Tony Blankley, November 24, 2004
This Christmastime could be the moment when Western Europe finally joins our war on terrorism. Anti-Islamist fear and anger from the mouths of the European volk are breaking through the surface calm perpetuated by the elite European appeasers. The assassination and mutilation of Dutch filmmaker van Gogh by an Islamic fanatic — and the retaliatory fire-bombings of mosques by ethnic Dutchmen — has forced high European leaders and news outlets to begin to publicly face up to the implications of Sept. 11, 2001 and the migration of Muslims in large and hostile numbers into the heart of Europe.
From Holland’s leading newspaper, the Telegraaf, to Germany’s liberal Berliner Zeitung and Der Spiegel (roughly, the European equivalents of the The New York Times, The Washington Post and Time magazine) has come the same heated prose that could be found in the United States in the aftermath of September 11. And here in the United States, even the liberal National Public Radio Network’s (NPR) “All Things Considered” is beginning to seriously report European volkish fury the way they usually report breathlessly on the latest developments in Brazilian rainforest depletion.
Read the entire article on the Town Hall website.
“European volk” ” volkish fury” – all Europeans are German to you?
Well, Christian, if you actually read the linked article you would be even more peeved as Mr. Blankley refers, at the end, to the European “common people” as the “timeless volk”. What I’d like to know is why you seem more concerned over the turn of a phrase in an American commentary, and apparently not concerned with the commentary’s subject matter?
What’s worse, an American who refers to all Europeans as “volk” or radical Islamofascists who are turning Europe into Eurabia and who gun down a Dutch filmmaker for being critical of Islamic treatment of women?
Let me answer your question with a question: how do you make a peaceful world? By referring to Muslims in general as terrorist and extremist? The phrase “the migration of Muslims in large and hostile numbers” does not indicate that these people are also made in the image of God and are fellow human beings.
The situation i The Netherlands show by all clarity that extremist exists among Christians as well. The burning of mosques is horrific act that Christians should condemn. What is worse Christians who burn down mosques or Muslims who burn down churches?
The thing is that the values we build our societies on are abandoned because some extremist attacked them! They hit us and now we are entitled to kill all of you seems to be the logic. Human rights are trown away and you have Guatanamo and the like. I home we will not see a place like that in Europe. Evil has to kill evil is the logic. Is this how you create a more peaceful world without extremists?
Are the children of the people killed in Irac not more likely to grow up hating Europe and the US and become terrorists than they would have been without the invasion?
Note 3
Christian. As you know there is no equivalence of violence between Christianity and Islam.
History: Persons asserting that Christianity promotes violence on the part of its members to the same extent Islam does love to cite the violence against Jews in Europe, the Inquisition and the Crusades. First, major leaders of Christian denominations have denounced historical violence against the Jewish people and condemned it. Secondly, the Crusades were a response to Islamic military expansion and the mistreatment of pilgrims and non-Muslims in the Holy Land. By the standard of today and the Geneva Convention, both sides of the Crusades engaged in egregious behavior, that was the nature of warfare in that time of history, nothing to be proud of on either side of the conflict.
Leadership: No Christian leader accepts or promotes violence as a means of propagating the Christian faith or of enforcing compliance with the Christian faith. The violent acts against Muslims in Holland were roundly and immediately condemned by Church leaders. By contrast, Robert Spencer at Jihadwatch.com documents that several important Muslim leaders in Europe have pointedly refused to condemn the murder of Theo Van Gogh.
Intellectual Life: No Muslims leader can, consistent with Sharia law, condemn the death penalty against those who are considered to have defamed Islam or Mohammed. The Fatwa against Salman Rushdie is still active and Iran is still actively recruiting people to kill Rushdie. There is no such thing as freedom of thought or freedom of conscience in Islam. Islamic countries have opposed the International Statement of Human Rights because it includes a statement that each person has the right to choose his or her own religious beliefs or to reject religious beliefs entirely. No Christian denomination has opposed this provision.
There are many openly available publications, both in print and on the internet, in which Muslim leaders seek to encourage a migration to Europe for the express purpose of colonizing Europe under Sharia law. If you note that the Canadians have allowed the use of Sharia law in Canada. This is just a first step, I predict you will see a push for an expansion of that Sharia law over larger and larger areas of Canadian life.
Christian, I read your response is nothing but self-righteousness moral posturing designed to dodge the original query.
If you think there is some kind of equivalence between Christian extremists & Islamofascists please tell me, how many people were murdered by Catholics because of The Da Vinci Code? Where is the Catholic ‘fatwa’ against Dan Brown? If Hollywood treated Islamofascists the way it treats Christians movie studios and theatres would be prime terrorist targets. Yet no one talks about murdering Kevin Smith for making Dogma or Brian Dannelly for making Saved. Yet Theo van Gogh makes one short film on Islamic honor killings and he’s shot multiple times, his throat is slit and a note threatening the film’s writer is stabbed to his chest. If a Christian named Jesus had done to Kevin Miller what Mohammed Bouyeri did to Theo van Gogh it would be news for months, and I have little doubt that laws would be written restricting Christian’s freedoms.
Your question, “What is worse Christians who burn down mosques or Muslims who burn down churches?” is just absurd, and leads one into the foolish position that “everyone’s at fault!” Well, when everyone’s at fault, no one is.
