Scott Johnson at Power-Line deservedly cites as definitive Andrew McCarthy’s column at NRO: Say “No” to the McCain Amendment, which eloquently, and unanswerably, concludes:

We should be asking this question of each and every member of Congress who claims to support the McCain Amendment: If we had credible information regarding an ongoing al Qaeda plot to detonate a nuclear weapon in the continental United States, and we had just taken into custody an al Qaeda militant who was in a position to know where and when the attack was to occur but who was refusing to cooperate, are you saying we would need to let thousands of Americans die rather than harm a hair on the terrorist’s head in an effort to extract the information that might save them?

If the answer to that question is “no,” you have no business voting for the McCain Amendment. If the answer is “yes,” you have no business serving in a government whose first obligation is the security of the governed.

The McCain Amendment will only increase intelligence demand and create a black market in interrogation astutely predicts Wretchard:

What the McCain Amendment will do is change the bean-counting rules. It will not create a framework in which real torture can be limited and stopped. That would require accepting moral responsibility for affirming practices which may be proscribed under the Geneva Conventions but fall short of real torture. That would mean explaining to the public that we are correspondingly determined to outlaw real, barbaric torture, even when by foreswearing it, public losses must be endured. Instead politicians will want to have it both ways and promise the public that they will neither soil their hands nor let the sleeping populace come to harm. No one who desires re-election can promise the voters only “blood, sweat and tears”. The time is long since past when politicians could say to a nation at war “death and sorrow will be the companion of our journey; hardship our garment; constancy and valor our only shield.” That’s too much of a drag. Today even our conflicts, like our food, must be untouched by human hands.

Jack Bauer, the indefatigable Counter-Terrorism agent played by Kiefer Sutherland in Fox Television’s popular prime time evening drama, is certainly headed for federal prosecution, and a long-stretch in federal prison, under the terms of the soon-to-be-adopted McCain Amendment banning cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of any individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location.

Season after season, as the clock ticks away, bringing the bad guys’ nefarious plots closer to completion, and innocent victims (frequently including Jack Bauer’s own loved ones) closer to horrible death, Jack inevitably turns outlaw, defying orders, breaking the rules, and proceeding time after time to abusive interrogation techniques, as the television audience nods in approval.

I’ve only watched a handful of episodes of 24, but the plots from one season to another seemed very similar. On one occasion, Jack forces the bad guy to talk by shooting him in the leg. In another episode, Jack kidnaps the villain right out of confinement in Counter Terrorist Unit Headquarters, drags him out into the building’s parking lot, handcuffs him to a steering wheel, and sets to work (off camera) breaking his fingers one by one.

Strong measures certainly, but Jack has his reasons. One season, he’s preventing the explosion of a nuclear warhead over Los Angeles. In others, he’s stopping the assassination of a major party presidential candidate and a Defense Secretary, and he is always saving the lives of innocent women and children.

The plots of this television series throw a lot of light on the way our society characteristically approaches moral dilemmas. We are naturally against bad things like torture, and we want there to be systems and rules prohibiting anything so cruel and unpleasant to contemplate as coercive interrogation. But we also want those in charge of protecting us to break all the rules and go outside all the systems in really serious circumstances when society’s existence or serious numbers of innocent lives are at stake. We insist that we be lied to, so that we can kid ourselves about realities too unpleasant to think about. We will reliably codify and institutionalize hypocrisy. And we don’t mind jeopardizing the real-life Jack Bauers out there, just so we can participate in a momentary gesture that makes us feel good about ourselves.

Republican Party video . (Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.)

Today at Elemendorf Air Force Base, the president concluded his speech:

Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war, but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people. Leaders in my administration and members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence on Iraq, and reached the same conclusion: Saddam Hussein was a threat.

Let me give you some quotes from three senior Democrat leaders: First, and I quote, “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons.” Another senior Democrat leader said, “The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.” Here’s another quote from a senior Democrat leader: “Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion.”

They spoke the truth then, and they’re speaking politics now. (Applause.)

