Torture

Torture & the Senate:

Greyhawk at the Mudville Gazette noticed that the Army leads the way on human rights, at least as far as the US Senate is concerned.

Interesting that in responding to claims that the Army has failed to provide guidance to soldiers the Senate has endorsed the published Army guidance to soldiers as the definitive response.

In other early media coverage, both the AP and Knight-Ridder have defined the measure as "a rebuke to the White House."

A DoD note on variation from FM 34-52 here. Explicit departures were authorized here. Beatings and other severe punishments were never authorized.

It is not an accident that the Senate finds in the military the chiefest defenders of the Conventions. The military is not the only organization that engages in interrogations in serious matters. However, it has something not present at the CIA or FBI: roots in a culture of honor that date back centuries. The FBI was formed under Hoover, and its roots are those he planted. The CIA didn't even exist until after the second World War. It quickly abandoned its commando roots, and became an organization of pure spies.

In 1949, however, with the world's ugliest war just behind them and every reason to expect an even worse one to come, military men and political leaders who had themselves been military men sat down to try to reinforce the walls that had crumbled so badly. They remembered the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, the Blitz, the horrors of Burma, and much more. They looked forward to a possible day when nuclear weapons might be fielded, or Soviet tanks roll across Europe. Against both the backdrops, the revision and extension of the Geneva Conventions seems like a small thing. Nevertheless, it has held. These are the rules of chivalry in war, in which all American fighting men are trained to this day.

That same field manual was where I looked for information, back when the news of Abu Ghraib was first breaking in the press. In those dark days, I was arguing in favor of preserving the Geneva Conventions. I still argue for it. The Army Field Manual, I noted, lists the relevant ones in an appendix.

What the Conventions seek to accomplish is to protect the innocent during wartime, as much as can be done. They do this by creating three categories. They have specialized legal names, but what they amount to is this: warriors, noncombatants, and bandits. Warriors are required to protect the noncombatants, in part by not taking refuge among them or pretending to be them. In return, if captured they are to be treated with civility even by their enemies. Noncombatants are to be protected. Bandits -- those who use the war itself, or the rules, as a means to advance their own agenda -- are to be destroyed.

As time passed, foolish men without understanding joined with cunning men of evil intent. The United Nations fell under their sway, and as a living organization, has become a force that defends tyrants, blocks attempts to arm peoples facing genocide, and spreads corruption. These same men also twisted the Geneva Conventions. Using language that sounded kind but masked a harmful intent, in 1977 new protocols were added to the Conventions. They extend to some several groups that were previously 'bandits' the protections due to warriors, even though they may hide under the cover of civilians.

The United States is not party to these. Nor should we be. They undermine the protection of noncombatants, which is the purpose of the Conventions. They blur lines best kept clear.

Today, many who think of themselves as well-meaning are likewise undermining the protection of the noncombatants. By extending the protections due to warriors onto criminals, you are extending the status of warriors onto the criminals. The logic of the Conventions requires that the innocent and the righteous be protected, and the vicious be destroyed. Protecting the evil was not part of the plan. It undermines the plan.

INTEL DUMP is opposed to the Senate's law on the grounds that the particular law is foolishly written. He notes that the Field Manual isn't nearly specific enough to be used as a source for a legal text, and adds:

Where the problem lies is in ensuring that the technique as used in the approach meets appropriate legal standards. The cure for that is not Congressionally-designed rules, but rather an architecture that places oversight and control points to ensure that techniques used during an approach are appropriate. The Army's getting there (all the major interrogation facilities include organic legal assets) and a Congressional push to enhance such an architecture is a better approach.

Froggy is opposed to it on the grounds that it will compromise effectiveness. His approach seems to be that scaring the hell out of people isn't torture. This sounds like an approach that would tend to blur into real torture at the margins ("You're just going to scare him, right?" "Pain is scary."). Special Operators, however, do their "operating" at times and in places when the support structure for the Conventions is not available, and under conditions of extreme danger in which the ethical issues are different. In ethics, a decision cannot be immoral when you have no other reasonable choice. That is something a court martial would consider, should it come up.

The Senate is acting well in attempting to reinforce the adherence to the Conventions. It is acting badly in enacting a poorly-written law that is likely to confuse the issue rather than clarify it. It is also acting badly by further blurring the lines that the Conventions drew between warriors and bandits.

Like Senator McCain, I want -- and I believe the military wants -- an America that is morally better than any foe it may meet. I think real strength rises from that, as he himself demonstrated in the POW camps. It has been my experience that there is no stronger defender of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 than the US military, and for good cause. They were written by brothers in arms, who understood and shared the same ancient code of honor.

Senator McCain is wrong, however, to attempt this legislation. Being morally better than our foes means more than refusing to do violent things. It means taking moral issues seriously. We have to recognize that, in life generally and in war particularly, you get more of what you successfully protect and less of what you successfully punish. We must keep an eye toward protecting the weak and the innocent, as well as the honorable and the just. We must work harder to punish the cruel and the wicked -- among our own forces, when they appear, and among the enemies of civilization whom we fight.

We must keep the lines clear between them. It is our enemy, not us, who benefits from the loss of clarity.

UPDATE: Greyhawk resolves the question I wondered about in the comments. McCain's law makes the Field Manual the law of the land, and 'doesn't set it in stone,' but allows the Army to revise it at will.

This amendment would establish the Army Field Manual as the standard for interrogation of all detainees held in DOD custody. The Manual has been developed by the Executive Branch for its own uses, and a new edition, written to take into account the needs of the war on terror and with a new classified annex, is due to be issued soon. My amendment would not set the Field Manual in stone – it could be changed at any time.

Emphasis added, and it needs to be added. Am I to understand that the Senator intends to delegate to the Executive branch complete power to rewrite American laws governing torture and detainees, and also classify those laws?

Are we to believe, Senator, that this is the road to the moral high ground?

MWL

"The Marine Wife's Life"

You might enjoy this young lady's blog. She's married to a corporal in the artillery.

Hat tip, of a sort, to Daniel, where I noticed she'd left a mention in his comments.

White Oak

White Oak Canyon:

This morning dawned clear and bright, but for the last several days we've had a constant downpour. It was yesterday, the fourth day of rain, that I decided to go hiking in spite of the weather.

I drove down to the White Oak Canyon, and found that the place was almost deserted. I was not surprised. The rain was limiting the number of people in the canyon in two ways. First, not everyone likes hiking in continual rain.

Second, the road was flooded out. I had to put the truck in 4x4 Low and cross a road that had become a ford (unlike the truck, which is a Chevy). The water was moving fast, and up over the tops of the tires, but the truck didn't seem the least bit bothered.

It turned out to be a beautiful hike. I encountered on the trail a pair of Rangers, who were checking out the fire road (no danger of a fire yesterday!) to see if it had washed out. It had.

If any of you are looking for a good hike, and you happen to be in the area, this is a very nice one. I actually didn't go out the canyon to the waterfalls yesterday, but did a section of the Old Rag instead. There are maps of the whole area at the NPS site, here.

NPR

Feddie on NPR:

Feddie of Southern Appeal has been interviewed on NPR. He's talking about the Miers nomination. You can listen to the piece here.

Miers, more

Miers Speaks:

Thanks to Southern Appeal for this one. She sat down with Specter. Boy, was he impressed:

"She needs more than murder boards," Mr. Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said in an interview, referring to the mock question-and-answer sessions most nominees use to prepare for their confirmation hearings. "She needs a crash course in constitutional law."

. . . .

Several Republicans, including Mr. Specter, said they steered clear of asking Ms. Miers questions about constitutional law. Mr. Specter, who said the timing of the confirmation hearings would depend in part on when Ms. Miers felt ready, said he initiated a discussion of the shifting standards the Supreme Court has applied in interpreting the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, but only to illustrate to Ms. Miers the kinds of questions she would face during her hearings.

"I did not ask her about it because I don't think she's ready to face it at the moment," he said.

Oh, that's gorgeous. Just what we were looking for in a nominee to the Supreme Court.

Snobbery

Snobbery:

Instalawyer has a piece up accusing Ann Coulter of being an elitist. The charge has somewhat wider application than just Coulter, however, so I wanted to point out something about it.

Now, I guess I'm not too surprised at Coulter's ranting about Miers's background. She went to an "elite" undergraduate school [Cornell], an "elite" law school [Michigan], she was an editor of the law review, she clerked for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and she worked for Floyd Abrams's "elite" law firm in New York City [highly-paid, hundreds of lawyers, most with pedigrees such as Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Virginia, Michigan]. Coulter's looking for a bird of a feather, and appears to take an immediate dislike to an appointee who has the wrong color feathers.

One thing I've figured out over the last 20 years or so: legal elitists tend to a pack mentality; they are most comfortable with people who have similar backgrounds. If I had been top 5% at American University, I might have gotten an interview with Coulter's former firm, had I been so inclined. It's unlikely they would have made me an offer, however. I'm just not in the same club, so to speak.

I know just where this guy is coming from. I once interviewed with the CIA -- actually, I had a second and a third interview with them. And they asked me, each time, to confirm that the school I had gone to for my graduate work was accredited.

