Here’s an excellent post on military torture and murder, which comes highly recommended from that lefty liberal communist traitor, Glenn Reynolds. :)

My lengthy excerpt below zeroes in on some particularly salient points of opinion, but there are lots of facts cited in the post, too. You should really read the whole thing, especially if you’re one of those who tend to raise some of the arguments that are thoroughly bitch-slapped below. I can think of several regulars on this blog who ought to pay especially close attention…

It doesn’t matter that our terrorist enemies are evil. It doesn’t matter what they do to their prisoners, in terms of beheading, or what have you. We don’t judge our behavior by the standards of barbarians. We judge it by our own standards, and, so far, it looks like we haven’t been doing as good a job as we should of living up to those standards. Pointing that out somehow makes me Andrew Sullivan. Well, that’s fine. I’d rather be Andrew Sullivan than a moral cripple. Some of you appear content to be the latter. …

And let’s not hide behind any of this “Well, if it’s needed to stop another 9/11…” crap. Clearly, in the cases cited so far, it wasn’t necessary. It was being done at places like Bagram because the interrogators made it regular practice. Why? How did it become regular practice? …

Murdering prisoners is wrong. Period. Torturing prisoners is wrong. Period. Those are, in fact, supposed to be the types of principles that separate us from the terrorists. But as far as I can tell, there seems to be some problem getting this message down through the whole chain of command. It doesn’t matter whether that’s by negligence, or by design, it has to stop. Even if you don’t care about the prisoners themselves, you have to at least acknowledge that torturing and killing prisoners creates a propaganda and moral defeat for our side. It’s unwise on purely utilitarian grounds, let alone moral ones. …

Torture and abuse is widespread, punishment is minimal, the government denies almost everything, right up to the point that they have to admit it, and dozens of people have been murdered. [Again, read the whole thing for the evidence that backs up this statement. -ed.]

And that’s just the part that we’ve managed to find out. Perhaps they’ve revealed everything. Perhaps….but I don’t make a habit of betting on government bureaucracies going against against their own self-interest. And I don’t make a habit of trusting government entities because they say “trust us…transparency is overrated and due process is for suckers”.

I side with Gregory Djerejian, who wrote that…

… anyone with half a brain who continues to insist that the torture (sorry, “abuse”) story is about a few bad apples taking a frat hazing a tad too much to heart at Abu Ghraib alone are full of it and doing the country a disservice through their intellectual dishonesty. It’s clear that, while not some God-awful American gulag archipelago, torture has manifestly occurred in detention facilities from Afghanistan to Iraq to Cuba. […]

…it’s time for intellectuals who care about the moral fiber of our polity, on both the Left and Right, to start speaking more loudly about these worrisome trends. America’s better angels, and our more aspirational national narratives, simply demand it.

Widespread torture doesn’t simply, oops, “just happen”. In the isolated instances in which it does happen, it is the result of a very major breakdown in the command structure. …

The Chain of Command…needs to assert itself. Reprimands and 1-3 year prison sentences are insufficient. We need examples. We need to treat the deaths of Iraqis and Afghans as seriously as we treat deaths in our own country. Moreso, perhaps.

Torture and abuse is not just a moral or legal failure. It is a strategic failure in the War on Terror. Certainly, we will never be nice enough to convince Zarqawi—and the ~20,000 like him—to stop killing Americans. But there are another 55 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan who may still be convinced of our moral superiority to the Islamic fundamentalists, the terrorists and their ilk; another 55 million people whose hearts and minds may still be won.

Only, they may not be won if we keep killing, torturing and abusing them. We can never make them all love us, but we can certainly stop giving them good reasons to hate us. …

I would suggest that we operate absolutely above-board—even if it means we put ourselves at some risk in certain instances. … While it might be nice to get that occassional tip out of an insurgent, we can win the war without it. We cannot win the war without the support of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and that may be the price of sacrificing our moral high ground to beat up some insurgents. …

[T]he current state of affairs, with undeniable widespread abuse, torture and murder—either ordered, tacitly condoned, or at least not stopped, by the chain of command—is simply unacceptable. It deserves bipartisan outrage, especially from those of us who support the Bush administration’s execution of the War on Terror. For if we cannot stand against torture and murder, then what do we stand for at all?

