Grim's Hall

Kinkade

Artistry:

I can't say that I've ever been a special fan of Thomas Kinkade, but I do agree with JHD: it's pretty cool what he's doing for the boys in the Naval hospital.

Mama

It's Always Nice...

...to see a serious blogger cite "mama" as a source.

I do the same thing myself from time to time. ("My mama always said, 'If you want to eat, learn to cook!'")

GN

Good News:

Congress has passed the ban on reckless lawsuits.

I was not aware until yesterday that burning bodies was forbidden in Islam. Were you? Four years on from 9/11, we've all studied Islam somewhat closely, and yet there remains so much to know.

Apparently, the Airborne unit that carried out the burnings didn't know it was improper either. At least, so says the embed who took the video in this interview. It's mostly a good interview: he's clear that American military forces were extremely open, never tried to hide anything from him as an embed, and that the people who actually did the burning seem to have believed that they were only performing a necessary function for reasons of disease.

However, the PsyOps guys did know. They did nothing to stop it -- and in fact, they made it worse by using it as the basis for a PsyOp.

USCENTCOM has started an investigation.

UPDATE: BlackFive has a post about this. In the comments, I find it necessary to defend the journalist (imagine that -- a blogger defending a journalist) against some outraged folks.

DuPont isn't the enemy here. Watch or read through the transcript of the interview with him -- he is very sympathetic to the soldiers, even the PsyOps guys. He explains that the PsyOps team is frustrated because the Taliban won't come out, and that the program had generated some successes. He is plain that the Americans have never tried to hide anything, and that this was just a decision made on the spot to try and achieve a tactical purpose.

The journalist isn't the enemy this time. He's doing his job: documenting and providing witness to what we do in a way that is both honest and honorable. He has done just what he is supposed to do.

The PsyOps team are the folks who have questions to answer. They are supposed to abide by the Conventions. If they did not do so, knowingly, and if they further used the knowing violation as a weapon of war, they will have to answer for it.

The Conventions also prohibit using civilian guise as cover. The terrorists who do so in spite of the Conventions thereby endanger all civilians. It is an act of barbarism. I've argued that, B5 here has argued it, Bill Whittle has argued it.

The same principle is at work here. You may not abuse the Conventions in order to seek a military advantage. It is wrong when the enemy does it, and it is wrong when we do it.

We are the defenders of civilization. That means we have to do what we have sworn to do. The investigation is right and proper, and if there has been a violation of the Conventions, it ought to be punished.

I think those are the right principles here. I yield to no one in my respect for the US military. That respect in part grows out of the fact that it is the foremost defender of the ancient virtue we once called chivalry. We must do what is right even -- especially -- when it hurts.

Cole & Ritter

Juan Cole & Miller:

Today, while dealing with another matter, it came to my attention that Juan Cole has recently produced a paper on Judith Miller. I have not been following the Plame case with any vigor -- I have always supported the investigation, the questioning of the reporters, and await any indictments that may result. As a consequence, I was surprised to learn that Miller is suddenly an enemy of the Cole faction, who needs to be destroyed.

Well, Juan Cole is the man for the job. Still, even knowing the old fraud's history, I was a little shocked by his audacity in this sentence:

In fact, Iraq's nuclear facilities were found and ordered destroyed after the war by the United Nations inspectors, and they were extremely thorough, as inspector and former U.S. Marine Scott Ritter insisted.

A quick Google proves that Juan Cole knows perfectly well who Ritter is, and yet mentions nothing about him to suggest that Ritter's story be taken with the slightest grain of salt. Given the weight he places on that sentence in making the case that Miller is a bad actor, it's quite an omission.

It would be somewhat like introducing another former officer of Marines, to people who may well know nothing about him, simply as "noted expert on Iranian relations, Lt. Col. Oliver North."

Lights

Once Upon a Time in China:

Speaking of old friends who may or may not be dead...

A number of years ago I lived in China. My wife, an artist, had been invited to come by the Chinese government in order to study Chinese painting techniques. I had studied Chinese history and philosophy, so I encouraged her to accept the offer.