"Of course it's accredited," I said. "It's a state university. Says so right in the name. Who do you think does the accrediting?"

"Well, I've never heard of it," they sniffed. And then, in the next interview, same question again: "I've never heard of this place where you got your degree. Are you sure it's accredited?"

"Do you suppose the Regents of the State of Georgia don't bother to accredit their own state universities?"

The look on their faces suggested that they supposed something rather like that; or, at least, that a school accredited by Georgia just wasn't up to snuff anyway.

What you have to understand, though, is that there is an objection to Miers that is the opposite of snobbery. There is an anti-elitist objection, too.

Miers is an elite because she's a crony. She's an elite because she personally knows important people. She also moves in high circles, and she's getting this job (if she gets it) for only that reason.

Most of us Americans get where we get through hard work and the procedure. Those of us who went to state schools, who have worked hard and honestly, we are just disgusted to see less qualified people advanced because they're buddies of the people in charge.

Julie Myers, the Bush nominee to head ICE, moved out of committee yesterday. She'll probably be approved. She's 36, and she's married to and related to important people, and her only other job qualifications are from other patronage positions she got by the same family connections. She's going to be the head of the Department of Homeland Security's prime investigative agency, and she is probably no more qualified than I am to do it. If I wanted a job with ICE, though, I'd have to go take the service exam, and become a trainee. My education and experience would probably qualify me for a higher pay grade than the true "bottom rung," but I would still have to start low and work up. The only reason I'd get to start anywhere but the very bottom is that I have already worked hard getting the education and experience.

So should she. But instead, she's going to run the place. People who have worked hard and gotten the kind of experience needed will really be making things work, but they'll be paid less than her, and they'll be pretending to be her inferior officers.

This Miers nomination is the same thing. It's not that she's not from the Ivy leagues -- fair enough. It's that she's not the best qualified. Not even close. She's Bush's buddy. She's never been a judge, OK. So maybe that's not by itself a disqualification. She's never argued a case before the Supreme Court either. She's not got a developed track record on Constitutional law. She's someone no one would have picked -- except that she knows Bush, so he picked her.

That shouldn't be enough for a top position, and the Supreme Court is as high as it gets in the legal field. It shouldn't be enough to be at the top of any Federal agency, but particularly not for one with a lifetime appointment.

This isn't the way America is meant to work. It's hard work and experience that's supposed to get you to the top. It's downright obscene to watch the people who have done more and worked harder passed over, time and again. These aren't small posts. ICE is a critical agency for preventing terrorist attacks in the US. The Supreme Court will be resolving the most divisive questions in our society. These posts deserve the best.

Roberts gave every impression of being just that. Good job on that one. He wasn't the kind of thinker I wanted, but his qualifications were so obvious that no reasonable person could oppose him. He deserved it, not because he went to the Ivy leagues (although he did), but on sheer merit.

If you know how to get it right once, you can get it right again. Back to the drawing board. Give us a real nominee.

S.Thai

Ugly days in Southern Thailand:

I've a post over at Bill Roggio's site on the topic. We seem to have entered a new phase in the insurgency there -- a much more dangerous one. I reflect that a certain fatalism may be necessary in counterinsurgency warfare. Even when you have the best kind of tools for the job, as Thailand has and as we often do not, there is only so much you can do to limit the spread. The enemy is active too, and they are also devoted and cunning.

Good Thoughts

Ad Astra

Those of you who will: Thoughts and prayers to USMC 2/2. Don't ask why. Just pray.

Atrios

It's Been A While...

About two years, in fact, since the last time I linked to Atrios.

Still, if you can look past his love of profanity, this cartoon does have a certain point to it.

Single-Six

Happy Birthday To Me:

As Fate will have it, important events tend to cluster around given dates at Grim's Hall. The Summer Solstice, for example. It happens also to be my wedding anniversary. Many years, it is also Father's Day. And, just to make things fun, our little boy Beowulf was born on the very same day. So, the coming of Summer brings a huge festival of gift-giving for all parties.

This is balanced by the Yuletide, six months later, when we try to get together with family and friends for another grand celebration. These are the two high points of the year.

However, there is also mid-October. My beloved wife and I were born precisely five years apart, to the very day. As there was a leap year intervening, our birthdays are one day apart: Mine on Columbus Day, 12 October, and hers on the 13th (Friday the 13th, in fact, was her original birthday). That means that this week I will be marking my... well, I can't tell you which birthday, now that I've told you the difference in my and my wife's ages, or I should be giving away the secret of her own. As we know, that is forbidden to all gentlemen.

Indeed, I got a package in the mail today from my mother. How thoughtful! I opened it eagerly... only to find three DVDs for her cherished grandson. Not so much as a note for me! Ah, well.

I normally forbid anyone from buying me gifts anyway, although there are one or two women who carry on doing so in spite of my firm rule on the subject. My wife is one, and Dear Sovay the other; and, as last year Sovay got me a catapult, I can hardly complain. If any of you are looking for the right gift for the man in your life, let me tell you, a catapult is definitely the way to go.

However, I now already have a catapult. So, instead of a new catapult, I decided to buy for myself a .22 revolver. Some of you may remember I bought a Henry Golden Boy over the summer, so that I could practice my riflemanship any day I had the time; and I have enjoyed it so much, I wanted a revolver as well so that I could practice handgunnery just as often.

I went down to the store today, and Lo and behold, what did they have? A used Ruger 50th Anniversary Single-Six, at a most reasonable price. The fellow who runs the place seemed rather surprised, in fact, to see just how reasonable his business partner had decided to be with the thing. As they were only produced in 2003, they are something of a collector's item -- although, all I care about is that it points and balances correctly, and has the same sights as a New Vaquero.

After I paid for it, I took it to the range. The experience was somewhat like firing a mortar used to be: the first shot was low and to the left, and low; the second, high and right; but the third and subsequent, right in the ten ring. The fixed sights are right on. It was just a matter of learning how to hold it.

I am happy with it. I don't know if my wife or Sovay will buy me any additional gifts, or if this will be the only one, but it is certainly good enough. Anyway, I flatly forbade the two of them to buy me anything at all. Not that either of them normally do what they are told.

Camp Katrina

Camp Katrina:

Spc. Phil Van T. sent a very nice letter to request that I direct you to his new blog, Camp Katrina. "I'm a soldier in the Army National Guard, and recently returned from mobilization for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts in new Orleans. We have created a blog, www.campkatrina.typepad.com, where soldiers can share their stories and pics from Operation Vigilant Relief. I was wondering if there was any way you could mention our site or link to it on yours?"

Sure thing, Specialist. It's always a pleasure -- and by the way, thank you.

Miers

Quite a Dustup:

Looks like the Hall had a fun time yesterday. Good! Just such a hearty exchange of views is what I have in mind for the place.

It was an impressive exchange. Although some have said that the blogosphere is rushing to uninformed opinion, in fact I think the opposite is true: the blogosphere is generating informed analysis, and distributing informed analysis that arises elsewhere.

On the third day since the nomination, I find that my sense that this nomination must be defeated has only hardened. I will attempt to explain why, both by argument and by distributing analysis, as above.

The strongest argument against opposing Miers is voiced by Cassandra, couched in terms of fairness combined with political savvy. She argues that, on the one hand, it is entirely unfair to judge Miers before her hearings; and on the other, that Bush is wise not to support "the base" in this matter because it is the middle, and not the base, that elects Presidents and wins control of the Senate.

After consideration, I must reject the first argument. This is a very serious matter: a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, at which the most contentious issues of the next few years will be decided. We must be prepared, as citizens, to drive our representaties in the Senate one way or the other. That will require sustained pressure over time, and time is short. Once her hearings have begun, they will last only a few days; then the Judiciary Committee will vote, and then the Senate as a whole. If confirmed, she would take office the same day.

If there is to be any hope of derailing the nomination, we must begin now. We cannot wait until the hearings.

I do not mean to say that we should be unfair. Rather, I mean we must honestly begin raising and considering the problems, and applying pressure to our Senators today and tomorrow, not during and after the hearings. It is the only hope for success, should it prove that Miers is as unqualified as she appears to be. The Senate is capable of ignoring the loudest outburst, for a few days, reasoning that 'the mob' will move on. It is only if we begin now that we will have time to make them consider their duty carefully.

As for the argument against extremisim, I share it. However, I would remind Cassandra that I share her irritation -- not with the term "RINO," which she feels is being wrongly directed at her -- but with the term "DINO," which has been wrongly directed at men such as Zell Miller and me.

What "the base" wishes to advance here is a judicial philosophy that is the political center, except that most people haven't really thought about it yet. The philosophy, simply, is that "when there is a disagreement about what the law means, the proper way to resolve it is by looking at what the people who wrote it intended it to mean. If we find that we no longer like that meaning, the legislature rather than the courts is the proper venue for changing the law."

This philosophy is, I think, destined to become the standard way of reading the law, simply because it is the only one that doesn't make the law into sands that shift underfoot. It is the only philosophy that restrains the power of the court.

Restraining the court's power is one of the most critical issues facing the Republic today, because the USSC has found itself above the normal checks and balances. They may strike down Congressional laws and Presidential orders as unConstitutional. They are the final appeal. There is no counterbalance.

