It’s all Bin Laden, all the time here at One Fine Jay. He’s the topic of the week, I guess.

Let’s take a look at the groups of people who aren’t too happy that Bin Laden is dead. We can categorize them by the following points they would make:

• The raid on Bin Laden is a “murder.” (Note that I have used a similar term—assassination—to refer to the events in Abbotabbad, and I believe it’s a poor choice of words.
• The raid on Bin Laden is a perpetuation of the endless war on terror.
• Bin Laden was unarmed, so this was a murder.
• Bin Laden deserved a fair trial.
• Pakistan is sovereign territory and we shouldn’t have gone in there to kill him
• Dick Cheney is a war criminal for using EIT
• DevGru has committed war crimes and need to be extradited for trial in the ICC.

There are, of course, factual counterarguments against any of these assertions. Except, the people who says these are already fixed in their ways and it’s just a huge drain on time and mental resources to try to argue them out of these positions. They’re wrong, but who would want to be faced with proof that their strict deontologies have to be tempered with a little bit of consequentialism?

I won’t be debating the efficacy of waterboarding and its role in finding Bin Laden. Reports have come out that it has, and the hypothesis is impossible to test.

Let us look, instead, at how the Bin Laden raid makes us reveal to the world our own personal biases and moral foundations. This is important, you see, because some people wouldn’t be worth discussing with depending on how they define certain things.

First: if you think that “waterboarding” and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” constitute “torture,” it’ll be very hard to break past this definition. It’s like the public standards of decency test when it comes to pornography. The definition as stated by UN Convention Against Torture is subject to interpretation: it becomes a question of severity.

So, you would have some people who consider waterboarding to be an acceptable means of discomfort, because it doesn’t cause lasting physical damage, cf. the Spanish Inquisition. We’re not talking about iron maidens here, right Then there are some people who find any kind of discomfort or suffering to be unacceptable, and so the discussion becomes not a question of what to do with an enemy combatant in order to gather information, but whether it’s even acceptable to try to do so.

If an enemy combatant is asked for information and refuses to do so, what do you do? This kind of question has been asked in a number of TV series, Criminal Minds being one example where EIT doesn’t work. Of course it doesn’t, because we wouldn’t want to give anyone any ideas, no?

Second: definition of torture not notwithstanding, this really becomes a matter of the Moral Cost of Civilization, a concept that I sorely wanted to write about during the height of the Wikileaks diplomatic cables fiasco. The sad, sad truth is that States and their Governments will act in a manner that acts in its self interest and hopefully this interest reflects the interests of its Citizenry.

We rendition enemy combatants to nations friendly to torture—not just EIT—because our jurisdictional philosophy isn’t universal. Does it lead to results? We may never fully know. Is this a moral blight upon us? Assuming that it is, what are we going to do about it?

Do we, as a people, relinquish these actions completely, such that we draw the line at merely asking a captured combatant for his cooperation and giving up upon his refusal? There are people who think so and I’m not sure I want them in charge, nor do I want their standards. At the same time, I don’t want anyone who would think that EIT is in itself completely acceptable; that it is a standard to use, misuse and abuse against those we label as enemy combatants.

If asked whether EIT is “acceptable,” I’m afraid I don’t have a clear answer. What I do want, though, is a government that keeps the privelege to do so and yet accepts the heavy moral burden it takes on if it does. Because while it hurts to be a part of a society that embraces these techniques, the hope is that our children won’t have to.

Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. A few points:

It’s too easy to think, as a politically active Conservative, that this is bad for the Republican Party because this is a victory for our current President. I’d rather not fall into the trap of zero-sum virtue; besides, while Liberal commentators would never acknowledge Bush’s role in laying the foundation for this, Obama’s choices and actions will have vindicated his predecessor’s policies. Let’s not forget that we can congratulate our President and not want him for re-election in 2012 anyway.

On the matter of the apparent vulgarity of the celebrations last night, perhaps the best response is from Aaron Brazell (emphasis mine):

We all mourned in our own ways on September 11, 2001 and that was expected. We all now have an opportunity for closure and that process cannot be dictated. People are wounded and scarred. This news is a reminder of that day 10 years ago and, like me, many are now re-living it. However one gets the necessary closure at this time, let it be done and get out of peoples way.

— Aaron Brazell: Osama, Closure

It may seem tasteless to remind everyone that 9/11 is not the only act of warfare Bin Laden has committed against us; in fact his ties to 9/11 aren’t as solid compared to Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s. Bin Laden may never have stood a chance at a fair trial in this country, especially since he’s issued plenty of broadcasts taking responsibility for his actions.