They put us in a run-down structure with the other international residents. It was an amazing place in three respects. First, they had added an extra story to the top of it (with a slate roof!) without making any consideration for the load-bearing design. As a result, there was a giant crack in the concrete up one side of the building. It honestly seemed as if it might fall in at any moment.

Second, because the water in HangZhou is not drinkable, on every floor there were giant water tanks designed to provide drinking water. These were filled with the regular non-drinkable swill from the pipes, but twice a day they would vent live steam into the tanks in order to sterilize the water. (This did nothing for the poisonous heavy metals, which were not filtered out: as a consequence, I lived on Chinese beer instead.) The steam would boil out of the tanks through valves when the internal pressure got too high. Steam rises, of course, so the entire top floor would be floor-to-ceiling invisible twice a day. As you came down levels, somewhat more of the hallway would be visible: the third floor would be three-quarters filled with steam, the second floor half covered, and so forth.

The third thing that was notable was the remarkable incidence of disease. There were two old women who were employed to clean the place, which they did once a day with cold water and no soap. There was no such thing as bleach. We had people from all over the world, and lots of folks from sub-Saharan Africa as China is making big diplomatic moves there. One of these is to invite many of Africa's top students to study at Chinese universities. (This is a wise idea, by the way; one of the ways in which the GWOT has been flawed is that it has cut down on foreign students at American universities.)

Chinese medical care is an iffy proposition, although they did require a full physical of everyone admitted. Still, we had residents coming down with foreign diseases and dying; and most everyone was sick all the time. I myself caught tuberculosis, although apparently I defeated it with the aid of the aforementioned Chinese beer.

One of my fellows there was a giant of a man from Western Australia, a fine fellow who carried a big brass lock in lieu of brass knuckles. He was a complete scoundrel: a former professional gambler, who was currently making his living by conning the Australian government into believing that he was mentally ill and in need of a full pension.

Aside from him, my wife and I were the only native English speakers in the building. Many people spoke no English at all; French was more common, among the Africans, which meant that I could communicate with them with some difficulty. So could the Australian, who spoke a number of languages in a vague way -- but when he was in serious pain, as one night he was, English was the only language he could manage.

This was shortly after we arrived. I had not met the man, though I had once before seen him around the building. He came knocking on the door, though, and I answered it.

He was in such pain as to be unable to move, except with the greatest difficulty. He had managed to lumber down the hall to where our room was -- it was only a single room, and very tiny and drafty, without bathroom facilities or anything of the sort -- and he almost begged for me to go out into the Chinese night and find him some pain medication.

My Chinese at that stage could only with charity be called "broken," but all the same I promised to do my best. As I was leaving, he stopped me.

"I have to tell you something important," he said. I nodded.

"I believe very strongly," he said, "in giving your best shot, and then taking what comes. Go forth to the first place you can find, and do your best. If you cannot find the medicine there, come back. It will be all right."

I nodded again, and left; but I had no intention of doing what he asked. He had his beliefs, and I have my own. He had taken his one shot, and spent it on asking me for help. My belief is that when you undertake a quest, you see it through to its conclusion. As a result, I must have gone to ten places trying to find someone with whom I could communicate well enough to explain what I needed and get it.

When I got back, I found the poor Aussie leaning sadly against a wall. "What is it?" he said when he saw me. "You've come to tell me that that you couldn't find anything. Well, that's all right."

"No," I answered. "I've come to bring you this." I gave him the medicine, and he went on his way.

The next day he said that the stuff hadn't kicked in for almost two hours after he'd taken it, and he had been planning to murder me in my sleep with a meat axe. However, once it finally started to work, he found himself able to drift off to blissful sleep. He and I have exchanged letters for half a decade now; I never know if there will be another one, and I suppose in truth he never knows either.

That seems to me an illustration of what I was trying to say earlier, but to be honest, I'm not sure why it seems so. The reader may try to sort it out.

S.D.