Furthermore, USSC solutions are by their nature fundamental -- they touch every state, Red and Blue, with no distinction. This is because the foundation of their power to reach into every aspect of American life is the 14th Amendment's approach to civil rights. All Americans have the same civil rights.

These two facts have put us in a position in which the court's power must be checked, in order to assure the stability of the Republic. Barring a major Constitutional change, the only way to do it is by appointing justices who will interpret the law as the law was written, and not as they would prefer it or according to what they feel are current conditions. They must not remake the law to mean something it did not mean before.

This is why I feel that those who insist on a known judicial philosophy are right to do so. It is true that the Thomas confirmation was hideous; but it is also true that Thomas is the light of the court. We should want more like him. We ought to have the fight, if a fight is needed to get such Justices.

So much for reasoning. Now, for dissemination:

Feddie is calling for President Bush to withdraw the nomination. That would suit me fine; otherwise, I feel we shall have to defeat it the hard way.

His reasoning is largely drawn from David Frum, who I think is correct in this case. I believe Frum's points address the ones that Daniel was capably defending yesterday and so, like Feddie, I will refer to him.

Meanwhile, George Will reminds us that President Bush knowingly signed into law Campaign Finance Reform, having admitted that he did not think it was Constitutional. That being the case, we must be vigilant against further weakness of the spine in upholding the Constitution.

I feel we have a duty before us. We must do what we can to unmake this nomination, or to defeat it. Either the President will listen to us, or the Senate must: or else, we take our chances with the foundation of the Republic.

Professor Bainbridge nails it

PROFESSOR BAINBRIDGE EXPLAINS WHY THE MIERS NOMINATION IS SOOO BAD.

Read it here. Hat tip to Feddie over at Southern Appeal.

Commentary Problems

Joel, are you able to view comments? If so, I'll just reply in there to limit the back and forth to just one of us. Since I'm here though...

I would love to see Alberto Gonzales on the Supreme Court. Even though it would handicap some of the terrorism cases, its not going to be a permanent handicap. Combine his record with the fact that he's a Texan... and that goes a long way with me.

Gonzales?

Daniel,

I wish I could post this stuff in the comments section but the firewall will not let me do it. Nevertheless, I am surprised by your claim that you would love to see Alberto Gonzales nominated to the Supreme Court. Really? You think it would be good to nominate someone to the court who would have to recuse himself from all of the terrorism cases he worked on that will be comming in front of the Supreme Court? I don't think this is the time to handicap the court with such a nominee

A REPLY TO DANIEL

Daniel,

First of all, I never said she was an unqualified attorney. She may very well be a great attorney. However, that does not mean she will be a good judge. I have personally seen great trial attorneys and otherwise fine Marine officers moved to the bench where they performed in a less than stellar manner. The Supreme Court is not the place for on the job learning. Since a positive judicial temperament is one of the more roundly accepted qualities expected of a Supreme Court nominee I fail to see how Miers can adequately be evaluated in this area since she has never been a judge. You accurately point out that many prior justices had not been judges before their appointment but that fact alone does not mean that the prior practice was an advisable one. Aside from some anecdotal evidence, some of which hardly helps your point (Taney was the author of the worst decision in Supreme Court history, Dred Scott), you fail to demonstrate why a lack of judicial experience is acceptable in a Supreme Court nominee.

Given the vast number of imminently qualified jurists of established academic and intellectual accomplishments that were simply passed over in favor of Bush’s personal attorney Grim is absolutely right to raise the cry of cronyism.

Also see my post over at Southern Appeal as to why this nomination was so bad.

Harriet Miers

Get your torches ready folks...

Grim brings up the issue of qualifications... never mind that since inception, over 40 Justices have never seen the bench, among those forty are Chief Justice John Jay (1789-1794), Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835), & Chief Justice Roger Taney (1836-1864), it appears that single lack is enough to begin the cries of cronyism. To which Joel continues to carry the torch speaking on the President's punt; I guess the President should have thrown the hail-mary.

Here is the official bio:

• Harriet Miers was born in Dallas, Texas on August 10, 1945.
• Ms. Miers received her bachelor's degree in Mathematics in 1967 and J.D. in 1970 from Southern Methodist University.
• Upon graduation, she clerked for U.S. District Judge Joe E. Estes from 1970 to 1972.
• In 1972, Ms. Miers became the first woman hired at Dallas’s Locke Purnell Rain Harrell.
• In March 1996, her colleagues elected her the first female President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, at that time a firm of about 200 lawyers.
• She became the first female to lead a Texas firm of that size. Locke, Purnell eventually merged with a Houston firm and became Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP, where Ms. Miers became Co-Managing Partner and helped manage an over-400-lawyer firm.
• Ms. Miers had a very distinguished career as a trial litigator, representing such clients as Microsoft, Walt Disney Co. and SunGard Data Systems Inc.
• Throughout her career, she has been very active in the legal community and has blazed a trail for other women to follow.
• In 1985, Ms. Miers was selected as the first woman to become President of the Dallas Bar Association.
• In 1992, she became the first woman elected President of the State Bar of Texas.
• Ms. Miers served as the President of the State Bar of Texas from 1992 to 1993.
• She played an active role in the American Bar Association. She was one of two candidates for the Number 2 position at the ABA, chair of the House of Delegates, before withdrawing her candidacy to move to Washington to serve in the White House. Ms. Miers also served as the chair of the ABA’s Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice.
• On numerous occasions, the National Law Journal named her one of the Nation’s 100 most powerful attorneys, and as one of the Nation’s top 50 women lawyers.
• Ms. Miers also has been involved in local and statewide politics in Texas. In 1989, she was elected to a two-year term as an at-large candidate on the Dallas City Council. She chose not to run for re-election when her term expired.
• Ms. Miers also served as general counsel for the transition team of Governor-elect George W. Bush in 1994.
• From 1995 until 2000, Ms. Miers served as Chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission, a voluntary public service position she undertook while maintaining her legal practice and other responsibilities. When then-Governor Bush appointed Ms. Miers to a six-year term on the Texas Lottery Commission, it was mired in scandal, and she served as a driving force behind its cleanup.
• Ms. Miers came to Washington D.C. in 2001 and began a period of distinguished and dedicated service that continues today.
• She was appointed to be Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary on January 20, 2001.
• In 2003, Ms. Miers was promoted to be Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff.
• Ms. Miers has served as Counsel to the President since February, 2005.
• She is single and very close to her family: two brothers and her mother live in Dallas and a third brother lives in Houston.

Sorry, but I don't see a huge lack of qualification. I would likewise challenge either of you to name an unknown appointment. Granted, I know that she is more moderate than most hard-charging right leaning folks would like... but the only agenda I want from an Associate Justice is to uphold the Constitution.

So that we may all feel we can contribute something... I'd like to solicit thoughts on who should be nominated. I, for one, would love to see Alberto Gonzales... but I am not unhappy with Ms. Miers either.

Sha'riah

Sha'riah

Front Page has a great interview with Freedom House's Paul Marshall. He is talking about sha'riah law, and explains one reason that it always polls well in Muslim nations:

One thing I quickly learned was that Muslims mean very different things when they use the term. Sharia's root meaning is "the way" or "path to the water" and to most Muslims it implies doing God's will, not necessarily imitating the Taliban. In Indonesia, polls show 67 percent support for "Sharia" but only 7 percent objecting to a woman head of state. There it seems to means something like the American polling term "moral values." Polling in Iraq shows a similar pattern: 80% support for Sharia combined with 80% support for equality of men and women.

To many Muslims, criticism of Sharia as such sounds strange because, much as they might disagree with stoning adulterous women or cutting off the hands of thieves, the word implies “justice” or “goodness.” So I use the phrase ‘extreme Sharia’ to describe the laws implemented by the Saudis, Iran and others throughout the world.

Another thing that is important to realize is that there is more than one "kind" of sha'riah. There are multiple traditions of legal interpretation inside of it, but that's not what I'm getting at here. The "extreme Sharia" Marshall mentions is actually two different phenomena: the type of radical, Caliphate-style law put forth by al Qaeda, Hizb ut Tahrir, and their ilk; and traditional, tribal understandings of the Islamic law, which have evolved in place over the course of centuries. The sha'riah we encountered in Afghanistan, or that is practiced today in parts of Nigeria where Saudis have been teaching their radicalism, is fundamentally different from the kind that is practiced in Aceh province, Indonesia. We are, and must be, opposed to the first type; but the second type can be useful to us.

Aceh won the right to have a sha'riah court that the Indonesian government would be bound to respect. They opened the court in 2003, but have only just begun doing any sort of corporal punishment this summer. Widows and orphans are pleased by the new court, as their rights are somewhat more certain under the Islamic law than under Indonesia's rather corrupt legal system.

Hizb ut Tahrir is active in Indonesia, but I am given to understand that they find that they have a very limited following in Aceh. A good friend of mine who is something of an expert on the topic informs me that their own native tradition of Islam is too conservative for the Islamist radical. Conservatives, if they are true conservaties, have institutions and traditions they wish to preserve and uphold. Aceh's native culture has several features, particularly forms of art, that are sternly disapproved of by the Islamists. The Islamist agitation against those features has alienated conservative Muslims from the radicals. As a consequence, this living tradition is a stronger break on the radicals than any government action has been.

