Sep
30
2006
Three cheers for torture
Filed Under War and Terrorism | 1 Comment
Three cheers for torture
Filed Under War and Terrorism | 1 Comment
A week ago, in a pique of frustration, I explained to a liberal commenter on Ace’s site that he risks encouraging real torture by protesting coercive interrogation techniques. After all, if we’re going to be accused of being sadistic monsters, and all efforts to claim otherwise are dismissed without the benefit of real debate, we might as well do it right and get the adreneline rush.
But James Taranto uses his patented not-so-subtle insinuation techniques to suggest there’s a better way to get satisfaction.
This is the first time we can remember being the object of torture fantasies aired on a major newsmagazine’s Web site. We must say, it’s perversely flattering.In other words, if you’re not into the sadistic torture of terrorists, you can still get a thrill from laughing at their liberal allies in the press.What of Sullivan’s suggestion that we undergo uncomfortable procedures that he thinks are “torture”? We might consider submitting to “waterboarding” out of sheer journalistic curiosity. It doesn’t seem as though we’d learn much from sleep deprivation or sitting in a cold room; we can easily imagine the ways in which those would be uncomfortable, and we prefer comfort. Of course, we are not a terrorist, and if we have any useful information, we put it here in this column quite voluntarily.
Sep
21
2006
Seen & Heard
Filed Under Foreign Affairs | 1 Comment
Seen & Heard
Filed Under Foreign Affairs | 1 Comment
On the radio this morning (paraphrased):
Yesterday, he gave a speech at the UN calling President Bush “the devil”. Today he’s in Brooklyn promoting low-cost home heating oil for low-income residents.My questions is: What’s a Democratic politician doing giving a speech at the UN?
Sep
20
2006
Do they hang corporate spies?
Filed Under Economics | Leave a Comment
Do they hang corporate spies?
Filed Under Economics | Leave a Comment
Can we hire Patricia C. Dunn (no relation) to replace Valerie Plame at the CIA?
FULL DISCLOSURE: One of the links above leads to The Fifth Column.
Sep
11
2006
A Triple Crown
Filed Under History, War and Terrorism | 8 Comments
A Triple Crown
Filed Under History, War and Terrorism | 8 Comments
It was May 6, 1978, and I was a nine-year old whelp who would soon be 10. We had gathered at a relative’s home – I’m pretty sure it was my cousin Peggy Ryan’s apartment in Flushing – for one of the dozens of family gatherings we would regularly have on the weekends throughout any given year when I was a kid. We were a very close-knit Irish clan scattered around New York and New Jersey, but with the exception of my father’s brother Gerald (who lived and worked in El Paso, Texas as an official for the US Border Patrol) we all lived in the greater metropolitan area within an hour of the Big Apple. The idea of gathering together a bunch of us from across a dozen different families once or twice a month was never any harder than figuring out some lame excuse to have a party.
That day, the excuse was actually a fairly good one, hatched by Aunt Nora. Two branches of the extended family spawned by the Four Famous Forkin sisters and their equally rambunctious brothers, the O’Conors and the Kellys spent so much time together, my Dad and “Uncle Bill” were more like brothers than first cousins, and Nora was Bill’s bubbly better half. It was Nora’s idea that year that we would have a Kentucky Derby party. Of course, it goes without saying that a Kentucky Derby party is pointless unless you follow it up a couple of weeks later with a Preakness party, to see if the Derby winner might take the second jewel. And if the lucky horse had another strong showing, it should follow two weeks later with a Belmont Stakes party, so we could all watch the mile-and-a-half dash for a Triple Crown.
In other words, Nora was betting we’d be fortunate enough to need three parties held at three different homes over the course of five weeks. With my sister getting married in June, and my brother getting married in August, we’d all be spending a good portion of the summer hanging around one another. Again. And we’d expect nothing less.
Nora was sure we were going to have a good show that day. Two horses were so well regarded, it was the first time since 1960 that two different entries were coming in at less than 2-to-1 in the odds. And to make the day especially fun, we’d have a pot luck draw of numbers at a buck each, just to make the race all that much more interesting. I vaguely recall my father allowing me to put his $1 in the bowl and draw our number. Looking back on the details I find on the net, “Believe It” may have been our horse, but I’m not really sure.
But there was a lot I do remember clearly from that day. First are the names of those two chestnut colts that were so highly rated that spring and summer: one was named Alydar. The other was named Affirmed. I remember like it was yesterday the smile on the face of Peggy’s husband Tom Ryan – son-in-law of my Dad’s sister Agnes Clark – when he pulled the name of Alydar from the bowl. And I remember the cocky, freckle-faced grin as my Aunt Mary Dunn’s youngest son picked the name of Affirmed. His name was Patrick, and he was 16.
