RV in AT

Russ Vaughn in The American Thinker:

An article by our poet on the recent poem, quoted below. He reminds us -- I never doubted it -- that his couplets on the joys of beating the crap out of Toles were "merely literary blows being rained upon this insensitive cartoonist and in no way was I endorsing actual retribution[.]"

He's got a few other things to say as well. You may wish to read it all.

Support

Supporting the Troops:

Certain recent discussions have reminded me of a number of things we've done over the last few years. Grim's Hall has participated in various fundraisers and charity exercises; and I've also participated in several wagers with other members of the blogosphere, forfeits to be made to the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society.

Yet I haven't made an effort to gather the links for this into one place. I'm starting a links section called "Support the Troops," on the sidebar. I've put a few of the folks we've supported there; but I suspect you know some others who haven't been part of our enterprise. If you'd like to suggest a link, add it in the comments. It needs to be (a) a charity, and (b) primarily oriented toward supporting the deployed troops themselves, the success of their mission, or the families of those injured or lost in the service.

We've been doing this on an ad-hoc basis all along. It is worthwhile to formalize it somewhat, and endorse organizations we know to be honorable and devoted to these good men and women who make up our military.

Criticism, Censorship, Context

Criticism, Censorship, Context:

There does seem to be a lot of confusion about the difference between the American cartoon case, and the Danish one. I suppose that's natural; both cases involve cartoons that offended people, and both have resulted in protests. That is where the similarity stops, however.

The key difference between criticism and censorship is whether the effect of the speech is to exchange ideas, or to silence opponents. In deciding which you are looking at, you have to look first and primarily at the context of the remarks.

Sovay mentions a similar case in Russia, to draw attention to what she views as the chilling effect of the JCS letter in protest to the Toles cartoon. The context for a letter from the Russian military expressing its displeasure is this: you might vanish in the night if you don't heed their friendly advice. No matter how gently worded, such a note is effectively censorship.

Similarly, the Muslim protests have involved threats of violence, and actual violence: bomb threats, rock attacks on the Danish embassy in Jakarta, threats of beheadings, flag burnings. The context for these remarks is the French riots, the Van Gogh murder, and a worldwide terrorist movement that cites Islam in justifying extraordinary violence in the name of Muhammed. All of this is censorship: an attempt to silence through threats.

The effect is real: a French editor who republished the cartoons was fired; the Danish newspaper remarks that no Dane (and indeed, no European in all likelihood) will draw Muhammed for a generation. The US State Department has even ruled that speech is unacceptable if it mocks Muhammed. Silence is enforced.

The context in the American case is completely dissimilar. Any observer should be able to tell the difference, which is this:

The effect of the JCS letter to Toles will be to increase Toles' wealth and importance as a speaker. Far from silencing him, it will raise his stature: he is now the only editorial cartoonist ever to receive a letter of protest from all members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The book he publishes with this cartoon in it will almost certainly outsell any other he has ever produced. That is the way America works.

Cassandra had a post about this recently. She was remarking about the recent flame-war attacks on the Washington Post ombudsman. The attempt, here, was to silence the Post -- it did not work. The Post was able to simply pull its comments section and carry on printing. If anything, it won the Post some sympathy and support from bloggers normally not on their side.

In the comments to Cassandra's post, however, I noted this about the flame-war organizer:

I looked at the Fire Dog site too. (By the way, it's almost the Chinese New Year; and this will be the year of the Fire Dog).

What I noticed about it was the post where her site has suddenly rocketed to the very top of the Left blogosphere -- she's in company, according to that ranking, with Daily KOS, TPMCafe, and Atrios.

KOS himself, by far the most popular blog in the world, arrived at his fame as a result of the "Screw Them" comments. The thing that drove him to the top was, in other words, precisely his assault on the character of US veterans who had died attempting to aid their government in a time of war.

The market is what it is. As long as this is the way to rocket from nobody to THE BIGGEST THING EVER in a single day, we'll see more of it.

And that is true. The Muslim protestors and Fire Dog Lake are similar in that their anger and violent rhetoric have caused their status to rise. They are taken more seriously than their ideas merit be because they are able to channel and direct anger.

The criticism of the JCS, like the criticism directed at KOS and Fire Dog Lake, is actually a boon to the criticized. It raises their status, because serious people -- the Joint Chiefs! -- are willing to respond to them directly.