Reading your response to my question makes me understand why Europeans were so easily kept under the boot of Nazism and Communism. You would create moral equivalencies and condemn those willing to fight and, if necessary, die on their feet fighting evil, rather than live on their knees under oppression. It also explains to me why Europe had to rely upon America to free it from oppression.
Thanks for your replies. What I do not understand is how one can judge a whole groups of people on the actions of a few extremists. Not all Muslims are terrorists. Of course extremism should be fought the question is how one does this. War does not solve the issue as one can see in Iraq (where the terrorist arrived after the invasion by the way).
I think the best way to fight extremism is to stand by our values of freedom, democracy and human rights. We should not be as those fighting against us. A Muslim is a human being and not am object.
The parallel to WW2 is interesting. One group of people was blamed for all the bad things in society. This group was characterized as less human than the rest. This group was killed. This group was the Jews. So if you bring up WW2 think of the right parallels. (By the way: a look in history books will show that Europe actually fought nazism. Your old allies the UK is one obvious example. France was at one point divided etc.)
Note 6
You are correct that it is dangerous to generalize about groups of people based on the actions of a few. However, a good indication of a group’s worldview, I think, is to see how those on the supposed fringe react. So far, with very few exceptions, the silence coming from the Islamic world is deafening.
Also, how can you be sure that the violence ageist mosques have been committed by Christians? What about members from the neo-Nazi, or other ultra-right factions? I don’t think one can claim that they are Christian and remain intellectually honest. It may be that you are guilty of the same type of offense that you worried about.
Note 7
Correction to second sentence of the first paragraph: It should say “However, a good indication of a group’s worldview, I think, is to see how those in the supposed mainstream react to those on the supposed fringe.”
I accidentally hit ‘post’ while I was editing…sorry.
Christian, while I agree with you that we should not de-humanize all Muslims, one histroical fact cannot be ignored,i.e., the Muslim faith has always been spread by the sword. Also despite their public tolerance of other monotheistic faiths, in pratice, only Islam is allowed–all others are mercilessly persecuted. Here is a good article http://www.insiderreport.net/clash_1-2.html
We should preach Christ and Him crucified, work diplmatically with any Muslim leader who will risk his/her own life to work with us, but where only the sword is offered, it must be answered with the sword.
“The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.”
“This statement by George W. Bush, made September 17, 2001, demonstrates his subtle understanding of the etymology of the word ‘Islam’ — that it is cognate with ‘sal’m,’ the Arabic word for peace. It was part of the president?s plea to the American public not to attack Muslim Americans out of prejudice and anger over the terrorist attacks which had occurred the week before. According to this statement as well as others Bush made at the time, the terrorists were not really Muslims since “Islam means peace.” Such statements declare the limits of what is and is not Islam and function to maintain the assumption held by many, especially in this time of faith-based initiatives, that religion (or faith, spirituality, etc.) is always something good; otherwise, it is not religion at all.”
http://www.therevealer.org/archives/main_story_001272.php
I’m sorry Dean, I don’t really see your point. Historically, “Pax Romana” also implied peace, just as long as you were not on the wrong side (those in Judea and Gaul for example). To put it another way, I could call fire “ice” but it will still burn me.
Note 10
Earth to Dean.
Bush is a politician, not a historian, not theologian. Given the state of the country after 9/11, Bush felt it was important to pour oil on the waters and discourage non-Muslims who might feel tempted to wreak some kind of ugly revenge on individual Muslims in America. All things considered, given the unprecedented magnitude of 9/11, it is to our credit as Americans that relatively few violent acts were perpetrated against Muslims. Please note that CAIR’s listing of anti=-Muslim hate crimes does not bear up under much scrutiny. One incident CAIR listed as a “hate-crime” was an incident in which a Muslim woman, wearing a hijab in a store, received some “dirty looks” from other customers. There were some instances of real violence, including a Sikh who was physically attacked, but all in all, there was very little revenge violence against Muslims after 9/11 in America.
The only point is to be careful not to paint people with overly broad strokes. Islam contains its share of both the peaceful and the militant. Militancy in Islam may be driven as much, if not more so by by socio-economic than theological forces.
One noteworthy observation I have heard is that the Islamic lacks the highly organized hierarchical clerical structure found in most Christian denominations. The presense of a clerical hierarchy leads to a more unified message from a religion, and more homogenous teachings to its adherents, while the lack of such a structure can lead to more diverse and even contradictory pronouncements and teachings. In Islam any Mullah, or Cleric, can formulate and issue his own Fatwa, while in Christianity, Priests and Bishops must adhere to doctrine of their Church and it’s leadership.
Our challenge in dealing with Islam is finding a way to encourage the peaceful, moderate and progessive elements of that faith, while avoiding actions which appear to validate the militant and paranoid messages of the hardliners and radicals.
“To devout Muslims, what Europe offers is godless materialism and hedonism, a life devoid of meaning and purpose, save pleasure and self-indulgence. They prefer to do Allah’s bidding in this world to ensure they share his paradise in the next.”
I always thought this amusing: they criticize “the hedonism” of the West, but for denying themselves in this life, they can obtain seventy-some virgins in the next (and I’m quite certain it’s not so that they may play card games with them)!
The psychology of this is fascinating, really.
Just out of curiosity, if we consider “defending our homeland” as cause for a “just war”, would not the Native American populations have been justified in killing the Pilgrims when they invaded their land and tried to push them out by force?
(Or do we believe that the Indians wanted to be subdued and that the settlers always acted with justice and with pure intentions?)
