The Disappeared

From today's Times:

"WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Friday that three men who had been detained by the United States military for years without trial in Afghanistan had no recourse to American courts. The decision was a broad victory for the Obama administration in its efforts to hold terrorism suspects overseas for indefinite periods without judicial oversight."

In defense of this decision, Sen. Lindsey Graham:

“Allowing a noncitizen enemy combatant detained in a combat zone access to American courts would have been a change of historic proportions. . . .It also would have dealt a severe blow to our war effort. . . There is a reason we have never allowed enemy prisoners detained overseas in an active war zone to sue in federal court for their release. It simply makes no sense and would be the ultimate act of turning the war into a crime.”

Some would say the war already is a crime, but let that go.

In theory, we agree with Senator Graham's reasoning. During World War II, it would have been ludicrous to Mirandize every German soldier taken prisoner after D-Day (especially since the Miranda warning wasn't written until the 1960's).

Our current conflict, however, is not World War II; it's a war on "terror." What are the rules on prisoners captured in a war on an abstract noun?

In a conventional war, anyone wearing the enemy's uniform may be considered fair game for punitive measures, whether of a lethal or judicial variety. Terrorists, however, wear no uniforms. How can a soldier know, then, who is an appropriate target? We accept the fact that soldiers must be cautious--over-cautious--when dealing with potential terrorists. We understand the need to detain potential threats. But then what?

Again, a comparison to a conventional war is in order. At the end of hostilities, enemy POWs are sent back to their home countries. But as has been noted in numerous places, there can really be no "end" to a war on terror. Prisoners of this war will never have the opportunity to be released upon the cessation of combat. Fine for those who were actually engaged in violent, terroristic acts; not so great for the inevitable innocents swept up in the rush of events.

So, how are we to know who is being held appropriately? Simple answer: trials.

Ungainly? Sure. But the logistical difficulty of a solution is no excuse for not undertaking it. To go back to Sen. Graham's point about "turning the war into a crime," we would point out that the acts that provoked this war were, in fact, crimes. The 9/11 attacks were different in degree but not in kind from the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. After that attack, a massive criminal investigation was launched, and Timothy McVeigh was ultimately arrested, tried, convicted, and executed. The federal government didn't invade Tulsa and start rounding up random Okies.

The American judicial system is based on the idea of "innocent until proven guilty." If prosecutors cannot make their case, detainees (they don't become "prisoners" until after conviction) must be released in a timely manner. It doesn't matter whether they are arrested in Kabul or Kansas.

Mr. President: Find another way.

Next Week, on "Mad Men" (A Brief Post)

Explain to us the logic behind an airport buying time to advertise on the radio. Not an airLINE, mind you, or even an aireDALE, but an airPORT. Does anybody make travel plans based on commercials? "Oh, Kennedy is MUCH closer to my destination, and the flight into JFK costs $50 less. . . but LaGuardia has such a catchy jingle!"

The Ghost That Walks

So what do you think of the election results? Frankly, we're not too broken up about Arlen Specter ("D"-Pa) losing his primary battle. On the one hand, as a left-leaning non-registered Democrat--

(Clarification: We are registered to vote, just not registered as a Democrat--cuts down on the junk mail. EOC)

--we were heartened when the Republican stalwart switched his party affiliation, but we were less than thrilled to hear him say, essentially, that he was doing it in order to get re-elected--that he felt he had become so out-of-tune with the national Republican party and its purported "base" that he didn't stand a chance in a Republican primary. A bracingly honest statement from a veteran politician, sure, but is that what the country really needs more of? Blatant opportunism?

We'd have had much greater respect for Specter (Spectrespect?) if he had just gone independent (cf, Florida's Charlie Crist). It's one thing to say--and, perhaps even mean--that you can no longer tolerate the divisive, insular, and frankly scary direction the national Republican Party is trending. But to suddenly declare yourself a Democrat, after however many years of lambasting that party, is the height of hypocrisy. It speaks less to a desire to represent the people than to preserve one's power. After 30 years in the Senate, Arlen Specter certainly has enough name recognition and enough of a track record to run on without the backing of any political party. The fact that he himself presumably realized he wouldn't survive as an independent--i.e., as "just" Arlen Specter--should have told him it was time to pack it in, even before the voters sent him that message themselves.