This is a result of the old truism that a gentleman duels only with equals. By replying to Toles, the JCS suggested that he was worthy of their notice and reply. They raised him to a status he did not previously have. Similarly, by being sternly critical of KOS' despicable statements and character, the entire right wing of the blogosphere declared that he was worthy of a response.

When exchanging ideas, it pays to be careful with whom you exchange them. This is why Grim's Hall never links to KOS or his ilk; I use them as examples, but I will not talk to them. They are unworthy of it.

It is also why I actually do practice a kind of criticism approaching censorship in my comments section, as (now) does the Washington Post. If you obey the rules, any idea you have to put forward is welcome. You won't be shouted down, because attempts to shout you down will be deleted. But you will have to argue your point based on reason, experience or evidence, so be prepared for that.

Your freedom of speech is not thereby compromised, however: you can go and publish your own blog, for free. As a result, even the deletion of comments is not censorship, because the context of it is that you are just as free as I am to express ideas. I'm simply refusing to allow my forum to be hijacked.

The American system results in raising some unworthy characters to the top of the pile on occasion, but it is still the better system. We will not be silenced, even the worst of us.

WTF

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot:

Some days I wonder if Bush is everything (well, not everything) Sovay says he is. What genius decided on this?

The United States backed Muslims on Friday against European newspapers that printed caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad in a move that could help America's battered image in the Islamic world.

Inserting itself into a dispute that has become a lightning rod for anti-European sentiment across the Muslim world, the United States sided with Muslims outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion.

"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question.

"We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."

That is not an acceptable position. We'll say what we like, print what we like, and the diplomats of the world can be damned.

Contrast

A Study in Contrast:

For the benefit of the readers, I would like to explore the difference between a courtly note of protest, and a communication designed to have a chilling effect on speech. Contrast, then, this excerpt from the JCS letter with Russ Vaughn's newest poem, "WaPo Weasels."

The JCS letter:

Editorial cartoons are often designed to exaggerate issues -- and your paper is obviously free to discuss any topic, including the state of readiness of today's Armed Forces. However, we believe you and Mr. Toles have done a disservice to your readers and your paper's reputation by using such a callous depiction of those who have volunteered to defend this nation, and as a result, have suffered traumatic and life-altering wounds.

Russ Vaughn, veteran of the 101st Airborne:

Wanna draw a soldier, Toles? Here I am,
Back with all four limbs from Vietnam.
You wanna draw pictures of fighting men?
Just tell me where and tell me when.
I’ll give you a pose to impress any viewer,
Your punk arty ass comatose in the sewer.
Like all of your kind you don’t have a clue
Who fightin’ men are and what fightin’ men do.

That you, your kind, you effete panty waists,
With Hollywood morals, metrosexual tastes,
Would taunt a brave warrior’s fight for life,
Mock his loss, his pain, deride his strife;
And use his sorrow to support your screed,
With no concern for the warrior’s need,
Tells me you are clueless of the facts of war,
You’re a cut ‘n run, spineless, media whore.

Go to Walter Reed hospital, smug Mr. Toles,
To see those you’ve mocked, grave injured souls
View wounded warriors with bodies so broken
And think again of the message you’ve spoken,
So abysmally ignorant, so smug condescending
That even most liberals won’t waste time defending.
So Toles it’s a fact that your most famous work
Will proclaim you forever as a pitiless jerk.

And Washington Post you’re as bad as this weasel
You gave him the forum, provided his easel.

I print this purely for educational purposes, you understand. My devotion to free speech and the free press compels me to reject the beating of journalists out of hand, although I happened to find that series of couplets rather clever.

Well, a poet has free speech too -- right?

24 Star

The Joint Chiefs Blast the Washington Post:

I've seen a PDF version of this letter. This is roughly a slap across the face of certain whiny journalists, from the top-level of the military that is run by the military, rather than by Presidential appointees. Peter Pace is not happy.

Buy Danish

Buy Danish:

Although a bit late as often is the case, I'd like to join in supporting the "Defend Denmark" campaign. Gaijin Biker has his page here, Michelle Malkin has hers here. Ms. Malkin's has some useful links for places where you can actually, easily buy Danish goods.

I'd just like to remind everyone that one of Denmark's principle exports is lager beer. Carlsberg is fairly all right -- oddly enough, it's a beer that is readily available in parts of China, where I first encountered it. You can probably find it at beer specialists -- maybe not at your local grocery, although some places may have it even there. If you live somewhere where it's easy to get unusual imports, here is an article on other good Danish beers.

