An interesting threesome -- Bob Barr, Grover Norquist and David Keene -- has released a statement endorsing the idea of civilian trials for terror suspects and calling for a stop to the fear-mongering from the right over civilian trials and transferring the Gitmo detainees to a regular American prison.
I'm not surprised by Barr and Keene. Barr has abandoned many of his previous conservative positions in favor of libertarian positions over the last few years and this position is consistent with libertarian thinking. And Keene several years ago joined with Bruce Fein, Barr and John Whitehead to form the American Freedom Agenda, which called for the closing of Gitmo and the end of torture, warrantless wiretaps and many other constitutional violations by the Bush administration.
But Grover Norquist signing this statement surprised me. Why? Good question. Because I think it's a good lesson for all of us, me included, on how to avoid using labels and categories to define someone completely. It is remarkably easy to fall into false dichotomies, to assign a label to someone -- "conservative" or "liberal" or "libertarian" for example -- and then believe that we have defined every position they take on every issue based on our preconceived notions of what the people we label in that manner believe.
It's easy to start with this simple list of things conservatives believe and things liberals believe and things libertarians believe and then, when someone believes some portion of those things, apply the label and thereafter assume that they must also believe all of the other things on that list. But in reality, there may be no logical reason connecting one issue to another at all and there may be many people who accept some of the things on a given list and reject others.
And this is a perfect example of that. Norquist's big issues are taxes and the size of government. He wants taxes cut and government spending cut in very significant ways. But that issue really has nothing to do with the question of how best to deal with terror detainees. The issues are not connected at all in any logically coherent way. It is only political convenience and coincidence that those who call themselves conservatives tend to agree with Norquist on taxes and spending but also tend to be in favor of Bush-era policies on terror detainees.
There's no logical reason why someone who wants to cut taxes and spending should also favor military commissions over civilian trials for detainees. We presume that those who favor conservative position A must also favor conservative position D, even when there's no common principle underlying the two positions. It's a trap that is very easy to fall into, even for those of us who recognize such distinctions most of the time.
That's why it's a good idea to look beyond such labels and to ask someone what their position is on an issue rather than merely presuming what their position must be based on the label we have applied to them in our heads.
Here, by the way, is the text of the statement:
As it moves to close Guantanamo and develop policies for handling terrorism suspects going forward, the government should rely upon our established, traditional system of justice. This includes our system of federal prisons, which have repeatedly proven they can safely hold persons convicted of terrorism offenses.
We are confident that the government can preserve national security without resorting to sweeping and radical departures from an American constitutional tradition that has served us effectively for over two centuries.Civilian federal courts are the proper forum for terrorism cases. Civilian prisons are the safe, cost effective and appropriate venue to hold persons convicted in federal courts. Over the last two decades, federal courts constituted under Article III of the U.S. Constitution have proven capable of trying a wide array of terrorism cases, without sacrificing either national security or fair trial standards.
Likewise the federal prison system has proven itself fully capable of safely holding literally hundreds of convicted terrorists with no threat or danger to the surrounding community.
The scaremongering about these issues should stop.
Using a state of the art but little used prison facility like the one at Thomson, Illinois - with any appropriate security upgrades our law enforcement professionals deem necessary - makes good sense for the tax payers who invested $145 million in the facility and who are seeing millions wasted every month at the costly, inefficient Guantanamo facility. It makes sense for the community which will benefit from the related employment and has absolutely no reason to fear that prisoners will escape or be released into their communities.
But most of all it makes sense for America because it is a critical link in the process of closing Guantanamo and getting this country back to using its tried and true, constitutionally sound institutions.
SIGNATORIES:
Bob Barr, Member of U.S. Congress (R-GA), 1995-2003; CEO, Liberty Strategies, LLC; the 21st Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy, the American Conservative Union, 2003- 2008; Chairman, Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances; Practicing AttorneyDavid Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union; Member, Board of Directors, National Rifle Association
Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 

Comments
"Conservative" is the secondary label I would assign to Norquist, the primary would be "Evil". He is right up there in my personal Pantheon with Rush Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch,etc.
Well, it looks like Norquist signed on, at the least, because he believes it may save tax dollars, which is not really surprising, although I am surprised that he didn't call for summary execution by military firing squad, which would save even more money. I'm not sure he wants the Justice system around for anything but protecting his property rights and the incarceration of the poor, so I'm calling Poe on the rest of their statement.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 24, 2009 9:52 AM
I know nothing of this Keene guy; but do you really think that Barr and Norquist are really being serious or honorable, just because they're suddenly telling you what you want to hear on one issue? Please -- we never heard a peep of dissent from these assholes at any point in our now-eight-year-old War on (Nonwhite) Terror; they're only pretending to be "libertarian" when the Republican label got too embarrassing for them. Where was their brave loyal opposition when Bush Jr. was in office? Nonexistent.
Why did it take them this long to step away from such injustices as this? Simple: they had to wait until they could pin it on a Democrat.
The tardiness of their criticism proves their incincerity. You really expect us to take these scumbags as serious, principled label-defying libertarian thinkers? Pat Buchanan is a Nazi sympathizer of long standing, but at least he opposed Bush's policies from the start.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 24, 2009 10:10 AM
Bee: You might want to do your research on Mr Barr. He consistently opposed the Bush Administration after he left his House seat at the end of 2003.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 24, 2009 11:12 AM
Raging Bee wrote:
Actually, you're wrong, at least about Barr. Barr joined up with Keene, Bruce Fein and John Whitehead several years ago and began blasting Bush over Gitmo, habeas corpus, warrantless wiretaps and every other unconstitutional program the administration ran. They formed a group called American Freedom Agenda in early 2007, but the members had been testifying in front of Congress, writing op-eds and speaking out on those issues for at least a couple years before that.
A claim that would make a lot more sense if this group (minus Norquist) hadn't been calling for Bush to be impeached over these violations for the last few years.
Norquist appears to be new to all of this, which is why I said I was surprised to see his name attached to it. But Barr has been on this train for years now and has repudiated most of the positions he held when he was in Congress.
Posted by: Ed Braytons | November 24, 2009 11:17 AM
Oops, I seem to have totally missed Barr's longstanding criticism of Republican malfeasance. Guess I'll just have to file Barr with all those other "libertarians" whose criticism of the Republicans is made totally irrelevant by their refusal to join with others (like, you know, Democrats) to efffectively oppose them.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 24, 2009 11:40 AM
Raging Bee just cannot admit he is wrong, can he?
Posted by: Robert Chambers | November 24, 2009 12:43 PM
Wouldn't that be a false trichotomy?
(and to my shock, that's real word. I'll be damned...)
Posted by: James Sweet | November 24, 2009 12:54 PM
I thought Norquist was one of the believers in the "income tax is unconstitutional and must be abolished for the good of freedom" weirdness.
Posted by: Rahne | November 24, 2009 3:48 PM
It seems to me that one of the best PR favors we've done for the terrorists is publicly acknowledge them as some sort of legitimate military force rather than the organized criminals they are.
Civilian trials with standard due process doesn't just make the process more civilized and legitimate in the public eye. It robs the people on trial of the undeserved legitimacy they gain whenever we treat them like soldiers. We (and they) need to get over the idea that these guys are somehow "special."
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | November 24, 2009 5:38 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | November 24, 2009 8:24 PM
Speaking of false dichotomies...
I'm with Hanley; has the definition of 'effectively' changed?
Posted by: Johnny Clambaot | November 25, 2009 2:14 PM