May 2009 Archives


 
 










Want this badge?

The 279th Christian Carnival is coming Wednesday at Participatory Bible Study Blog. The Christian Carnival is a weekly collection of some of the best posts of the Christian blogosphere. It's open to Christians of Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic convictions. One of the goals of this carnival is to offer our readers to a broad range of Christian thought. This is a great way to make your writing more well known and perhaps pick up some regular readers. For examples of past carnivals, see the Christian Carnival archive.
 
To enter is simple. First, your post should be of a Christian nature, but this does not exclude posts that are about home life, politics, or current events from a Christian point of view. Select only one post dated since the last Christian Carnival (i.e. from the last Wednesday through the coming Tuesday). Then do the following:

A Few Quick Notes

| | Comments (0)

1. I've been extremely busy. I'm teaching two summer classes and barely keeping up with them. Plus the kids have been sick, meaning some have been home and in need of more attention than normal. So I haven't had time to do much blogging. But I've got a few things I've been thinking about that I did manage to put in Facebook updates, which I might as well put here in lieu of anything that will take more time than I have.

2. Remember when Rosie O'Donnell outrageously called it a separation of church and state for President Bush to take the religious identification on the Supreme Court from three to give Catholics, making Catholic justices the majority? I just thought it was worth noticing that President Obama has nominated another self-identified Roman Catholic to replace another Protestant, and I've yet to hear any similar claims from Rosie O'Donnell (although I did hear that Christopher Hitchens is being consistent on this by finding it grave and troubling).

3. I heard a strange NPR story on the dangers of fracking. It took a little listening to discover that they meant this. It was hard to listen with a straight face. I don't know how the reporter got through it.

4. The Supreme Court could rule as early as Monday on a case Judge Sotomayor was involved in that could lead to some real fodder for criticism in her hearing. SCOTUSBlog has an excellent presentation of the issue and how it might go.

5. Once I get a breather I intend to look closely at some of the Sotomayor stuff that SCOTUSBlog has been posting since before her nomination even occurred. I haven't had time to comment on her nomination, but I'm not sure I would even know what to say just yet. Her actual opinions are kind of important, and most criticism so far has not focused on them but on some political speeches and interviews she's given.


        Want this badge?

The 278th Christian Carnival is coming Wednesday at Chasing the Wind. The Christian Carnival is a weekly collection of some of the best posts of the Christian blogosphere. It's open to Christians of Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic convictions. One of the goals of this carnival is to offer our readers to a broad range of Christian thought. This is a great way to make your writing more well known and perhaps pick up some regular readers. For examples of past carnivals, see the Christian Carnival archive.
 
To enter is simple. First, your post should be of a Christian nature, but this does not exclude posts that are about home life, politics, or current events from a Christian point of view. Select only one post dated since the last Christian Carnival (i.e. from the last Wednesday through the coming Tuesday). Then do the following:

Not really, but that's what Mother Jones wants you to believe. With "Supreme Court Upholds Pension Gender Gap" as a headline, they want to send the signal that the Supreme Court has considered the existence of a gender gap in who receives how much of a pension and deemed it just fine. That suggests the view that what the Supreme Court is about is results. We should evaluate them according to whether they decided cases that give us the right results. Several justices on the Supreme Court might be happy about such a description, but I'm sure that at least four of the seven justices in the majority in this decision would not, and I'd guess that most or all of the other justices would not approve of such a description (even if I happen to think it's true of some of them).

If you read the article, it actually undoes a lot of the damage from the headline. Authors of op-eds don't usually choose their own headlines, and I'm guessing that's what happened here, so I'm not blaming the author, whose article is largely accurate and doesn't really spin the facts too significantly. The issue before the court involved a 1978 law that makes it illegal to discriminate against women who take maternity leave when counting pension benefits, because standard practice at the time was not to count maternity leaves as time served when calculating how many years someone worked for the company. That law counted such a practice as discrimination, and it made it illegal to ignore the time a woman was not working if the reason was maternity leave.

The issue before the court was whether a maternity leave that occurred before that law was passed was similarly affected. The majority ruled 7-2 that the law was not retroactive, and thus when it was passed it did not suddenly pass on the features of future maternity leaves to past ones. In other words, it is not illegal now not to count the maternity leaves before this practice counted as discriminatory, but it is illegal now not to count the maternity leaves after the laws was passed.