An Old Friend Returns:

Grim's Hall is delighted to note that our old friend Steve D. is still alive. He was one of Grim's Hall's original readers, and sent a kind letter this morning apologizing for his long absence. Since he lives most of his life at sea, one never knows when he'll turn up or if he ever shall again.

He says he wouldn't mind if you dropped by to consider his thoughts on Iraq. For that matter, I don't guess I've mentioned my own thoughts on Iraq since the Constitutional Referrendum. They are these:

Omar's video from Mosul tells you what you need to know about Iraq and the mission there. It is a noble cause, as noble as any ever contested: to free the oppressed, De Oppresso Liber, and bring the light of liberty to their world.

It is fashionable on the anti-war side to ask, "What is this war about?" I have always offered that answer. The response is usually to scorn it: Bush didn't mention it, rarely mentioned it, mentioned other things, some of which turned out not to be as big a deal as he suggested. Yet, as far as Iraq goes, this is what I have always cared about: to end tyranny and free the oppressed, and to see a new dawn for liberty in the cradle of civilization. I heard Bush's speech at the start of the war, but I can only remember one detail of what he said: that this war would bring an end to the rape rooms. That was what impressed me, and as far as I am concerned, it is why we fight.

The success of this referrendum -- whether the Constitution had passed or failed, it was a success because of its extraordinary turnout and low violence -- demonstrates that liberty is taking hold. It will not be a smooth journey, I am sure: our own was not, but is littered with bones. Yet it is happening. We shall have the victory.

I do not know, though I think, that the victory in bringing democracy to Iraq will reduce or limit terrorism. It is not necessary that it do so to be a worthy cause. What matters is freeing men and women to live the right way, according to their own hearts, and to build the fire of freedom ever higher. Perhaps this will reduce violence in the world; perhaps it will increase it, as tyrants band together to put out the flame. Let them come. I do not fear them.

The Dangerous Life

The Dangerous Life:

I warn you that this is a long essay on a serious topic.

Ex Nihlio has a review of Serenity. It focuses on 'love, and its twin, belief.'

Everyone in the film (when they find themselves) is driven by love, but the interesting thing is that Serenity (amazingly! fortuitously!) manages to blend that love seamlessly with its twin, belief. In Serenity, there can be no true belief without a love that covers the sins necessary to defend that belief. There can be no love without foundation—without a belief in something, anything. And all of the actors in the tragicomedy are driven by their idealism—personal or political—their loves-cum-beliefs-cum-lives. They are all, to quote the movie, “true believers” by the end. And it is on that level that we connect with them—we are people who, even lacking it, long for true belief. Unconditional. Unequivocal. An excuse to love without care or worry of personal consequence. A belief that moves mountains or armies.

That is right.

Love and belief are twinned in this way. There is a deeper conflict at work, though. The Operative believes in a vision of a world without sin, and loves it so much that it covers his sins of murdering children. He can only be opposed, we are told, by men who believe in something else -- but who also truly believe.

We see that true belief gives a power that can be used for good or evil. In that way, faith is dangerous. It is dangerous in just the way Tolkien described:

’Dangerous?,’ cried Gandalf. ‘And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet. . .And Aragon is dangerous, and Legolas is dangerous. You are beset with dangers. . .for you are dangerous yourself, in your own fashion.’

It is therefore truth that the best thing in the world is to be dangerous. It is also the worst thing. A man should believe, and love, without fear or reservation. I believe this, and have lived this way, sometimes to great joy and sometimes to great pain.

We were talking just yesterday about the true believers who, seeking to obliterate their lives, let their faith move them to terrible things. How can we judge between the kind of faith that heals, and the kind tht poisons?

I doubt it is possible to judge between the religions, and prove that one is right and another wrong. I think, however, that we can examine the ways of belief, and show what a righteous man ought to look like. I will not tell you what to believe, but I will tell you how to believe.

Consider Robert Winston. He asks, "Why do we believe in God?" He tells an interesting tale about snake-handlers and psychologists.

