www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish

www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish: "ALITO AND CAP: A Princeton grad thinks I'm missing something:

I graduated from Princeton in the mid-1980s and remember CAP and Prospect well. While that particular article may have been satire (and ask yourself, what exactly were they satirizing? Who is laughing at whom here?) the viciousness of CAP's language throughout its existence was apparent to everyone who saw it. That is why the organization had no support on campus, even from conservatives. CAP didn't oppose affirmative action, it opposed the admission of women, people of color, gay men and (doubly) lesbians, to Princeton. As far as I can recall, CAP existed solely for the purposes of spreading this ugly rhetoric. They did nothing aside from publishing Prospect, nothing except for finding various ways to express their bigotry.
Why does this matter for Judge Alito? Of course there is no reason to think he is personally a bigot. But in order to get a job he was willing to say “yeah, I’m with those bigots over there.” Should someone like that have a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court? This is not guilt by association – Alito is the person who chose to do the associating. He volunteered a connection to an extremist organization and it is reasonable and appropriate to ask him about why he threw his lot in with these people. While Judge Alito may not have signed off on each and every word, he did sign off on the group as a whole at a time when very few Princeton alumni did. And it really is shameful.
Duly noted.
====================
THE SADDAM DOCS: Hard to disagree with Bill Kristol on this one. We haven't really had a thorough investigation of the documents from the Saddam regime that may or may not confirm Saddam's extensive relationship with international terrorists. They're not classified. Maybe there's so much that it would take an age for government officials to comb through them. So here's an idea: throw them to the blogs! Have the army of Davids scramble through every detail. Whatever side of the debate you're on, we should all want to find out the truth, no?
====================
WHISPERS FROM THE NSA: I've got an interview with NSA whistleblower Russell Tice just up at Reason. He's got to speak in pretty general terms or hypotheticals for most of the conversation, but I did want to flag this bit:

That would lead one to ask the question: "Why did they omit the FISA court?"

I would think one reason that is possible is that perhaps a system already existed that you could do this with, and all you had to do is change the venue. And if that's the case, and this system was a broad brush system, a vacuum cleaner that just sucks things up, this huge systematic approach to monitoring these calls, processing them, and filtering them--then ultimately a machine does 98.8 percent of your work.

A huge, computerized "vacuum cleaner" system that already existed, but that needed its "venue" changed for domestic surveillance, huh? That sounds a hell of a lot like the Echelon program to me. It seems like it would've been very tempting—and, I imagine, relatively easy—to just turn a system developed for mass analysis of foreign communications inward.
—posted by Julian
===================

GEN. GEOFFREY MILLER: He's the key figure in the decision to introduce torture and abuse of detainees in the U.S. military. He's the one who set up the abuse program at Guantanamo Bay and was then sent by Rumsfeld to "Gitmoize" Abu Ghraib. He's the one who told General Karpinski to treat detainees "like dogs." He's the one who organized the framing of Muslim chaplain James Yee, after once confiding in Yee that he had problems with Muslims in general. As usual, the Bush administration has done all it can to protect Miller, because he could explain who, higher up in the administration, sanctioned torture and abuse. Secure that no one in the real chain of command would contradict him, Miller has, in the past, cooperated with Pentagon investigations. Even so, the Fay report concluded that he had recommended policies that contravened the Geneva Conventions, which were supposed to apply in Iraq. But now, he's gone silent. Hmmmm. Money quote:

General Miller's decision to invoke his right not to incriminate himself came shortly after Col. Thomas M. Pappas, whose military intelligence unit was in charge of interrogations at the Abu Ghraib, was granted immunity from prosecution and ordered to testify in the dog handlers' coming courts-martial. Major Crawford said she and General Miller were not aware that Colonel Pappas had immunity protection when General Miller invoked his military Article 31 rights.