(Boldface emphases added.) As I keep saying… read the whole thing.

Conservatives/Republicans in this country have been up in arms this week about Newsweek’s story regarding the supposed desecration of the Koran. This seems to be for one of two reasons.
Either:
A) The story is, at least partially, responsible for the violence that resulted in the Middle East;
or
B) The story is bad because it was shoddy/biased journalism.

So here are my questions:

(more…)

Since I have been talking about oppression of Muslim women in Western democracies, I figured I would post about it, and for those interested in reading more about feminist critiques of multiculturalism, I suggest Susan Okin’s Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women.

I believe we should be outraged that a purportedly liberal country like Canada would endorse what amounts to government sanctioned oppression of women, in the name of religious tolerance and for the sake of expediency.

The challenges and flaws of multiculturalism, and what I have been referring to when denouncing Islamic culture as not just different from ours, but truly bad for its people, are more eloquently discussed in this article (from a subscription only site):

(more…)

The Sun’s front page is drawing fire:

The U.S. military on Friday condemned a British newspaper’s decision to print photographs of a captive Saddam Hussein, including one showing him in his underwear. …

A statement by the U.S. military in Baghdad said the photos violated military guidelines “and possibly Geneva Convention guidelines for the humane treatment of detained individuals.”

It said the source of the photos was unknown, but they were believed to have been taken more than a year ago. …

The military said it was “aggressively” investigating to determine who took the pictures.

“We take seriously our responsibility to ensure the safety and security of all detainees,” the statement said.

There is fear of a backlash.

UPDATE (BY BECKY): As irony sits in the corner watching like a petulant child, Muslim protesters throughout the world demonstrate that they have not yet attained the legal conceptualization of Hammurabi. I mean, Hammurabi was such a big deal because he had an idea of balance. You take my eye, I’ll take your eye, instead of you take my eye and I’ll kill you and your entire family. Ya think that concept will sink in some day?

Drudge is headlining the front page of tomorrow’s Sun, which claims to have exclusive pictures from inside Saddam Hussein’s prison cell:

The report also features this picture, apparently of Saddam getting caught in his spider hole:

Clayton Cramer makes a good point about the response of some Muslims to the allegations of Koran-flushing:

If this same crowd were this angry about Muslims being murdered, most of the Arab world’s governments would have been overthrown decades ago.

Indeed. Unfortunately, in the eyes of some Muslims, outrages against Islam or against fellow Muslims — no matter how severe — are only truly outrageous if they are committed by “infidels.”

About the faulty Newsweek reporting that incited those Koran riots, Austin Bay writes:

The sin of greed always seems to creep into every scandal and it’s certainly lurking in this tragic incident. Newsweek wants market share, and a scoop grabs readers. But profit generated by a frantic “me first” quest isn’t the only motive. The “Vietnam-Watergate” motive’s also in play. That’s a tired and dirty game but for three decades it’s been a successful ploy for the New York-Washington-LA media axis. It’s rules are simple. Presume the government is lying– always make that presumption, particularly when the president is a Republican. Presume the worst about the US military– always make that presumption, even when the president is a Democrat. Add multi-cultural icing– the complaints and allegations of “Third World victims” are given revered status, the statements of US and US-allied nations met with cynical doubt and arrogant contempt. (Yes, the myth of the Noble Savage re-cast.)

I’m uncomfortable with headlines like “Newsweek lied, people died” and statements such as “Newsweek has blood on its hands,” because I think blaming reporters for riots (instead of blaming the rioters) is like blaming American foreign policy for 9/11 (instead of blaming the terrorists). The right-wingers and warbloggers who decry such rhetoric when it comes from the Left should know better than to employ it when the MSM, instead of the government, is the alleged perpetrator of the wrongs that have incited the Muslim world. In both cases, it is the murderers who bear sole moral blame for their murders.