Many years ago, a team of researchers at the department of anthropology at the University of Minnesota decided to put [a theory that religion was linked to mental illness] to the test. They studied certain fringe religious groups, such as fundamentalist Baptists, Pentecostalists and the snake-handlers of West Virginia, to see if they showed the particular type of psychopathology associated with mental illness. Members of mainstream Protestant churches from a similar social and financial background provided a good control group for comparison. Some of the wilder fundamentalists prayed with what can only be described as great and transcendental ecstasy, but there was no obvious sign of any particular psychopathology among most of the people studied. After further analysis, however, there appeared a tendency to what can only be described as mental instability in one particular group. The study was blinded, so that most of the research team involved with questionnaires did not have access to the final data. When they were asked which group they thought would show the most disturbed psychopathology, the whole team identified the snake-handlers. But when the data were revealed, the reverse was true: there was more mental illness among the conventional Protestant churchgoers - the "extrinsically" religious - than among the fervently committed.

Snake-handling promotes sanity? Yes, apparently, because it can only be practiced by those who have learned the right way to believe. The answer ought not to be surprising, nor to have needed a study of psychology, because it was so ably explained by Chesterton's Orthodoxy, in "The Maniac."

There is a notion adrift everywhere that imagination, especially mystical imagination, is dangerous to man's mental balance. Poets are commonly spoken of as psychologically unreliable; and generally there is a vague association between wreathing laurels in your hair and sticking straws in it. Facts and history utterly contradict this view. Most of the very great poets have been not only sane, but extremely business-like; and if Shakespeare ever really held horses, it was because he was much the safest man to hold them. Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination.

So that is part of the picture. I suggest reading Chesterton in his entirety, as time permits.

Here is another part, again from the Winston essay. It discusses another psychological theory, which happens merely to be a repetition of an old religious truth.

A Harvard psychologist named Gordon Allport... suggested that there were two types of religious commitment - extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic religiosity he defined as religious self-centredness. Such a person goes to church or synagogue as a means to an end - for what they can get out of it. They might go to church to be seen, because it is the social norm in their society, conferring respectability or social advancement. Going to church (or synagogue) becomes a social convention.

Allport thought that intrinsic religiosity was different. He identified a group of people who were intrinsically religious, seeing their religion as an end in itself. They tended to be more deeply committed; religion became the organising principle of their lives, a central and personal experience. In support of his research, Allport found that prejudice was more common in those individuals who scored highly for extrinsic religion.

What is this, but an intellectual's restatement of Matthew 6? Yet it tells us a great deal. The suicide bomber is motivated by conditioning: he is being fed a constant line of mythology by the group that wishes to move his heart. He is convinced that they believe him to be a hero, and then told what they expect of a hero. And so he 'does his alms with a trumpet in the street, that may have glory of men.'

We have identified three signs of right faith, then: it is complete, so that the faithful man sheds those things he does not believe, and focuses his heart and his life on what he finds that he does; it is mystical, rooted in imagination and courage rather than logic and conformity; and it is secret, kept within the heart, though some signs of it may shine through even from the most private rooms.

There is another: it is fearless.

To return to Firefly for a moment, there is a scene in "Out of Gas" when River finds Book reading a Bible. "Don't be afraid," she says. He looks at her, and she nods to his Bible. "That's what it says, 'Don't be afraid.'" "Yes," he answers.

Here is the Bhagavad Gita on the subject:

Many there be who come! from fear set free, From anger, from desire; keeping their hearts Fixed upon me - my Faithful - purified By sacred flame of Knowledge. Such as these Mix with my being. Whoso worship me, Them I exalt; but all men everywhere Shall fall into my path; albeit, those souls Which seek reward for works, make sacrifice Now, to the lower gods, I say to thee Here have they their reward.