Note 13:
“Militancy in Islam may be driven as much, if not more so by socio-economic than theological forces . . . The presense of a clerical hierarchy leads to a more unified message from a religion, and more homogenous teachings to its adherents, while the lack of such a structure can lead to more diverse and even contradictory pronouncements and teachings. In Islam any Mullah, or Cleric, can formulate and issue his own Fatwa, while in Christianity, Priests and Bishops must adhere to doctrine of their Church and it?s leadership.”
Dean, if this was the case, why have we not had a problem with Baptists from Appalachia blowing themselves up on school buses?
Note 15:
James,
I suppose they would have been, the same goes for Africans being carried off into slavery. We could also include the Anglo Saxons during the Norman invasion, the Picts and Celts during the Roman invasions and every other nation or people conquered by an invading army from the beginning of time. Are you trying to equate are actions in Afghanistan and Iraq with the way the Europeans treated Native Americans?
Note 17:
Nope. I’ve just been seeing a lot of Thanksgiving “history” presentations that seem to be omitting the more unpleasant aspects of our nation’s founding.
We went into Afghanistan to do something very specific (capture/kill the terrorist cells), not to occupy it … big difference.
Not too sure about Iraq, though. We are invading their country so I suppose they have a right to defend their totalitarian regime if that’s what they want to do.
If the majority of Iraqis want democracy they’d better step up to the plate, start fighting for it themselves and stop expecting us to do all the work. If it’s not that important to them then it shouldn’t be to us, either. I’m not overly impressed with their efforts and determination thus far.
Note 18:
Thanks for the clarification. I happen to agree with you. I get a little tired of the sugarcoated presentation of our history that we conservatives seem to latch on to. The good and the bad must be understood; it helps up deal with our national failures, and I think, gives us a greater appreciation of those people who accomplished great things despite their shortcomings.
As far as Iraq goes, we did not go in to take over the country and make it part of our territory, so I would put it in the same category as Afghanistan. But you are right, unless the Iraqis themselves take the initiative it is going to be a long, bloody, and, I fear, fruitless effort.
James, I know what you mean. However, it seems the Pilgrims were an unusual case. The land they settled at Plymouth Rock was previously inhabited by a tribe which was entirely wiped out by an epidemic sickness. Most likely the sickness was caught from English explorers. The story is that the neighboring tribes stayed away from this land because they believed it was inhabited by ghosts. Perhaps this is part of the reason the Pilgrims had such good relations with the natives. The Pilgrims settled on unwanted land.
Its often said that the natives didn’t have the same concept of property ownership that the European settlers had. This is probably one of the reasons for the future conflicts that emerged. I would agree with you, though. According to Thomas Aquinas, the natives should have had perfectly good reason to defend their homeland against the European settlers. The Europeans should have realized this. Of course, the Europeans were stronger, and as the saying goes, “might makes right”. It is sad.
Another fascinating and tragic story is the severe persecution of the Orthodox native population in Alaska by the American government. The American government broke up families and denied the natives their freedom of religion as Orthodox Christians. Fr. Michael Oleksa has some fascinating stuff on this.
I think the consensus is that Smallpox wiped out the inhabitants of the area prior to the arrival of the Pilgrims in Plymouth and later Massachusetts Bay. However, they were still in close proximity to Native tribes and it did not take long for conflict to arrive. There were different philosophies on property ownership, plus the Puritans viewed natives as Satan’s followers as evidenced by their religion and “savagery” (translated as “non-Englishness). If anyone is interested in looking into this further, read “The Pequot War” by Alfred A. Cave, it presents a good picture of the complexities and tragedy of Puritan/Indian conflicts. This would make an interesting string under another topic heading. Perhaps one about America’s Christian roots?
NOTE 6: Christian, I look at the Islamic Middle East and I see theocratic despotism after theocratic despotism after theocratic despotism. What do you see? Even the nominally democratic Turkey levies heavier taxes upon non-Muslims than they do Muslims, and they restrict the freedoms of Christians. Bringing a Bible into Saudi Arabia results in jail time. What happens when one brings a Koran into Rome? You are asked, “Would like to build a Mosque?”
Islam tells its faithful to treat the infidel in one of three ways: convert them; force them to submit to second-class citizen status, i.e., become dhimmi; or kill them. Since the 7th Century Islam’s solutions for dealing with infidels has been convert, submit, or die.
Surely there are Muslims today who do not believe that Christians, Jews et al should be forced to become dhimmi or die and who believe that the best way to spread their faith is through peaceful witness. Are Islamic leaders pronouncing this from the hilltops or organizing mass demonstrations against those in their midst who eagerly embrace death or dhimmitude for infidels? I don’t see it. I have heard of a handful of Islamic individuals pleading with their fellow Muslims to put down the bomb belt, the gun, the long knife and end this horrid relationship with terrorism. How do the Islamofascists respond to these pleas? They call for the death of these traitors to Islam. And your average Muslim sadly remains silent because of a very rational fear to speak out.
Do you really think that what I write here is equivalent to what Nazis wrote about the Jews? Is that what you really think? I can no more respond to that than I can respond to one who thinks that Elvis is an alien, and he really isn’t dead, he just went home. I strongly suggest you spend about a week or so reviewing the information avialable at the Middle East Media Research Institute and get back to me.