Yeah, right. The good news is that, with painful slowness, even the military investigatory apparatus may eventually uncover the high-level policies that crafted the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and then blamed them on a few reservists. And hold someone accountable. Higher up, I hope, than General Miller.
- posted by Andrew
=============================
QUOTE FOR THE DAY: "I am at a loss to know how creationism has got mixed up with conservatism. I have always thought of conservatives as the cold-eyed people, unafraid to face awkward facts, respectful of rigorous intellectual disciplines, and decently curious, but never dogmatic, on points of metaphysics. Conservatism thus understood is, in my view, the ideal outlook for free citizens of a free society. Contrariwise, pseudoscientific fads, metaphysical dogmas like "dialectical materialism," magical explanations for natural phenomena, and slipshod word-games about "agency" and "design" posing as science, arise most commonly in obscurantist despotisms. The old USSR was addled with such things, Lysenkoism being only the best known. You may say that an obscurantist despotism can be conservative in its own way, and you may have a terminological point; but that's not the style of conservatism I favor." - John Derbyshire, NRO, in an exchange with Tom Bethell.

Once again, I find myself in complete agreement with the old codger. How can that be? Once you get past his prejudices, which he proudly displays, Derbyshire is actually a recognizable old-style conservative. His description of the conservative temperament and attitude toward reality is absolutely something I share and, as he puts it, absolutely consonant with deep religious faith. I can see now what will be a main line of criticism of my book: that its understanding of conservatism is an English one, not American. Maybe that's the origin of my detente with the Derb. But if our shared conservatism draws inspiration from English tradition and history, it is also a philosophical argument, available for universal inspection and debate. The point is not whether such a skeptical, empirical, practical, limited government conservatism can survive in today's America. The point is whether it offers an attractive politics for the West in modernity. I agree with Derb that it is the ideal outlook for free citizens of a free society. I also believe it is the best politics for maintaining our freedom in modernity. Which is why fundamentalists of all kinds - Muslim and Christian - feel so threatened by it. - posted by Andrew.
==================
Wednesday, January 11, 2006

EVANGELICALS VERSUS DISPENSATIONALISTS: Here's a document from some evangelical leaders specifically attacking the notion that the current state of Israel is Biblically mandated. These leaders differ from the increasingly popular and now mainstream fundamentalist notion of the End-Time, the Rapture, and the role that a unified and expansionary Israel will play in such a moment. Evangelical protestantism is not monolithic, but the dispensationalists are clearly gaining ground, as the astonishing success of the "Left Behind" books shows. I should add that dispensationalism is a relatively recent development. Like much that now passes for ancient truth (like the Catholic church's insistence on the human person present in the zygote), its origins are actually very modern. In this new and modern brand of absolutist faith, the more extreme Christian fundamentalists are similar to many Islamic fundamentalists.
- posted by Andrew.
==================
BUSH AND TORTURE: If he has to break the law he signed, he will. The consequences of presidents doing this to clear legislative intent are profound. I have no doubt that, for all his platitudes yesterday, the fundamental reason Alito was nominated was to remove one check from the president's assumption of new and permanent powers. In an issue like the McCain Amendment, Roberts and Alito will back the president against the veto-proof vote of the Congress. That's why they're there.
- posted by Andrew.
===============================
MORE FROM BREMER: The Weekly Standard has a great summary of some of the juicier bits from the Bremer memoir (and by 'memoir,' I don't mean the current publishing view that this includes complete fiction). Both Bremer and Powell - let's call them the Sanity Chorus - were insistent that an occupation that couldn't even control Baghdad was woefully under-manned. Powell emerges as a real hawk in arguing to take out Moqtada al-Sadr. Rumsfeld seems absolutely indifferent to reality on the ground, contemptuously unresponsive to Bremer, and eager to downsize the mission at every moment. The evidence is beginning to mount, it seems to me, that Rumsfeld ran this war. His arrogance, pig-headedness, ideological fixations, and sheer incompetence are what have led us into our current knife-edge position, and are indirectly responsible for the deaths of the 30,000 innocent civilians who died because the occupying power decided - yes, consciously decided - to let mayhem rule. In this, Bush is responsible. He appointed Rumsfeld. And he has kept him on. I don't see how anyone can have much confidence in war-management until he is removed.

=====================
A PAIR OF QUIBBLES: A reader cites Albert Mohler as an example of a religious right leader who doesn't think that God intervenes directly to punish sin - via hurricane, for instance - and Andrew replies:

Mohler differs from Robertson in not seeing a specific weather event as God-induced. But he shares with him the notion that all bad things in the universe stem in part from human sin.