However, that doesn’t make Bay’s commentary about the media’s bias any less accurate.

Please forgive the blasphemy but Allah curse it all, WHY are we so Allah-cursed Blind about the bloodyobvious Blowback, sometimes?

I know, I know, it’s only an Alleged Allegation. (So was Abu Ghraib at first but never mind, that doesn’t Prove anything.) Maybe it’s Fabricated. Let’s hope so. Let’s pray that unfaked Pictures of the Prophet’s holy writ, going literally down the Guantanamo toilet, don’t pop up on The Internets because ~ it Never Happened.

KABUL, Afghanistan, May 13 - Thousands of Muslims, from Gaza to Pakistan to Indonesia, emerged from prayer services on Friday to join Afghans in rapidly spreading protests over the reported desecration of a Koran by American interrogators at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

…The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said Friday that officials at the Department of Defense were investigating reports of the desecration, and that “they take such allegations very seriously,” but he did not indicate when the investigation would be completed, Reuters reported. “We will not tolerate any disrespect for the holy Koran,” he added.

Thanks, Scott. We Want to Believe. In furtherance of which, just Please don’t tell us that “it never came to that point” where we might Consider tolerating any such Disrespect. :>

Read the whole thing.

On Wednesday 5 terrorist bombings, including suicide bombings, took the lives of 49 Iraqis and injured at least 85 more.

The reason I bring this up is that it was recently suggested that the removal of Saddam Hussein has led to a decrease in suicide bombings.

In a political skirmish that has been developing throughout the month, British academics have decided to boycott Israeli universities due to allegations that Palestinians receive unequal treatment in the ivory tower.

In a rather poorly worded objection, a spokesperson for the Israeli universities said:

“This is a very unbalanced decision … basically a shameful decision,” said Bar-Ilan’s president, Moshe Kaveh. “In academic spheres, one should not interfere between academic activity and research, and political decisions.”

While I agree that the concept of an academic union making this type of decision is a bit unusual, given the academy’s reputation for open discussion and debate, I think Kaveh is entirely mistaken that academics and politics are separate spheres.

Of course, the issue is a thorny one. Why should academics have the right to boycott and belittle political actions and opinions while lawmakers are crucified for mixing politics with research funding decisions? And what about academics who define themselves as political figures, ala Susan Estrich or, dare I be historical, Woodrow Wilson?

Clearly, the British intellectual cabal is trying to send a forceful message to Israel. I’m just not quite sure what that message will become after a game of telephone.

LaPorte, IN resident Jeff Ake, the owner of Equipment Express in Rolling Prairie, has been abducted by terrorists in Iraq, putting “the war right in our front yard.”

Ake was in Iraq to “construct integrated systems that will provide water bottles to be sold in Baghdad as part of the rebuilding effort,” according to the LaPorte Herald-Argus. His company also “made a system that filled containers with cooking oil that would be used by Iraqis,” according to the South Bend Tribune.

Members of the local community are keeping Jeff and his family in their thoughts and prayers. There will be a candlelight vigil today (Friday) at 7:00 PM at Fox Memorial Park in LaPorte (map).

The Associated Press reports, in an article that’s currently being given top billing by Drudge, that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told CNN he has ruled out a preemptive strike against Iran’s possible nuclear facilities.

Sharon Rules Out Attacking Iran Over Nukes

JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel will not mount a unilateral attack aimed at destroying Iran’s nuclear capability, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Wednesday in a CNN-TV interview.

Sharon said he did not see “unilateral action” as an option. He said Israel did not need to lead the way on the Iran nuclear weapons issue, calling for an international coalition to deal with it.