Another of the ongoing disputes, my friend tells me, is over the introduction of the parts of sha'riah that cover thieving. The problem, you see, is that the Islamic law covers corrupt officials as well as bread-thieves, so there is some foot-dragging among the politicians in charge.

Nothing surprising about that, I suppose. In any event, the Islamic law is popular. Precisely because corruption is so rampant in Indonesia, there is some feeling among the people that it is good to have the option of having their case heard by local, trusted 'holy men' instead of judges appointed by the central government.

It is easy to imagine even Americans feeling the same way -- I suspect that there are many people who would rather have their legal disputes resolved by a preacher they know and trust, according to Biblical principles they feel they understand (although they may be wrong about that...), than by lawyers and judges interpreting a legal code that may be both alien and complicated. I suspect that is the case, even though we have a legal system that works fairly well most of the time, with a class of lawyers that is professional and honest, at least by Indonesian standards. If our courts and judges were routinely corrupt, the option would seem that much more appealing to that many more people.

In any event, as Marshall says, we have to engage the issue of sha'riah more than we have. If the radicals are to be defeated, we have to understand both what they really want, and what obstacles to them arise from the cultures that they are trying to change. Some of these "conservative Muslims" are potential, natural allies to us. All they want is a stable, orderly and just society, under the rules that seem natural and right to them; all we want is for them not to harbor and train terrorists.

We ought to be able to make that work. Part of the key is appearing to be an ally of the traditional and conservative parts of Islam, where they survive. The Saudi money has infiltrated much of the globe, as we have come to understand, but even that large a lever can shift a traditional culture only slowly. In those places like Aceh, where the culture's old forms are naturally opposed to the radicals, sha'riah is not our enemy. In those places like Afghanistan where the traditional culture has been uprooted by constant war, and the Saudi-financed radicals have taken over the place, it is. We have to be able to see the difference, and also to express clearly to worldwide Muslims why we are sometimes unmaking "the path to the water."

WHERE I STAND ON THE MIERS NOMINATION.

WHERE I STAND ON THE MIERS NOMINATION.
I am about as disappointed as I can be right now. I never operated under the illusion that Bush was a true movement conservative. However, I thought he would at least throw the base a bone when it came to SCOTUS nominations. Lets face it, for most of us that has been the most important issue, especially in light of the increasingly lawless left-wing tilt of the court. But what happened when Bush got the chance to nominate a SECOND justice to the Supreme Court? He punted! He passed up any number of strong proven conservative judicial choices and picks a no-body that just happens to be a friend of his.

That’s what we get for supporting President Bush. A wink, a nod, and a cheesy grin coupled with a promise that “she is one of us.” Well, that is just not enough for me. I am sick and tired of being told “so and so says she is good to go” or “this or that president of this or that conservative group gives her a thumbs up.” Here was an opportunity to have a national debate about originalism and the role of the courts in society, to move public understanding about our Constitution in a positive direction. Instead, Bush cops out and nominates someone no one has ever heard of in the pursuit of political expediency. That’s just wrong.

Even if Miers turns out to be the second coming of Scalia, which I doubt very much, the reasons and the process by which she was chosen will still have a negative impact on the legal side of the conservative movement. From here on out, judicial conservatives and academics will always be mindful that participation in the Federalist Society or the expression of strong opinions may very well be an automatic disqualifier for the federal bench. Better to keep quiet and avoid associating with those who have made their feelings known if you hope to go very far.

Such a development is not only bad for the conservative movement but for the health of the Republic as well. The process and reasons by which people in our Republic reach high office should be such that the people have a better than average chance of knowing what they are getting. We need to know where these nominees stand and what philosophy, if any, guides them. However, if the only people nominated to the highest court in the land are those who throughout their careers have successfully managed to hide their true beliefs and avoid associating with those who don’t then we will end up with a court of cowards and opportunists. I am not implying that Miers is a coward or an opportunist (I certainly hope she isn’t); only that a system that elevates stealth candidates favors such people and arms them with the advantage of anonymity, an advantage unavailable to those who are willing to take a stand for their convictions.

Our Republic deserved better.

cross posted at Southern Appeal.

Miers

Good Gracious:

Do I understand that the President just nominated someone to the Supreme Court who has never been a judge at all? Miers would appear to have as her main qualification that she's a personal friend of his.

Feddie isn't happy about it, and the folks at NRO apparently are struck with disbelief:

In Case You Were Not Believing Yet
[Kathryn Jean Lopez 10/03 07:35 AM]
I just got something from the White House press office on Miers, so it's the real deal.

...

Miers
[Kathryn Jean Lopez 10/03 07:30 AM]
likes Daylight Savings. I'm giving you what I've got:

Hello, this is Harriet Miers. I am Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy at the White House, and I am delighted to be here to answer your questions this Friday afternoon. This is always a great weekend because we will all get an extra hour of sleep Saturday night. And given all that is going on, I have to say, we here at the White House are looking forward to that extra hour!

I think I'll be writing my Senators to urge that they oppose the nomination. They're both Republicans, and may feel an urge to party loyalty. But really, the Senate is not doing its job if it approves a nominee like this. This is the Julie Myers of the Supreme Court.

Boom

Boom:

If this report is right, the United States has just suffered its first suicide bombing. No details beyond these seem to be available.

Hat tip Southern Appeal, whose usual devotion to college football -- an understandable and honorable devotion -- has produced something undesired. The information suggests it isn't serious, or predictive of a larger trend. Nevertheless, this is one precedent I would have rather not seen.

Scooter

"Scooter" Libby:

One does not expect someone with the nickname of "Scooter" to prove to have the style and manners of a gentleman. In life, however, one is often surprised and even, on rare occasion, pleasantly. Via Cassandra, I encountered the letter sent to Judith Miller by Scooter Libby. The purpose of the letter is purely practical: to clarify that he has, in fact, released her from any promise of confidentiality. Yet, having addressed that purpose in kind and generous terms, this is what he writes:

You went into jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover — Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work — and life.

Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers.

With admiration,

/s/
Lewis Libby

That is the way a gentleman writes to a lady. It is not, so far as I know, still taught in any school: there are no instructors left to teach it, unless they are Sir Walter Scott and Chesterton.

My respect for the administration, on the wane somewhat of late especially due to the matter of their ICE appointee, is somewhat reinforced by this exchange. It is good to know that there is at least one among them who knows, and honors, the old forms. It isn't much compared to the great matters of war and politics: but it isn't nothing, either.

Media

Everybody Hates The Media:

From Bangladesh:

Jamaat-e-Islami Ameer and Industries Minister Matiur Rahman Nizami has said the role of media is not less than that of terrorists.

The minister was addressing a seminar on 'Fundamentalism, militancy and Islam' organised by Bangladesh Quran Shikkha Society at the Jatiya Press Club yesterday.

...

Nizami said an international clique is engaged to implicate Jamaat-e-Islami in terrorist activities and the persons being used as their tools are tarnishing the image of Islam under the garb of alems (religious scholars).

He urged the leaders and activists of the party to remain alert against this force.

...

The Jamaat chief said a newspaper ran a report that 40 percent of the arrestees from across the country on charge of bomb attacks are Jamaat members, which is totally untrue.

And when we protested the news item, the newspaper published our rejoinder, but it was done in a way so as not to be clearly noticed.

If a Western politician told a Press Club that the media was as bad as the terrorists, he would be eaten alive in the papers forever after. Not so much in Bangladesh, though, where the press operates under fear of arrest or "falling ill" under interrogation.

This is one reason we have such a hard time in the media wars. All bloggers can do is chide the media. Our political leaders daren't even do that. The radicals in so many places, though, can openly warn even international press agencies to beware what they say.

It's worth remembering that. Reuters, AFP, and the lot of them, they are under much darker kinds of pressure than any blogger offers. In order to operate in the unfree places at all, they are forced to strike fearful bargains. It means they are not able to report the news honestly. The only other choice, though, is not reporting it at all.

That doesn't excuse the domestic press when they refuse to produce a Yon, or to get basic facts correct, or set aside their 1960s assumptions about the way the military works. It is something to keep in mind, however, when we are thinking about the international agencies.

3/25

Welcome Home:

The 3/25 has come home, at last.

Good one, CAIR

CAIR Does Us A Favor:

I'm no fan of CAIR, and I don't agree with their reasoning.

All the same, they did us a favor this time. This ad was a disaster from an Information-Operations point of view.

It's not that the ad "offers a questionable picture of your companies’ collective opinion of Islam and Muslims," as CAIR said.

It's that the ad juxtaposes a holy Islamic site with the words, "unleashes hell," a clear reference to the Marines. This frames the fight exactly in our enemy's terms. The Marines are unholy, even Satanic; they devise and design ways to destroy the Holy Places in the world.

We've already let these murderers get away with calling themselves mujahedeen, which means "Holy warriors" and is an historic term of great respect in Islamic society. We have a choice, because we have our own experts who can help us frame the debate properly. A year and a half ago, a guy I know in IO sent a tip to use the term mufsidoon instead.