A brief glance at the latest at MEMRI one finds “An Open Letter from a Saudi Islamist to Those who Shirk Jihad”, and “Mothers of Hizbullah Martyrs: We are Very Happy and Want to Sacrifice More Children”. This is not Western propaganda meant to demonize Muslims, my friend.
I think it was Stalin who said, “The West will sell us the rope with which we shall hang them.” What you consider to be a peaceful approach to dealing with Islamic terrorism is providing the Islamofascists with the rope by which they will hang us.
Note 21
Given that the current academic fad is to treat Native Americans as victims, it might be useful to review a few facts about Native American culture.
Native Americans were uniformly warlike.
All Native American tribes venerated the Warrior and success in war. Native American tribes engaged in lethal warfare among themselves for millenia before the Europeans arrived. The Dakota loathed and abomindated the Cheyenne. Battles between Native American tribes frequently resulted in the destruction of entire villages or entire brances of the enemy tribes. Native American warriors killed opposing warriors and any captives who would not be useful as slaves, such as the elderly, the handicapped, or the very young. It was not uncommon to find the remains of a conquered Native American village filled with corposes, similarly, it was not uncommon for Native American warriors to attack and capture poorly defended American colonist settlements. Europeans were taken as prisoners when they appeared healthy and useful.
Native Americans condoned slavery, used torture, pursued enemies to total extinction.
The Native American tribes of Oklahoma owned African slaves prior to the abolition of slavery by the American Civil War. Native American tribes employed torture of enemy prisoners of war, some thought they brought torture to levels even exceeding the sadistic imagination of the Europeans. Women were one step above lifestock and lived lives as near slaves.
Native Americans engaged in Big Power politics
Native American tribes engaged in Big Power politics by entering into agreements and alliances with the French, the British and American colonists. They bargarined for power and wealth on near equal footing for many decades.
Native Americans were militarily competitive.
Native American had real military advantages. They knew the terrain, the wildlife, and the weather of the territories and they used these advantages with great skill. Native Americans quickly acquired the skills needed to use the horse and the rifle with great effect.
Native Americans of the Northeast lacked immunity from European diseases, but, their deaths from European diseases was not planned by those original 17th Century Europeans.
17th Century medicine was primitive. No culture had a good understanding of communicable diseases or how the body acquires immunity from some of those diseases.While it is true that Native Americans suffered terribly from European diseases, it was not a planned tactic. I have read reports that during the 19th century, blankets given Native Americans were purposefully infected with smallpox. This practice, of course, if despicable, but, it is not an indictment of the Pilgrims.
Native Americans were not natural environmentalists.
While it is true that Native Americans did not create pollution from industrial activity such as that engaged in by European culture in the 20th century, Native American tribes WERE NOT ENVIRONMENTALISTS. There is proof that Native American tribes of the Northwest OVERFISHED salmon runs to the point where the salmon line died out. There is evidence that Native American tribes of the Great Plains did not refrain from killing buffalo infants or nursing buffalo mothers. If the Native American tribes of the Great Plains entertained even the slightest concept of species preservation they would not have engaged in this practice.
A lot of myths have developed about Native American culture which are unjust to European Americans and are essentially demeaning to Native Americans.
One of America’s great virtues is a cultural refusal to live in the past. Nurturing grudges is not good for an individual or a society.
Note 14
Hedonism for Whom?
Classical Islam allows a man four wives and any slave women in his household. A Muslim man may divorce a women for any reason at any time. A Muslim man need not approach a judge or some neutral third party in order to divorce a wife. A Muslim woman has very limited grounds for divorce and she must obtain the approval of a panel of imams. Under the rules of classical Islam it is nearly impossible for a woman to produce the type of proof required to establish her right to divorce. Where is the ascetic here? Muslim men may indulge themselves virtually with any woman who they can either afford to “marry” or to own as a slave. Mohammed also endorsed “temporary” marriage which are not much more than short term prostitution contracts.
Why is Muslim marriage called “marriage” when it is such a different institution than Christian marriage. There is no concept in Islam of a man and a woman “becoming one” after marriage.
The hedonism and sexual indulgence that Muslims object to in modern European life is the relative freedom of the females to refrain from marriage, to engage in sex outside marriage, to choose to divorce. As a Christian woman, I accept the teaching of the Christian church and I do not condone sex outside of marriage, but, I condemn it for both men and women.
Lastly, anyone who has spent time on college campuses can tell you that Muslim men away from home behave like the worst freshman frat boy while they are free from the oversight of their families.
Note 13
Jihad by any other name.
May I recommend anything written by Bernard Lewis, but, in particular a short book called “What Went Wrong.” Lewis reports the consensus of all serious scholars of Islam that Mohammed claimed that Allah had chosen him to lead Islam towards domination of the entire world. Mohammed’s kingdom was definitely “of this world.” Religion and the state were one. The advance of the power of the Ummah from 700 to 1400 was seen as proof of Allah’s favor. Islam is supersessionist. From its beginning it has defined itself as the religious, cultural, and political system, which will come to dominate and supercede all others.
The title of Lewis’ book, What Went Wrong? is a question posed by a Muslim. The Muslim must ask “If Allah through Mohammed promised us that we would be conquerors in this world, here on Earth, why is the Ummah poverty stricken and subject to the military and political domination of others.”
What is remarkable is that people like Karen Armstrong and John Esposito have managed to convince the West to forget what 1400 years of Western-Islamic and Western-Hindu conflict have made clear. Muslims believe they are entitled to rule the world fully.