As the race started, Tommy – ever the kid at heart – jumped in front of the TV and started bouncing up and down on his knees. “COME ON, ALYDAR!”
Patrick, of course, would have none of that. “COME ON, AFFIRMED!”
“COME ON, ALYDAR!” Tommy would yell again.
“COME ON, AFFIRMED!” Pat would screech back.
It went back and forth like that for the entire stretch. And though I sat with a lump in my throat and a losing piece of scratch paper in my hand, I was laughing hysterically as the red-headed kid from Fords, New Jersey was merciless in his torment of big Tom Ryan at the finish. I admired his fearless spunk as Pat waved his newfound cash in the nose of a guy that had to be standing a foot taller than him at the time. Of course, I wasn’t even 10, and couldn’t fully appreciate that Tom was probably the most gentle creature in the room, and Pat had nothing to fear from him in any case.
Two weeks later, Nora tried in vain to set up another pool like we’d had on Derby Day. But when the bowl started around, Tommy wrestled it away from the little round woman, and wouldn’t give it up until he’d found the piece of paper with Alydar’s number on it. Patrick, not to be outdone, came up next and did the same until he found Affirmed’s number. And so the scene was replayed again on the floor of another house, in front of another TV.
“COME ON, ALYDAR!”
“COME ON, AFFIRMED!”
If you’re old enough to remember, you can guess the utter dejection Tommy went through that afternoon. By the time we got to the Belmont, Nora didn’t want to waste anyone else’s money – or Tommy’s sanity – on yet another rigged pool. But there they were again, back on the floor.
“COME ON, ALYDAR!”
“COME ON, AFFIRMED!”
It’s getting close to 30 years now, and Affirmed remains the last horse to win the Triple Crown. To this day, I can’t meet Tom Ryan at a wedding or a baptism without hearing the echo of hoofbeats in my ears.
And it’s that freckle-faced, red-headed teenager with the cash in his fist I think of whenever someone says, “Never forget”.
This essay is dedicated to my cousin Cdr. Patrick S. Dunn, for the 2,996 Project. Additional reflections will be added to the extended entry until Patriot Day on Monday.
Sep
9
2006
With a little bit of help from their mother, two home-schooled kids named Ben and Noah have their own blog, even though they’re barely able to write. As if “Tree Fort Enterprises TM, Parent Company of Better Than A Lemonade Stand” isn’t cool enough in itself, the two lads have managed a moving tribute to Lester Vincent Marino and his family, which are, together, probably the best eulogy I’ve ever seen on the net to one of the casualties on September 11th.
Sep
6
2006
Hypothetical exercise
Filed Under Politics, War and Terrorism | Leave a Comment
Hypothetical exercise
Filed Under Politics, War and Terrorism | Leave a Comment
This may be a bit of a stretch of wishful thinking (then again, maybe not), but suspend your disbelief for a little while and follow the logic just so we can discuss the potential ramifications.
Earlier today, the President announced that 14 “high-value” prisoners are being transferred to detention at Guantanamo Bay, “including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept.11 attacks, Abu Zubaydah, and senior al Qaeda leader Ramzi Binalshibh.”
While the detainees may not be household names, they were top aides to Osama bin Laden, and the veritable “crown jewels” of the military operations that have been conducted in Afghanistan.This all sounds very close to dancing on the edge of a knife. The President is clearly framing the argument in such a way that he’s got lots of wiggle-room. For what? Yes, of course, he’s on offense against the Dems in Congress, making them put-up-or-shut-up in terms of their support for the war, and trying to hamstring further efforts to play the Abu Ghraib/torture card.Many detainees were given the legal status of “enemy combatant,” which includes both lawful enemy combatants and unlawful enemy combatants….
Bush called on Congress to “list the specific recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act so our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies.”
He also asked that Congress “make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act, our personnel fulfill America’s obligations under Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions.”
Last, he requested that Congress “make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as grounds to sue our personnel in courts – in U.S. courts.”
The president also criticized the decision of the Supreme Court that hindered previous attempts to prosecute the prisoners. In late June, the Supreme Court decided to block military tribunals for detainees, stating the prisoners were subject to international law and the Geneva Conventions.
“We have a right under the laws of war, and an obligation to the American people, to detain these enemies and stop them,” Bush said in his afternoon address.
But is that it?
The Supreme Court decision was a major rebuke to the Bush administration, as it required the president to first seek the approval of Congress before ordering prisoners to be tried for war crimes.What exactly is so urgent? What schedule are we trying to beat?The decision forced the administration to reconsider the legal battle against the prisoners, and made their future uncertain.
Bush urged Congress to make the legislation a top priority in the next session as the issues are “urgent” and “time is of the essence.”