Peter Lushing of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law discusses, and rejects, claims that the Graham Amendment, denying habeas review to War on Terrorism detainees held prisoner by US forces outside the territorial boundaries of the United States, constitutes a possible violation of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2:

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.

to put it in the language of talk radio, the guys in the powdered wigs would have flipped over the idea that habeas extends to foreigners we are in combat with who have been captured and are being held by us abroad.

Tigerhawk (an Iowa Princetonian) notes that:

When a democratic nation is at war, there are inevitably those who will object to the way in which the war is being fought, or that it is being fought at all. If the war is manifestly for the country’s survival or otherwise of great moment, the objectors will be so marginalized that they and their arguments will have no effect on the politics of the country, the morale of its military, or the tactics of the enemy. Dissent can, however, have an enormous impact on the means by which a democracy wages a limited war, the persistence with which it wages the war, or whether it wages the war at all.

And proceeds to consider:

the objectives of domestic dissent to limited wars, the impact of anti-war dissent on the means of fighting the war and the morale of the soldiers at arms, the different types of anti-war dissent and, finally, whether some objectives and types of dissent are more moral than others.

Posted on FREE REPUBLIC by Infantry Marine, who asks that it be passed along:

Hello to all my fellow gunners, military buffs, veterans and interested guys. A couple of weekends ago I got to spend time with my son Jordan, who was on his first leave since returning from Iraq. He is well (a little thin), and already bored. He will be returning to Iraq for a second tour in early ’06 and has already re-enlisted early for 4 more years. He loves the Marine Corps and is actually looking forward to returning to Iraq.

Jordan spent 7 months at “Camp Blue Diamond” in Ramadi. Aka: Fort Apache. He saw and did a lot and the following is what he told me about weapons, equipment, tactics and other miscellaneous info which may be of interest to you. Nothing is by any means classified. No politics here, just a Marine with a bird’s eye view’s opinions:

1) The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. Jordan says you feel filthy 2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it’s lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also. They like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the Picatinny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cant be reliably counted on to put the enemy down. Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate use.

2) The M243 (sic: should be 249, possible error caused by OCR? -JDZ) SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light machine gun. Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of shit. Chronic jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly. (that’s fun in the middle of a firefight).

3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys hit multiple times and still in the fight.

4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well, used frequently for clearing houses to good effect.

5) The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 NATO (.308) cal. belt fed machine gun, developed to replace the old M-60 (what a beautiful weapon that was!!). Thumbs up. Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts ’em down. Originally developed as a vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the structure over there.

6) The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. “Ma deuce” is still worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight stopper, puts them in the dirt every time. The most coveted weapon in-theater.

7) The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there.

Everybody authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few exceptions, can reliably be expected to put ’em down with a torso hit. The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The old government model .45’s are being re-issued en masse.

8) The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and they love the 7.62 round.

9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and accuracy and hits like a freight train. Frequently used to take out vehicle suicide bombers (we actually stop a lot of them) & barricaded enemy. Definitely here to stay.

10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in .308 but some in 300 win mag. Heavily modified Remington 700’s. Great performance. Snipers have been used heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a marine sniper on his third tour in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcock’s record for confirmed kills with OVER 100.

11) The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approx. 6 lbs. and can reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even will stop an AK-47 round. The bad news: Hot as shit to wear, almost unbearable in the summer heat (which averages over 120 degrees). Also, the enemy now goes for head shots whenever possible. All the BS about the “old” body armor making our guys vulnerable to the IED’s was a non-starter. The IED explosions are enormous and body armor doesn’t make any difference at all in most cases.

12) Night Vision and Infrared Equipment: Thumbs way up. Spectacular performance. Our guys see in the dark and own the night, period. Very little enemy action after evening prayers. More and more enemy being whacked at night during movement by our hunter-killer teams. We’ve all seen the videos.