What Islam Means:
Here are the characteristics of the Islamic state. They are taken from Sharis law. Sharia law is codified by the scholars of Al-Hazar University in Cairo and contained in publications such as “The Reliance of the Traveler.” This classical Islamic text has been translated by Al-Hazar into modern European languages. Al-Hazar scholars have also translated the Koran and the Hadith into modern European languages.
Here are some of the characteristics of Islam:
A) A state sponsored religion, Islam with all other religious expression subject to suppression by taxation and other discriminatory regulations
B) Cultural markers required for non-Muslims to publicly show their inferior status. Sharia law does not allow Muslims to report to non-Muslims in any chain of authority
C) Polygamy and concubinage
D) Unfettered right to divorce at will by men
E) Prohibition of insurance as a form of gambling
F) Death penalty for homosexual conduct
G) Death penalty for apostasy by Muslim including any form of disrespect of Islam, the Koran or of Mohammed. Dropping a Koran on the floor can be treated as a form of apostasy.
H) Control of intellectual life to prevent insults to Islam. Censorship of newspapers, publishing, and all intellectual life
I) Prohibition of the ownership of dogs for pleasure
J) Prohibition of pork or symbols of pigs in art, painting, literature, poetry.
K) Prohibition of the depiction of the human form in any artwork.
L) Prohibition of adoption
M)Toleration of female genital mutilation. A practice EXPRESSLY CONDONED by the Halafi school of Sunni jurisprudence.
N) Wife beating
0) Gender segregation in public, in schools, in government requiring the prohibition of free movement by women.
P) Devaluation of the testimony of women to be equal to half that of a man
Q) Reduction in the share of inheritance for women to half of that enjoyed by a male heir.
R) A dress code for women, requiring at the minimum, a covering of the body from the ankles to the neck in such a way as to disguise the true form of the underlying body. A covering, at a minimum, of the hair, possibly also covering of the lower half of the face.
S Prohibition of women in leadership roles in society, particularly, that of a head of state.
T) Prohibition of any touching between unrelated men and women, this excludes the custom of shakikng hands and requires medical doctors to work through intermedaries.
U)Stoning as a punishment for adultery
V) Amputation as a punishment for theft
X) Whipping with a lash for breaking the Ramadam fast
How many of these practice are you willing to tolerate?
Orthodox Muslim Murdered Theo Van Gogh
The murderer of Theo Van Gogh was carrying out the orthodox Muslim punishment for insulting Islam, the Koran and Mohammed. He was not an extremist. He was orthodox Muslim.
Note 23
“One of America?s great virtues is a cultural refusal to live in the past. Nurturing grudges is not good for an individual or a society.”
Some of your points are certainly open to debate, but I agree with your overall point. Yet at the same time, we as a nation cannot ignore the ugly side of our past. It does just as much of a disservice to soft peddle the treatment of Native Americans as it does to coddle them as helpless victims. Let’s take another example, is it better to view George Washington as a mythical demi-god throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac, or as a man, who accomplished great things in the face of hardship and struggle, often fighting to keep his temper and flagging self-confidence in check? It’s not the same thing as the treatment of Native Americans of course, but if staying connected to our history is important (and I think that those of us who are Orthodox would agree on the importance of maintaining a connection to history), we must accept the ugly and unpleasant with the admirable.
Note 24
I think you are right on the money. It seems to me that the Europeans, and some in the US, have been so neutered by “diversity,” “peace,” and secular utopianism, that they cannot believe that incompatible and hostile beliefs and philosophies exist that will gladly see them dead or enslaved. I am not painting all Muslims with a broad brush, but they are not the Muslims ones making all the noise.
Note 26:
Where is the ACLU when they are really needed?
Note 23: “One of America’s great virtues is a cultural refusal to live in the past. Nurturing grudges is not good for an individual or a society.”
Well, it is a great virtue to forgive those who have wronged us, and it is also a great virtue to heal those we have wronged. If neither of these happen, then we still live in the past. Sometimes I think that America is in denial and simply avoids the past. If that is the case, then it wouldn’t be a virtue.
Oh, Missourian, please stop. All these facts make my head hurt. Why can’t you let me wallow in my romantic idealism?
Aaaargh.
Sorry, for a moment there I thought I was a Chomskyite. 😉
Regarding item X in Note 26: One Iranian boy, aged 14, didn’t survive his 85 lashes for breaking the Ramadan fast.
Some will just turn away, ignoring what is, in effect, a sacrifice to their god: Multiculturalism.
BTW, it looks like a lot of media is making hay out of a recent Red Cross report on Guantanamo. Where was the Red Cross when this boy was being lashed? From what I can see this story can be found in exactly ONE Western news source besides the Iran Press News. Meanwhile the Red Cross story on Guantanamo gets far more attention.
MSM turns a blind eye to a 14 year old boy being beaten to death for eating during the Ramadan Fast, while scores of Muslims look on doing nothing. But put a few Islamofascists in “solitary confinement, temperature extremes (and) use of forced positions” and the World comes to halt to condemn those evil Americans. Never mind the beating to death of that poor hungry boy, what’s really important is that a few terrorists are uncomfortable.
Michael R
Michael, how long has it been since George Washington was viewed as a “mythical demi-God.” Have you been on a college campus in the last fifteen years. I have I just finished degree in EE. Eric Foner wrote a scurrilous book called ” The People’s History of the United States.” It is one long anti-American diatribe. The whole of American history is simply treated as a series of injustices against minority groups. This is a popular text.