Well, of course he does - because that's one of the basic tenets of Christianity, no? Not that your sin or mine causes Hurricane Katrina, but that death and suffering are a result, ultimately, of the Fall of Man, and that this primordial catastrophe is responsible for the wounded quality of the world. It would be pretty odd if Mohler, or any Christian leader - Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, whatever - didn't think that human sin, understood generally, has a strong relationship to human suffering and death.

Also, I think that Andrew's last Malkin Award nominee - a pastor named Herbert Lusk who said, "my friends, don't fool with the church because the church has buried a million critics" - probably wasn't threatening to actually kill or do violence to his critics. It's a pretty commonplace piece of Christian rhetoric to point out that the faith has outlasted most of its critics over the last two thousand years, and that this is perhaps a sign of God's favor and ought to give would-be opponents pause. (Here's how Chesterton put this line of argument, rather more eloquently.) But I admit Lusk's comments are open to Andrew's interpretation as well.
posted by Ross
==============================
ISRAEL POLLING: Here's the best I can find:

Fully 44% of Americans believe that God gave the land that is now Israel to the Jewish people while a substantial minority (36%) thinks that "the state of Israel is a fulfillment of the biblical prophecy about the second coming of Jesus." White evangelical Protestants and, to a lesser degree, African-Americans accept both of these propositions. Significantly fewer white Catholics and mainline Protestants believe Israel was granted to the Jews by God or think that Israel represents a fulfillment of the Bible's prophecy of a second coming.

When a poll of all adults finds over a third holding the view that the state of Israel is fulfilling the prophecy of the imminent Second Coming, you can see that pre-millenarianism is not some fringe idea, touted by Robertson. It's fundamentalist orthodoxy. Robertson is cruel and tactless, and many evangelicals would agree. Their compassion forbids them from making personal attacks as Robertson does. But he didn't make up his theology. And it's mainstream.

- posted by Andrew.
===================
CORRUPTION AND CONSERVATISM: In one sense, the current bout of corruption in Washington is explicable enough: politicians, Democrat or Republican, who hold power long anough succumb to its temptations. But in another, it's a function of the degeneracy of Bush-DeLay conservatism. When conservatives have embraced big government, massive increases in spending, huge new entitlements, a blizzard of earmarks, and an increasingly complex tax code, they have merely increased the incentives for sleaze. As David Broder also points out, some states - Texas stands out, as do many other parts of the South - have a very long history of federal government largess, cronyism and back-door quid pro quos. All we're seeing is a shameless political culture being nationalized. That used to be LBJ's mojo. Now, it's DeLay's.
=====================
MOHLER AND ROBERTSON: I asked readers to prove me wrong about a major religious right leader dissenting from Pat Robertson's view that the End-Time will lead to a rapture of the faithful and destruction of the unfaithful; and that God intervenes directly in our lives ot punish sin. Here's Albert Mohler with a more nuanced position:

God created the world as the theater of His own glory. It is a world of great beauty and wonder; a world that allows crops to grow and provides everything that we physically need. Yet, it is also a world of terrible storms and natural disasters. In part, all this is the result of the devastating effects of human sin. As the Apostle Paul makes clear, the whole creation anticipates the redemption that is to come. But, as we experience the reality of weather after the Fall, we should not trace any particular weather pattern to contemporary human sins. Jesus explained that the rain falls on the just and the unjust. The weather is not fair.

Mohler differs from Robertson in not seeing a specific weather event as God-induced. But he shares with him the notion that all bad things in the universe stem in part from human sin.
- posted by Andrew.
==============
DIVIDING ISRAEL: A reader writes:

To quote David Barry, I swear, I am not making this up.

A few years ago, I was sitting in the galley of the Naval Training Center in Illinois. There was a television playing CNN headline news. The program gave the results of a poll about Americans' views regarding the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. I forget the exact numbers as to which side people supported, but what struck me was a second poll - if you support Israel, why? As I recall, the plurality said they supported Israel because of terrorism, but a pretty substantial majority said they supported Israel because of its "biblical claim to the land". Perhaps inadvertently, I scoffed slightly. Another sailor asked me what I was thinking, and when I told him, he said something to the effect of, "What's wrong with that? Unless you don't believe in the Bible ..."