13) Lights: Thumbs up. Most of the weapon mounted and personal lights are Surefire’s, and the troops love ’em. Invaluable for night urban operations. Jordan carried a $34 Surefire G2 on a neck lanyard and loved it. I cant help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and ordnance are 50 or more years old!!! With all our technology, it’s the WWII and Vietnam era weapons that everybody wants!!! The infantry fighting is frequent, up close and brutal. No quarter is given or shown.

Bad guy weapons:

1) Mostly AK47’s . The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the desert than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably. PKM belt fed light machine guns are also common and effective. Luckily, the enemy mostly shoots like shit. Undisciplined “spray and pray” type fire. However, they are seeing more and more precision weapons, especially sniper rifles. (Iran, again) Fun fact: Captured enemy have apparently marveled at the marksmanship of our guys and how hard they fight. They are apparently told in Jihad school that the Americans rely solely on technology, and can be easily beaten in close quarters combat for their lack of toughness. Let’s just say they know better now.

2) The RPG: Probably the infantry weapon most feared by our guys. Simple, reliable & as common as dogshit. The enemy responded to our up-armored Humvees by aiming at the windshields, often at point blank range. Still killing a lot of our guys.

3) The IED: The biggest killer of all. Can be anything from old Soviet anti-armor mines to jury rigged artillery shells. A lot found in Jordan’s area were in abandoned cars. The enemy would take 2 or 3 155mm artillery shells and wire them together. Most were detonated by cell phone, and the explosions are enormous. You’re not safe in any vehicle, even an M1 tank. Driving is by far the most dangerous thing our guys do over there. Lately, they are much more sophisticated “shape charges” (Iranian) specifically designed to penetrate armor. Fact: Most of the ready made IED’s are supplied by Iran, who is also providing terrorists (Hezbollah types) to train the insurgents in their use and tactics. That’s why the attacks have been so deadly lately. Their concealment methods are ingenious, the latest being shape charges in Styrofoam containers spray painted to look like the cinderblocks that litter all Iraqi roads. We find about 40% before they detonate, and the bomb disposal guys are unsung heroes of this war.

4) Mortars and rockets: Very prevalent. The Soviet era 122mm rockets (with an 18km range) are becoming more prevalent. One of Jordan’s NCO’s lost a leg to one. These weapons cause a lot of damage “inside the wire”. Jordan’s base was hit almost daily his entire time there by mortar and rocket fire, often at night to disrupt sleep patterns and cause fatigue (It did). More of a psychological weapon than anything else. The enemy mortar teams would jump out of vehicles, fire a few rounds, and then haul ass in a matter of seconds.

5) Bad guy technology: Simple yet effective. Most communication is by cell and satellite phones, and also by email on laptops. They use handheld GPS units for navigation and “Google earth” for overhead views of our positions. Their weapons are good, if not fancy, and prevalent. Their explosives and bomb technology is TOP OF THE LINE. Night vision is rare. They are very careless with their equipment and the captured GPS units and laptops are treasure troves of Intel when captured.

Who are the bad guys?:

Most of the carnage is caused by the Zarqawi Al Qaeda group. They operate mostly in Anbar province (Fallujah and Ramadi). These are mostly “foreigners”, non-Iraqi Sunni Arab Jihadists from all over the Muslim world (and Europe). Most enter Iraq through Syria (with, of course, the knowledge and complicity of the Syrian govt.) , and then travel down the “rat line” which is the trail of towns along the Euphrates River that we’ve been hitting hard for the last few months. Some are virtually untrained young Jihadists that often end up as suicide bombers or in “sacrifice squads”. Most, however, are hard core terrorists from all the usual suspects (Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas etc.) These are the guys running around murdering civilians en masse and cutting heads off. The Chechens (many of whom are Caucasian), are supposedly the most ruthless and the best fighters. (they have been fighting the Russians for years). In the Baghdad area and south, most of the insurgents are Iranian inspired (and led) Iraqi Shiites. The Iranian Shi’a have been very adept at infiltrating the Iraqi local govts, the police forces and the Army. The have had a massive spy and agitator network there since the Iran-Iraq war in the early 80’s. Most of the Saddam loyalists were killed, captured or gave up long ago.