And here is Chesterton:

Joan of Arc was not stuck at the cross-roads, either by rejecting all the paths like Tolstoy, or by accepting them all like Nietzsche. She chose a path, and went down it like a thunderbolt. Yet Joan, when I came to think of her, had in her all that was true either in Tolstoy or Nietzsche, all that was even tolerable in either of them. I thought of all that is noble in Tolstoy, the pleasure in plain things, especially in plain pity, the actualities of the earth, the reverence for the poor, the dignity of the bowed back. Joan of Arc had all that and with this great addition, that she endured poverty as well as admiring it; whereas Tolstoy is only a typical aristocrat trying to find out its secret. And then I thought of all that was brave and proud and pathetic in poor Nietzsche, and his mutiny against the emptiness and timidity of our time. I thought of his cry for the ecstatic equilibrium of danger, his hunger for the rush of great horses, his cry to arms. Well, Joan of Arc had all that, and again with this difference, that she did not praise fighting, but fought. We know that she was not afraid of an army, while Nietzsche, for all we know, was afraid of a cow. Tolstoy only praised the peasant; she was the peasant. Nietzsche only praised the warrior; she was the warrior. She beat them both at their own antagonistic ideals; she was more gentle than the one, more violent than the other. Yet she was a perfectly practical person who did something, while they are wild speculators who do nothing.

That is the right way to believe. It is, to be certain, dangerous. It will lead you to great pain, and only might lead you to great joy. It has led me to both. It will take you on foolish quests, and lead you to break yourself on high mountains. It will lead you to declare your love and live it out, both when the consequences are good and when they are hard. You may rise again, stronger or weaker or wiser; and then again you may not.

I think you will be the right kind of man, though, while you do live. You will be dangerous, as Gandalf or Aragorn is dangerous, and not as the evil are.

Perhaps there is more. All the faiths proclaim something better in the next world, at least for the righteous. I hope for that, too. But whether that is real or an illusion, and whatever form it may take, at least you will have lived fully and well in this world. That is all I have to promise you, for I am -- as the Havamal counsels -- only 'middle wise.' Of demons and heavens I know nothing, though I have heard much, and believe certain things; but of men and the world of men, perhaps I have learned a thing.

Judge for yourselves.

Yet Another Really Great Blog:

Well, they're not shy now are they? Still, I recognize many of the names of the contibutors as commentors I've run across on various blogs.

There's lots of intersting stuff there. Check it out.

The Legion

The Legion of Dishonor:

A genuine look at our enemy's thinking can be obtained here, by looking at their recruiting successes among converts.

“It’s striking, the number of converts engaged in terrorist activities,” said Michael Taarnby, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies who has studied the recruitment and radicalisation of Islamist militants.

Jean-Louis Bruguiere, France’s top anti-terrorism judge, told the newspaper Le Figaro in an interview: “The converts are undeniably the toughest. Nowadays the conversions happen more quickly and the commitment is more radical.”

They wonder what prompts such a large percentage (though still a small number) of converts to Islam to become radicals. The theory is that the enemy is actively recruiting among the small-time criminal population.

Drifters and small-time crooks: Some of the best-known extremist converts whose cases have come to trial were drifters on the margins of society.

David Courtailler, a Frenchman convicted last year of abetting terrorists, was drawn into radical circles when he converted to Islam at a British mosque and was approached by a stranger there who gave him money and an air ticket to Pakistan. Reid, Rowe and Ganczarski all had records as small-time thieves or drug dealers.

“They are people who feel devalued, despised and by becoming terrorists they suddenly become supermen, heroes,” said Roy.

Once they converted, the experts said, such people often moved towards violence quickly, driven partly by a need to prove themselves. They might also be more easily manipulated by extremists because they lacked the cultural grounding to distinguish between true and distorted versions of Islam.

“Basically, you can tell them just about anything and they’re willing to believe it,” Taarnby said.

The kind of people who make up the small-time criminal and drifter class is poor, generally not well educated nor particularly intelligent. They are easy to manipulate, which is why criminal organizations have manipulated them for time out of mind. Whether Columbian cartels, the Mafia, or al Qaeda, this type of person is a useful and essentially disposable tool.

Just what you need when your favored weapon is the suicide bomb.

In interviews with Reuters, European experts said the vast majority of those who converted to Islam did so for legitimate personal reasons. Some convert in order to marry Muslims.

