Friday, September 29, 2006

Nice Constitution you've got there. Shame if something happened to it.

We usually try to keep things light and cheery around here, but the latest news from our nation's capital is not encouraging. My teacher Alan Wolfe wonders whether we are living in a Philip Roth novel. (I think he means this one.) In case you missed it, the Senate has approved the President's torture bill--the Military Commissions Act of 2006--and it now appears to be official US government policy that it is OK to hide people and torture them, to make those decisions in secret, and to not have to answer to anyone about it. Here's the Times:

The Senate approved legislation this evening governing the interrogation and trials of terror suspects, establishing far-reaching new rules in the definition of who may be held and how they should be treated. … The legislation … strips detainees of a habeas corpus right to challenge their detentions in court and broadly defines what kind of treatment of detainees is prosecutable as a war crime. … The legislation broadens the definition of enemy combatants beyond the traditional definition used in wartime, to include noncitizens living legally in this country as well as those in foreign countries, and also anyone determined to be an enemy combatant under criteria defined by the president or secretary of defense. It strips detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, of a habeas right to challenge their detention in court, relying instead on procedures known as combatant status review trials, which have looser rules of evidence than the courts. It allows evidence seized in this country or abroad to be taken without a search warrant.


The bill was effectively railroaded through Congress by a panicy and corrupt majority party worried about how they're going to fare in the November elections and aware that the only credibility they still have (well, not with me, but undoubtedly with some Americans) is on the GWOT. I might be even a little bit reassured if I felt that the federal government, under the stewardship of George W. Bush, was doing all it is able to do to deal with the problem of terrorism properly, but, as they have shown time and agan, they aren't up to the task. (Bob Woodward's new book is the latest in a long stream of books by serious people demonstrating the utter imcompetance and mendacity of the Bush Administration, but that's the topic of another post. The Post is set to have excerpts all next week. Here's a taste.)

We ought to be clear about what the bill actually says and does. Yale law professor Jack Balkin has a nice post on his blog which makes several important points:

First, the MCA puts the President in an interesting position: the U.S. is still bound by Geneva, but there is no way for individuals to enforce violations of Geneva (except that grave breaches of Common Article 3 can still be prosecuted under the War Crimes Statute). However, Geneva's status as the law of the land (under Article VI) was not altered by the MCA. The United States has not withdrawn from the Geneva Conventions, and this fact was quite important to selling the bill to the public. So if the President orders procedures that are inconsistent with Geneva, he is still acting contrary to law even though there may be no way for an individual to enforce the law directly.

Second, the President remains bound by the prohibitions against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment found in the McCain Amendment, and the substantive tests of the Fifth, Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments, whether the conduct occurs in the United States our outside of it…. If the President violates these standards, or directs others to do so, he violates the law…. There is just no judicial remedy for the violation.

Let me repeat what I have just said: The MCA continues to recognize that certain conduct is illegal, but attempts to eliminate all judicial remedies for such violations. That means that if the President violates the MCA, he still fails to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, which is his constitutional duty under Article 2, section 3 of the Constitution. (And in case you are wondering, he might well be guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor, but don't hold your breath.) The President wanted it this way: He wanted to be able to say that he was following the law, but, just in case he wasn't, he didn't want to be held to account for it in any court proceeding….

Third, although the MCA attempts to eliminate judicial review, and in particular the writ of habeas corpus, it is by no means certain that it has succeeded. The suspension of habeas may be unconstitutional. Any such suspension must be consistent with the Suspension Clause of Article I, section 9…. In addition, it is by no means clear that the MCA can successfully eliminate rights that detainees have under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.


To sum up, major parts of the MCA apply to American citizens, and there is essentially no judicial remedy for wrongs done under this new regime. I'm really not sure what this says about our country. It is, however, shocking to me that so many self-described conservatives are going along with this. It undoubtedly has something to do with the cult of Dubya. Can you imagine them entrusting this much power to Bill Clinton?

I have a feeling that this will be one of those episodes in American history--like the Faustian bargain over slavery, the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II--that we will one day look back on with considerable regret and shame.

Posted by jwb at 11:30 AM  · 0 Comments   

Thursday, September 21, 2006

New Bond theme

Stereogum has video of the new Bond theme, by Chris Cornell (of the great Soundgarden and the kind-of-lame Audioslave). Pretty dreadful.

