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.

I’ve been looking up a few more things, but I haven’t read the actual bill itself (which I suppose I should do). It appears as if the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus applies to aliens, and not citizens. I’m still not fully convinced that there isn’t any weaselly language in there that makes it possible for Bush and Rumsfeld to declare a citizen an enemy combatant. After all, the bill lets Bush define torture, but allows him to keep all the techniques secret. It’s not encouraging at the very least.

Although I’ve introduced that, do not view this as a retreat of any sort. The republic is still in grave danger when the executive branch can whisk away legal residents in America and detain them indefinitely.

Don’t let the term alien mislead you. These are your neighbors. These are your friends.

Don’t think it won’t happen?

Let me take you off on a tangent. Read this from the Washington Post, Why I’m Banned in the USA, by Tariq Ramadan. He’s not a terrorist nor has he aided the terrorists. Yet, the professor’s visa was denied. His offence?

The letter from the U.S. Embassy informed me that my visa application had been denied, and it put an end to the rumors that had circulated since my original visa was revoked. After a lengthy investigation, the State Department cited no evidence of suspicious relationships, no meetings with terrorists, no encouraging or advocacy of terrorism. Instead, the department cited my donation of $940 to two humanitarian organizations (a French group and its Swiss chapter) serving the Palestinian people. I should note that the investigation did not reveal these contributions. As the department acknowledges, I had brought this information to their attention myself, two years earlier, when I had reapplied for a visa.

In its letter, the U.S. Embassy claims that I “reasonably should have known” that the charities in question provided money to Hamas. But my donations were made between December 1998 and July 2002, and the United States did not blacklist the charities until 2003. How should I reasonably have known of their activities before the U.S. government itself knew? I donated to these organizations for the same reason that countless Europeans — and Americans, for that matter — donate to Palestinian causes: not to help fund terrorism, but because I wanted to provide humanitarian aid to people who desperately need it. Yet after two years of investigation, this was the only explanation offered for the denial of my visa. I still find it hard to believe.

But he has criticized some of the Bush administration’s policies, and Mr. Ramadan is becoming “increasingly convinced that the Bush administration has barred [him] for a much simpler reason: It doesn’t care for [his] political views.”

So, what does this have to do with what I said before? If indeed Mr. Ramadan’s views are being repressed, how long does it take before the views of legal residents are repressed based on bogus charges of having donated to a charity that “aids terror”?

Or let’s say that this was an error… Then, how do we know that other errors will not be committed in the name of defending the homeland. Can people be jailed for donating to a charity?

No, of course not, you will say. But then why should Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush be given discretion? They can lock them up indefinitely such that you won’t know whether or not this person is held on a bogus claim because the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended. The Bush Administration doesn’t need a reason to detain legal residents.

Furthermore, mistakes will happen. And a mistake only gives incentive to hold someone indefinitely. Why? To cover-up mistakes. No one will know you’ve made a mistake if the person is languishing in jail and never given a fair trial.

Given Bush’s previous ability to admit to mistakes… I’m not optimistic.

Chilling words from President Bush, in his recent press conference with Karzai: “But I will comment on this — that we’re on the offense against an enemy that wants to do us harm. And we must have the tools necessary to protect our country. On the one hand, if al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates are calling somebody in the country, we need to know why. And so Congress needs to pass that piece of legislation. If somebody has got information about a potential attack, we need to be able to ask that person some questions. And so Congress has got to pass that piece of legislation.” [emphasis mine]

The words I chose to emphasize represent a very egregious case of doublespeak. It purposely glosses over very important things. Firstly, he doesn’t even say “coercive interrogation” or said that he has “to update our methods of interrogating terrorist detainees” (as the I found out the Traditional Values Coalition said). He doesn’t even allude to physically and psychologically abusing prisoners of war. Stripping someone naked and spraying him with cold water in a cold room in order to induce hypothermia becomes merely asking a person some questions. We’ve gone beyond euphemism into purposeful denial.