Many converts were drawn, the experts said, by the appeal of a universal faith that transcended national and ethnic barriers, offered a sense of belonging and brotherhood and provided a new identity, including the choice of a Muslim name.

However, a small fraction were extremists who saw in radical Islam a vehicle to challenge and overthrow the existing world order, said Olivier Roy, research director of the French National Centre for Scientific Research.

Many of those "legitimate personal reasons" are likewise apt to draw radicals as well. You should never underestimate the power of the chance to escape an old, failed life and find a new name and a new brotherhood. Sometimes it is an honest motivation. That was, for so many, the appeal of America.

It was also the appeal of the French Foreign Legion, which drew also from this same population of Western drifters and small-time crooks, and turned them into one of the most fearsome fighting forces in the world. The converts came willingly, looking for a new life and a new pride, a life that would be lived under a new and swaggering name, and often lived in a new language -- French, or for al Qaeda, Arabic. The clean break, the heroic image and mythic past, all this drives many who have ruined their own lives to seek out a new, firm guiding hand.

Al Qaeda, by all accounts, does not train its soldiers as well as the Legion did, or does today. That is why they do not enjoy the successes the Legion have enjoyed. Nevertheless, it is no wonder that they find such a ready group of suicides. Many of these people came to them exactly because they wanted to obliterate their lives.

AFA/Scheuer

"Through Our Enemies' Eyes"

Michael Scheuer, who was a top CIA officer and as "Anonymous" wrote critiques of Bush's GWOT policies, has performed a skit for the Air Force Association. The conceit is that he is pretending to be an Al Qaeda operative inside America, writing to update "Brother Osama" on the course of the war.

The fellow has some good points as to the advantages we enjoy:

First, the huge downside of this war ... We are, to put it simply, being hunted and attacked by the most powerful nation in the history of the world and despite the heavy personnel losses we have suffered, may God accept them as martyrs, the United States has not yet made the full destructiveness of its power felt.

Still, its people hate us with a vengeance for the blessed September raid and their efforts against us are powered by a wonderfully, even amazingly productive economy. In addition, the American population, although far from perfectly equitable is on the whole tolerant, including toward their Muslim fellow citizens.

At this point, brothers, we do not have the advantage here provided by the aggressively racist and anti-Islamic policies followed by most countries of the European Union. But on that score, as you have said Brother Iman, Allah will ensure that the cradles of Muslim homes will ultimately return Andalusia and all of Europe to the Muslim Ummah.

A final point of danger that I must stress is that American military, emotional, patriotic, and economic power has been neither harnessed nor focused. The latent power of this country is enormous and we have yet to fill its impact. God willing, the Americans will continue to slumber.

He also has one good point as to a serious detriment to our efforts:

And Brothers, the Americans have not found serious men to lead them. God has blessed us with this reality for at least 15 years. Four years after 9/11, American leaders have not closed their borders or found out who is in their country. Truly only God could have provided our movement with such a miracle. Amazingly, Brothers, the Americans' politicians lack the moral courage to first enforce the laws they themselves have passed. God is great. They refuse to find out who is in their country and to stop illegal immigration because, they loudly assert, America is a beacon of liberty to the world that we do not want to dim. Truly, Brothers, there is nothing more beneficial to us than having American politicians prefer to have the United States be seen as the glowing beacon of liberty rather than a country of enforced laws. Long may American maintain and enhance this glow of liberty which provides a light that warms, guides and shelters Al Qaeda and the many Jihadi groups who we have inspired around the world.

Fair enough.

Now, for what he thinks is our greatest weakness:

Brothers, believe me, the Americans are either soundly asleep, unwilling to face reality, or fundamentally stupid. Based on my observations and discussions they do not appear to have a clue as to what this war is about. This is, thanks to God, our greatest advantage...

They do not understand our motivation. In American terms, they have not “figured out what makes us tick.” Their political leaders of both parties, as well as their media, military, economic and social elites continue to claim Al Qaeda hates America for what it believes and how it lives and not for what the United States does in the Islamic world. And you saw for yourself, Brothers, how Bush and Blair responded to July's blessed London expedition—like trained parrots they exclaimed that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms and not for what we do.