Why, in two short months, we’re going to have an election, of course. And the fate of our Republic might very well hang in the balance. The Dems have been crowing that they’ll take back Congress and “hold the President accountable”. It’s clear the New Copperheads have taken up sides against the Administration, whatever the cost. Republican morale has been at a low ebb, and the Fourth Estate has become the Fifth Column.
What can the Republicans possibly do to break the stranglehold of the Vietnam Syndrome and defend America from its enemies in The Novemeber Campaign?
I think it possible – and the more I read, the more I think likely – that the President is setting us all up for an October Surprise unlike anything the Democrats have ever dreamed up. Nothing we’ve heard today contradicts the core of the Administrations’ contentions all along – and in fact, they are bluntly asking Congress to give them a green light for something spectacular. An October Surprise without any pretense of being an accident.
Before the 1970s, the category of unlawful enemy combatant was widely understood and accepted as a critical part of the laws of war. Such individuals do not fight on behalf of sovereign states, have no regular and transparent command structure, do not wear uniforms, do not carry their arms openly and do not obey the laws of war. As a result, they present a particularly dangerous threat to civil society in general and the civilian population in particular.So here is my hypothetical exercise:To deter this type of illegitimate, asymmetric warfare, unlawful combatants have historically been denied the rights of prisoners of war and could be severely punished after the most abbreviated of proceedings. By the mid-20th century, custom entitled them to certain minimum due process protections — notice of the charges, an opportunity to make a defense (not necessarily to a lawyer) and to a hearing, but little else.
What if, after a few short days, or perhaps a full week before a military tribunal conducted according to the freshly-minted rules laid out by Congress, and hardly a month past the 5th anniversary of the September 11th attacks he masterminded, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is convicted of war crimes, sentenced to execution, and hanged by the neck until dead in a courtyard of the Guantanamo Bay detention center? If this was carried out just a few days short of the election, how many Republicans would shrug off the despair of the illegal immigration debate, shrug off the depressing weight of deficit spending, and happily charge to the polls to reward the Congress that tossed aside the oppression of political correctness to deliver to our September 11th dead their long-delayed and well-earned justice? How many?
Sep
6
2006
Dear Lord, I may not always understand the tactics she’s playing, but I love this woman.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is drawing a parallel between the Iraq war and the Civil War. Both had their critics but both were justified, she says.Here, in just a few short sentences, is the essence of what it means to be a Black Republican.In both cases, it was the right decision to fight and see the wars through, Rice, a southern-born African-American, said in an interview with Essence Magazine.
Asked if she still thought the decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003 was right, considering the cost in lives and treasure, Rice said, “Absolutely.”
Rice then offered a parallel between critics of the administration’s Iraq policies and “people who thought it was a mistake to fight the Civil War (in this country) to its end and to insist that the emancipation of slaves would hold.”
“I’m sure that there were people who said, “why don’t we get out of this now, take a peace with the South, but leave the South with slaves.”
“Just because things are difficult, it does’t mean that they are wrong or that you turn back,” Rice told the magazine, which has a large audience among African-Americans.
Tammy Bruce – a War Democrat, bless her heart – takes the comparison even further, bringing out an 1864 cartoon of the little general.
Sep
5
2006
Romney strikes a blow
Filed Under War and Terrorism | Leave a Comment
Romney strikes a blow
Filed Under War and Terrorism | Leave a Comment
David Frum reports that Mitt Romney has done as much as one of the individual United States can do in a foreign policy matter without the support of the federal government.
Governor Mitt Romney today ordered all Massachusetts state government agencies to decline support, if asked, for former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami’s September 10 visit to the Boston area, where he is scheduled to speak at Harvard University.Hooray for Romney, and… Well, it’s Harvard, so what do you expect? Will Ted Kennedy offer to share his fifth of Glenfiddich next?“State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel,” said Romney.
Romney’s action means that Khatami will be denied an official police escort and other VIP treatment when he is in town. The federal government provides security through the U.S. State Department.
Romney criticized Harvard for honoring Khatami by inviting him to speak, calling it “a disgrace to the memory of all Americans who have lost their lives at the hands of extremists, especially on the eve of the five-year anniversary of 9/11.”
Said Romney: “The U.S. State Department listed Khatami’s Iran as the number one state sponsor of terrorism. Within his own country, Khatami oversaw the torture and murder of dissidents who spoke out for freedom and democracy. For him to lecture Americans about tolerance and violence is propaganda, pure and simple.”
Sep
1
2006
Ann Coulter is now officially on my shit list.
I know there are fans of Ms. Coulter among the best and brightest in coservative circles, including some who have commented (and more) on this blog. I’ve let most good things said about her pass by observing 11th Commandment, and other times I’ve simply stated my preference for other blondes.
But now she’s jumped the shark. Please, Ann, shut up already.
LauraW at MoronBlog (aka AoSHQ)