So the majority ruled in this case that the law that makes this kind of discrimination illegal wasn't a retroactive law, i.e. it didn't make what people had done before the law was passed suddenly criminal when it had been legal before that. It also treated the discrimination the law prevents as occurring when the maternity leave was taken, not when the pension benefits are calculated. I haven't had time to research the law itself or the claims of either side in how to interpret it. I'm certainly open to Justice Ginsburg's dissenting argument that the majority interpreted the law wrongly. In fact, I'd probably lean that way just from what I've read in several accounts. I'd be a little surprised if the law was narrowly about how a company counts maternity leaves at the time they occur rather than about how a company should count previous ones when it calculates benefits much later. So if I had to guess my view on the legal question, I'd predict that I'd have strong inclinations to hear out Justice Ginsburg's argument, since it seems more likely to be correct from what I've seen.

This isn't to say that I agree with that as a policy matter. There are two kinds of fairness at odds here, fairness of outcome and fairness of granting someone credit only for what they contribute to the company. If you begin with a socialist conception of justice, you would consider any inequality of outcome to be unfair and immoral. On the other hand, a libertarian conception of justice would consider such a view to amount to stealing from those who actually contributed to the company for all the hours being counted in their favor. It may be unfair on one level that women can't help having to take time off from work for maternity leave, but it's also unfair on a differently level to count that time as work time when someone else actually put in more time working for the company and didn't get to have time off count. One might see that as discriminating in favor of women who take maternity leave against those who don't (including women and men). If all you care about is the just result, your views on such matters will enter in to the calculation of whether this outcome is just. One can take either view on that matter and still decide this case either way. (And I want to say that those views aren't mutually exclusive. You might think both kinds of justice are morally important. I in fact do, and I'm not sure how I'd sort that out in this kind of case. I would be open to being convinced by policy arguments either way if I were in Congress debating such a law.)

If the justices were using such considerations, I think a stronger case could be made that they simply upheld the gender gap. But the reasoning they actually gave was about legal matters. As I said, I might actually lean in the opposite direction on those legal matters (even if as a policy matter I think a case can be made either way in terms of whether we should have such a law to begin with). Nevertheless, it strikes me as strongly misleading to say this decision upholds the pension gender gap, for several reasons.


ChristianCarnivalRed150.gif

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The 277th Christian Carnival: Boston Edition is up at Boston Bible Geeks.

Jack Goldsmith has a very interesting piece in The New Republic comparing the Bush Administration and Obama Administration on carrying out the war on terrorism. Generally speaking, the Obama Administration has tweaked and modified a few things on a not-very-significant level. There have been a few major denouncements of things the Bush Administration hadn't done for a few years but was still defending as right. There have been a few minor adjustments. But on each separate item among the 11 policy planks Goldsmith has identified, the changes aren't much, and in some cases Obama has increased things Bush was criticized for. Here is his summary of the effects: obama_late_bush

Its changes to Bush practices thus far--cutting back on secret detentions, probable new restrictions on interrogation, and relatively small procedural changes to military commissions--will leave some suspected terrorists in a better place than they would have been under the Bush regime (although Obama's increase in targeted killings will likely result in more deaths and injuries, without due process, to terror suspects and innocent civilians). Even with these caveats, at the end of the day, Obama practices will be much closer to late Bush practices than almost anyone expected in January 2009.
I'm not sure I'd say no one would would have predicted it. I know of at least one person who voted for Obama in part because he thought McCain was going to go further than Bush did while Obama was presenting foreign policy views closer to Bush's. I remember reading several conservative bloggers saying that Obama was criticizing things that he'd eventually realize were good and right once he got into office (or less charitably that he knew full well that what he was criticizing was fine and was shooting himself in the foot for political gain). That kind of prediction does seem apt at least in terms of accurately predicting what Obama would do.

But Goldsmith is spinning this in a way that I don't think is very fair. He contrasts what he's saying with Dick Cheney's alarmism about the changes Obama has implemented. I'm not entirely sure the things Cheney is criticizing are the same kinds of things Goldsmith is highlighting. Most of the things I've heard him talking about were either one-time events or initial policy positions that Obama has gone back on, whereas Goldsmith is concerned about long-term impact from policies going forward from this point on. Cheney has criticized the release of the interrogation memos, saying that it would endanger our troops. Obama seems to have taken the same attitude now about some related issues. Cheney has criticized the talk of prosecuting Bush Administration lawyers who wrote the controversial interrogation memos. The Obama Justice Department has certainly taken their time to indicate that they don't seem interested in such prosecutions.