I would like to think we don't do that because it's not the American way to fight over names, but to let the truth of actions speak for themselves. That belief, however much I would like to hold it, would be an obvious lie. We fight about the names of things all the time. "Pro-choice/Life" is the most obvious example, but consider the "Castle Doctrine," below, which the Brady Campaign has decided to rename the "Shoot First" law.

I find all that rather tedious and dishonest. Nevertheless, if we have the energy to spare on debates of this type, why don't we perform them where it counts?

Americans make no claim to being holy warriors. We don't mind to 'unleash hell' now and then. We tried to fight this war without attacking mosques, because of a genuine respect for religion and a desire to grant sanctuary to that which is thought holy. It didn't work, but it's not our fault it didn't work. People kept shooting mortars at us from these things. So now, if it comes to it, we'll send the Marines to clean them out as necessary.

Nevertheless, we've got to be clear that our enemies are not holy either. Indeed, if anyone here is unholy, it's not us. We're just fighting men in a bad world. When we find evildoers among us, we root them out. Our enemy encourages them.

We know all that, so maybe we don't feel like we have to say it. But we do have to say it, carefully and often. We've got to be mindful about keeping clean the distinction between the evil we fight, and the mosque in which he sometimes hides.

Recruiting

Recruiting the Rich:

Mark Tapscott mails to direct your attention to evidence showing that military recruitment doesn't favor the rich -- it is favored by them.

Dr. Tim Kane, an economist who works in The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis, wondered the same thing recently, so he asked the Defense Department for all the demographic data he could get on recruits.

What Kane got in response from DOD was an avalanche of demographic data about the 1999 and 2003 recruits. After conducting extensive statistical analyses on the data, Kane reached some conclusions that will surprise anybody who believes the conventional wisdom about who becomes cannon fodder.

Check out the graphic above. Note the proportions of recruits from each of the five demographic quintiles, organized according to per capita income by zip code. The percentage of recruits from the poorest quintile is actually lower in 1999 and 2003 than the percentage for the richest quintile.

In fact, the percentage difference between the richest and poorest quintiles increases between 1999 and 2003! And the highest percentage is actually in the second richest quintile of recruits, followed by the richest quintile.

A quintile is twenty percent of the population. Thus, if 19% of the military comes from the poorest quintile, that quintile is underrepresented; if 22% comes from another quintile, that one is somewhat overrepresented.

Of the five quintiles, only the poorest is underrepresented in the military -- all the others are at or above 20%. That's very interesting. It suggests a military that is precisely the opposite of the one portrayed in the media.

Now, here's something else that's interesting. Compare those statistics above with these, which break down recruiting by geographic region of the United States. The South is far and away the leader in recruitment, although it is the poorest region of the United States. The wealthiest region, the Northeast, trails in recruitment.

That suggests that the media picture is even less accurate. The military maintains these levels of representation in the richest and second-richest quintiles, while drawing 40% of the force from the poorest region in the country and only fifteen percent from the richest region.

That suggests that military recruitment is heavily disproportionate among the upper and upper-middle class everywhere but the Northeast, and probably certain parts of California. The top two quintiles of income are concentrated in these richer parts of the country, which are unlikely to produce recruits. Thus, recruitment among the richer Americans outside of those regions must be extremely high indeed.

Something to think about. It also explains why the USMC can increase two-hundred fold their training classes for Arabic, one of the world's most difficult languages. The wealthiest Americans, excepting those in certain enclaves, are finding that their well-educated children are choosing to serve.

Good on them.

UPDATE: The Mudville Gazette has a long post on Army recruiting, which offers a lot of data specific to the Army. He is hunting a different claim than the one above, though: he's curious about the problem of how many young Americans are actually fit to join the military.

ChestHag

A New Warfighting:

Chester has an examination of how the "endgame" of the GWoT may progress. While I respectfully suggest that talk of an endgame may be somewhat premature, there are some interesting facts in the piece.

Of particular interest is that the USMC has changed its focus on language training. It used to be that they sent people who tested well, where those few were intensely schooled with the intent of becoming translators. Now things are different. General Hagee:

We have decided that every Marine, whether he or she is enlisted or officer, is going to be assigned a region in the world, and they're going to be tasked with learning about that region in the world and even learning one of the languages in that particular region, and we hope to be able to give them the opportunity to serve in that particular area.

Now is everyone going to be able to do that? No. But at least we are identifying how important that is. Two, three years ago, we probably sent 20 some individuals to Arabic language course. Last two years we've sent four thousand Marines. Now are they fluent? No. But at least they're able to start to communicate, they're able to start to understand the culture, at least in the area that we are fighting in right now.

That is both a brilliant and a remarkable change of training doctrine.

NY/China

Manhattan & HangZhou:

The author of a new book on pagan Rome reports on his research (via Arts & Letters Daily). His main insights, he says, came from living in Manhattan:

Just listening to my beloved 10th Street cacophony every morning puts me at one with the ancients: "Insomnia is the main cause of death in Rome," ranted Juvenal. "Show me the apartment that lets you sleep!" Of course, instead of sirens and car alarms, the Romans were driven mad by the shrieks of street vendors and bells from pagan rituals. The night traffic was deafening: Axle grease was rarely used in ancient times, so the high-pitched squeal of wagon wheels grinding through the narrow streets was as piercing as the brakes on New York's garbage trucks.

Whenever I make my way downstairs to the rubbish-strewn sidewalk, I can gather more inspiration about ancient life: Strolling the Subura was once an assault on the senses, weaving through an obstacle course of filth and pushy crowds. ("One man digs an elbow into my side, another a hard pole," wrote Juvenal, "one bangs a beam, another a wine cask, against my skull.")

I sympathize with this writer entirely. While living in HangZhou, China, I wrote an entire novel (never published) about the Varangian Guard. The Varangians were a group of Norse and Rus warriors who had come to be employed as mercenaries by the "Romans" of Byzantium. I happened to have a fairly complete personal library as far as the surviving writings and chronicles of the Norse who were involved -- particularly the saga of King Harald Hardrada, and a companion saga about one of his personal companions and fellow warriors.

However, I knew nothing at all about Byzantium except as it was presented by the Norse writers, who were relating to print tales that had been passed down for more than a hundred years. Still, the experience of being a rather warlike foreigner in an ancient land with an alien culture was entirely familiar. The book's first third, treating the life in the warriors while in Constantinople, was really about living in HangZhou among the foreign community.

When I returned to the United States, I got some books on Byzantine history and revised the book to fit the reality as presented by real historians. Not very much revision turned out to be necessary, however. It proved that HangZhou was a pretty reliable guide to the experience, just as I had imagined it to be.

Serenity

Serenity:

Wow.

I had a chance to go and see a pre-screening of this movie back in June. Due to a confluence of tragedy and emergency, I didn't make it. I have bitterly regretted it ever since.

In retrospect, though, it may have been a good thing in just this one way: If I had spent the last several months telling you how cool this movie is, you would all now be sick of me.

So now, you can go and see for yourself. You should -- especially if you've watched the series.

If not, and if you don't want to rush out and buy the DVDs on just my word...

Go here, and download episodes 1x11 and 1x12 (also called "Serenity," but it's not the same thing). This is the pilot, which for some reason got aired in the middle of the season instead of at the start. Who knows why? Anyway, go do it.

I'm pretty sure that no one at Fox or Universal will mind. Once you've seen it, you will go and buy the DVDs, and you'll go to the movie, and maybe more than once.

So yeah -- download and watch the pilot. Then go see the movie. Or, just take my word and grab the DVDs.

Anybody who has seen the film and wants to discuss it, I'll be happy to talk about it in the comments. Nothing here on the front page, though, so as not to spoil things.

Dlay

Delay:

I've been reading over the "Moderate Voice" roundup on the Delay (DeLay? I've seen it both ways) indictment. I'm trying to decide what to think about this. Here are my basic principles:

1) A desire to defend the weaker party, which wants to see the matter resolved in the favor of the innocent whenever an innocent man is threatened by the state's power.

2) A desire to see corruption in government restrained, which desires to see the matter resolved by hurling any guilty men into the dungeon in this case. This is true whether "the guilty" is Delay, or the prosecutor, should the prosecutor in fact be engaged in a political prosecution.

3) A disdain for the entire "campaign finance reform" project, which is gleeful at seeing politicians and legislators victimized by their own stupid laws. This sense of poetic justice hopes for a rethinking of the whole project to arise from the business.

4) A general sense that most Congressmen are corrupt scoundrels who probably belong in the jailhouse anyway. My father used to say that he felt Congressmen ought to be allowed to serve as long in Congress as they could get re-elected, provided that on the day they were ousted they spend an equal number of years in prison.

These are conflicting principles, but in the absence of much firm information about Delay, they will have to do. The only thing I actually know about the man is that he recently stood up and told the country that there was no fat in the Federal budget. That does not suggest to me that he can look forward to a trial on corruption charges with very much hope.

Still, we shall see.

Shoot first

Brady Frets:

Via the Geek's coblogger Charles, we have this extraordinary press release from the Brady Campaign. They are very concerned about the new Florida law that allows you to defend yourself from criminals:

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said today it is beginning a public education effort to educate Florida tourists and potential Florida tourists that effective Oct. 1 they face a greater risk of bodily harm within the state of Florida.

