#1
Malkin is a bright young lady that has chronicled the problem of illegals for some time. The problems continue. We will end up getting bitten again if we (U.S.) don't do something to address this problem quickly.
As he begins his second term, President Bush has become a victim of his own success in combating al Qaeda. If shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, Bush had announced a policy of disemboweling captured terrorists, he would have been applauded from Boise to Boston. Heck, John Kerry probably would have volunteered to wield the sword.
More than three years later, the sense of panic has abated, and legions of critics are condemning one of the successful steps taken to prevent another 9-11: the aggressive interrogation of captured terrorists.
Human Rights Watch had the gall to begin its annual report by singling out for censure two "fundamental threats to human rights" that occurred last year: "the ethnic cleansing in Darfur and the torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib."
Are the abuses committed by a few renegade guards at one prison really worth mentioning in the same breath as the murder of 70,000 people in Darfur? Even Human Rights Watch has to concede that "no one would equate the two," and yet that's what the group is doing.
I hold no brief for the sickos at Abu Ghraib, who have begun to get the prison time they deserve. Their superiors also deserve to be harshly disciplined. But let's keep a little perspective, shall we?
According to the August 2004 report of an independent panel headed by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, more than 50,000 individuals have been detained by U.S. forces in the global war on terrorism. Allegations of misconduct have been made in 300 cases -- that's 0.6 percent -- and not all of them have been substantiated. (Surprise! Some detainees lie!)
For all the sifting of the administration's legal memorandums, no evidence has emerged that abuses were the result of high-level decisions. "No approved procedure called for or allowed the ⊠abuses that in fact occurred," the Schlesinger report concluded.
The Bush administration is hardly blameless. It should have kept a tighter rein on its subordinates and been better prepared to handle large numbers of detainees. But the critics are barking up the wrong tree when they flay the president for refusing to apply the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan. (They are being applied in Iraq -- for all the good that did at Abu Ghraib.)
The laws of war are a social contract: Combatants who follow the rules will be given protections if captured. Al Qaeda and its ilk do not abide by such niceties as not targeting civilians and not beheading captives. If they are given all the protections accorded to lawful prisoners of war, what incentive do they have to follow the rules?
We should be clear about what POW status entails. According to the 1949 Geneva Convention, a POW "is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number." Any attempt to coax further information is forbidden: "Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
Is this really the standard we should apply to al Qaeda detainees? Many of Bush's critics think so.
Although Human Rights Watch focuses its criticisms on torture, which everyone condemns, it also wants to ban "all forms of coercive interrogation." Many of these involve no physical coercion.
Interrogators employ psychological "stress techniques" such as the good cop/bad cop routine seen on countless TV shows. Other techniques that Human Rights Watch would like to outlaw involve keeping detainees up past their bedtime, making them stand for long periods and yelling at them -- no worse than the treatment meted out to recruits in boot camp.
Rougher methods have been employed on the worst of the worst. It is alleged, for instance, that 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was tied to a board and temporarily submerged in water to induce a feeling of drowning. "Waterboarding" may well meet the U.N. definition of torture: the infliction of "severe pain and suffering, mental or physical."
Should this be permitted? I'm not sure. It's hard to know exactly where to draw the line. But I am sure that I reject the absolutist grandstanding of so many of the president's critics, who would turn international law into a suicide pact. That such views are now espoused even by some supporters of the war on terrorism is a sign of how complacent we have become.
I hope it doesn't take another 9-11 to alert us to the mortal danger we still face.
Posted by: tipper ||
01/26/2005 9:37:32 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I hope it doesnât take another 9-11 to alert us to the mortal danger we still face.
Of course it will. For some people, the loss of life is the only thing they understand. Unfortunately, it's usually people other than themselves that are the ones that end up paying the ultimate price.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/26/2005 19:23 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It will take several more 9-11s to alert a large majority of US voters to the danger they face. For extremists like Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore, even their own death will fail to make them change their positions.
#1
This addresses one of the biggest misconceptions about Islamofascism, the wails and whines about only impoverished muslims become terrorists -- bull shit!
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/26/2005 9:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This addresses one of the biggest misconceptions about Islamofascism, the wails and whines about only impoverished muslims become terrorists..