Priorities, People

We realize that only a fool argues with his critics, but no one ever accused us of having much sense.

We can't get over the kerfuffle we kicked up (conjured? stimulated? What, exactly, does one do with a "kerfuffle"?) with our relatively innocuous comments about Los Lobos. We hope those guys know what a dedicated fan base they have. The comments have been generally, well, negative, mainly in the vein of "Hey, D*****t, you don't know what you're talkin' bout, Man! Los Lobos rocks, Man! You're not worthy to type their name, Man!" Some of the comments were entertaining, though. We wrote:

"We have this (admittedly unprovable) theory that every band is somebody's favorite (perhaps only the band members' and their mothers', but still)."

Anonymous wrote:

"is [The Solipsist] someones [sic] favorite blog(besides the authors [sic]?"

OK, we had that one coming. Sadly, the commenter began his comment with "does anyone really read ths blog?" Uhh. . . Asked and answered? And, whoever you are, be sure to check out tomorrow's entry on capitalization and proper apostrophe use.

AWWWWWW, SNAP!!!

Seriously, though, consider this:

In the year and a half or so since we began this little project, we have posted on a wide variety of topics, from the sublime to the ridiculous. We wrote what could be considered an apologia for torture. We poked fun at elderly Jews going hungry in the former Soviet Union. We have lashed out at the Tea Party and the fascistic hatemongers pulling its strings. We have repeatedly cast (well-deserved) aspersions on all things Canadian. And we have spent more time than we should have discussing bodily functions best left undiscussed. All this we did with barely a peep from the masses. Yet when we have the effrontery to suggest that Tex-Mex rockers Los Lobos may NOT be the apotheosis of musical virtuosity, we incur the wrath of countless exasperated fanboys. (Well, OK, NINE exasperated fanboys, but that's more than we've had for any other post!)

What's funny about the whole thing is that we really weren't trying to trash the band. Indeed, we said,

"Understand, we have nothing against Los Lobos. From the limited sampling of their music we've heard, they seem like a perfectly competent rock and roll band. They play their instruments well, their songs are inoffensively if unspectacularly rhythmic and melodic, their lead singer has a perfectly acceptable voice. At the same time, though, there's nothing particularly interesting about any of their songs."

Of course, not a rave review, but hardly a condemnation. For all we know, if we listened to a bunch more of their music, we would be blown away--probably not, but who knows. The fact is, LL just happened to be the band that came on the radio and stimulated our thoughts about succesful mediocrity--which was really the focus of the whole essay anyway.

For what it's worth, LL is FAR from the ideal example of inexplicably successful mediocrity.

That would be Tom Petty.

THAT'S RIGHT! WE'RE GOING THERE! YOU GOT SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT IT HEARTBREAKERS?!? BRING IT ON, BITCHES!!!!

(WOS: For the record, I want no part of this.)

And If Belgium Jumped Off the Roof. . . .

Note to the Blogosphere: We've discovered the secret to attracting readers: Dis Los Lobos! After our (frankly, mild) statements expresing lack of interest in the music of Los Lobos, we were inundated by irate comments. Suffice to say, we have satisfactorily answered for ourselves the question of whether anyone's favorite band is Los Lobos.

To all those Loboistas: While we respect your passion, we stand by our judgment. To each his/her own. For all we know, you have similar apathy towards truly great artists like Elvis Costello or Bruce Springsteen--we're cool with that.

We can't help but wonder, though: Do these guys spend their days trawling Technorati for perceived slights to Los Lobos? If so, we hope the band is at least paying their expenses or giving them autographed t-shirts or something.
******************************************
Now, to today's business:


The Supreme Court has ruled that sentencing juveniles to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP--seriously, that’s how people acronymize it!) for crimes that do not result in fatalities constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Fair enough. We have no problem with the decision on the merits (the Supremes are no-doubt relieved to hear that their decision is kid-friendly, Solipsist-approved). Whether it is “cruel and unusual” to sentence a teenager to “living death” is open to debate, but it’s a philosophically questionable policy. A 16-year-old's heinous (though non-homicidal) crime may seem to call for permanent removal from society. Still, by the time, say, 20 years have passed, that 36-year-old inmate is not the same person who committed the crime; he may be better, he may be worse, but it's reasonable to at least consider the possibility of redemption, the possibility that this person may become a productive member of society instead of a perpetual and permanent drain.