Posted by jwb at 8:45 AM  · 0 Comments   

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Hannibal Lecter


According to the New York Times, the reclusive and excruciatingly deliberate Thomas Harris has a new Hannibal Lecter book on the way, describing Lecter's early years before he became the full-blown wack-job we all know and love. It's due in December, just in time for Christmas. I, for one, am looking forward to it. All of the "Hannibal" bashing you can find from book critics and various morons on the web is kind of annoying. It was a good book, perhaps not quite as good as "Silence of the Lambs" and "Red Dragon," but still quite good.

Which reminds me, what are you favorite "Silence of the Lambs" quotes? (Here's a cheatsheet.) I think mine has to be, "Put the fucking lotion in the basket!" To me, that whole scene between Catherine and Bill has quite a bit of campy humor to it--though, of course, I've seen the movie 25 times and it has long lost the terror of the first viewing.

Posted by jwb at 4:20 PM  · 0 Comments   

Genius

The MacArthur genius awards have been announced. As usual, lots of scientists, artists, musicians, etc. To most of them, I say "Thbbt"! However, they also gave one to David Macaulay, illustrator par excelence and author of some of my favorites as a kid, including Castle, Cathedral, Pyramid, and other wonderful books. Congratulations to Mr. Macaulay.

Note: A free packet of Splenda to the first person who picks up on the obscure literary reference in the third sentence.

Posted by jwb at 5:50 AM  · 1 Comments   

Monday, September 18, 2006

REM

REM--probably the favorite band from my misspent youth--has been playing up a storm of late. Golden Fiddle) reports that the band--Berry, Buck, Mills, and Stipe--played an amazing show (with lots of friends) at a club in Athen last Tuesday. Then, according to Stereogum, on Saturday, they played again for their induction into the Georgia Music Hall of Fame. Stereogum has some cool clips of the show from Youtube, including one of my favorites, "Begin the Begin."

Posted by jwb at 8:16 PM  · 1 Comments   

Friday, September 15, 2006

Pirate bloggin'

Shiver me timbers. It appears that Tuesday, September 19 is International Talk Like a Pirate Day. Please plan accordingly.

Via Crooked Timber.

Posted by jwb at 1:27 PM  · 0 Comments   

Re. believing things you read on the internet

Egotatstic is a great source of snarky celebrity gossip. Pearls of wisdom, not so much. However, this is nicely done: "Alright, lets go ahead and clear something up. Just because you read something on the Internet, does not mean it's true. Shocking, I know."

Got it, Patty?

Posted by jwb at 8:41 AM  · 0 Comments   

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Random blogging

Sorry for the lack of posting since we got back. I've been a little distracted. I had my first post-treatment CT scan on Monday and have been anxiously awaiting the results. They called yesterday and I seem to be cancer free. (The lesion in my abdomen from a year ago is gone and nothing new has shown up.) We are, as you might imagine, relieved.

I wanted to respond to a couple of things in comments.

1. Regarding my comments on Dalton's resemblance to the literary Bond, Raphy adds that it's more than just a physical resemblance: "Fleming's Bond is cynical, jaded, morally bankrupt as a result of his job, and eventually, rather reckless." Nicely put. As I recall from reading Casino Royale a while ago, LeChiffre nearly tortures Bond to death. BTW, there's some funny stuff about CR the book on Wikipedia. The first title for it in the US was "You Asked for It" and the protagonist was referred to as "Jimmy Bond" on the back cover. Can you imagine. Horrifying! They also report that the figure on the cover was modeled on actor Richard Conte, who--quelle surprise!--looks to me quite a bit like Dalton.

2. I think Bram is right about the lack of imagination in many of the recent Bond films. However, as a general matter, I try to not get too upset about such things and just enjoy it when they get it right. (In my comments on "V for Vendetta", I think I mentioned some examples of what I mean by "getting it right".)

3. Speaking of Bond, the new trailer for Casino Royale looks pretty good. And what's there to say about Eva Green on a family friendly blog like this one other than nicely done!

4. Speaking of Ellroy, we don't get to the movies too often, but I'm thinking about going to see "Black Dahlia" this weekend. Here's hoping DePalma gets it right.

5. Bram: Glad you liked the Furst book. I find them addictive. You also might want to check out Robert Wilson's "A Small Death in Lisbon." It's got all of my favorite things--heroic though conflicted spies, sinister Nazis, hot chicks, etc. "Vanished Hands," the sequel to "Blind Man" is good too (though given your measured response to BMOS, you might skip it). Happy reading.

Friday AM update: Yikes! The reviews are coming in on "Dahlia" and it's not looking good: Slate, Magnolia Darkness of the Times, and the Globe all say thumbs down. Maybe I'll mowe the lawn instead. Notwithstanding my comments above, still kind of disapointed.

Posted by jwb at 11:48 AM  · 1 Comments