Tortured Logic

In all the talk about which interrogation techniques constitute torture, we’ve never asked why torture should be bestowed exclusively on terrorist suspects. After all, why not torture a Mafia don to give up those that are ruining thousands of drug addicts’ lives? Or the chief conspirator in a child pornography ring? And I doubt that I’m the only Mets fan who’s thought about torturing former general managers to learn the twisted logic behind the Nolan Ryan and Scott Kazmir trades.

But as I learned in tenth grade, Americans don’t torture people (no matter the perceived benefits) because our collective definition of a decent society precludes us from doing so. How many of us would support chopping the hand off a thief, even if doing so reduced larcenies? Surely New York would be a much safer place if the NYPD listened to every phone call and questioned every person boarding the subway? A tradeoff between security and liberty is unavoidable in a modern and free society.

Our terrorist justice system also implicitly assumes that the government never accuses a man falsely. My father still receives stern letters from New Jersey, demanding that he pay a quarterly tax bill from 1999. He’s proved payment by digging up canceled checks and yellowing tax returns, but to no avail. But we’re to assume that every man locked up in Guantanamo is undeniably, beyond a shadow of a doubt, guilty? I don’t have that kind of faith in my hometown post office, much less the United States Government. Placing the burden on the accuser can result in guilty men going free, but that is the cost of our decision to absolutely minimize the chance that an innocent man is locked up. Extending this right to non-Americans would mean that “all men are created equal” isn’t just an empty catchphrase.

Making matters worse has been our choice to single out terrorists as undeserving of due process. This decision has had precisely the reverse effect that its proponents expected. To call ourselves a nation of laws, yet suspend those same laws at the whim of the executive blurs the distinction between the United States and the petty dictatorships that are Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Our battle against those that wish to murder American civilians is fundamentally a war of ideas, not a war against men.

Singling out terrorists only serves to glorify them in the eyes of their radical base. Rather than deter future acts, we stir a hornet’s nest of nationalism in Middle Eastern countries, where budding terrorists see little daylight between how their own governments and the United States behave. On the other hand, treating terrorists like common criminals deprives their leaders of the exceptional status that they so wantonly crave.

I’d rather not do Osama that favor.

Get Them Off the Couch

With apologies to Larry King, the traditional way to interview a candidate (on a couch, loving wife within kissing distance) probably isn’t the best way to determine whether the Presidential-wannabe really has the gravitas to run the country. After all, Laura and George looked great on that couch back in 2000.

Instead, put the politician (alone!) in a room with five experts, and have them engage the candidate in a series of five substantive discussions:

1. Healthcare: Why should 45 million uninsured Americans be forced to choose between their personal financial security and receiving basic preventative and catastrophic health care? How do you propose to serve these Americans, even if the potential solution runs afoul of insurers, corporate interests and providers that are interested in preserving portions of the current system that financially benefits them?

2. International Relations: Why has America’s standing in world opinion fallen so dramatically in the years following the outpouring of solidarity expressed after September 11^th? How would you structure and execute on a diplomatic agenda that quells the flames of religious fundamentalism, encourages mutually beneficial trading of goods and services, and encourages the spread and strengthening of representative government?

3. Iraq: Explain using the simplest of language, and without using vague terms like “terror,” “Al Qaeda,” or “freedom”: Who is our enemy in Iraq, and how do they directly threaten America? As defined, how can this enemy be effectively defeated using conventional military assets? What lessons have you learned from the way the case for war was made and the way it has been executed to date?

4. Infrastructure: How can America build and a transportation infrastructure that keeps pace with our population growth and demand for mobility? How can mass transit options like commercial aviation and high-speed rail be made more reliable, cost-effective and convenient options relative to the automobile? How should the plan take into account the massive variability in where Americans live and travel? How could such a plan allocate investments independent of shortsighted political pressure?

5. Presidential Elections: Why is a process that requires candidates to run full time over the course of multiple years and raise hundreds of millions of dollars the best possible way to elect a President? Does this system encourage or discourage the most qualified people to seek office? And why should the citizenry be confident that the elected President isn’t beholden to his campaign donors when their interests conflict with the national interest?

We can do the couch interview later, just to be sure that his wife loves him.

The New nihal.com Manifesto

So we voted in 2000 for the guy we’d rather have a beer with.

Fast forward to 2007. America is entangled in a war, looking desperately for a way out. Our foreign policy has done more to stoke the embers of religious fundamentalism than Osama could’ve dared to dream. The nation’s thirst for oil sold by Middle Eastern dictators is limitless. One in six is without health insurance, and a Costa Rican baby can expect to live longer than an American one. Russia is threatening to re-aim missiles at Europe. Our airports are bursting at the seams, but we poke fun of those silly French trains that travel at 350mph. If a better case can be made for intelligence, experience and thoughtfulness in the White House, well, I can’t make one.

So it’s probably a good thing that our presidential election is off to a two year head start. Both the candidates and the electorate could use all the time they can get to propose and debate solutions to these complex problems. Unfortunately, that discussion is led by a ratings-hungry press that would prefer to Paris Hiltonize the debate. Gay marriage? Evolution? Abortion? Will Rudy’s three marriages play in the heartland? Isn’t Al Gore too fat to run? Is America ready for a woman president? How about one with an Arab-sounding middle name?

Let’s try something different. Over the next few months, this site will try to point out the most important issues facing America. Think of nihal.com as an alternate voice to the news channels that use current events and politics to entertain, rather than inform and stimulate debate. Posts will be short, ideas will be crisp, and clichés will be kept to a minimum.

Wolf Blitzer has a cooler name. Ann Coulter has nicer hair. But neither is doing a very good job of steering our national debate toward the issues that matter. We’ll give it our best shot.