Not that any of the wailing and whining would actually stop....
n an article titled "Adolf Hitler on the Making of a Successful Lie," Abu Khawla (Muhammad Bechri), a human rights activist and former chair of the Tunisian section of Amnesty International, claims that Islamism is "a very successful lie," and not "a remarkable social and political force." In his view, "only Arab/Muslim secular forces can effectively undermine Islamism." The following are excerpts from the article: [1]
'The Mother of All Big Lies: Islamism'
"A contributor to a secular forum did well recently in reminding us about Hitler's dictum on how to lie and have a great impact on the masses⊠This raises a set of interesting questions. Why would a particular lie succeed while others fail? And why would a liar suddenly succeed in a particular period of time and not before that? To answer these questions, we need to understand what makes for a successful lie. I will elaborate on this point first, then I will go on to speculate on the effective way to counter the mother of all big lies: Islamism (or political Islam, since Islamism is nothing but politics in a religious garb).
"Adolf Hitler said: 'the broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.' Hitler also taught us that to succeed, the lie should be told loudly. In case you didn't notice, he would generally start his speeches in a relatively quite manner, [and] then as he starts shouting he gets more and more applause. The foolhardy German masses honestly believed that if their beloved Fuhrer is taking such a pain to talk loudly, he should be telling more truth.
"By these two accounts, Islamism is expected to be a very successful lie, indeed. Amir Taheri estimated the Islamist propaganda machine's bill to be about 100 billion dollars during the last two decades alone, which makes it the largest propaganda machine in history, even larger than the communist propaganda machine during the Soviet era. People wouldn't obviously spend that much unless they know they have to defend a huge lie.
"The mosque (especially the Friday prayer sermon) is particularly used by Islamists to spread their message. [Egyptian progressive] Saadeddine Ibrahim recently lamented how he would face a propaganda machine that uses a network of 150,000 mosques in Egypt. In many countries, Fatwas issued by the Mullahs could be binding on social and political matters, and the religious authorities are granted wide powers for censorship of whatever they consider to be blasphemous.
"In addition, an infiltration of culture and education spheres gives Islamists an upper hand, especially in the conception of school curricula and media programs. And since the early 1990s, a turn to the worst was inaugurated by the advent of satellite TV. In the Arab world, this important tool of communications is so far completely monopolized by fundamentalists."
'The Most Effective Way to Counter a Lie is Obviously to Undermine It'
"To view Islamism as a lie (not a remarkable social and political force, a mistaken belief largely shared in the West) could have many implications on the conception of an effective strategy to counter Islamist terror and win. The most effective way to counter a lie is obviously to undermine it. That is what Ronald Reagan did with communism. As soon as the peoples of the former Soviet Union and central Europe realized that they fell victims to a lie, the communist edifice fell suddenly like a house of cards, without having America to fire a single shot.
"The same is needed with Islamism today. But so far, what is happening is just the opposite. Arab/Islamic governments are rather colluding with the Islamists, hoping that anti-Western diatribes will help deflect the attention of the masses from their own failures. And some of them are even adopting the Islamists' agenda as a way of containment. Examples include denying women rights to vote in Kuwait, and postponing reforms of women codes and educational systems in countries like Algeria and Egypt. To quote the great Tunisian secular thinker Afif Al-Akdhar 'these governments are implementing Islamism without the Islamists.'"
'Freedom in the West Gave Islamist Terror Masters Ample Opportunities to Mount an Effective Propaganda Machine'
"Western countries have also been active in putting oil on [the] fire. Since the creation of the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt, Western democracies chose either to support the Islamists as a counterweight to communism or to adopt a neutral position. In all cases, freedom in the West gave Islamist terror masters ample opportunities to mount an effective propaganda machine.
"One would have hoped that 9/11 will change all that, but to no avail. The media dimension of the so-called 'global war on terror' consisted so far of an America counter-propaganda (Hi Magazine and Radio Sawa for Arab youth, Al-Hurra TVâŠ). Serious doubts, however, remain about the effectiveness of this approach. The declared objective is to disseminate 'American values.' But while this is a noble objective, it is not the effective way to counter political Islam. The reasons are: (1) Most - if not all - of these values are already known to Arabs; as a result, not much will be achieved by re-advertising them, and (2) Many of these values are considered to be decadent (thanks to the powerful impact of the Islamist propaganda). As a result, counter-arguments, especially when they come from American propagandists will almost certainly fall on deaf ears in the Arab/Islamic world."