This is the dirty part of warfare: 9/11 has basically changed the rules. Stateless agents acting as terrorists can no longer be merely considered criminals, but as—I hate the term—”enemy combatants.” A nation can now declare war on groups of individuals, especially since a group has declared war against an entire nation. So assassinating Bin Laden on sovereign Pakistani territory is a little bit of a state action against a stateless individual. It’s messy, but it’s what we’ve got.

In a perfect world, private mercenaries acting as stateless agents could’ve committed this assassination on Pakistani soil. Following the same rules of warfare 9/11 has written for us,  the Pakistani government really could only declare war on them. But the world isn’t perfect, and Bin Laden has confessed to his guilt so many times for other crimes that have cost lives that is it really so bad for someone to say that his life is forfeit?

And what of Pakistan? Bin Laden’s conspicuously low-tech compound couldn’t have existed without State assistance. Innuendo is not evidence , so if there is one thing Pakistan should be held accountable for is their reaction to our presence there. Their planes tried to find our helicopters. This is a foreign relations challenge, one that needs to be dealt with by reminding Pakistan that we know they are not exactly our friends. Their government can claim they’ve killed more Al-Qaeda operatives than any of our allies, but this is not impossible math. They can kill as many AQ operatives who are considered useless, but they can pal around with the biggest names in terrorism. This is duplicity and hypocrisy, plain and simple, and the Pakistani government will have to answer for this.

Lastly: let us use this event to reflect on the  moral depths Bin Laden has brought our nation to. I have been a civil libertarian for over a decade; even in my most left-wing days I believed in the importance of civil rights. I have defended Bush and Obama’s policies in the name of national defense, but not without a heavy heart. Radley Balko has a list of sins done in our name and these are matters of fact. Yes, the initial intelligence was a product of enhanced interrogation and rendition. But let us never forget that we will have to roll back some of these things, not to regain the innocence that Bin Laden and friends have taken from us, but to make sure that future generations will never forget that these measures were necessary but nonetheless extreme, that this is not the “new normal,” and that such actions in the name of our safety should never be embraced in a cavalier fashion.

I’ve never thought I’d see the day when I defend Arianna Huffington from the likes of this guy, but she deserves a little fair treatment because this is a matter of professionalism.

I am no legal expert, but Tasini is not suing as a statutory nor contractual manner, rather, he says that this is “about justice.” The nature of progressivism as antithetical to success is laid bare in Mr. Tasini’s rhetoric. He and his fellow unpaid writers have no right to claim any of the sale price of the Huffington Post to Aol. Here’s why:

The writers are under no obligation to write. If they were feeling slighted for not being paid, the door is freely open for them to leave.

The writers gain a benefit from writing for HuffPo. They get exposure, and the throngs of sycophants in the comments are a constant source of ego stroking.

The writers assume none of the risks Arianna took when she started the site. Nor do they assume any risks for the ongoing operation. They don’t pay her anything for the web hosting—which for a heavily trafficked site like hers would be enormous—nor do they have any liability for any damages the site may have been sued for. If the Huffington Post went out of business instead of succeeded, Arianna would be in no position to blame the writers she welcomed into her bevy.

This is why, after so many years I’ve learned to avoid having to trade services “for free.” The value of the returns becomes fuzzier as memory fades. Exposure doesn’t always lead to additional business; in fact, a reputation of doing services for free or cheap will only attract the worst of possible “clients.” I have little sympathy for Arianna, and much less so for the likes of Tasini. But as a professional matter, let this be a cautionary tale: nothing comes for free.

Jennifer Rubin has the definitive commentary on this budget deal. Predictable stuff: the Left claiming credit for avoiding the shutdown and the President’s “ability” to have  bipartisan solution; elements of the Right claiming Boehner sold us out.

I’m quite disappointed in losing the Planned Parenthood rider. This deal comes at the cost of every unborn child who dies between now and the time that the organization is finally defunded from the federal till. This has been a moral weight on this nation and will continue to do so.

We have, however, gotten a glimpse of the Democrats’ arguing tactics. So few have predicted how virulent the Left would argue the sanctity of a woman’s abortions, and now that we’ve seen this demagoguery we can expect worse once Paul Ryan’s budgetary proposal is debated for next year’s fiscal year. We have to be prepared to counter such messaging issues as forcing the elderly to choose between pills and eating dog food. If not, the weight of our entitlements will crush us.