Bad Guy Tactics:

When they are engaged on an infantry level they get their asses kicked every time. Brave, but stupid. Suicidal Banzai-type charges were very common earlier in the war and still occur. They will literally sacrifice 8-10 man teams in suicide squads by sending them screaming and firing AKs and RPGs directly at our bases just to probe the defenses. They get mowed down like grass every time. ( see the M2 and M240 above). Jordan’s base was hit like this often. When engaged, they have a tendency to flee to the same building, probably for what they think will be a glorious last stand. Instead, we call in air and that’s the end of that more often than not. These hole-ups are referred to as Alpha Whiskey Romeo’s (Allah’s Waiting Room). We have the laser guided ground-air thing down to a science. The fast movers, mostly Marine F-18’s, are taking an ever increasing toll on the enemy. When caught out in the open, the helicopter gunships and AC-130 Spectre gunships cut them to ribbons with cannon and rocket fire, especially at night. Interestingly, artillery is hardly used at all. The enemy death toll is supposedly between 45-50 thousand. That is why we’re seeing less and less infantry attacks and more IED, suicide bomber s***.

The new strategy is simple: attrition.

The insurgent tactic most frustrating is their use of civilian non-combatants as cover. They know we do all we can to avoid civilian casualties and therefore schools, hospitals and (especially) Mosques are locations where they meet, stage for attacks, cache weapons and ammo and flee to when engaged. They have absolutely no regard whatsoever for civilian casualties. They will terrorize locals and murder without hesitation anyone believed to be sympathetic to the Americans or the new Iraqi govt. Kidnapping of family members (especially children) is common to influence people they are trying to influence but cant reach, such as local govt. officials, clerics, tribal leaders, etc.). The first thing our guys are told is “don’t get captured”. They know that if captured they will be tortured and beheaded on the internet. Zarqawi openly offers bounties for anyone who brings him a live American serviceman. This motivates the criminal element who otherwise don’t give a shit about the war. A lot of the beheading victims were actually kidnapped by common criminals and sold to Zarqawi. As such, for our guys, every fight is to the death. Surrender is not an option.

The Iraqis are a mixed bag. Some fight well, others aren’t worth a s***. Most do okay with American support. Finding leaders is hard, but they are getting better. It is widely viewed that Zarqawi’s use of suicide bombers, en masse, against the civilian population was a serious tactical mistake. Many Iraqi’s were galvanized and the caliber of recruits in the Army and the police forces went up, along with their motivation. It also led to an exponential increase in good intel because the Iraqi’s are sick of the insurgent attacks against civilians. The Kurds are solidly pro-American and fearless fighters.

According to Jordan, morale among our guys is very high. They not only believe they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted. They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see shit like “Are we losing in Iraq” on TV and the print media. For the most part, they are satisfied with their equipment, food and leadership. Bottom line though, and they all say this, there are not enough guys there to drive the final stake through the heart of the insurgency, primarily because there aren’t enough troops in-theater to shut down the borders with Iran and Syria. The Iranians and the Syrians just can’t stand the thought of Iraq being an American ally (with, of course, permanent US bases there).

Anyway guys, that’s it, hope you found it interesting, I sure did.

Paul Mirengoff at Power-Line remarks:

A society that errs on the side of protecting people who are out to destroy it may not have a death wish, but it’s got the next worst thing which, in consequential terms, may be just as bad.

From The Corner on NRO:

As I said, I’m sympathetic to the idea of banning torture (much more so than I was a few years ago, I might add). But there’s something else that bothers me about the pro-McCain argumentation. It’s on display in this post by Andrew Sullivan. He cites Derb’s (excellent) column against torture favorably. In particular he highlights Singapore’s abuse of of a dissident. He then says:

“Those techniques – of freezing or heating detainees into despair or pain or psychological collapse – have now become part of the U.S. government’s armory. This must end. We can win this war without destroying the very civilization we are fighting for. We can win without losing our soul. Any other kind of victory is a euphemism for defeat.”
Now, just to be clear I am not taking the contrary position that we must or should use these techniques. But there are a lot of stolen bases built into Andrew’s conclusion. First, there’s the ahistorical problem I mentioned earlier. Can we stipulate that during the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War One, World War Two, Vietnam etc that Americans committed some truly horrible deeds in the process of fighting those wars? John McCain’s hero — Teddy Roosevelt — applauded tactics in the Phillipines that Andrew would no doubt condemn. Did we “destroy” our civilization then? Did we “lose our soul”?