'Only Arab/Muslim Secular Forces Can Effectively Undermine Islamism'
"To be sure, only Arab/Muslim secular forces can effectively undermine Islamism. As the recent Iranian example clearly shows, attempts to portray modernists as Western stooges will be futile. At the end of the day, truth will always prevail. But so far these forces are kept on the sidelines. In a recent op-ed article, U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld explained well the need to wage 'a war of ideas.' That may mean there is still hope in sanity. But until that happens, America and the West will be kidding themselves if they believe that the current military campaign alone will lead them anywhere close to their objective of uprooting Islamist terror."
[1] http://www.metransparent.com/texts/abu_khawla_adolf_hitler_on_the_making_successufl_lie.htm, January 2, 2005.
Posted by: tipper ||
01/26/2005 12:41:30 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Many of these values are considered to be decadent
The most sucessful lie is always rooted in truth. We do have a problem in the US with decadence. We are able to handle it here - but it is indeed a problem that was reflected in our last election.
That's the theory, anyway. I can't lie -- my ears turn red and I have nightmares until I give up and admit the truth (damned overdeveloped Jewish conscience!)
I am not jewish but the same thing happens to me when I try to lie. My poor son turns pale around the lips and he is known to wake up in the middle of the night to "confess".
American neo-conservatives and followers of President George W. Bush pride themselves on taking no prisoners in their ideological quests. Now they seem to have set their sights on a new target: the stifling of academic freedom in the United States. Then why does Noam Chomsky still have a job, you liar?
Tenure.
One of the most prominent American intellectual institutions in the world, Columbia University, New York, is now under such an assault. Youssef Ibrahim's lips fell off.
The most hunted species on that campus consists of professors of Arab and Iranian origin, or anyone who dares to open a debate on Middle East policies that do not conform with the Bush neo-conservatives' thinking. That is a flat glaring lie as you know full well.
Since anyone can remember, Columbia University has been the headquarters of intellectual freedom and excellence.
Also the headquarters of a few dingbats.
But that venerable institution now finds itself in the middle of a major investigation a witch-hunt really to examine complaints by delusional Jewish students, professors and administrators zealots, who are claiming they are being "intimidated" by the professors of Middle Eastern origin. The fact is the professors are themselves a tiny, hounded minority.
The charges are manifestly fanciful. Dan Miron, a pro-Israel professor, told The New York Times in an article on January 18 that for five years "dozens of Jewish students" have told him of "rude" and "snotty" treatment by colleagues and professors of Arab and Iranian origin. "They're making that constant breathing noise and they know it drives us crazy."
"These students didn't look like disturbed people who would invent these things," Miron told the newspaper. Rude and snotty? Dear, oh dear! Being a graduate of Columbia myself, I can assure Miron that, as an Arab-American, I found myself from day one the target of serious intimidation by legions of Jewish professors, students and administrators at the university. I simply assumed this to be a part of academic and intellectual sparring, indeed freedom.
Wounded, tender soul that he is.
Now the game is more sinister as the objective is not only to fire those professors or stifle them, but to prevent the hiring of any non-conformists and spread that campaign across academia in America. We can call it "the silencing of the mind".
What are the allegations against the three professors being hunted? According to The New York Times, one involves a sidewalk encounter between Lindsay Shrier, who has since graduated, and her professor, George Saliba, an American of Palestinian origin, during which she says he told her that because she had green eyes she was not a Semite and could not claim ancestral ties to Israel. Saliba denies the charge.
"Lies! All lies! The brazen, green-eyed hussy!"
The second transpired at a small lecture off campus in which Tomy Schoenfeld, a student who had served in the Israeli Army, said that when he tried to question Professor Joseph Massad, a Jordanian-born Palestinian, Massad first asked him, "How many Palestinians have you killed?" Massad told The New York Times: "It is inconceivable that I would ever respond to a member of the audience in the manner and context that [the student] describes." (Out of curiosity, I wish to know what would be Schoenfeld's answer as well as his views on dual loyalties).
The third centres on Professor Hamid Dabashi, an American-Iranian academic who is accused of cancelling a class to answer his "moral duty" to attend a Palestinian rally but who seems targeted chiefly for his "published" political viewpoints, according to The New York Times story by reporter N.R. Kleinfield. Kleinfield reports that an assistant professor in the medical school sent an e-mail message to Massad, saying: "Go back to Arab land where Jew hating is condoned. Get the hell out of America. You are a disgrace and a pathetic typical Arab liar." What about Arab hating?
Hate-mongering is unacceptable no matter who is doing it, so it is particularly obscene for Columbia to condone it among its professors.
Professor Said seemed to get along with it pretty well.
Columbia University which should have fired that professor as per its own rules of ethics did absolutely nothing.