That is the date that the state's new "Shoot First" law also known as the "Stand Your Ground" law, goes into effect.

It's not "also known as" the "Stand Your Ground" law, because it's not known as the "Shoot First" law at all. Not, except, on the Brady Campaign's websites. Its author actually called it the "Castle Doctrine," so if you want a catchy name for it, that would be the honest one.

Anyway, Brady thinks your life is in danger if you visit Florida. They suggest the adoption of arcane procedures, also known as "not waving your arms and screaming over every little thing that irritates you":

The flyer suggests specific steps visitors should take: Avoid unnecessary arguments with local people; stay in their cars and keep hands in plain sight if involved in a traffic accident or near-miss; and maintain a positive attitude and avoid shouting or threatening gestures if someone appears to be hostile toward them.

Many of us in the South, not least the late great Lewis Grizzard, have been wondering what it would take to get visiting Yankees to adopt some manners. Apparently, we've finally hit on the answer.

So yeah -- if you like getting into "unecessary arguments with local people"; or if you don't want to treat the people you meet with "a positive attitude"; or if you enjoy expressing yourself with "shouting or threatening gestures" -- stay out of the South. I have news for you: if you got out of your car, screamed and yelled and made threatening gestures, the jury never was going to convict the fellow for shooting you anyway.

Don't like that? As Mr. Grizzard used to say, "Delta's ready when you are."

If, on the other hand, you always planned to behave like a civilized human being -- well, you won't have much trouble wherever you go. If, however, you should have some here -- in spite of your good will and manners -- we'll back you up if you feel the need to defend yourself.

Good enough? Great.

Fence

Fencing the Border:

The Afghan border, that is. The article from the Institute for Afghan Studies' Dr. G. Rauf Roashan considers a recent Pakistani proposal to build a fence along the border. The Afghans are against it:

Many analysts wonder about the existence of a legal, true or viable border between the two countries as the so-called Durand Line of the colonial era -never approved of by any national assembly in Afghanistan-and imposed by Britain had a validity of one hundred years and that in 1993 its validity expired. The question was: If there is no officially recognized border between the two countries where is the Pakistani government putting the fence?

The article talks about the political process at work. One interesting section, however, is the paragraph where it considers precedents for the proposed wall:

Looking back in history there are precedences of building walls against invaders preventing their intrusions and attacks. Living examples of this are the Great Wall of China constructed against Mogul intrusions and attacks, the ancient Kabul city walls constructed on the ridges of the Asamaii and Shair Darwaza mountains during the reign of Kabul Shahan against Arab invasion and the Israeli concrete wall in Gaza against the Palestinian suicide bombers. The Berlin Wall, however, was built to prevent East Germans from escaping to freedom into West Berlin.

Several years ago now, George Will wrote a column that talked about the Afghans. He was impressed with their directness and honesty.

In a meeting attended by the Afghan minister of education, an Afghan academic asked Lewis if British universities would recognize Afghan university degrees as equivalent to those from British universities. Before Lewis could launch into diplomatic pitter-patter to blur the question, the minister of education curtly said to the academic who had asked the question, "Don't be silly. How could they possibly?" It was, Lewis says, a kind of candor rarely found elsewhere in the region.

Well said. On the other hand, this fellow was educated in Afghanistan in the very time period Lewis was writing about. How many academic institutions in the West could produce a paper that compared the Israeli wall to other walls in such a simple, honest context? It shouldn't be hard, since the comparison is honest. But it is hard.

I suspect the Afghans are going to go far, once the stability that has long eluded them is achieved. It may not be forever that we laugh at the idea of Afghan universities being as good as, or even better than, British ones.

Yon

Yon's Rhma:

Mr. Yon may be the best war correspondent to arise from the current difficulties. That said, this post shows that he is not just a good war correspondent, but a good writer, and a good man.

That he's a good writer is proven by the fact that he builds suspense in the reader. He titles the post "Final Mission," and drops opening hints that the ending might not be a happy one.

But even a good person needs information in order to act effectively on their best impulses. Oftentimes, good things do not happen simply because information does not make it to the right people.

Yon knows the ending, but he makes the reader wonder, and draws him in to a tale of bureaucratic snarls and paperwork. That is a hard topic to write about well, but it is interesting here because Yon has made us care about the result.

That he's a good man is proven not only by the care he shows for the girl, but his ability to see and appreciate the good in all the participants. As so often, what you see in others can tell us more about you than it ever does about the other people.

Thank you, sir.

Celebrate

New Orleans Resignation:

Grim's Hall would like to join BlackFive in celebrating the departure of a cowardly, corrupt official. A corrupt official I can sometimes endure, but cowardly ones I can't stand at all.

I did post a link to a MSNBC video of New Orleans Police looting a Wal-Mart. I posted about the desertions on the police force (and praised the ones who stayed on duty throughout the madness in the aftermath of Katrina).

But the one reason that this guy should step down is because he and his security detail ran from armed thugs in the Superdome. They ran when they should have served and protected.

Lots of links at B-5's place. Good riddance.

NfK

Notes from Knights:

The Knights Simplar have a list of things they'd like you to do. One of them is to call your Congressmen to support the creation of a citizens' border patrol. It would be organized under Congress' power to call up the militia, interestingly enough.

They also have a compromise proposal for dealing with an objection from Sarah Brady:

Brady's concern is that we're "going to get the right to use them [firearms] willy-nilly." To show that we are not above compromise, I encourage you to ask your Congressmen to take the phrase "willy-nilly" out of any pending legislation.

I'll support that.

Truth in advertising

Illumination Through Partial Translation:

Have a look at this statement from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front's spokesman. He is herein denying the "legitimate" membership in MILF of some fighters captured by the army. The statement is partially in English, partially in the local tongue known as Tagalog.

"Nagtataka kami kung bakit pinapatulan sila ng mga military at bakit nagpapaloko ang mga military sa kanila. Babalik din yan sila sa illegal na activities pag wala ng makuha," he added.

I had the pleasure recently of taking one of the several government "artificial language" tests (actually, I think I've taken all of them at one point or another). Often, though, there's a lot to be gleaned just from the "loan words."

wic

Women in College:

InstaPundit points to the problem that does not exist, too many women in college:

Currently, 135 women receive bachelor's degrees for every 100 men. That gender imbalance will widen in the coming years, according to a new report by the U.S. Department of Education.

This is ominous for every parent with a male child. The decline in college attendance means many will needlessly miss out on success in life. The loss of educated workers also means the country will be less able to compete economically. The social implications -- women having a hard time finding equally educated mates -- are already beginning to play out.

He links to Althouse, as well as Jokers On the Right and Lies and Statistics.

OK, here's my take: which disciplines show which biases?

Glenn suggests three explanations. I think the real choice is one in between two of the ones he offers: that more men are choosing profitable careers outside of education, and that women are overrepresented in higher education. This is because more female-oriented careers insist on credentials. More male-oriented careers insist on demonstrated skills.

Here's what I mean by that: how many of these women are majoring in literature, library science, psychology, sociology, and the other "soft" arts and sciences? If we're looking at a future where the vast majority of public school teachers, librarians, and psychologists are female, how is that a threat to men?

If we're looking at a future where the majority of mathematicians, general officers and scientists remain male, how is that a bonus to women?

When I took my Master's Degree, almost everyone there was female. And almost all of them were taking degrees in Education, nursing, and the like. In order to get the full rate of pay as a public school teacher or a librarian, you have to invest a ton of money and time getting a graduate degree in "education" or "library science," even though neither in any way requires such a degree. If you're a public librarian, you need to know the Dewey Decimal system, and how to be nice to rude people.

A public school teacher? They need to know their subjects. They don't need courses in education: every one of them has been twelve years in the system as a student, and has had an additional apprenticeship as a student teacher. None of them needs instruction in 'the philosophy of education.' They need to learn their subject matter. And that, of course, is just what they can't study -- because they need that "Education" degree to get their money in many places.

Wasted.

There's no cause for concern here. The problem is not that men aren't "welcome" in academia, as Althouse puts it. It's that men are better judges of what is critical and what is laughable. The majority of millionaires in this country have no college degree.

It's not that education is unimportant. It's that academia is.

Vegans

Vegans Go To Jail:

Ace has a story about some Vegan parents who almost starved their poor kid to death, because they wouldn't give her any milk:

I have a question: Were these people so f'n' crazy they rejected the notion of even breastfeeding their child, as breastmilk would be an "animal product" and hence not fit for human consumption? From what I can see, that would appear to be the case.

How stupid do you have to be to decide, based on some kind of insane eating-disorder-cum-political ideology, that human milk is itself unfit for consumption by a human baby?

The first commenter says, "This supports my theory that vegan diets lower IQ by 50 points."

That really must be true. I have a buddy who's a falconer. As a young fellow, he went to a college whose name escapes me at the moment, but which was founded by hippies in the mountains of North Carolina.

One day, he noticed that his hawks seemed to be getting sick. He couldn't figure out why -- some illness that touches only birds? But none of the other regional falconers were reporting it.