Cheney does list the terrorist surveillance program as one change, and I can't see how that's changed. At least the wireless surveillance program that Obama had mixed feelings about before he was president hasn't changed since he's taken office, and he's explicitly said that it would continue. So I'm not sure what Cheney is referring to on that one. But most of what Cheney is saying is fully compatible with most of what Goldsmith says.

There's a lot of fascinating analysis in Goldsmith's article, and I encourage you to read the whole thing, especially the last two pages. I think his biggest omission, though, has to do with a lack of context. There's plenty of foreign policy context, but there's no acknowledgment of the fact that Obama's continuation of heightened executive powers does not occur in a vacuum when it comes to heightened executive powers in other policy matters. This is the same president who has expanded the federal government more than any other president has done, all under the banner of responding to an emergency that the legislation in question had little to do with. It's the same administration that in effect gave itself the power to fire chief executives of corporations for behaving in a way that isn't conducive to its view of economic growth. Perhaps the most defining feature of the Obama Administration to this point has been its tendency to grab power in unprecedented and highly-unexpected ways. This is also a president whose past influence includes the community-organizing ideology that makes all political change boil down to power, and even though he concluded from his experience that community organizing doesn't achieve those goals very well, it's quite plausible that he still maintains those goals (and the way he talks about justice seems to indicate that he still maintains the socialist theory of justice from that Marxian power-based ideology). It's very hard for me to see his maintenance of higher levels of presidential power outside the context of his significant increases to presidential power in other areas.



The 277th Christian Carnival is coming Wednesday at my second-cousin Danny Pierce's blog Boston Bible Geeks. The Christian Carnival is a weekly collection of some of the best posts of the Christian blogosphere. It's open to Christians of Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic convictions. One of the goals of this carnival is to offer our readers to a broad range of Christian thought. This is a great way to make your writing more well known and perhaps pick up some regular readers. For examples of past carnivals, see the Christian Carnival archive.
 
To enter is simple. First, your post should be of a Christian nature, but this does not exclude posts that are about home life, politics, or current events from a Christian point of view. Select only one post dated since the last Christian Carnival (i.e. from the last Wednesday through the coming Tuesday). Then do the following:

Two prostitutes appear before Solomon, disputing over who was the mother of a certain child and who was the mother over the child who had died. There were no witnesses, so it was one's word against the other's. Solomon orders a sword brought in and commands his soldiers to divide the child in two to give half to each. The mother offers to give her child to the other woman, and the other woman says to kill the child so neither would have a baby.

I've never encountered anyone who thinks Solomon ever meant to kill the child. He expected that his bluff would reveal the mother, and it did. But it was a bluff nonetheless. This incident is held up by the narrator as an example of Solomon's great wisdom.

It never occurred to me before, but this passage has some striking similarities to passages where God desires to bring a certain response out of someone and says he'll do something but then goes back on it when a human being responds a certain way to what God says. For example, he says he'll destroy Israel and rebuild it from Moses in the aftermath of the golden calf incident, but when Moses intercedes on behalf of Israel God relents. He tells Hezekiah of his impending death, and Hezekiah's response brings extra years.

A common open theistic interpretation of such passages holds that God is not serious in his original statement if he never intended to do what he says. If God had known all along that Moses would respond as he did, then the passage doesn't seem to the open theist who makes this objection as if God's statement has the seriousness of what it actually says. It strikes me that the parallel passage of Solomon in his divinely-given wisdom, by the same reasoning, must have actually intended to cut the child in two. But I've never actually encountered anyone claiming this. It was a bluff. He didn't have divine insight that would guarantee his knowledge of how these two prostitutes would respond to his bluff, but he was wise enough to anticipate that this might be an effective way to decide the case.

So why couldn't God be doing the same thing but with infallible access to how people will respond, thus engaging in a similar bluff but one that God knows will not be called? Knowing how Moses would respond, God brought out exactly the response in Moses that occurred. If this is supposed to be somehow deceptive or immoral in some other way, as I think open theists who make this argument are saying of the traditional interpretation of these passages, then I think you have to say by the same reasoning that Solomon was being similarly immoral.

