Republicans will retain control by just a sliver.

Undoubtedly, momentum has shifted away from the Republicans, but we’ve still got a few weeks left yet. Does Rove have anything up his sleeve? There’s still time for momentum to shift back, as shown in this particular race from the Rasmussen article linked above: “In Tennessee, Harold Ford, Jr. (D) overcame a large summer deficit to pull into a five-point lead last month. Republican Bob Corker (R) then fired his campaign manager, brought in a new team, and has pulled to within a couple of points.”

In any case, don’t expect Republicans to massively switch over to the Democratic camp. Democrats still don’t represent their best interests. This election won’t be decided by donkeys, it’ll be decided by Republican asses.

Why am I getting this deep sense of foreboding… as if we’re about to replace the corrupt Fatah party with Hamas…

North Korea tests a nuke. Will the Republicans beat the war drums loudly enough to drown out the Foley scandal?

Will they place the blame squarely on Clinton?

Are we safer now than we were 6 years ago?

What is Rove’s October Surprise?

Tune in this month for the answer to these questions and more on…

Ah shit, this is fucking real life…

Today, I’m doing what I said I’d do yesterday. I’m defending my position against The Apologist. I will go through his comment paragraph by paragraph.

Shawn, detainees are found to be unlawful combatants, or not, under the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ. You don’t try combatants, lawful or unlawful, in federal court. You never have and you never will. There is only one thing which has changed since 9-11. Terrorism is now considered an act of war, not simply a criminal act.

Timothy McVeigh committed an act of terror. Let’s say McVeigh did what he did today. According to you, terrorism is now an act of war. Thus, McVeigh committed an act of war against the US. He must now be considered a combatant. He must be tried in a military tribunal, no?

Yet, habeas corpus should still apply. He’s a citizen. If you believe that the MCA doesn’t strip citizens of the right to habeas corpus, we have reached a dilemma.

The situation is not as clear-cut as you would have us think. You cannot treat every act of terror as if it was purely an act of war.

A problem I didn’t address in my original entry was the fact that to be declared an unlawful combatant, you need not commit a terrorist act. All you have to do is provide material aid to a terrorist organization, which further blurs the term, “act of war.”

There exist gray areas. The solution is not to let the executive decide who’s a combatant and who’s not. The terrorist exists in a vacuum when it comes to international law. The solution isn’t ceding more power to the executive, to let him decide which legal residents, on US soil, should be detained or not detained. Where there is too much gray, it is better to extend the rule of law, than to expand the prerogative of the executive. We must outlaw terrorism under international law. Read: The Dread Pirate Bin Laden. Doing this will do more to reduce terrorist acts than to allow the executive to prosecute a forever-war against small, disparate bands of extremists.

The next paragraph I have to split into two parts.

Your objections remind me of the infamous “Gorelick wall” between the CIA and the FBI. You cannot prosecute a war in court.

Ah yes, because I think it unusual for the writ of habeas to be suspended for legal residents on US soil, I must have a pre-9/11 mindset, n’est-ce pas? To say that we are either at war or must treat terrorists solely as pre-9/11 criminals is to introduce a false dichotomy. “You cannot prosecute a war in court” sounds very convincing on paper, but how does this work in real life? Since terror as a tactic will never be fully extinguished, you’ve now given the executive permanent war-time powers. Bravo. Instead of giving the president more discretion, we could extend the law so that we can treat terrorists differently than other criminals.

Wild eyed speculations and farcical morality tales about random people being disappeared by the Stasi are unserious. This is a real war. Real people are dying every day all over the world at the hands of Jihadi terror. You are treating it like a poli-sci thought experiment.

Here, you completely mischaracterize my argument. I specifically say that those wild-eyed speculations don’t matter, using “It doesn’t matter” multiple times in the same paragraph. I was engaging in something called abstract reasoning. “This is a real war” is hardly an argument for cavalierly dismissing the entirety of philosophical enterprise. Just because there’s a war going on, doesn’t mean you give up the right to question the actions of your government. Just because people are dying, doesn’t mean you don’t try to consider the consequences of your government’s actions. As a conservative, it is my duty to put out my hand and say, “Stop!” It is my duty to call for prudence. You give a president power today, and you don’t know what the president 20 years from now will do with it. Humans beings are imperfect and it is inevitable that we will occasionally elect truly corrupt individuals. The Constitution is not created to guarantee that the best person will get the job, but so the tyrannical man cannot screw things up too much. I’m saying that we’re treading down a dangerous road, giving the executive power that has the potential for abuse.

And to throw in a cheap shot, maybe Bush and Rumsfeld should’ve done some thought-experiments about the aftermath of Iraq.