But it gets worse. Let’s examine this new detainee bill. According to a Washington Post article, Detainee Measure to Have Fewer Restrictions, the bill will allow anyone who “has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States” to be detained indefinitely, including legal aliens and citizens. Now, anyone can be detained indefinitely, without being able to challenge their detention in court, at the President’s discretion. The writ of habeas corpus, “a writ issued in order to bring somebody who has been detained into court, usually for a decision on whether the detention is lawful” (according to Encarta), has been suspended. Furthermore, the president can not only detain anyone, but he can do this anywhere. If you don’t find this strange, you do not understand what it means to live in a democratic republic.

This precious right, the writ of habeas corpus, extends back hundreds of years. Anyone who is a true conservative cannot say that this right which has stood the test of time, for nearly a millenium, should be suspended in the face of the current terrorist threat. The blanket statement “9/11 changed everything” is fundamentally opposed to the Burkean conception of conservatism. It cannot change everything. It cannot change our long tradition of human rights. It cannot change our Constitution.

It’s right here in Article 1, Section 9: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Of course, I’ve glossed over the actions of Lincoln during the Civil War and FDR during WWII, but surely you can see the difference between their actions and Bush’s? We have entered an undefined, forever-war against terror. There is no time when these rights can be returned to the citizens. Where is the invasion? Where is the rebellion?

Congress swore to uphold the Constitution “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” They are supposed to uphold our rights. They are supposed to serve as a check against the excesses of the executive. In my estimation, Congress has abdicated its duty. They’ve given the executive discretion to detain anyone, anywhere, without having to give a reason.

Congress has failed the American people.

Luckily, we have three branches of government. We have the extremely undemocratic institution of the Supreme Court, which will hopefully strike down this law. It was created to protect us from the passions of the majority. If this line of defense fails, we may have the states to depend on. And if that fails…

”Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly, or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society.” — John Locke, Second Treatise.

Lest you think I advocate overthrow of the government, I give you this, which is also from John Locke: “Great mistakes in the ruling part, many wrong and inconvenient laws, and all the slips of human frailty, will be born by the people without mutiny or murmur. But if a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going; it is not to be wondered, that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavour to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected…”

For now, this is a great mistake in the ruling part, and we must fight to have the mistake rectified. Hopefully, it will never get to this point, but if they start knocking on doors and legal residents and citizens begin disappearing in good numbers, then we must invoke our final line of defense. For now, we have only taken the first steps on a long march towards tyranny. We must pray that our other lines of defense do not fail.

Some food for thought: For Iran, A Policy Of Patience, by Fareed Zakaria.

Always keep in mind our history. Zakaria reminds us that China was very aggressive during the 50s and 60s, but we did not need to preemptively invade.

Iran is aggressive, yes, but I’m not sure if the situation is exactly analogous. I’m unconvinced that the US faces an existential threat, but Israel? Was China preaching an apocalyptic message, as Iranian President Ahmadinejad is?

Still, I’m convinced that the best way to “win” is to outmanuever Iran diplomatically, instead of continuing on this course of bullying and intimidation, which obviously isn’t getting us anywhere, and instead of sounding the drumbeats of war. We still have time before Iran develops a nuclear weapon.

Not all diplomatic avenues are appeasement. If we let Iran develop nuclear energy, but closely monitor what they’re doing, it will be a small victory. It will allow us to get our tentacles in Iran… maybe even some human intelligence. Maybe if we have scientists working with their scientists, some of their scientists may spy for us? I still believe that this is the best course of action.

I think the history lesson from Zakaria is good to keep this situation in perspective.

Here’s a link to Lloyd: the enemy in our midst.

I’m just linking right now because I don’t really have answers yet. I’m beginning to wonder if the Republican Party can be salvaged. (Fiscal conservatives will know what I’m talking about. Burkean conservatives will know what I’m talking about.)

I’m also wondering if big tectonic shifts are to come in party make-up. Immigration produces strange bedfellows… it’s a big issue and could be potentially disruptive. The labor unions have steadily been losing power. How long can the Dems count on them? New ethnic groups will be holding more sway. Latinos, Asian-Americans… I’m sure there are many other things I’m missing, but I’m just throwing my thoughts out right now, instead of in a more substantial entry that I thought I was planning for a later date.