Now it's fine to say that Solomon was being immoral here, but it's difficult to make that claim if you want to hold up the moral teaching of the scriptures as divinely-inspired, since the narrator does seem to endorse Solomon's move as wise. That doesn't mean we who aren't as wise and don't have as much insight into people's character should always do the same thing in similar circumstances, but it does mean there's nothing wrong with someone sufficiently wise doing what Solomon does, and thus when God does it it's also not wrong. So you don't have to think God didn't know for sure what Moses would do.


 
 










Want this badge?

The 276th Christian Carnival is up at Thoughts and Confessions of a Girl Who Loves Jesus.

A caller on the Diane Rehm show on NPR yesterday gave an argument for why we need to go public with health care. Insurance companies that are motivated by profit will try to avoid giving people what they're obligated to give, so we need to prevent that by having insurance handled by those who have no such profit motive.

Some insurance companies do indeed function that way. Is that a reason to go public? We've had some pretty significant interaction with public health insurance for several years now, and they do the same thing. So it certainly isn't going to be any better on that score. Our Medicaid Services Coordinator for the boys' disability services says she's heard from people who have worked for Medicaid that they're told to try to find excuses to take so long with people's applications that they just give up. They tried to count my one intensive month of income during a summer course as if it was the rate of pay I get for the whole year, an error that I find very hard to attribute to carelessness during a time when the governor of New York has been trying to cut expenses of as many essential services as he can while ignoring all manner of worthless costs, and Medicaid and disability services were explicitly on the list of services getting cuts.

So the public health insurance does the same thing as some of the private companies who have a profit motive. Does that mean they're on par? I don't actually think so. The difference is that smart insurance companies know that such shadiness is actually not going to produce better profits in the long run, whereas government beaurocracy has no limits to its unfriendliness and unwillingness to help people, precisely because there's no profit motive to do so. I've been on the receiving end of that too many times to count, whereas insurance companies often bend over backwards to stay in your good graces so you won't find a competitor with better services.

So whatever arguments there may be for and against public health insurance, I don't see how this consideration should favor it.


        Want this badge?

The 276th Christian Carnival is coming Wednesday at Thoughts and Confessions of a Girl Who Loves Jesus. The Christian Carnival is a weekly collection of some of the best posts of the Christian blogosphere. It's open to Christians of Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic convictions. One of the goals of this carnival is to offer our readers to a broad range of Christian thought. This is a great way to make your writing more well known and perhaps pick up some regular readers. For examples of past carnivals, see the Christian Carnival archive.
 
To enter is simple. First, your post should be of a Christian nature, but this does not exclude posts that are about home life, politics, or current events from a Christian point of view. Select only one post dated since the last Christian Carnival (i.e. from the last Wednesday through the coming Tuesday). Then do the following:

NLT thoughts

| | Comments (6)
I've spent some time in recent weeks reading parts of the 2nd edition of the New Living Translation of the Bible. See my Review of Bible Translations for more information about the translations and terminology I use in this post, along with background about translation philosophy and a discussion of what I like about the NLT and what its editors intended it to be. Several features of the NLT have begun to annoy me about how it does things that I don't think I've blogged about before. Some of these are more objectively problematic than others, but I thought it would be worth recording my thoughts on them.

In the Corinthian letters, Achaia becomes Greece. At first I was a little puzzled about this. Why would they rename a particular region with a term that describes a much larger area? Is it just because one name is obscure and the other not? Do the translators care so little about precision? But as I thought about it, it occurred to me that maybe it's because the area we now know as Greece was called Achaia at the time. I have no idea if that's even true. Is it? If so, I don't have as much problem with this, even though in that time they would never have called that area Greece. It was one part of Greece. Macedonia was another part.

In the Psalms, Zion becomes Jerusalem, and Jacob becomes Israel. If all you care about is what city or nation/people you refer to, this is ok, since the names refer to the exact same thing, but it's a huge sacrifice in poetic quality, in diversity of names, and in accuracy of language. We don't usually translate names. We transliterate them. Sometimes we do so inconsistently, but there's no reason to artificially remove an entire name from the Bible just because it refers to a city that has a more common name. The only reason I can think of why they did this is that they think the purpose of translating is to make things easier to understand rather than to convey what's there in the original language. It's true that not every biblically-illiterate reader knows that Zion is Jerusalem, and that can be confusing, but it would be confusing to a Hebrew speaker who was ignorant of the same fact. This is about historical ignorance, not about the language. Should a translation change such things? This isn't a huge deal, but I don't like it.