Our President took a long time to get his head together on the matter of Libya. This is nothing new for him of course, and this indecision has led to us diving in at the worst possible timing. We could’ve turned the tide on this matter two weeks ago when the Libyan citizenry were crying out for our help with a no-fly zone.

However, we’re there now, and through a shameful process no less: no Congressional consultation—which is forgiveable under the War Powers Act—but not until there was a United Nations Security Council vote. This is, as I said on Twitter, a feature of This President’s brand of misgovernance, although it is a bug in what we’ve grown accustomed to as the American way of doing things.

I am with my fellow Conservatives in ridiculing Our President for the way he’s acted in this matter, because of the rank hypocrisy when it comes to process. Our President, back when he was a Senator and a candidate, was not exactly a believer of the “Bush Doctrine.” In 2007, Biden openly stated that military action without Congressional approval is cause for impeachment.

The reaction from the left is amusing. We have the die-hard anti-war folk like the soon-to-be-gerrymandered-out-of-a-career-and-finally-so-for-the-love-of-God Dennis Kucinich, whom I admire—to an extent—for sticking to their misguided principles. Then, we have the clownish Defenders Of The One whose First Cause in everything is defense of Our President. The latter group, in its defense of its idol, has basically validated everything Bush has done, and have tied themselves in knots over their former anti-war stances. Laid bare, many of them aren’t so much anti-war as they were anti-Bush.

I may enjoy a little bit of schandenfreude over all of this, but, despite all the bungling and punting, the Libyan citizenry is fighting for their freedom and we’re there to help now. I support the freedom effort in Libya, and I want us to root for success in that endeavor.

In 1986, I was but a little child. My mom took to EDSA on the first day of that historic People Power Revolution. I remember only a few details. One, the first day was okay, but my mom left after that and fled to our ancestral province of Pampanga, where we waited out the events in case the demonstrations turned for the worse. I don’t blame her for fleeing.

I went to school in La Salle GreenHills; it was there that the NAMFREL count that exposed the corruption of the 1986 election was held. To this day, the blackboard that held that tally remains preserved at my school’s gymnasium.

I grew up with reminders of hard-earned national freedom. In my third year of high school we read Dekada ’70, a harrowing, realistic depiction of the darkest days of the Marcos era. We compared our national experience with the events of Tiananmen square. By the time I was 20 years old, I was one of the people who were on the streets calling for Estrada’s expulsion from office.

It is this background that has made me sympathetic to popular, (relatively) peaceful revolutions such as the Ukrainian Orange Revolution of 2004, Lebanese Cedar Revolution of 2005 and the Kyrgyz Tulip Revolution. Egypt, however, is quickly descending into madness when what is needed is the leadership of our country to provide the necessary impetus to tip Egypt in the right direction.

Egypt is personal to me, because I cannot imagine being an Egyptian whose revolution is suppressed by an American-propped dictator, with goons hired with American money, armed with American guns. What if, in 1986, the interests of the United States were such that it needed the tyrant Marcos to stay in office? Would they have supplied him with material aid to suppress a demonstration of millions? You’ll excuse me, then, if I do not toe the anti-Islamicist line on this matter. There are far more important things than worrying about outcomes. We have to pay for realities first.

Following the overthrow of Tunisia’s dictator, on January 25, protesters took to the streets of Cairo to protest Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year reign. I haven’t been silent on Twitter, but I’ve been in support of this movement despite a few concerns. The reactions from Americans is wide-ranged, but cross party lines. Members of both parties tend to hold similar positions.

A common opinion is that Hosni Mubarak is a really terrible person, but we can’t afford Egypt to fall into Islamicism because of the Muslim Brotherhood. The true nature of the protesters remains a mystery from this distance. I’ve heard it all: that this protest is a Socialist revolution, that it’s Islamicist, that it’s moderate, that it’s not anti-Semitic. If this were truly a Islamic Revolution of 1979 Iranian levels, we won’t see photos like this. I will acknowledge that Egypt is on the brink of a more Islamic government, but it is also possible that it won’t be. What the Egyptian people want is to be able to make this choice.

Mubarak himself was our little guard dog in Egypt. He’s kept the government secular for the most part, and has kept a peace treaty with Israel. However, his policies have come to a head and his people are fed up. Mubarak has governed his country into a position where his continued tenure is indefensible. He is seen as an oppressor of his people and if we were to support him in the name of our self-interest, we would be guilty of continuing a crime perpetrated upon Egypt by the West for the past 30 years.