Honestly, Brothers, only God's love for Muslim believers could have kept American believers so dense for so long.

Mr. Scheuer adopts that favorite tactic of a certain type of intellectual, of which there are all too many at the CIA: claiming that people who disagree with him are simply too ignorant or stupid to understand the issue. Well, it isn't ignorance: Is there anyone left in America who hasn't heard the "It's our policies!" counterargument, and had occasion to think it through? I doubt it, excepting only children, the very elderly, and those who simply care nothing about politics.

"Our policy in the Muslim world" is the real source of our problems, is it? Well, let's go down to the question-and-answer section with the good military men who attended the skit. What was the first question?

Q: One of the tangible justifications Al Qaeda used for 9/11 with respect to the Koran was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia. Given that we have silently moved our troops out of that country, is there any evidence of windfall within the Islamic world?

Mr. Scheuer: No, I think on that particular occasion we pulled the wool over our own eyes. Within the eyes of Muslims, the Prophet's home is the Arabian Peninsula, not Saudi Arabia. There are no States in the theological sense on the Arabian Peninsula. We simply moved from Saudi Arabia to Qatar and Kuwait, which is still on the Prophet's homeland. It's kind of been treated, at least within the websites and the internet journals of Al Qaeda and its allies as something of a joke that points to the depth of the American ignorance about Islam.

So, the first piece of serious evidence on the question is: moving the troops only changed the complaint. It didn't relieve or even moderate the complaint.

Yes, and if we'd moved the troops to Egypt? To Turkey? To Spain? Mr. Scheuer himself jokes about Bin Laden returning the cradles of Islam to Andalusia. It isn't ignorance or stupidity that is moving us to reject this policy as a "first cause." It's just that we've been watching and listening too, and we've drawn different conclusions.

Let's take another question:

Q: Carmen bin Laden, a sister-in-law of Osama bin Laden, believes Al Qaeda is in no hurry to attack US soil, but rather can bide their time. Do you think this is true, or have we just been successful in actively fighting off another attack?

Mr. Scheuer: I think we have done a wonderful job of taking out Al Qaeda leaders, but we still categorize Al Qaeda as a terrorist group. Our leaders from both parties have a lot to say about seizing 5,000 or 6,000 Al Qaeda fighters, which seems counter-intuitive—I'm not sure there's a terrorist group that has 4,000 or 5,000 fighters.

The one difference between Al Qaeda and the United States, Al Qaeda and the West, Islam and the West, is the tremendous sense of patience on the enemy's side. When they talk about another attack soon in the United States they're speaking of anywhere from a year to a decade. Our idea of soon is this afternoon or next week or October 1st at the latest.

Ah, yes, that's the real reason al Qaeda doesn't hit us more often: their immense patience.

Actually, I think it might be their lack of capability. If they could hit us more often, does anyone doubt that they would? We've watched their bombs fall off in effectiveness everywhere outside of Iraq: 9/11, Madrid, London is the usual chain, but take a look at their allied group in Southeast Asia, Jemaah Islamiyah. They have a lot more freedom to move and train, and safe havens in parts of the Philippines. In 2002 the Bali bombing was hideous; in 2005, they bombed Bali again, and killed very few by comparison.

Here's another question:

Q: In your opinion, what is the impact of Syed Qutab’s writings on the Al Qaeda world view?

The answer is useless, so I won't bother to quote it. What should be obvious here, however, is that the Air Force people here are hardly ignorant of Muslim culture. They have been studying the roots of this dispute at least as seriously as Mr. Scheuer.

They've also studied the evidence about what we're doing, and how it changes the war. I can tell you for a fact that they don't just consider GitMo or Abu Ghraib a 'public relations problem.' I know that they're intensely interested in reaction, and are taking steps not only to correct problems but to create measurements so that they can tell whether what they are doing is making things better or worse.

As for the treatment of the Koran, I think we all remember the military's admonition that our fighters handle it with literal kid gloves? We accept the enemy's assertion that we are too unclean to handle his holy book, rather than give cause for offense.