I'm finding their treatment of saints/holy ones language to be a bit more problematic. Its occurrences in the epistles usually become "believers" and such things in the NLT, at least in the books I've been reading (especially the Corinthian letters, which I just finished, but I think the Thessalonian letters and maybe Galatians do this too). Do these translators really think the original readers would have understood what saints or holy ones were but English speakers today don't in virtue of their speaking modern English? The problem understanding this is a problem that early readers could just as easily have had. You lose actual content when you don't have this holiness language appearing as a matter-of-fact description of all believers. You do leave room for confusion by having it there, but the original Greek has that same room for confusion. Is the goal of translating the Bible really just to make it so there are no difficulties in interpretation? Or is it to convey what the original means? The NLT completely fails at the latter on this score while doing the first in terms of referent but failing even to do the first in terms of meaning.

One translation decision that especially annoyed me was Paul's "I know a man" in II Corinthians 12. It's simply "I" in the NLT. There's something Paul is doing in this passage by referring to himself in the third person and not saying that he's talking about himself. Almost all commentators accept that he's referring to himself, but there's a reason he speaks this way, and NLT readers would have no idea that he's even doing this if they don't happen to know either the original Greek or how other translations render it. It's not as if the expression usually translated "I know a man who" has an underlying meaning more like "I" when you understand how the Greek language works. In this passage, then, the NLT has failed at their goal of producing a dynamic translation and has simply paraphrased in a way that doesn't preserve the original content very well.

The goal of the NLT was to have something as readable as the original Living Bible without its being a paraphrase. This was to be a scholarly translation. When I read the original NLT, my immediate impression of its treatment of the Corinthian letters was that they were the worst of the NT books by their own criteria for what makes a translation good. I was hoping they would be improved in the second edition that I'm now reading. Perhaps they are in some ways, but this is indicative of a translation trend that makes me a lot less positive about it than I had hoped I would be when I heard they were moving the NLT a little more in the direction of the NIV and TNIV, which I see as about halfway between the formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence translations.

ChristianCarnivalRed150.gif

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The 275th Christian Carnival is up at The Minority Thinker.

A U.S. District Court in California has ruled that it's unconstitutional for a public school teacher to say that creationism is superstitious nonsense. According to Supreme Court precedent going back to 1984, the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution doesn't mean merely what it says (which is just that the government can't set up a state religion) but extends even to government employees saying something that a reasonable person might take to count as endorsement of a particular perspective endorsing or disapproving religion. Add to that the conviction that creationism is religion, and you get this result. This does seem to me to be a direct application of current Supreme Court precedent and the standard view of creationism as religion (which the Supreme Court has endorsed, at least in one instance of the use of the term and a U.S. appeals court has declared to be applicable to intelligent design as well, although that judgment is only legally binding in one of the three federal court districts of Pennsylvania, just as this current decision is only legally binding on one of four federal court districts in California). [For the record, my detailed evaluation of the last case is here.]

Now I don't happen to think this is the right result, for several reasons. For one, the term 'creationism' can mean a lot of different things. It could mean the view that the the Earth is 6,000 years old, more precisely known as young-earth creationism. Some hold this view because they believe scripture teaches it, in which case it counts as a religious belief. Others claim to find it taught by science, in which case their support for it is of the kind that should count as science, even if it's bad science. The Supreme Court has declared that since it is taught in scripture, and science the scientific reasoning being presented is not good science, it can't be of the kind that should count as science. That claim has always seemed wrong to me, and I think this result is exactly what follows when you take such a view. If it's not of a scientific kind, then deriding it as bad science is also not of a scientific nature but of a religious nature (even if it's against a religious view).