When it comes to George Washington I ask you to meditate long and hard on the point that he was the FIRST NATIONAL LEADER in Western tradition to voluntarily step down from power and pass it power on peacefully to the next Chief Executive. Perhaps instead of unduly venerating our history, Michael, you have come to take it for granted.
Michael I would like to you contemplate that the United States of America was the first country in the history of the world to include a guarantee of intellectual freedom in a founding document. Try thinking about that for about a month, then come back and talk to me about some mythical view of George Washington. I don’t think that we truly honor Washington enough.
Breather
O.K. Daniel, just because you asked, I will lay off. I really have to get some chores done.
Islamic Culture and Women
A reminder of what living in Islamic culture is like for women. Please read
http://www.terrorismunveiled.com/athena/2004/11/honor_killings__1.html
What this lady points out is that a well-educated, affluent, well-traveled and articulate Jordanian man in his twenties is willing to state that he would kill his own sister if she was unchaste. He says this as he is dating a Western woman. From the article, it is clear that while he was attending school in the West, he engaged in casual sex without compunction.
May we please start taking Islam seriously now? Now that Pym Fortyn is dead, now that Theo Van Gogh is dead? Sometime before they throw a bag over my head?
4% Growth Rate: Bush’s Fault
From Financial Times on line. FT.com
Strong consumer spending and business investment and a slightly lower than previously reported trade deficit meant the US economy grew at a 3.9 per cent rate in the third quarter, the Commerce Department said.
End quote.
Contrast these results with those of our betters, the Europeans. European growth rates are stagnant across the Continent, none topping 1.5% in the respective workers’ paradises. Unemployment averages TWICE that of the United States. Happily, the enlightened European workers enjoy supporting 1/10 of the able-bodied population on semi-permanent government doles. Nothing stimulates personal achievement, growth and fulfillment more than knowing that society owes you a living. Just think what we could have done under Kerry. Maybe in 2008.
That only means interest rates are going to go up faster.
“U.S. 10-Year Treasury Note Erases its Gain After Manufacturing Index Rises”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/markets/bonds.html
“Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) — The benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury note fell for a sixth straight day in New York after an index measuring manufacturing activity for November rose. The employment portion of the index also increased. Demand for government debt weakened on speculation the economy and labor market may keep expanding at a pace that would allow the Federal Reserve to continue to raise its target interest rate at what policy makers call a “measured” pace. A government report earlier showed personal income and spending rose more than forecast last month.”
The problem still remains the out-of-control budget deficit and the pathetically low level of US national savings, which makes us dangerously dependent on foreign capital. As the dollar slides lower Japan and China which own hundreds of billions in US public and private securities, are losing money. China is also losing money because its currency, the Renmimbi, is pegged to the Dollar, and foreign nations that have reserves denominated in US dollars are also losing money.
We face the real possibility of a panicked dumping of the dollar, and if that happens foreihn investment in the US will diminish considerably, US creditors will have to pick up the slack, and US interest rates will go to the roof, pounding US consumers who are up to their eyeballs in debt and causing a recession. Steps by the government to rein in borrowing would help restore confidence, but the borrow-and-spend policies of the Republican party make any decrease in the deficit highly unlikely.
Note 36
Time Will Tell
Dean,
Let’s archive this for about a year. Let’s just see if U.S. interest rates through the roof and we have a recession.
Note, I agree we need to get a handle on the deficit.
No. 37. I’m encouraged that you also think the massive budget deficits are a problem. They are certainly an economic problem, but they may also be a moral problem as well.
The morality of leaving trillions of dollars in debt for future generations to pay off – thereby reducing their standard of living to bolster our own – is an issue that has received too little attention.
Note 38
The budget deficit is a serious problem, however, I will bank on the resiliency of the American private sector and the ingenuity of the American people to find ways to be more productive, to produce and sell more, to generate more jobs, and to pay more taxes into the treasury. Yes, we need an express deficit reduction program. We have been here before and we worked our way out of it.
As we proclaim our superiority of American moral values over tose of Europe, let us consider that our next Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez, is a man who wrote a memo condoning torture and describing the Geneva Conventions as “quaint and “obsolete.” I can understand some diabolical Gestapo agent in an old World War II movie using such language, but not Anmerica’s highest law enforcement official.
(See “Loyal to a Fault? The Senate should hold Alberto Gonzales accountable for his bad legal advice.” http://slate.msn.com/id/2109495
In his memo urged the creation of a new legal status “unlawful combatant” for prisoners captured by the US military so that interrogators could apply coercive methods expressively forbidden by the Geneva Convention for use against those with prisoners of war status. In that memo Gonzalez wrote,”â??We conclude below that Section 2340A proscribes acts inflicting, and that are specifically intended to inflict, severe pain or suffering, whether mental or physical. Those acts must be of an extreme nature to rise to the level of torture within the meaning of Section 2340A and the Convention [Against Torture]. We further conclude that certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fall within Section 2340Aâ??s proscription against torture.â??
According to military affairs writer, Phillip Carter, “President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld may not have personally ordered the abuses at Abu Ghraib, but on advice from lawyers like Gonzales, they adopted policies that set the conditions for those abuses.”