The Constitution remains what it has always been. No one has c[e]ded Supreme Executive Power to the President. Congress can always repeal the law or amend it if it proves too broad or leads to abuse. Congress retains all [its] powers of oversight. The Executive is still subject to Congress and the Courts. Congress has an inherent power to determine the Court’s jurisdiction. It has done so. It can undo so if it sees fit.

Let’s not be clinical when we talk about the circumstances in which Congress may decide to repeal the law. “If it proves too broad or leads to abuse” means innocent people shoved in jail forever and not given a lawyer. Like I said before, as a conservative, it’s my job to call for prudence. Maybe we should try not passing laws that could lead to broad abuse. Maybe we should exercise caution instead of saying, “Yeah, let’s give the President the power to indefinitely detain legal residents and we’ll think about repealing it if too many people wind up in prisons.”

I do agree that the President doesn’t have Supreme Executive Power. Luckily, we still have the courts. But the Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to convene and strike down a law. The trial process takes a long time. Congress doesn’t appear to be growing a backbone anytime soon. In the interim, we have too much potential for abuse.

Does this automatically preclude military action? No. The war in Afghanistan was just. However, there is a vast world of difference when you declare the entire world, including the US, to be a battlefield. The point is that the situation isn’t merely a decision between war and treating them as pre-9/11 criminals. There are many additional factors to take into account.

In conclusion, it doesn’t mean I have a pre-9/11 mindset if I engage in abstract reasoning. It doesn’t mean I have a pre-9/11 mindset if I have a respect for the rule of law, which is essential for liberty. When it comes to acts of terror, it is nonsensical to treat all of them purely as acts of war. Instead of letting the president indefinitely detain legal residents to fight a forever-war, we should figure out how we need to change the law to effectively reduce and punish terrorism.

I’d like to thank The Apologist for this comment:

Shawn, detainees are found to be unlawful combatants, or not, under the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ. You don’t try combatants, lawful or unlawful, in federal court. You never have and you never will. There is only one thing which has changed since 9-11. Terrorism is now considered an act of war, not simply a criminal act.

Your objections remind me of the infamous “Gorelick wall” between the CIA and the FBI. You cannot prosecute a war in court. Wild eyed speculations and farcical morality tales about random people being disappeared by the Stasi are unserious. This is a real war. Real people are dying every day all over the world at the hands of Jihadi terror. You are treating it like a poli-sci thought experiment.

The Constitution remains what it has always been. No one has ceeded Supreme Executive Power to the President. Congress can always repeal the law or amend it if it proves too broad or leads to abuse. Congress retains all it’s powers of oversight. The Executive is still subject to Congress and the Courts. Congress has an inherent power to determine the Court’s jurisdiction. It has done so. It can undo so if it sees fit.

Don’t be an Andy Sullivan. The man has lost his mind. Don’t wander too far off into the Libertarian wilderness. We need smart young republicans and conservatives. Try breathing into a paper bag for a couple of seconds.

I’m going to write a detailed defense of my position tomorrow.

For now, I just wanted to reply to this part: “Don’t be an Andy Sullivan. The man has lost his mind. Don’t wander too far off into the Libertarian wilderness. We need smart young republicans and conservatives. Try breathing into a paper bag for a couple of seconds.”

It’s going to take more than breathing into a paper bag for a couple of seconds. You may need me, but do I need you? Why do I need a party that spends so much and proclaims to be in favor of fiscal responsibility? Why do I need a party that tramples all over the states and then claims it is in favor of less government? Why do I need a party that doesn’t let two people who love each other marry and then claims it is in favor of family values? Why do I need a party that haphazardly launched us into a war without adequately preparing for the consequences (thus, setting us up for possible defeat) and then claims it is in favor of strong defense?

No, I think it’s too late to convince me to come back. I must wander the wilderness for a time. Maybe I will find my way back into the Republican fold eventually, but for now, I’m coming to the conclusion that I can no longer in good faith call myself a Republican. Specifically, give me a call when these two things happen: 1) When the Republicans stop bashing gays 2) When the Republicans get serious about security instead of using it as a political bludgeon.

Perhaps what I’m about to do is stupid, but I will be more disappointed with myself if I sit by and accept the status quo.

You can create a lot of problems (centuries’ worth) by framing a problem incorrectly.

In Disney’s Robin Hood the villain is Prince John, the “phony king of England.” While his brother King Richard is off fighting in the Crusades, he becomes a tyrant. He taxes the people, and when Robin Hood embarrasses him, he decides to tax the people more. He taxes the heart and soul out of the people, eventually throwing almost everyone in jail. The Sheriff of Nottingham even takes money from the clergy, and shoves Friar Tuck in jail.