But the term 'creationism' can also mean simply that there's a divine being who created. That's often a religious belief. It can also be a philosophical conclusion of arguments that have been present throughout the entire history of Western philosophy and have been held alongside religious beliefs by some but independently of religious beliefs by others. Thomas Aquinas, for example, presented arguments for God's existence that did not rely one bit on any religious beliefs. Lots of thinkers have believed in a creator without thinking they have any religious obligations to that creator. So even that kind of creationism isn't clearly religious, although it often is. Intelligent design arguments fall into this category if they conclude with the belief in a divine creator (rather than a more open conclusion, e.g. merely that there is some designer, which could be aliens if we're talking about biological ID arguments rather than cosmological fine-tuning ID arguments).

When a teacher says that creationism is superstitious nonsense, absent a context, it's not clear what that teacher means. It's certainly not obvious to me that it's a derision of particularly religious elements in any particular one of these things creationism can mean. But I do suspect that most people saying something like this aren't going to be sensitive to any of the distinctions I've just outlined, and they probably do intend to think of creationism as a religious teaching. Given some of the other statements this particular teacher made, I think this is especially likely in this case.



The 275th Christian Carnival is coming Wednesday at Minority Thinker. The Christian Carnival is a weekly collection of some of the best posts of the Christian blogosphere. It's open to Christians of Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic convictions. One of the goals of this carnival is to offer our readers to a broad range of Christian thought. This is a great way to make your writing more well known and perhaps pick up some regular readers. For examples of past carnivals, see the Christian Carnival archive.
 
To enter is simple. First, your post should be of a Christian nature, but this does not exclude posts that are about home life, politics, or current events from a Christian point of view. Select only one post dated since the last Christian Carnival (i.e. from the last Wednesday through the coming Tuesday). Then do the following:

I've so far encountered the expression "God gave up our sins" or "Jesus gave up our sins" several times in reading students' answers to a question about Augustine's view of hell. It's usually in the context of the cross It has nothing to do with what I'm asking, so there's already some level of misunderstanding on the part of these students, but I'm wondering what they even could mean by this. This is at a Jesuit school, and a lot of the students are Catholics (especially marginal Catholics), so perhaps there's some particular Catholic way of saying something that I'm not getting without that background.

I asked a friend this morning what he thought, and he said he doesn't think the students who are saying it have a clue what they even mean by it. Maybe so, but then why do several of them use the expression? Perhaps they just worked together to prepare their answers, and someone sounded sure enough to the others without having any sense of things, and they all went with it. Otherwise, I'm at a loss.

 

Check out how the justices voted in this Supreme Court decision that was handed down a couple weeks ago. Arizona v. Gant reflects a division on search and seizure rights that doesn't fall on normal lines. Here is oneway of conceiving of the ideological differences on the Supreme Court:

The More Extreme Conservatives: Justices Scalia and Thomas
The More Moderate Conservatives: Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito
The Moderate: Justice Kennedy
The More Moderate Liberal: Justice Breyer
The More Extreme Liberals: Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg

The lineup for this case:

Majority: Justices Stevens, Scalia, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg
Dissent: Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Alito

That places the more extreme conservatives and more extreme liberals in the majority and those more moderate in the minority.

Note also that this is a 5-4 decision, so don't let it be said that all the 5-4 decisions are the four conservatives vs. the four liberals with Justice Kennedy as the deciding vote. This sort of division is much more common than you might have thought.

The CIA refused to interrogate an al Qaeda prisoner who was captured in recent weeks, because the Obama Administration's inconsistent position and likely untrustworthiness in their assurances to the CIA has led the CIA to be so scared of what might happen that they're just washing their hands of it.

This wasn't the emphasis of most of the resistance to releasing the memos, which focused on what our enemies would now know about what the U.S. would be willing to do if they were captured. This problem is on the side of our inability to do anything, apparently. So it seems even those opposing the memo release underestimated how seriously it would harm the effort in fighting against al Qaeda. The president's action didn't logically entail this response, but I think it's surely correct to say that it caused it. This has effectively crippled the CIA, and this particular prisoner may well have dated information that their fear at what Holder's Justice Department might do has led them not to try to get. It also makes me wonder how likely they think conventional interrogations would produce any worthwhile information, because surely they're not scared of doing that.

Update: I guess this argument has been prominently made, but I hadn't see it before. Gen. Michael Hayden, former CIA director and Michael Mukasey, former Attorney General, said in a WSJ op-ed:

Its effect will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001.

The rest is well worth reading. Even if I became convinced that this interrogation program was illegal or immoral, I would still think the case against releasing these memos was extremely strong.

Archives

Archives

Powered by Movable Type 5.04