Gonzales played a key role in the decision to use Guantanamo Bay as a global detention facility because it was believed to be outside the reach of U.S. courts and the rule of law. Recently practicies utilized by the US military as Guantanamo Bay were condemned by the International Red Cross as “tantamount to torture”. See “Red Cross Cites Inhumane Treatment at Guantanamo”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21262-2004Nov30.html
“‘This latest report tells us two things — that the abuse at Abu Ghraib was only a small piece of a much larger, systemic failure to uphold U.S. and international laws against torture; and that even after that abuse was revealed and condemned as unlawful and immoral by leaders of both political parties, the government failed to act on its moral certainty,’ according to a statement released by Deborah N. Pearlstein, director of the U.S. Law and Security Program at Human Rights First, which has been monitoring alleged abuse by U.S. forces.”
Note 9. “Christian, while I agree with you that we should not de-humanize all Muslims, one histroical fact cannot be ignored,i.e., the Muslim faith has always been spread by the sword. Also despite their public tolerance of other monotheistic faiths, in pratice, only Islam is allowed?all others are mercilessly persecuted.”
Yes, it sort of reminds me of that old saying, “When you are in power, you grant me my rights, because that is your principle. When I am in power, I take away your rights, because that is my principle.”
Nevski
Note 41
Not a suicide pact: NEITHER THE CONSTITUTION NOR THE GENEVA CONVENTION IS A SUICIDE PACT
This is another breathless, near hysterical entry that simply fails to take into account what the real issues are and what the real import of the Geneva Convention is.
For the 10,000 time, stating that an individual is not entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention IS NOT TANTAMOUNT, REPEAT, IS NOT TANTAMOUNT, to asserting a legal or moral privilege to abuse that person. Dean, please take the 10 minutes necessary to actually acquaint yourself with the rationale and functioning of the Geneva Convention before you pass out from hyperventilation.
I will try, once more, to explain the some basic concepts which must be understood before anything relating to the Geneva Convention can be discussed.
PLEASE READ THIS. IT ONLY TAKES A SECOND.
The Geneva Convention affords protections to captured soldiers who are wearing uniforms and who are part of a official military organization sponsored by a nation state. Spies and saboteurs are not protected by the Geneva Convention, nor are any other person who engages in violence. Free lance individuals not associated with a nation state ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTIONS OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION.
The protections of the Geneva Convention ARE INTENTIONALLY SELECTIVE, NOT UNIVERSAL, FOR A REASON. The purpose of selective, rather than universal protection, is to encourage countries to restrict themselves to combat by conventional, uniformed forces. It is intended to discourage countries from engaging in combat by saboteurs.
Even if an individual soldier is initially protected by the Geneva Convention, if that soldier has been shown to commit war crimes, he loses that protection.
Turning now to the prisoners in Guananamo. They are not covered by the Geneva Convention because:
A) they do not belong to a conventional military organization
B) they do not wear uniforms identifying themselves as soldiers
C) they are not sponsored by a nation state
D) they have committed war crimes, such as attacking civilians
This does not mean that the United States has declared open season on them.
What really is at issue here are interrogation techniques that cause physical or mental discomfort but which may fall short of inflicting harm or distinct pain.
Dean, is you are actually reading this far. The Gonzalez memo discussed techniques such as playing the Barney song over and over again, until the prisoner wants to talk. Teenagers do something comparable to their parents. Also involved is sleep deprivation and psychological trickery that disorients a prisoner. This does not rank with Saddam’s practice of putting people through shredders. Gonzalez was of the opinion that techniques ( such as the repeated Barney playings) do not amount of torture as defined in the Geneva Convention. Now remember, that these people are not strictly subject to the Geneva Convention but the United States has declared that their physical treatment will comport with the Geneva Convention. For example, all prisoners have received the highest quality medical care, some have received medical treatment they have needed for years and would never have received in their home countries.
A moral dimension that Alan Dershowitz addresses in some detail is the idea that these prisoners may know something about an impending attack on a large group of civilians. Dershowitz is one of the few people who have addressed this directly.
Moral analysis, apart from the legal analysis of the Geneva Convention, must take into account that terrorists are striving to acquire WMD and are fully prepared to use that WMD in the United States. This is a new and separate issue, but, it is something that the usual Leftists masquerading as Human Rights Advocates never address.
Note 41. Dean, you predictably fall for the first salvo fired to deny Alberto Gonzalez the nomination for Attorney General. Also your comment “As we proclaim our superiority of American moral values over those of Europe” shouts out a contrived certainty that adds nothing to your point.
You probably are not aware that the discussion about torture is part of a larger debate on the relevance of the Geneva conventions in an age of terrorism. A dark side about the ill defined nature of torture is that lawless states are more free to torture with impunity. Read the letters section of this month’s issue of “Commentary” to learn more about what these larger questions are.
Another point you need to consider, if indeed you can see beyond the progressive prism through which you anayze most social issues, is that many human rights organization are unfortunately not free of political bias.
Note 41
The Geneva Convention is not a suicide pact
Dean. The Geneva Convention does not apply to all armed conflicts or to all forms of adversarial violence. The Geneva Convention is INTENTIONALLY SELECTIVE IN ITS COVERAGE. It applies to:
A) professional soldiers (whether drafted or volunteer)
B) who wear recognizable uniforms
C) who belong to armed forces sponsored and acknowledged by a sovreign nation
The Geneva Convention does not apply to spies, saboteaurs, war criminals or terrorists.