While we applaud the decision, though, we have some questions about the underlying reasoning, part of which rests on the fact that LWOP for juveniles is a rare sentencing option in the civilized world: “The judgment of the world’s nations that a particular sentencing practice is inconsistent with basic principles of decency,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “demonstrates that the court’s rationale has respected reasoning to support it.”

But this raises the question of whether the Supreme Court should consider international jurisprudence when deciding American cases. As much as we hate to agree with Clarence Thomas--and believe us, we HATE to agree with Clarence Thomas--we think the answer is, “No.” In an otherwise frothing and frankly wackadoodle dissent--

[Digression: To emphasize how much we disagree with nutbag Thomas, we highlight his conclusion that LWOP is appropriate because the Founding Fathers would have sentenced these youth to death. As retiring icon Justice John Paul Stevens aptly riposted: “Justice Thomas would apparently not rule out a death sentence for a $50 theft by a 7-year-old. Knowledge accumulates. We learn, sometimes, from our mistakes." EOD)

--as we were saying, in an otherwise frothing and frankly wackadoodle dissent, Thomas states that "foreign laws and sentencing practices” are “irrelevant to the meaning of our Constitution.”

He's right. The fact that most other countries forbid LWOP for juveniles is exactly as relevant to American jurisprudence as the fact that some other countries think the appropriate punishment for petty theft is non-surgical amputation, or that the appropriate punishment for rape is execution--of the victim. Rather than cite the fact that other countries do or do not do something as a justification, the justices would do better to cite the reasoning behind these other countries' actions--or better yet, offer logical reasoning of their own.

Monkey see, money do may be a truism, but it's lousy jurisprudence.

Good, Not Great

Mediocrities everywhere, now and to
come: I absolve you all! Amen! Amen!
Amen!
--Salieri, Amadeus (script by Peter Shaffer)

Driving home the other day, listening to the radio, we were struck by the following question: Do you suppose there's anyone out there whose favorite band is Los Lobos?

Understand, we have nothing against Los Lobos. From the limited sampling of their music we've heard, they seem like a perfectly competent rock and roll band. They play their instruments well, their songs are inoffensively if unspectacularly rhythmic and melodic, their lead singer has a perfectly acceptable voice. At the same time, though, there's nothing particularly interesting about any of their songs.

We have this (admittedly unprovable) theory that every band is somebody's favorite (perhaps only the band members' and their mothers', but still). We also believe that the same holds true for movies, TV shows, novels--essentially, any area of creative endeavour: Everything is somebody's favorite. So, hard though it may be for us to accept on an aesthetic level, we believe that there are people out there who flock to the record store (or iTunes) for every new Los Lobos release, that there are people who get seriously jacked every time Los Lobos comes to their town.

(Digression: Did you know that Los Lobos has been making albums since 1976!?! Came as a surprise to us, too. EOD)

So, here's our question: Is it better--in an artistic field--to be mediocre but successful, or to produce a memorably spectacular failure? Before you answer, consider Vanilla Ice. "Ice Ice Baby" is a frankly offensive bastardization, and Mr. Ice has thankfully disappeared to the realm of D-list reality shows (see "The Surreal Life"). Yet his name remains in the public consciousness. We would bet that, in a random survey of semi-informed respondents, more people would be able to hum the opening of "IIB" than any song by Los Lobos.

(PS: Their cover of "La Bamba" doesn't count.)

(Image of Los Lobos from abc.net.au)

Oops! (A Brief Post)

A "Correction" from today's Times:

"Because of an editing error, an article last Sunday about GPS driving devices misidentified the country in which the Black Forest is located. The forest, in which the author found the device particularly useful, is in Germany, not Poland."

Seems like the editors could have used the GPS device, too.