Still, his birds got sicker and sicker, weaker and weaker, until they could barely fly. Finally, one night, on a hunch he staked out the mews.

Sure enough, shortly after he put out the food, one of the local vegan hippies slipped in and stole all the chicken and other meat from the hawks. My good friend picked up a tire iron, and went out to have a "wee chat" with the fellow. Turns out the kid had this notion that the hawks shouldn't be eating meat, but ought to be eating this fine soy-bean protein instead, and...

Hawks can't live on soy beans.

Babies need milk.

That's just how it is, folks.

Just War

Taking "Just War Theory" Seriously:

As I do not watch television, it will not disturb the networks to discover that this or that new show does not appeal to me. However, this review of the pilot for "Commander in Chief" does merit some comment. Among other things, the show apparently attempts to demonstrate to viewers that a good liberal President would not be a pacifist, but would use the military vigorously in defense of proper principles. In particular, what interests me is the test case they set up for the righteous use of arms:

Liberals are serious about human rights in this world too. Working out a subplot, Allen’s aides keep reminding her about the Nigeria situation: In accordance with sharia, Nigeria is about to put a woman to death for committing adultery. Allen is concerned.

Throughout, Allen is shown confidently ordering around generals and positioning aircraft carriers (see, this is why stereotypes are bad). And as Commander limps through its 38th minute, she brings the Nigerian ambassador to a Joint Chiefs’ meeting and proceeds to illustrate how the Marines will storm his country if the woman isn’t released immediately.

“I can’t believe the U.S.A. would take such a unilateral action,” the ambassador mumbles.

“If you think I’m going to sit by while a woman is executed, tortured, for having sex, you’re sorely mistaken,” retorts Allen.

So, this is what a proper use of force looks like in the liberal Hollywood imagination. There is a problem, however.

It is not a proper use of force.

Deploying the military, particularly in an invasion by Marines, is going to result in loss of life and social chaos. These are bad things, which always inevitably result on the occasions that the military is used.

If a war is just, however, there may be some good ends that will result as well. It is important to see that the good ends and the bad results balance, in a way that favors the good. You cannot morally use force if you don't attend to that balance.

"Just War" theory, which is the backbone of Western ethical thinking about military force, addresses the issue using a technique known as "the doctrine of double (or dual) effect." The doctrine originally arises in Medieval Catholic thought, but applies very nicely to questions of morally using force. (This is true for liberals as well as conservatives, by the way -- one of the finest books on the subject, and indeed my original textbook when I was first studying the concept of Just War, was written by liberal thinker Michael Walzer.)

The doctrine of double effect holds that, when you contemplate an action that has both a good and a bad effect, you can morally take that action if:

1) The action is "discriminate," by which they mean that the bad effect is neither your goal, nor the means to the good end you hope to achieve. The way to test this is by imagining that the good end could, by miracle, be achieved without the bad things coming to pass. If you would be happy with that result, the act is discriminate.

An example: You wish to bomb a weapons' factory, but there will be workers there who will be killed. The workers are forced labor; it's not their fault they are making weapons for the enemy. Is the act discriminate? You imagine that the bombs fall and by miracle destroy the factory, but the workers all escape unharmed. Would you be satisfied? Of course! Therefore, the act qualifies under the first test.

2) The act must also be "proportionate," meaning that the good accomplished must be at least equal to the harm caused. This has to be tested before the fact -- one can't be blamed for harm that one could not have reasonably imagined.

An example: You invade a country to stop a genocide in progress. In the process, your advancing troops disrupt the tribal social order far more completely than anyone expected, thus touching off a revenge genocide that kills far more people than the original one would have done. Your original action (trying to stop the first genocide) qualifies as proportionate because the greater harm was neither expected nor probable. Now, you must choose whether to try and stop the new genocide -- for which you are partially responsible.

In our Hollywood dream scenario, we have a liberal President planning to invade Nigeria with Marines in order to rescue a single person. Rescuing the single person from torture and execution is a good effect (at least, it's a good effect if one doesn't believe, as the people in that part of Nigeria do, that "having sex" in this context is an offense against God that has a divinely mandated punishment). Well enough. What are the bad effects of invading Nigeria?

* There is, to start with, the loss of innocent life that will unavoidably happen when you deploy Marines to secure a city.

* If one has taken the line that the Iraq war is a bad thing because it pits Americans against Muslims, then this war is far worse. It pits America against, not "some Muslims," but Islam itself. We are undertaking to enforce a Western notion of justice over, not a socialist-fascist tyranny, but over sha'riah.

* A major nation state in Africa is disrupted. Given the regional instability, this could have fearsome consequences -- for which we will be unprepared, because our national commitment, both in terms of force levels and political will, is only up to the task of rescuing a woman.

Thus, the good to be accomplished is not in anything like a proportionate relationship to the harm caused. While discriminate -- we don't have to imagine the scenario where no harm is caused, because Hollywood does it for us, with the Nigerians backing down -- the act is not at all proportionate. The action is improper, and immoral.

The supposed President's actions are also, I can't help but notice, shocking to the degree that they are unaware of basic military realities. She went to the enemy and told them what her plans for invasion were?

Pity the poor Marines who are asked to take those landing zones. They'll do it, of course, but it would have been a good idea not to "illustrate" the plan beforehand.

In addition, given the size of the mission objective, it was very unwise. As we have seen from the time it took to capture Saddam, and the continuing inability to find Zarqawi, it is not hard to hide a single person from an army in a large nation. This is true even if, as in Saddam's case, absolutely everyone can recognize him on sight.

The "woman" in question could easily be hidden from the American forces or, more likely, sent back to them in pieces. If the goal was to rescue this woman, the goal will not likely be accomplished in the fashion imagined.

If you had to imagine military action in this context, the thing to do was to send an unannounced commando raid backed by light infantry to secure the area. Navy SEALs acting in concert with Army Rangers, as in the Jessica Lynch raid, might work. Such an action might indeed be proportionate, although it would still have the bad effect of casting America as the enemy of sha'riah -- but only for an evening, rather than committing to months and years of fighting to prevent the implementation of sha'riah. It would, at least, avoid the more major type of disruptions.

They might actually get the woman back, too. President Geena's plan was not too likely to manage that.

HuT

Hizb-ut Tahrir:

Since I mentioned them in the last post, I'd like to point out that HuT has an interesting anti-abortion stance.

Approximately 5,000 members and supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir from Jakarta and surrounding areas rallied in great numbers in front of the President's Palace on Merdeka Barat Street, on Sunday September 18th 2005.... And a giant banner read "Laa ilaaha illallah Muhammadur Rasulullah", the participants brought several posters with the slogans... “legalising abortion made free sex easy.” Other posters condemned the Liberal ideas and called for the Islamic solutions.

There are two things to be said about this. The first is that they have put their finger on the truth: "Legalizing abortion made free sex easy" is really the #1 argument in favor of abortion. It is an argument that no one ever seems to make plainly, even here (where "free sex" enjoys high popularity as a concept, if not as a reality). Nevertheless, that's what this is really about.

The second is that HuT is astonishingly blind to think that they can take the #1 argument in favor of abortion, and use it as an argument against abortion. It reminds me of a certain anti-drug campaign from a couple years ago:

According to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University, teens who use drugs are five times more likely to have sex than are those teens who do not use drugs. . . . Kids need to hear how risky marijuana use can be.

Oh, yeah. Just what I'll tell my teenage son. "It makes it five times as likely that you'll have sex!" Good God.

The "human nature" thing keeps evading some people.

Rev.

"Revolution"

We talked a bit about the BBC writer, Justin Webb, who wondered out loud if the US was finally headed to a revolution against the capitalists. Cassandra was more disturbed by the piece than I was, as she is putting it in a larger context, that of an ongoing media assault on American values. The BBC writer, for me, was a fellow who would never agree with us because his principles are opposed to everything America stands for; and yet, he was seeing some fine and praiseworthy things in the American reaction to Katrina, and was forced to recognize that in spite of his openly admitted prejudices. I respected that, and still do.

A middle-aged Brit who wants to speculate about why we don't have a revolution is one thing. He's not trying to start one. He just wonders why we don't, and the answer demonstrates an ability to see people with whom he disagrees on principle in a kind and humane light.

The wider context that bothers me is the domestic attempt to provoke a civil war. Nor is it limited to powerless protestors:

Mr. Rangel, a Democrat who has represented Harlem for almost 35 years, spent his portion of yesterday’s forum reminiscing about the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, and calling on his audience to undertake similar action today, inciting them to “revolution” after the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina and particularly its impact on indigent blacks in the Gulf Coast region.

The storm, he said, showed that “if you’re black in this country, and you’re poor in this country, it’s not an inconvenience — it’s a death sentence.”

Then there are the groups who want to incite the the destruction of all humanity.

By accident they stumble on an outpost of The Coalition Against Civilization, an organization dedicated to an ideology called eco-primitivism. The harmless-looking vegetarians are passing out pamphlets looking for a few good species traitors, who would work towards "spreading and developing theories and practical means to bring about the destruction of civilization and defend what wilderness remains." For a real-life account, read Baron Boddisey's and Dymphna's description of their experiences in the Gates of Vienna.