The benefits of the Geneva Convention include:
A) guaranteed communication with family through Red Cross
B) best medical care available
C) freedom from mistreatment
D) incarceration only through the duration of the conflict
When someone suggests that the prisoners at Guantanomo (sp?) are not subject to the protections of the Geneva Convention, that statement is NOT TANTAMOUNT to a statement that the United States government is morally or legally free to mistreat a prisoner. It means that the prisoners are irregular and illegal combatants which do not fit the definitions of the protected class under the Geneva Convention.
The reason that the Geneva Convention is SELECTIVE, NOT UNIVERSAL, is that the intent of the Convention is to encourage nations to use regular armies who are clearly identified as armies (by their uniforms). Clearly identified armies are entities which can be held accountable for their conduct.
It would behoove you to familiarize yourself with some of the basic concepts behind the Geneva Convention before you run off half-cocked on some statements by Gonzalez which, may or may not, be accurately reported.
Missourian writes: “When someone suggests that the prisoners at Guantanomo (sp?) are not subject to the protections of the Geneva Convention, that statement is NOT TANTAMOUNT to a statement that the United States government is morally or legally free to mistreat a prisoner. It means that the prisoners are irregular and illegal combatants which do not fit the definitions of the protected class under the Geneva Convention.”
The problem is that the detainees have been declared outside of the protections of the Geneva Convention without any official adjudication of their status:
Article 5: “Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”
I think what the Bush administration wanted to do is to carve out a special niche for these people so that they can be maintained indefinetly in legal limbo, and without any protections other than those the administration chooses to afford them. Par for the course for this administration. Nothing new here.
Note 45
First, there reasonable doubt on anyone’s part as to the legal status of these people apprehended in the very act ov violence against civilians.
Second, the United States stated that as regards most issues (not all, but most) prisoners would be treated in a manner which comports with the Geneva Convention
Third, I challenge you to identify with specificity exactly what these prisoners deserve that they are not receiving
Lastly, an excerpt of a quote from Polipundit.com
The basic idea behind granting POW status is that soldiers who surrender or are captured are not to be punished so long as they have behaved according to certain rules such as fighting in uniform and doing their best to direct their own attacks at enemy soldiers rather than civilians. Part of their protection from punishment is that they not be subject to coercive interrogation; they are required only to give name, rank and serial number. They may, however, be held for the duration of the conflict so that they do not return to the battlefield.
By demanding POW status for un-uniformed combatants who target civilians–in contravention of the plain language of the Geneva Conventions–the ICRC started the fight over Guantanamo by attempting to remove one of the few carrots we have to encourage humane behavior in war.
Now it goes further and demands that these combatants get even more privileges than legitimate POWs. Has it occurred to no one in Geneva that indefinite detention can’t possibly be “tantamount to torture” for illegal combatants if it is the expected course of events for real POWs?
Note 46
Correction
There is no reasonable doubt on anyone’s part as to the legal status of these people.
Solly
Note 45
Official Adjudication is Not Called For:
No, Jim, the problem IS NOT THAT NO ADJUDICATORY PROCESS has been established. The United States has adopted as a official and public policy the premise that prisoners will receive certain benefits of the Geneva Convention as a voluntary policy decision by the United States. This is why the Red Cross is allowed to visit the premises. Secondly, the military has set up tribunals staff by officers of the United States Armed Forces.
What you don’t understand is that even in the case of a United States citizen located on American soil (which is not the case here) DUE PROCESS DOES NOT ALWAYS REQUIRE A FULL BLOWN JUDICIAL PROCEDURE COMPARABLE TO A CRIMINAL TRIAL.
These people are combatants, people who have taken up arms against the United States outside of the borders of the United States. They have no due process rights. All that is necessary to put them in this category is their presence on the field of battle with means of violence at their disposal. These people were apprehended by American soldiers or their allies on the field of battle.
The entire concept of due process rights devolves from the United States Constitution and applies to the territory of the United States. Even within that context not every legal event requires a full adjudication with all of the elaborate protections of a felong criminal trial.
They are not members of a recognized military unit with a clear chain of command and a clear assignment of responsibility. The Geneva Convention was designed to protect the private or the sargeant of a recognized military who had followed orders and had refrained from attacking civilians. Responsibility for the overall military action would be assigned to the generals and political leaders.
Who is Protecting You?
Jim, you express such reflexive contempt for the Bush administration and by implication for the United States Military. Prisoners are given a hearing by officers of the United States military.
You have never granted the President or his administration the slightest credit for anything good. You have never congratulated him for the elections in Afghanistan. Prior to the war in Afghanistan the great R.W. Apple, of the New York Times, mocked the American military and claimed to have such expertise in military matters that he was able to predict that a rag-tag bunch of mujhadeen with antiquated rifles could drag the American military into a quagmire. As I remember the conquest of Afghanistan took about 3 weeks with very, very few casaulties. Now Afghanistan has held elections. Never a word of credit.
You are just off to your next exercise in pouring contempt and criticism on the people who are protecting you. You may remember that the United States took extraordinary legal steps during the Civil War and WWII. Our constitution allows us to protect ourselves. We are not required by the due process clause to afford enemy combatants the rights of a United States citizens accused of a crime on our soil. As Justice Goldberg famously said “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” The Constitution allows for extraordinary circumstances when the survival of the country is at stake. Keeping a few enemy combatants in Guantanamo is hardly a serious problem given what is at stake. If an American soldier gives me his word that the enemy combatant was apprehended on the battle field after having attacked American soliders or their allies or after having attacked civilians that is just fine and dandy with me.