The only problem is, reading the actual transcript of the interview in question, I don’t see where he says any of that:

BLITZER: A lot of our viewers will remember in 1981, when Israel unilaterally bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. Are you considering — let me rephrase the question, at what point would Israel take unilateral military action to try to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb?

SHARON: I remember, of course, that raid in Iraq and was always proud to [have been] a member of the inner Cabinet … I think that decision then has saved many lives. Just imagine what could have happened if Iraq would have had — Iraq under Saddam Hussein — would have had atomic weapons.

I think that here the situation is different. And the problem is different and much wider. And I think that here it should be a coalition of democracies who believe in the danger, led by United States, in order to put pressure upon Iran.

BLITZER: Have you ruled out a unilateral military strike against Iran?

SHARON: We don’t think that’s what we have to do. We’re not going to solve the problems for nobody. And then the thing that — I’d say the danger is so great that it should be an international effort. Altogether, I would like you to know that Israel is not leading the struggle. Of course we exchange intelligence. We exchange views, we discuss these issues, but it’s not that we are planning any military attack on Iran.

And somehow that bundle of equivocation get mangled by the AP into “Sharon rules out attacking Iran” and “Israel will not mount a unilateral attack”?!? Wow.

Let’s review what Sharon actually said, shall we?

1. “We don’t think that’s what we have to do” is a speculative assertion of fact; it is by no means a blanket statement that any future option has been ruled out. What you “think” can be wrong. Just because you “think” you won’t have to do something, doesn’t mean it will not happen or that it’s no longer an option.

2. “We’re not going to solve the problems for nobody” is somewhat more forceful, but in addition to being gramatically incorrect, it’s also quite vague. What, precisely, are “the problems”? Just how solid is the level of certainty that’s supposed to be implied by the phrase “not going to”? One can draw various inferences, but this statement certainly isn’t an effective disavowal of any and all possible future preemptive options.

3. “[I]t’s not that we are planning any military attack on Iran” is not an assertion that anything has been taken off the table by any means. He’s merely saying that it isn’t being planned, not that it’s no longer an option or that it will not happen. That’s a HUGE distinction.

These are not subtle differences, people! Bottom line, if Ariel Sharon had wanted to say, “We are taking the preemptive option off the table,” he could have. But HE DIDN’T. And yet the AP is reporting that he did!

(more…)

Better safe than sorry, say Sharon & co.:

Israel has drawn up secret plans for a combined air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear programme.

The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, gave “initial authorisation” for an attack at a private meeting last month on his ranch in the Negev desert.

Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practise destroying it. Their tactics include raids by Israel’s elite Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities.

The plans have been discussed with American officials who are said to have indicated provisionally that they would not stand in Israel’s way if all international efforts to halt Iranian nuclear projects failed.

Methinks you can’t blame the Israelis for wanting to pre-emptively defend themselves against being, you know, nuked into oblivion by a trigger-happy mullah. But at the same time… can you say “holy war”?

Everyday I am glad I was born in the US, and that I have freedoms available to me that people living in fundamentalist countries don’t. Today I stumbled across two more reasons to love the US, as imperfect as it may seem sometimes.

An Iranian blogger was sentenced to 14 years in prison

Women activists in Iraq are being assasinated by fundamentalists, and women in the street are being threatened and attacked for wearing western clothes instead of the higab [Islamic headscarf].

I’ve come to an epiphany. We’re ALL right about the Iraq war, opposition and supporters both. We on the opposition were right that Saddam posed no threat to us because we knew from the beginning that he had no WMD or alliance with al Qaeda. We were right that it would cost extraordinary amounts of money and that the people would turn against us violently. We were right that there would be wrongs committed in the occupation. We were also right that a man like Bush would blunder on the details. Supporters were right that people do just want to be free to live their lives, wherever they are, and elections would serve as inspiration for those nascent democratic movements in the Middle East. Oh yes, and that the UN sucks. Almost completely irrelevant, but yet oh so true.

The moral of the story: Iraq is less filling AND tastes great.