Mr. Sullivan, I had a fairly decent Christian education. So I retorted something like, "Why do they have a claim? Because God promised the land to Abraham? Well, Abraham had 8 sons. Why are you going with the second son? Okay, fine, let's take Isaac. He had two sons - why do you give the whole land to the second son? Well, fine, let's take Jacob. There were 13 tribes of Israel (everyone forgets Levi) - why are you only counting Judah for the whole land? Surely Tel Aviv wasn't part of the original tribe of Judah. But, okay, let's take Judah. Well, didn't the Babylonian captivity pretty much end the Jewish claim to the land? Didn't Jesus say that he could raise children of Abraham from the stones, that being a child of Abraham didn't count for much?" The guy I was talking to paused for a second, then said, "Wow. You're gay, aren't you?"

Yes, I probably was playing a bit fast and loose with those biblical references. It was 5:30 am - what do you want from me?

I wonder if there is a poll out there explaining American attitudes toward Israel along these lines. Let me know.
--------------------------------
MANSFIELD ON THE EXECUTIVE: My former teacher is, as always, worth reading. The American executive is indeed designed to be able to act as a unitary actor in emergencies. War is such an emergency. Secrecy is, in part, essential in that function. The difficulty in our current moment, however, is that the emergency has been defined as permanent. And so instead of ceding extra-legal power to the executive in extremis, we are in danger of shifting the entire emphasis of government toward a routine executive power unrestrained by law. There is a balance we need to restore here - because this war is indeed different, in its longevity and involvement of American citizens. I see no reason why a revised FISA law wouldn't be a prudent response to this problem. Especially when we have a war-president deeply distrusted by around half the country.

ZYGOTES: More discussion over at the Corner. I think all we can say with absolute certainty is that a majority of zygotes never make it to become grown-ups. I call them "human beings" and "unborn children" because, according to natural law philosophy, that's what they are. To quote Robert P. George, the grandfather of theoconservatism:

A human being is conceived when a human sperm containing twenty-three chromosomes fuses with a human egg also containing twenty-three chromosomes (albeit of a different kind) producing a single cell human zygote containing, in the normal case, forty-six chromosomes that are mixed differently from the forty-six chromosomes as found in the mother or father.

All I'm doing to taking the arguments of the theocons and following their logic.
- posted by Andrew
=======================
OPEN SECRETS: I'd been meaning to reply to an exceedingly silly PowerLine post that strained to bolster Bush's claim that, somehow, national security was compromised by the revelation that the NSA was eavesdropping on them without warrants as well as with them. (As Frank Rich points out today, behind the Times' irrelevancy firewall, the Showtime drama Sleeper Cell beat the New York Times to the punch on this anyway.)

Fortunately, Glenn Greenwald has a quite thorough response posted already, so I can just reiterate the highlights:

• The notion that Osama bin Laden stopped using his sat phone because press accounts tipped him off that we could track it is probably bogus.
  
• The claim that it's "extremely unlikely" that al-Qaeda terrorists were aware of FISA until now because "few Americans knew anything about FISA before the current controversy arose" is, well, mindboggling. I guess it could be that they only just started reading the New York Times, but even ignoring the fact that FISA's been prominently discussed in the news since the early debates on the Patriot Act, it seems as though hardened terrorist might, you know, have somewhat more of a personal incentive to learn about American wiretap policy than the average Joe. Bush apologists need to make up their minds: Are these guys such a fiendishly clever and unique threat that they require massive expansion of executive power to defend against, or are they some sort of darkside Qeystone Qops so inept that disclosing the obvious gives them new information?
  
• It's similarly hard to imagine that terrorists had been previously counting on the by now hyper-debunked assumption that "it would take days, weeks or months to obtain a FISA order." If they were minimally attentive, they'd know that FISA allows law enforcement to initiate a tap immediately and then submit a retroactive request for authorization up to three days later.

• ===/oops 75% done, but gotta goh, van go============http://analysis.typepad.com/analysis/

• Paul Starr does his best Orwell impersonation

  "Unlike conservatives, we believe that the people can enlarge their freedom through the only power that they share in common, which is their government. Taxes are the price we pay for that expanded vision of freedom."

  Read the whole article here.