The whole skit, and the question and answer period, is worth reading.

Slow

Slow Blogging:

I apologize for the light blogging of these last couple of days. I've just finished two back-to-back 16 hour days trying to sort out something for work. Today, I'm going off for a pleasant day with my wife, Sovay, and the little boy. I hope it will be great fun -- I could use some.

Should be back tomorrow.

Cass

Cassandra:

She writes:

for so long
silence has beckoned
fought off
with
a torrent of words
i'm no longer
afraid of falling
so peaceful
to drop like a stone
into the dark
and be lost forever

That is a lovely and powerful image, but probably more fearsome than I hope she intends. One of the great dangers in writing a farewell poem is that you will sound like you're threatening suicide. I've had the same problem myself: what is meant as a meditation on the pain that can come from saying goodbye, reads later like the meditation of someone who forgot his medication. Well, if poetry were easy, it wouldn't be art.

Since she isn't actually committing suicide, but only hanging up the blog, I assume we'll see her around in the comments section from time to time. I believe she understands she will always be welcome?

Beans

Beans the Dog:

Welcome to Beans the dog, now an American. Beans was the pet of the 3/25 Marines in Iraq. She's been adopted by the mother of one of those who didn't make it home. Apparently, he loved the dog -- and now, so will she.

Holy. Freekin. S***.

Iowa Hawk, in a rather entertaining manner, envisions the ultimate results of comparitivism on the Supreme Court. (via Normblog)

I don't regularly read Iowa Hawk. But I think I'm going to. (Also, I'm a homey of his and all).

T&Sen

Torture & the Senate, Updated:

There is an important update to the post on Torture & the Senate, below. Greyhawk calls it a 20 yard punt, but that may be an understatement.

2/2

A Bad Week:

I have put this off as long as I can. The families are now notified, and the obituaries have run.

Grim's Hall mourns the passing of four warriors from our adopted 2/2 Marines.

Corporal Nick Cherava.

Lance Corporal Shayne Cabino.

Lance Corporal Patrick Kenny.

Private First Class Jason Frye.

Lance Corporal Kenny leaves behind a sister, Katy, who has just completed Boot Camp. All of them leave behind friends and fellow Marines who will remember, and avenge, their loss.

HRH Mike

His Royal Highness, Mike:

Sovay sent me a story about the trueborn King of England, at least if you believe that kingship is rightfully inherited. Turns out, the fellow lives in the Aussie Bush:

A documentary team from Britain's Channel Four conducted extensive research and concluded Hastings' ancestors were cheated out of the crown in the 15th century, meaning he should rightfully be the British head of state.

"When the producer landed in Australia and said he was coming to see me he was very vague about what it was all about," Hastings tells AFP in his broad Australian accent.

"I thought he was drunk to be honest ... then he came here and laid out his evidence, it came as a total surprise to me, it left me stunned.

"I reckon I might send Lizzie (Queen Elizabeth II) a bill for back rent, the old girl's family have been living in my bloody castle for the last 500 years."

The documentary's historian Michael Jones found documents in Rouen Cathedral he believes show that Edward IV, who ruled from 1461 to 1483, was illegitimate because when he was conceived his parents were 200 kilometres (124 miles) apart.

Well, actually, there have been a few other families in there since 1461. Since King Mike I is a part-time historian, who volunteers at a museum devoted to his town's last armed robber, I assume he knows that.

Anyway, sounds like his house is more fun than the palace anyway:

He said the documentary makers brought copies of royal crowns and other regalia worth several hundred thousand dollars to Jerilderie

"The grandkids are pretty boisterous and were running around the house in the robes," he said. "(The program makers) were getting really nervous and saying 'um Mike, I think one of them's sitting on the crown'."

Well, that will happen.

LA-PC

Posse Comitatus:

R.M. mails to let us know that Legal Affairs is hosting a debate on Posse Comitatus. Our friends at INTEL DUMP will be carrying the pro- side of the argument, and have provided a place for reader commentary at the above link.

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.

Subscribe To