What is happening today is the result of a political and moral calculus that may have worked at the time, but had no way out. There was no follow-through. The Shah of Iran and Mubarak are merely tiles in a pattern. If Egypt descends into Islamicism, we—the United States, through its historical actions—are partly responsible for laying the groundwork of this outcome. The Islamic Revolution was not unforeseeable, and neither is what is happening in Egypt.

The outcome in Egypt is not beyond our control. Despite our president’s disappointing statements over the past days,  he and our government still have the chance to help on the side of freedom. We might well be able to atone for such missteps as the 1991 Iraqi uprising. Erring on the side of freedom is not a bad policy.

(A few links that I couldn’t contextualize in my post above but well worth visiting: National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez: Naïveté on Egypt Is Dangerous; Daniel Pipes: Turmoil In Egypt and Roger Simon interviews “Sandmonkey”. Three pieces with three different perspectives on the turmoil in Egypt. All worth reading.)

The idea of a nationwide, high-speed railroad system for passenger use has been bandied about long before our President mentioned it last night; it will be bandied about by other “visionaries” long after the mediocre dolt has been voted out in 2012. It was mentioned by the one Conservative guest at TEDxMidAtlantic in 2009, Aris Melissaratos. It’s the grand vision that seems to be the panacea from Liberals who want to solve the environmental issues surrounding travel.

The Unicorn Express on the Rainbow Railroad is a quixotic idea. Here’s why:

The politics of Eminent Domain. Even after the atrocious Kelo decision, a modest tic-tac-toe layout of nationwide high-speed rail will result in massive land grabs, cutting across communities the way the Interstate system didn’t do. Americans are a scrappy bunch, and being told that you’ll have to relocate, while being bought off with money that won’t recoup what you’ll lose, is not something they’ll take lying down.

Geography. I’m not going to discount the ability of civil engineers to produce what they need to. But how exactly will the national bullshit train run through the Rockies and the Appalachians? Yes, the Europeans have rail systems that cut through mountains using tunnels, and cross them using bridges. But the geographic challenges over such a large expanse means construction cost will skyrocket.

Sociology of travel. Americans love the open road. The National Route system, and even the Interstate, allows us to travel wherever we want, on our terms. We love cars for that very same reason. For very long distances, flying has been a great solution. It needs improvement and innovation—and not the Ryanair kind, either—but our high-speed travel already exists. It moves on railroads of air. American consumer air travel is democratized and affordable. It is the envy of other nations, even European ones (of course none of those snooty bastards would ever admit to that). Despite what our president says, our cars and planes aren’t going anywhere. Our Interstate isn’t going anywhere. Of course, if he impliments policies that make it difficult for us to use our cars (higher taxes on fuel, etc), I fully expect an effort from the opposition to prevent these things from happening.

The way our communities are set up. We have major cities that serve as hubs for industry and commerce. We have the suburbs that surround them and house those who work in the cities. We have exurbs. In order for the national bullshit train to work, population density between the cities served has to reach a critical mass of demand. This requires enough people to choose not to fly nor to drive from one city to the next. There are two ways to make people choose rail: make rail a better choice, or take away the choices that aren’t rail (again, backbreaking taxes on fuel and air travel).

People are not cargo. (No, this is not a Nazi reference, even though a friend of mine @akhanukov made humrous note last night.) Our national freight train system is the envy of the modern world. Combined with our very advanced trucking system, we are able to transport goods across the nation at high speeds, and efficiently. And by “efficiently” I mean as compared to the logistics of other nations, not “efficiently” according to the standards of one who thinks that this system is inherently flawed or evil. People, however, don’t take kindly to being moved around like cargo. This remains a big problem in the airline system, where some companies offer cheap flights with long travel times because of multiple stops to maximize passenger participation. The Unicorn Express offers a limited number of routes to reach a destination. Say, you want to get to Chicago from Baltimore. You may have to stop through Columbus on the Unicorn Express. And you know that stop isn’t going to be a one-minute load/unload like you see in the DC Metro, either! It remains a more convenient choice to fly in.

These are but a few issues that I can see with the Unicorn Express. I haven’t even delved into the economics of running that damn thing, but if it’s even anything like what’s going on with the Phoenix light rail (thanks Keith Casey!), it will be a project that will never turn a profit, one that will continue to suck away at taxpayer revenue for generations to come.