I’m not saying that there’s going to be some grand third party coming into play. That’s highly unlikely. But it’s also highly unlikely that the status quo will hold over the course of my lifetime. (I’m only 19.) Political parties are coalitions of factions with competing interests. Some factions lose power. Some factions gain power. Sometimes a political figure can be polarizing. Like how there were Whigs who were really Democrats, but they just hated Andrew Jackson’s guts. (Do I have my history right?) You can’t expect a coalition to really be stable when the environment is so dynamic. Something’s gotta give sooner or later.

Thus, there is no question that there will be changes. The questions are: To what extent? (Will the changes be small?) And: How soon?

And if this happens: On which side of the divide will I fall? Should I actively try to trigger this “Realignment”?

Ah yes, and I missed one question: Who? Who will be on which side?

I’m going to take a break tomorrow from all this and do something I was planning a while back: Write about religion. I think it will help put me on the path to answering these new questions.

Check out this I excerpted from a supposedly humorous weblog entry, Secret CIA interrogation techniques revealed!:

The Grauniad blows the lid off the mother:

Details emerged yesterday about the seven interrogation techniques the CIA is seeking to be allowed to apply to terror suspects… The techniques sought by the CIA are: induced hypothermia; forcing suspects to stand for prolonged periods; sleep deprivation; a technique called “the attention grab” where a suspect’s shirt is forcefully seized; the “attention slap” or open hand slapping that hurts but does not lead to physical damage; the “belly slap”; and sound and light manipulation.

All you want to do is blow up some infidels for Allah, but these pigs won’t let you sit down or take a nap or put on a sweater. If the blasphemers are feeling particularly American, they might even wrinkle your outfit. Or give you a pinkbelly! AAAAIIIEEEEEEEE!!!

[emphasis mine]

Oh yeah, hypothermia… ha ha ha ha, what a great laugh.

Yes, inducing hypothermia is akin to not letting someone put on a sweater. We Americans don’t torture, it’s only coercive interrogation.

(Hm, now I think I got an idea for satire of my own…)

[Just to be clear, I am being completely sarcastic when I say that hypothermia is funny.]

The most dangerous man is he who is unjust but has deceived everyone into thinking that he is just.

“Anyone who is caught should be thought inept, for the extreme of injustice is to be believed to be just without being just. And our completely unjust person must be given complete injustice; nothing may be subtracted from it. We must allow that, while doing the greatest injustice, he has nonetheless provided himself with the greatest reputation for justice. If he happens to make a slip, he must be able to put it right. If any of his unjust activities should be discovered, he must be able to speak persuasively or to use force. And if force is needed, he must have the help of courage and strength and of the substantial wealth and friends with which he has provided himself.” — Glaucon in Plato’s Republic.

It’s not torture. It’s “coercive interrogation.”

It’s doublespeak.

The lesson that I want you to take away is that injustice is nearly always perpetrated behind the mask of justice. (Injustice for injustice’s sake is easily countered.)

Look behind the words.

Look behind Bush’s rhetoric about freedom and look at his actions in Iraq.

I know I’m not being a good Republican, but I can’t help it. I must look at the situation objectively.

Of course, he hasn’t convinced everyone, but I do not think that all who oppose him oppose him for good reasons. The strange thing is I think that Bush has deceived himself into thinking he is just.

Our greatest weapon is our American ideology — of freedom, justice, and self-determination.

The most dangerous ones are those who loudly proclaim that they are doing things in the name of freedom, and convince everyone that this is so, yet actively work to undermine that freedom.

[Sorry to be all vague and not talk about things in concrete terms, but this is my personal weblog and I have the right to experiment.]

Are there any other Republicans out there who find this debate about torture surreal? I haven’t listened to talk radio since I got back to JHU, but I’m sure the right-wing is furious at how the Left and Powell and McCain and more are “terrorist-sympathizers.” I just can’t imagine how we got to the point where my party would endorse torture. But I will fight, for the soul of the nation, and the soul of my party.