Does anyone remember the resolution to this problem? Think past Robin Hood breaking everyone out of jail… Think further…

The movie resolves when King Richard comes back from the Crusades. He punishes Prince John and crew. It explicitly shows that all is well once the good king returns.

The problem, however, was not Prince John. There’s a villain much more nefarious that is not shown in the film. The problem was giving absolute power to the sovereign. You put the sovereign in position where he merely has the ability to tax the heart and soul out of the people by decree.

The problem doesn’t go away when you switch to a new king because at any moment, he could decide to change his mind. Or, you could get a new king who’s not so nice. The problem isn’t ever the disposition of the king. The problem is putting yourself under the arbitrary will of any king.

The solution is not getting a new king because the problem can always arise again. The solution is creating laws such that any king cannot tax the hell out of the people. This is why we live under laws, and why no one should be above the law.

Otherwise, you put yourself under the arbitrary will of an individual (or group of individuals). Even if you think they will never act as tyrants, you cannot give them the ability to abuse you if they wanted to. That’s why the president is bound by laws. Because even if you believe one president may not cause harm, what happens with the next president? You’re never guaranteed safety unless you live under the rule of law.

Thus, if you grant the sovereign too much prerogative, you live no longer under laws, but under his arbitrary will. It matters not what his actions are. It matters not if he is a good king, or a bad king: He is still a king! You do not live free!

And now, we turn to the current suspension of writ of habeas corpus for legal aliens — legal residents, your neighbors and my neighbors, your friends and my friends. Or perhaps, yourself.

It doesn’t matter if you don’t listen to any of the shrill cries. It doesn’t matter if you think no one will be whisked away in the dead of night and indefinitely detained. It doesn’t matter if you think Bush will never abuse his power. It doesn’t matter if you think we will be so careful that only the guilty will be captured. It doesn’t matter if you think occasionally capturing innocents is worth it in order to protect the homeland.

What matters is only the fact that the executive branch now has the power to indefinitely detain legal residents, without having to give a reason. The writ of habeas corpus has been suspended for legal aliens. Sure, they may be subjected to military tribunal at some point, but this tribunal is also created at the discretion of the executive. He makes the rules, not the people. Remember, there’s a reason why the Founders separated the government into separate branches.

It matters not if he is a good executive or bad executive. It doesn’t matter if he does anything or not; it only matters that he can. Legal residents of the US have been placed under his arbitrary will. No one should ever have that power.

Good king or bad king… He is still a king.

The Courts still exist, still function. We are under no threat of invasion or rebellion. There is no reason to give that much prerogative to the executive.

And of course, the objection will arise that we are fighting a new type of war against a new type of enemy. Yet, surely, you don’t think you’re safe if you place yourself under the arbitrary will of another man? The shield of law protects everyone with much more strength than an over-zealous executive. If you relinquish this shield, what will happen when the enemy has been vanquished, and the conquerer turns around and looks at you.

[An objection I haven’t fully addressed is the issue of the fairness of the military tribunals. I welcome comments of that topic that will further enlighten me. I will also attempt some of my own research. However, I felt it necessary to get this message out now. Mainly because I felt it was certain that the writ of habeas corpus was stripped, I believed that I had enough ground to stand on to make my arguments.]

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana

Read: What A Terrorist Incident in Ancient Rome Can Teach Us

But it was too late to raise such questions. By the oldest trick in the political book — the whipping up of a panic, in which any dissenting voice could be dismissed as “soft” or even “traitorous” — powers had been ceded by the people that would never be returned. Pompey stayed in the Middle East for six years, establishing puppet regimes throughout the region, and turning himself into the richest man in the empire.

Read: ‘The More Subtle Kind of Torment’

The prisoner’s environment must be manipulated to produce a “regression of the personality to whatever earlier and weaker level is required for the dissolution of resistance.” This usually doesn’t take much. “Relatively small degrees of homeostatic derangement, fatigue, pain, sleep loss, or anxiety” are generally sufficient.

It doesn’t require “real” torture to produce disastrously unreliable information.

Read: Lloyd’s on dehumanization.

History clearly shows that the use of torture moves quickly from an interrogational method to elicit vital information to a device that wrings a confession from an individual. This distinction is critical to understand.

From the great Machiavelli, in his Discourses on Livy:

“…Caesar, as their head, could so blind the multitude that it did not recognize the yoke that it was putting on its own neck.”

The Republican party has been blinded by its devotion to Bush.

I hope that the American people have not become so corrupt that we can no longer live free.