Indeed, Massad, said he, like the other two, has been swamped with hate mail, insulted as a "camel jockey" and "Islamic Fascist". He said students who are not registered in his course show up to attend his lectures in order to heckle him. The truth is that Massad is being targeted for other reasons. Jewish students have taken to refer to his courses as "Israel-Is-Racist". Well it so happens that Israel is indeed a racist state.
Yep, so racist that Arabs there enjoy more political freedom than in just about any Arab state. Shocking, just shocking.
Half the world believes that because of Israel defining itself as "an exclusively Jewish State" where everyone who is not a Jew is a second class citizen. At least this should be debated freely on campus.
Right along with why women in Arab states are treated as breeding stock fourth-class citizens.
"To me, these are dark ages," Dabashi said. "This is not the United States I moved into in 1976. I don't recognise it. I'm in a sort of moral shock," he told The New York Times.
This is the new age of neo-conservatives obliterating not only all views contrary to their policies, but purging all intellectuals who hold different views. The vile campaign is having some of its intended effects. Massad is already losing his academic purpose. He has chosen not to teach his most controversial course, "Palestinian and Israeli Politics and Societies", in the coming semester because it wouldn't pass academic muster of the emotional toll and because he worries it might jeopardise his tenure.
The winners may be zealots, but the American intellect pays the price of censorship.
"I've been teaching for 33 years and I've always thought we all knew what appropriate faculty deportment was," said Andrew J. Nathan, a political science professor who thinks the students' charges are dubious. "Now it is not clear to everyone that the classroom is where the faculty is in full control. I teach a course called Introduction to Human Rights. We had a whole week on the torture memos of the Bush administration.
"Now I'm starting to wonder whether there's somebody in my class of 143 students who might grieve against me ⊠that I indoctrinated them, that they went through emotional suffering by hearing about these things."
Oh horror! Quick, someone, his pills!
Posted by: Korora ||
01/26/2005 12:07:13 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yep, Tenure. That's why the Administration and faculty of the Law College at the University of Michigan can rig quotas for the student body, but exempt themselves from achieving those same levels of representation within their own ranks. Four legs good, two legs better.
A good background piece on the the shape of Iraq's government, post-election.
Can't tell the players without a program.
By Brett H. McGurk, former legal adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, who helped establish the legal framework for elections in Iraq.
Iraq's upcoming elections will be an event with real potential to turn the tide both in Iraq and in the war on terrorism. As Afghanistan demonstrates, credible elections -- elections that are perceived as free and fair -- can sap the influence of violent extremists whose only claim to power is brute force and intimidation. That is why the claims of Sunni groups that advocate a boycott of elections must be vigorously rejected. These groups, such as the often-cited Association of Muslim Scholars, fail to disavow violence, yet they claim that the electoral process is somehow rigged against them.
Rarely are their claims scrutinized. Indeed, it is remarkable that in all the commentary and reporting on the Iraqi elections, little has been said about what exactly those elections are for -- and how powers will be shared after the elections even if violence keeps some away from the polls. But there lies the answer to Sunnis who threaten a boycott. Iraq's interim constitution sets the framework for a transition to an elected government under a permanent constitution by the end of this year. As in any democracy, the majority will govern, but it is untrue that minorities thereby lack influence during this period. Any elected majority must share power to govern post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The country is simply too diverse and intermingled for one group to peacefully control more than a small fraction of territory.
The interim framework accounts for this by incorporating checks and balances and important limitations on the central government in Baghdad. Iraqis are to elect a 275-member National Assembly to serve as both a legislative and constitutional assembly. But the powers of this assembly are to be shared with an independent judiciary and an executive branch that incorporates the views of Iraq's three principal factions. The selection process for the executive branch is vital. The National Assembly will appoint a three-member presidency council -- with each member receiving at least two-thirds support (or 184 votes) within the assembly. The presidency council must then unanimously appoint a prime minister, who will be the most powerful figure in the Iraqi government, as well as approve cabinet selections and appoint judges to Iraq's highest court. Thus the center of power in post-election Iraq will enjoy support across the political spectrum. And unlike the transitional model in post-conflict Bosnia, the process in Iraq requires debate among elected representatives, rather than simply locking in ethnic division from the outset, which leaves democracy stillborn. The process for drafting a permanent constitution similarly requires extensive outreach to all Iraqis, regardless of ethnicity or creed.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: trailing wife ||
01/26/2005 00:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
