http://harpers.org/rss/index.xml A Harper's Magazine Weblog en-us Copyright Harper's Magazine Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:19:45 -0400 http://www.harpers.org/media/image/Harpers_305x100.gif http://harpers.org http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006509 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006509 Scott Horton Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:19:22 -0400 Few Washington developments in recent weeks establish the parameters of “change you can believe in” better than this: following the resignation of Phil Carter, the White House is reportedly prepared to tap William Lietzau as the new deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs. Lietzau served as an aide to William J. Haynes II, the David Addington protégé who was Donald Rumsfeld’s lawyer at the Pentagon. In this role, he played a central role in creating a harsh new environment for prisoners taken in the war on terror, including the crafting of rules for a military commission that were subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court. . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006505 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006505 Scott Horton Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:18:36 -0400 Andrew Sullivan addresses “The Guantánamo ‘Suicides’” in the Sunday Times: . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006504 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006504 Scott Horton Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:51:40 -0400 One of the great bugaboos of the Bush era was the notion of talking with the enemy. Once a group was defined as an enemy, even the mildest hint of a contact would meet with torrents of indignation. When the definition of the “enemy” went into soft focus, as various parties that might or might not have some ties to Al Qaeda were added, this approach was particularly troublesome. It made it difficult to divide and conquer—to peel off groups on the periphery in order to make the foe weaker and less stable. During the campaign, Barack Obama articulated this fairly obvious critique of Bush-era “War on Terror” policy, and his administration seemed set to pursue a more subtle approach. Talking with the enemy might be on the agenda. . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006458 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006458 Sun, 07 Feb 2010 07:06:03 -0400 Мороз и солнце; день чудесный! 
 Еще ты дремлешь, друг прелестный, 
 Пора, красавица, проснись: 
 Отркрой сомкнуты негой взоры 
 Навстречу северной Авроры, 
 Звездою севера явись! Вечор, ты помнишь, вьюга злилась, 
 На мутном небе мгла носилась; 
 Луна, как бледное пятно, 
 Сквозь тучи мрачные желтела, 
 И ты печальная сидела— 
 А нынче… погляди в окно: . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006460 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006460 Sat, 06 Feb 2010 07:56:56 -0400 The longer I live–especially now when I clearly feel the approach of death–the more I feel moved to express what I feel more strongly than anything else, and what in my opinion is of immense importance, namely, what we call the renunciation of all opposition by force, which really simply means the doctrine of the law of love unperverted by sophistries. Love, or in other words the striving of men’s souls towards unity and the submissive behaviour to one another that results therefrom, represents the highest and indeed the only law of life, as every man knows and feels in the depths of his heart (and as we see most clearly in children), and knows until he becomes involved in the lying net of worldly thoughts. This law was announced by all the philosophies–Indian as well as Chinese, and Jewish, Greek and Roman. Most clearly, I think, was it announced by Christ, who said explicitly that on it hang all the Law and the Prophets. More than that, foreseeing the distortion that has hindered its recognition and may always hinder it, he specially indicated the danger of a misrepresentation that presents itself to men living by worldly interests–namely, that they may claim a right to defend their interests by force or, as he expressed it, to repay blow by blow and recover stolen property by force, etc., etc. He knew, as all reasonable men must do, that any employment of force is incompatible with love as the highest law of life, and that as soon as the use of force appears permissible even in a single case, the law itself is immediately negatived. The whole of Christian civilization, outwardly so splendid, has grown up on this strange and flagrant–partly intentional but chiefly unconscious–misunderstanding and contradiction. At bottom, however, the law of love is, and can be, no longer valid if defence by force is set up beside it. And if once the law of love is not valid, then there remains no law except the right of might. In that state Christendom has lived for 1,900 years. Certainly men have always let themselves be guided by force as the main principle of their social order. The difference between the Christian and all other nations is only this: that in Christianity the law of love had been more clearly and definitely given than in any other religion, and that its adherents solemnly recognized it. Yet despite this they deemed the use of force to be permissible, and based their lives on violence–so that the life of the Christian nations presents a greater contradiction between what they believe and the principle on which their lives are built: a contradiction between love which should pre scribe the law of conduct, and the employment of force, recognized under various forms–such as governments, courts of justice, and armies, which are accepted as necessary and esteemed. This contradiction increased with the development of the spiritual life of Christianity and in recent years has reached the utmost tension. . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006487 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006487 Scott Horton Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:15:56 -0400 No wannabe totalitarian regime in the world is quite so ripe for ridicule as North Korea. I traveled there some years back and marveled over the Ryugyong Hotel, a 105-story monstrosity nicknamed the “hotel of doom.” Due to gross design and construction flaws, it’s sat unoccupied in downtown Pyongyang for two decades. It captures the regime perfectly: monolithic and impressive from a distance, laughable up close and fundamentally unhinged in concept, it teeters there awaiting the day when it is inevitably imploded to make space for something better attuned to reality. . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006490 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006490 Scott Horton Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:58:59 -0400 Jane Mayer’s feature on Attorney General Eric Holder is just up at the New Yorker website. She presents Holder as at the center of the controversy surrounding counterterrorism policy, under attack from Republicans close to Dick Cheney and relating with difficulty to a White House intent on appeasing Republican critics. Here’s a sample: . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006486 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006486 Scott Horton Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:51:31 -0400 Of special interest is the way Seton Hall meticulously unpacks the DOD claim about the “100 interviews” that supposedly refute the testimony in Harper’s Magazine. First, the timing is wrong: . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006466 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006466 Scott Horton Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:12:19 -0400 2. Do deaths in the context of confinement in prison raise any special concerns for a medical examiner conducting an autopsy? . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006485 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006485 Scott Horton Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:12:00 -0400 I continue to think that Syria might yet offer a platform for some fairly modest foreign policy advances for the Obama Administration in the Middle East. But that’s far from certain. Seymour Hersh offers some fascinating snippets from a long conversation with Syrian President Bashar Assad, including this one: . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006481 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006481 Scott Horton Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:12:01 -0400 The American political landscape is heavily populated with fake debates—hot-button issues designed to rile people up, but which are not likely to have any real impact on policy. One of the best examples of this in modern times is the fake rage over trying terrorists in federal courts and the procedures that followed the arrest of the “panty-bomber” Abdulmutallab. The simple fact is that the policies of the Bush and Obama Administrations have been essentially indistinguishable, and the rhetorical war is little more than political demagoguery. . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006476 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006476 Scott Horton Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:25:09 -0400 Location: Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C. Event Date: February 11, 2010 Event Time: 5:30–7:30 p.m. Speakers: Matthew Alexander, Richard Cizik, Elizabeth MacKenzie Biedell, Morton H. Halperin, Scott Horton . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006471 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006471 Scott Horton Wed, 03 Feb 2010 10:31:50 -0400 2. What specific arrangements were made for a secondary autopsy? Was the body sent directly there by the Americans, or was it transferred from Yemen first? . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006465 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006465 Scott Horton Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:27:34 -0400 This segment from CBS’s The Agency dramatizes the crossed wires that result from “stovepiping” national security operations, in which undercover agents from multiple agencies work to identify potential terrorists: . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006456 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/hbc-90006456 Scott Horton Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:14:15 -0400 Three developments last week show the growing gap between the Obama Administration and its NATO allies with respect to the legacy of torture from the Bush era. They also demonstrate that, contrary to Obama’s promises faithfully to uphold the Convention Against Torture and Geneva Conventions, his Justice Department has no intention of doing so when crimes from the Bush era are in question. This attitude is not going over well with key allies. . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006452 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006452 Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:37:15 -0400 Non havea Febo ancora recato al mondo il dì ch’una donzella fuora del proprio albergo uscì. . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006450 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006450 Sat, 30 Jan 2010 07:44:06 -0400 Io non posso negare che la fortuna e la milizia non fossero cagioni dell’imperio romano; ma e’ mi pare bene, che costoro non si avegghino, che, dove è buona milizia, conviene che sia buono ordine, e rade volte anco occorre che non vi sia buona fortuna. Ma vegnamo agli altri particulari di quella città. Io dico che coloro che dannono i tumulti intra i Nobili e la Plebe, mi pare che biasimino quelle cose che furono prima causa del tenere libera Roma; e che considerino più a’ romori ed alle grida che di tali tumulti nascevano, che a’ buoni effetti che quelli partorivano; e che e’ non considerino come e’ sono in ogni republica due umori diversi, quello del popolo, e quello de’ grandi; e come tutte le leggi che si fanno in favore della libertà, nascano dalla disunione loro, come facilmente si può vedere essere seguito in Roma; perché da’ Tarquinii ai Gracchi, che furano più di trecento anni, i tumulti di Roma rade volte partorivano esilio e radissime sangue. Né si possano per tanto, giudicare questi tomulti nocivi, né una republica divisa, che in tanto tempo per le sue differenzie non mandò in esilio più che otto o dieci cittadini, e ne ammazzò pochissimi, e non molti ancora ne condannò in danari. Né si può chiamare in alcun modo con ragione una republica inordinata, dove siano tanti esempli di virtù; perché li buoni esempli nascano dalla buona educazione, la buona educazione, dalle buone leggi; e le buone leggi, da quelli tumulti che molti inconsideratamente dannano: perché, chi esaminerà bene il fine d’essi, non troverrà ch’egli abbiano partorito alcuno esilio o violenza in disfavore del commune bene, ma leggi e ordini in beneficio della publica libertà… E i desiderii de’ popoli liberi rade volte sono perniziosi alla libertà, perché e’ nascono, o da essere oppressi, o da suspizione di avere ad essere oppressi. E quando queste opinioni fossero false e’ vi è il rimedio delle concioni, che surga qualche uomo da bene, che, orando, dimostri loro come ei s’ingannano: e li popoli, come dice Tullio, benché siano ignoranti, sono capaci della verità, e facilmente cedano, quando da uomo degno di fede è detto loro il vero. . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006440 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006440 Scott Horton Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:54:41 -0400 In February 2004, David J. Evans, a marine biologist and photographer, was engaged as part of a team working on the Pentagon’s Legacy Program, which documents the cultural and environmental aspects of Defense Department operations. His assignment was to survey and photograph the rich array of wildlife and vegetation at Guantánamo Naval Base. After publication of “The Guantánamo ‘Suicides,’” Evans contacted me. “I’ve seen the facility described in your article as ‘Camp No,’” he said, “and I can confirm that the description of its position and appearance is accurate.” . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006442 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006442 Scott Horton Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:18:51 -0400 Secretary of Defense Gates’s detentions-policy advisors see Guantánamo as old policy. The all-new, streamlined detentions policy goes by the name of Bagram. Looking over the new policies, there’s no doubt that they have gone some distance to satisfy their critics. But there is a serious question about the legality of the new detentions policy, and even whether it really meshes with counterinsurgency policy. Will it help win hearts and minds? Will it reinforce the legitimacy of the government in Kabul? . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006444 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006444 Scott Horton Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:40:27 -0400 In the United States, we’re all supposed to have forgotten that the narrative leading to the Iraq War was propelled by false facts and arguments, often in circumstances where the claim of good-faith error is difficult to sustain. We’re supposed to keep listening to political figures who made false claims, and utterly exonerate the media that allowed them to circulate and gain credibility. That’s the American approach: “look forward, not back.” . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006432 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006432 Scott Horton Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:15:13 -0400 In December 2007, John Kiriakou, a former senior CIA operative, made a series of public comments about the agency’s use of Bush-era torture techniques. In one interview, he described in detail how waterboarding was authorized. As he noted, the CIA agents wrote up a proposal, higher-ups in the agency cleared it, then the proposal was vetted by the Justice Department, and finally it went to the National Security Council in the White House, where it was approved again. His account validated speculation that the Justice Department was squarely in the middle of the process, giving its blessing to criminal acts, and that the White House gave the ultimate sanction. But then Kiriakou went on, in an appearance with ABC’s Brian Ross, to claim that waterboarding worked wonderfully. He claimed that terrorist Abu Zubaydah cracked after only one application of the technique. The statement was immediately heralded by torture advocates, such as Rush Limbaugh, as evidence that waterboarding had worked. . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006427 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006427 Scott Horton Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:43:44 -0400 Stephen J. Rapp was a U.S. attorney in Iowa from 1999 to 2001. He served as a senior war crimes prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and then became chief prosecutor for the Special Court for Sierra Leone. When I learned he had been tapped by President Obama as the Ambassador at Large for War Crimes, I was pleased. He seemed a worthy choice. But he’s off to an unconvincing start. . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006426 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006426 Scott Horton Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:45:24 -0400 A democratically elected president was confronted with a severe terrorist challenge. The peace and stability of his nation were threatened by terrorists, he argued, and extraordinary measures were justified. He authorized the use of torture techniques, created secret military tribunals to deal with some seized terrorists, and arranged to kidnap and assassinate others. . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006425 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006425 Scott Horton Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:30:29 -0400 Last week, the Department of Justice’s Inspector General issued a new report (PDF) looking at the FBI’s improper use of Exigent Letters to unlawfully secure phone records—prominently in connection with leak investigations targeting major newspapers. The report is remarkable for a number of reasons, but particularly because of the collusive relationship it describes between the federal government and the telecommunications industry. At this point, the attitude could be described simply: “You want ‘em, you got ‘em.” Never mind that turning over the documents may be a criminal act under both state and federal law. The Justice Department is not about to apply the law to themselves. Neither will they permit state law enforcement agencies to enforce their law. Here’s how Wired’s Ryan Singel puts it: . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006423 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006423 Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:28:33 -0400 Barbed wire enclosed an arbitrary spot Where bored officials lounged (one cracked a joke) And sentries sweated for the day was hot: A crowd of ordinary decent folk Watched from without and neither moved nor spoke As three pale figures were led forth and bound To three posts driven upright in the ground. . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006413 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006413 Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:19:13 -0400 Do not depend on the hope of results. When you are doing the sort of work you have taken on, essentially an apostolic work, you may have to face the fact that your work will be apparently worthless and even achieve no result at all, if not perhaps results opposite to what you expect. As you get used to this idea, you start more and more to concentrate not on the results but on the value, the rightness, the truth of the work itself. . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006418 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006418 Scott Horton Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:15:00 -0400 Former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen has a new mission: to convince the American electorate that we are less safe and secure today because Barack Obama won’t use the torture techniques, like waterboarding, that were embraced by his mentor, Dick Cheney. The radicality of Thiessen’s thesis is revealed by noting that under Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan (two Republican heavyweights), Americans were prosecuted for using the techniques he advocates. In a near food fight that erupted during an interview with Philippe Sands and Christine Amanpour on CNN, Thiessen’s romp starts with his misdescription of the Khmer Rouge’s use of waterboarding. He said it involves dunking heads in the water (a practice expressly approved by Cheney), but in fact it involved cloth over the face, doused with water—as shown in this photo of an exhibition from the Museum of the Atrocities of the Khmer Rouge in Phnom Penh—just like the CIA’s approach. He then shows he knows nothing about the Geneva Conventions by claiming that they do not apply to prisoners of war. Protection of POWs is in fact the major concern of the Third Geneva Convention, just as the Fourth Geneva Convention is focused on the protection of civilians during an occupation. All the Geneva Conventions contain a humanitarian baseline of protections available to everyone, including persons that the president labels as “unlawful enemy combatants.” . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006412 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006412 Scott Horton Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:47:54 -0400 The shorter Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission: . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006407 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006407 Scott Horton Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:20:12 -0400 Citing the Seton Hall report on the June 9, 2006 deaths, as well as “The Guantánamo ‘Suicides,’” the St. Louis Post Dispatch assesses the situation perfectly and draws exactly the right conclusions: . . . http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006395 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006395 Scott Horton Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:14:52 -0400 When a cover-up is exposed, nothing is more telling than the first reactions from those who are involved. Do they maintain their stories and face potentially aggravated consequences? Or do they simply remain silent? In making this choice, they often telegraph the depth of their anxiety and concern. . . .