The argument that using horrible tactics will cost us everything is predicated on the assumption that such tactics have never been used. For if torture costs us our soul and destroys our civilization, how is it that we have a soul or a civilization to lose at this late date to begin with? These tactics may cause individuals — like Andrew — to lose faith in our civilization or its soul, but it is not up to him to declare such things null and void if we go another way.

Wretchard at The Belmont Club on the McCain Amendment (text here).

Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) is introducing an Amendment to the defense appropriations bill pending in the Senate (S. 1042) that would strip those designated by the Administration as enemy combatants of the ability to seek habeas review in federal courts.

This amendment is being proposed in response to the preposterous Rasul et. al. v. Bush Supreme Court ruling which for the first time in history asserted court jurisdiction over aliens detained beyond the sovereign territory of the United States and beyond the territorial jurisdiction of its courts.

In what should have been treated as the determinative precedent case, Johnson v. Eisentrager, Mr. Justice Jackson observed;

“To grant the writ to these prisoners might mean that our army must transport them across the seas for hearing. This would require allocation for shipping space, guarding personnel, billeting and rations. It might also require transportation for whatever witnesses the prisoners desired to call as well as transportation for those necessary to defend legality of the sentence. The writ, since it is held to be a matter of right, would be equally available to enemies during active hostilities as in the present twilight between war and peace. Such trials would hamper the war effort and bring aid and comfort to the enemy. They would diminish the prestige of our commanders, not only with enemies but with wavering neutrals. It would be difficult to devise more effective fettering of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he is ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his own civil courts and divert his efforts and attention from the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home. Nor is it unlikely that the result of such enemy litigiousness would be conflict between judicial and military opinion highly comforting to enemies of the United States.” 339 U.S., at 778—779.

The bed-wetting Left is organizing in opposition. The soi disant Center for Constitutional Rights is urging left-wing blogs to start beating on their tom toms over this. The least we can do is to mobilize in support.

Contact especially wavering RINOs like:

Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI) (202) 224-2921
Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) (202) 224-5344
Susan Collins (R-Maine) (202) 224-2523
Pete Domenici (R-NM) (202) 224-6621
Arlen Specter (R-Pa) (202) 224-4254
Mike Dewine (R-Oh) (202) 224-2315
Sam Brownback (R- KS) (202) 224-6521

and Florida democrat

Bill Nelson (D-Fl) (202) 224-5274

all of whom are specifically targeted by the left as potential sellouts on this one.

———–

UPDATE: Senate votes 49-42 in favor of Graham Amendment.

Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Pete Domenici (R-NM)
Mike Dewine (R-Oh)
Sam Brownback (R- KS)

4 out of 7 of the above list voted in favor.

The allegation that Bush lied about WMDs in order to create a pretext for war in Iraq originated in the fever swamps of the radical left, but (like the absurd allegations of two stolen presidential elections) has gradually over time become accepted as fact among an embarassingly large portion of mainstream liberals. The invaluable Power Line blog links Daffyd ab Hugh‘s analysis of the mainstream media’s distortions with a compilation of a portion of the evidence of the existence of Iraqi WMDS.

Unlike my liberal friends, I’ve read a couple of recently published memoirs of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the accounts of US soldiers and marines make it very clear that many of the Iraqi soldiers they encountered unquestionably believed in the existence, and probable imminent use, of Iraqi WMDs, and were quite terrified of the possibility of finding themselves within the impact zones of WMDs targeted at Coalition forces.