Societies whose goal is the destruction of human civilization or even humanity itself have existed on the margins for some time. The Voluntary Human Extinction Project (VHEMT) argues it is not enough to reduce the population that is burdening Gaia. Humanity must disappear down to the last man, woman and child to "allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health". Theodore Kaczynski, AKA the Unabomber, a trained mathematician of extremely high intelligence, embarked upon a terrorist program whose aims were put forth in the manifesto Industrial Society and Its Future.

Then there is the Caliphate. And then there is the small but radical fringe, to whom I will not link at all, which advocates a "race war" from the other side of the question.

These people are hostis humani generis, enemies of all mankind. Some of them think that they are enemies only of part of mankind, but they are really the enemies of all of us. The people they think will benefit from their revolutions are the ones who will suffer the most, should they be fool enough to follow the path.

When was the last real Revolution in the West? So long ago, apparently, that no one remembers what one looks like. The terror of the word is lost on them.

Taxes

Republicans Audit The Poor:

Just to show you that I take my co-bloggers seriously, I'm going to cite an article by Eric's favorite blog, Dennis the Peasant, which I've been reading lately. This particular article was on a plan to sic the IRS on the poor people of the nation, rather than using their auditors' time and energy to go after the rich and the corporate.

First, the cost of EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit, whereby the government sends "refund" checks to poorer families with children even though they didn't pay the "refunded" taxes to start with -- Grim] over-claims (payments made to taxpayers by the I.R.S. due to taxpayer preparation errors related to EITC) was between $4 billion and $5 billion in for the tax year of 1994. Total EITC payments for tax year 1993 totaled $15 billion. Simple math gets you to the realization that as of 1994, between one of every four and one of every three dollars paid out as EITC were the result of "noncompliance", the term used by the I.R.S. to indicate tax return preparation error. Second, the cost of EITC over-claims was estimated to be $11 billion for the tax year of 1999. In other words, the dollar payout by the I.R.S. for EITC noncompliance more than doubled in 5 years.

I could go on, but you get the drift. EITC has been problematic since its inception 30 years ago. Tax Compliance Measurement Programs in 1982, 1985 and 1988 found significant levels of noncompliance. I.R.S. testing in 1995 confirmed those findings. What all of this does not prove is that noncompliance equates with fraud. While there is anecdotal evidence that EITC is a fraud hotspot, the reality of the matter (to which I can attest on a professional level myself) is that EITC rules are complicated and complex. It would seem the most noncompliance is related to the difficulties in understanding the eligibility requirements, rather than outright criminal intent.

But that doesn’t mean that you simply ignore the problem. For a management perspective, one cannot simply ignore a problem of the magnitude of EITC noncompliance without jeopardizing the integrity of the entire system.

EITC is kind of an oddity in the system. I've never quite gotten the way in which people who haven't paid taxes are due a "refund," though I do understand why the system is in place. Essentially, it exists to make sure that working is a better deal than welfare -- that nobody falls into the category where they and their kids are so poor that they'd be better off not working and take the dole.

So, let's say that it's a reasonable idea. However, a plan to hand out free money obviously has to be intensely regulated because it will be very popular. The result is, as Dennis says, that the rules for collecting the EITC check are very complex and technical -- and they tend to fall upon that group of people which is least prepared to deal with such technicalities, because as a group the poor are less well educated and less able to hire an accountant.

The charge raised against these audits is that it is motivated by politics, by class warfare, by a desire to squeeze the poor in the fashion of That Scurvy Prince John:

If [the author raising a complaint about the audits, T. Christopher] Kelly happens to be right – that increased EITC auditing is not appropriate at this time – it’s not because he actually understands the issue nor has the facts at his command. Most certainly it would be more in the order of a happy (for him) accident. Realistically though, let’s come to the understanding that he’s completely wrong in all respects. But because he has no grounding in fact, and no understanding of the primary issues involved, he has latched onto an idea that everything can, and must, be reduced to the political. There can be no considerations, management, organizational, or whatever, that matter in Kelly’s world... because he can’t fathom what they are.

One suspects that the emotional content of the anti-audit argument is something like this: "These people are working poor with kids, and need the money more than you do. So what if they screw up their taxes and get a little extra money back? They need it. We should just ignore that, and raise taxes on the rich and the corporations to make up the difference."

There are negative consequences for the poor in higher taxes on the rich and the corporate, of course -- just as there are negative consquences for the poor in any sort of higher cost. The benefits arising from "extra" EITC payments probably don't make up for them, and more to the point, can't be assumed to do so: the "extra" payments are going to people outside the class the EITC is meant to help. That's why they're "extra" payments that are not authorized by the rules. The truly poor lose out here. Benefits meant for them are going to others who are not in such a hard case. Meanwhile, the rich and the corporate, taxed extra to make up the difference, push their costs downward. The result is that the lot of the genuine working poor is worse than it was if EITC was administered properly.

I remain convinced that we need to replace the tax system with a far simpler one. Insofar as we are stuck with this one for the time being, however, we have to take a hard look at it. What the emotional argument really wants is higher EITC payments, which in fact is a political issue that they should take to Congress. As much as I love to join in detesting the IRS, an agency I will be only too happy to see the end of if we can arrange a better system, they are not the ones at fault here.

tests

Political Tests:

I'm always amused by these attemps to model personality and political thinking. Patrick Carver and Feddie took this one, and posted their results. Here are mine:

You are a Social Liberal (70% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (70% permissive) You are best described as a: Libertarian Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating

The test is somewhat biased in a few ways. These are two of four graphs they show you. One of the ones not shown is "Famous People," which graphs you against a number of political figures. I fall closest to Jefferson, which actually might be a statement of the test's accuracy -- the wing of the Democratic Party that survives in the mountains of Georgia is strongly Jeffersonian, as it has been since its founding. (It shows how far the national Democratic party has fallen, too -- their founder, Jefferson, is now very far away from the furthest border of what the test considers a "Democrat" position. As we keep saying, we Southern Democrats can't "return to the fold," because we're still standing right where the fold used to be. It's the rest of you who need to hie yourselves back here.)

I notice that the dead-center of the test is represented by John Kerry. Kerry's ADA rating puts him to the left even of Ted Kennedy, yet somehow he strikes the test-makers as a "centrist." Not on your life.

Another bias is in the sample, which is of course self-selecting and non-scientific. Still, it's interesting:

Kerry voters: 166,789
Bush voters: 79,171

Percentage of these voters who say they are in favor of gun control: 37.

That's kind of interesting, isn't it? Kerry to Bush voters ought to be close to 1-1, since the election was so close; instead, it's 2-1 Kerry. Yet gun control still only manages support among slightly more than a third of test takers.

Kind of a hopeful sign, from where I sit.

UPDATE: Another thing that bothers me about this test, on reflection: it judges both axes based on "permissiveness." That seems like an odd standard to me, and I imagine that it's a more complex one than the test-makers believe it to be.

Two examples, one minor and one not:

1) The minor one -- statements aren't clearly about "permissiveness," so I'm not sure how they judge based on them whether you are willing to grant permission. One of the statements you are asked about is, "I would defend my property with lethal force." If you agree with that, is that the absence of economic permissiveness, or social permissiveness? Even an anarchist, believing that property is theft, would nevertheless suggest that you aren't obligated to 'grant permission' to someone who doesn't bother to ask for it.

2) The major one -- often one permits one thing in order to avoid permitting another.

One of the statements is, "People shouldn't be allowed to have children they can't provide for."

This is a question that would appear to be designed to bring out the closet eugenicists and haters of welfare (particularly coupled with the Natural Selection and homelessness question that appears earlier in the test). Yet it my experience that "I couldn't afford a child" is a frequently offered reason for practicing a certain kind of choice.

You will probably find a lot of members of the Religious Right who would "strongly disagree" with this proposition, precisely because of their moral opposition to abortion. They will happily permit extra kids, to avoid permitting abortion. Meanwhile, some outright socialists will happily support abortion, to avoid the backbreaking costs of extra children on their social systems.

That's all probably quite a bit of analysis for a simple online test. Still, as I said, I am always amused by these attempts to make models of the mind. Examining their flaws can often be illuminating.

Finally, one good thing about the test -- it sees no distinction between "Socialist" and "Communist." That's fine with me. As my old professor of Political Science used to say, "Where I come from, they use the tems 'Socialist,' 'Communist,' and 'Satanist' more or less interchangeably."

Sunday

Some Links of a Sunday:

Chester posts about a "massively multiplayer online role playing game" that is experiencing something new -- an unplanned virtual plague infecting the player characters.

Daniel survived Rita and got a lousy T-shirt. He also reports on looters in Houston after the hurricane. The looters, it turns out, are former citizens of New Orleans.

Doc talks about two women he met during the evacuation.

I myself don't have much of anything to talk about. The arrival of autumn has kept me away from the "crystal ball" for as much of the day as I can manage. I've been hiking along (and right up the middle of) the Rappahannock river, going to the gun range, taking the boy on trips, and the like. All very pleasant, but it hasn't inspired any particularly deep thoughts about the world.

Well, maybe next week.