I tend to see the world in less shades of gray than many other people. I’m not so naive to see the world in black and white, but now you know a little more about my worldview. Torture is wrong. We don’t torture child-rapists and serial killers. We shouldn’t torture this other brand of killer, especially not if they’re US citizens or residents.

I’m just surprised that the group that tends to see things more black and white — that at times actively criticizes those who don’t see things in black and white — can only see shades of gray when it comes to torture. Like I said, it’s surreal.

At this time, I think the pragmatic front is the best to fight on. Convince people that torture will not prevent another 9/11, their fear will disappear, and then they won’t let it cloud their moral judgment. However, I will also be making a moral argument in the coming days.

I’m behind schedule on the College Republicans web site. I wonder what they’ll think if I finally get the blog up and running, and I start it off criticizing torture… Would they attempt to run me out?

Finally, Congress starts to grow a spine, with a some Senators standing up to the Bush administration’s underhanded attempts to make torture the law of the land.

I’ve been waiting a while for Congress to deal a good defeat to the executive branch.

Not that I wanted Bush in particular to be slapped, just to see the executive branch have its power curbed.

And this couldn’t be a better issue.

We’re fighting a multiple-front war. Certain people get enraged that we’re losing the propaganda war, but then they endorse torture. Even the most heinous serial killers, rapists, and the like, are subject to the 8th amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual” punishment.

I know terrorists are disgusting people, but we must prove that we are better than them. We don’t need to endorse torture to stop another 9/11. Because that goes right into the recruiting handbooks of al-Qaeda. Torturing an innocent Muslim moderate (and if you think everyone in Guantanamo is guilty, then you’re vastly mistaken) is a great propaganda tool for al-Qaeda. It makes it harder to win the War on Terror.

The so-called ticking time bomb scenario is a joke. It only happens in the movies. The terrorists are maniacs. They don’t care about blowing themselves up. Do you honestly think in the ticking time bomb scenario, they will crack before the bomb blows up? Isn’t it easy for them to give you the wrong information? By the time you check, the bomb has already gone off somewhere else.

The advocates of torture paint a false dilemma. Either we torture, or 9/11 will happen again. It’s not so.

We can make it vastly harder for terrorists to succeed without resorting to torture. Doesn’t it make sense to secure leftover nuclear material before it gets into enemy hands instead of torturing someone who already set a bomb? Because that guy probably won’t tell you where the bomb is.

Analyze the trade-offs. We need other countries’ cooperation in order to find terrorists. The more we abandon our moral principles, the more we lose the propaganda front in the war, the less those countries cooperate with us. We need those countries to cooperate with us in securing nuclear materials. Thus, it becomes more likely that we will be attacked again.

Analyze the trade-offs. If you give the president discretion on who to torture and who to not torture, how do you know when his high-level detainees aren’t so high-level? Well, you can’t, since it’s a secret. What happens when a different president is in office and he starts shipping off American citizens for secret interrogations on charges of “terror”? Don’t think it can happen? Law enforcement agencies are already using the Patriot Act for things unrelated to terror. You don’t think once you give the executive branch the leeway to torture, it won’t be used on non-terrorists? The slope is more slippery than you think.

Analyze the trade-offs. In fact, a lot of times, torture doesn’t work at all. You get a lot of wrong information. The time we spend analyzing those false leads could be spent better elsewhere. We miss opportunities to nab real terrorists. The nation becomes less safe.

Moreover, some of this information we already got without torturing anyone. From the Slate article Tainted Fruit, “There is already evidence that President Bush either exaggerated or misspoke with respect to that torture evidence. He claimed that harsh interrogation of one of the CIA’s detainees led to the identification and capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in part by revealing that his nickname was ‘Mukhtar.’ But according to intelligence officials, the government paid an informant $25 million for the tip that led to Mohammed’s arrest, and the CIA knew Mohammed’s nickname even before 9/11.”

The threats to our own freedom and our moral standing in the world are not worth the trade-off for a highly unlikely hypothetical ticking time-bomb scenario. I’d rather take real, concrete steps towards security.