Of course, I doubt Carlsberg is suffering much from the Muslim boycott. The point, though, is to express support for the concept of freedom of speech, alliance with fellow Men of the West. I noted Lilek's war cry of yesterday: "Men of the West! We Stand Today for Glory and Freedom and Mead!"

Sounds good to me. Also beer.

Chili Cookies

Good Gracious:

I think I haven't linked to the Cotillion since their last Independence Day celebration. I did glance at it this week, however, following Casserole's link.

I must say, Chili Chocolate Chip Cookies? That sounds good... I don't think it ever would have occurred to me otherwise, but cayenne pepper and chocolate do seem made for each other, now that I think about it.

Catholic Blog Awards

Catholic Blog Awards:

"Feddie" Dillard of Southern Appeal writes to ask for support in the Catholic Blog Awards. Although not a Catholic myself, I'm happy to oblige his request that I send interested parties his way. SA is a very useful blog (or blawg, in this case), and I'm glad to see it prosper.

State of the Union

State of the Union:
(also posted here)

Last night, the President gave a speech to Congress, in accordance with a Constitutional requirement that "[The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient..."

I was not able to see much of the speech. However, according to various summations I've seen, the President said that the State of Union is rather good.

Usually, I can depend on Cap'n Ed to give a clear, concise statement of a big event like this. He came through again, with a live-blog of the President's speech. Ed's summation is nice:

This speech seemed to emphasize a particular theme, of moving forward to engage the world rather than waiting for the world to engage us. That theme ran across all of his subjects, from terrorism to the economy to energy reform.

Sounds like a man who wants to lead--and a man I'd be willing to follow. We may have disagreements, or differences of emphasis. (For one, I'd love to have heard the comments about budgets full of pork in his first State of the Union address...or the second, or the third...) But he's a leader, and he is doing his job.

We, the citizens of the United States, should do our part. Among those things, our part includes activities occasionally promoted by the Geek: love his wife, work hard, raise his kids, save the Republic.

(Yes, parts of that list only applies to men who have wives/children...so I can't quite take part in that. But it is still a good idea.)

Cool

Cool:

I'm with JHD, who sends -- this is flat-out cool. Good job, American Road Line.

Alito confirmed

Alito Confirmed:

So ends Borking as a politically-useful phenomenon. "You're well qualified, but we have decided to believe that you're an evil, evil man" is apparently no longer quite enough to derail a justice's career.

This has been a good confirmation for the country. I don't mean that Alito is a great pick, although he appears to be. I mean that it's been highly educational. The war powers question is interesting, and it was useful to have it brought up. And although they were entirely misplaced in a discussion of the judiciary, Senator Durbin's comments on the little guy pointed to a real problem in the American system -- one that we are watching develop in the Abramoff hearings, and the race for a new House Majority Leader.

The real education, however, was in the advise-consent relationship. We have learned that the process is badly deformed -- but not quite so badly as a lot of us believed.

To understand how it is bent out of shape, consider this search on the terms "any nominee" in Google News. It shows that both sides are drawing categorical lessons: that Democrats will oppose any Bush nominee with all available tools, up to and including a failed filibuster attempt; that 'any nominee' will be subject to a beating designed to ferret out any aspect of his character that can be used to defame him. Or this complaint, from the Concord Monitor:

An impeccable résumé is not reason enough to elevate a citizen to the U.S. Supreme Court. Nor is a good mind or a genial personality. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito has all three, but he should not sit on the nation's highest court.... The likelihood that any nominee, unless clearly unqualified, will be approved gives a president license to be more ideological and less moderate in his choice.

Yet, in spite of the rampant partisanship and general unhappiness from all sides, Alito was confirmed. The process is not, quite, broken. It is still possible to propose a candidate who is not a "stealth nominee" -- someone whose ideas and temperement are on the record, and whom we can examine fairly -- and have him confirmed.

That is a good lesson for the Republic. However dangerous you think Alito may be, surely the nomination of "stealth candidates" to a lifetime office with the power of the Supreme Court was more dangerous. Better that we know what we're getting, up front.

Sal Culosi

A Good Man Killed:

I knew Sal Culosi. He was shot dead, "by accident," by Fairfax County Police last Tuesday. They had him under investigation for gambling. I don't know if he was guilty or not -- I have no information about it.

I did know him in his professional context, though, as an optometrist. He designed my most recent pair of glasses. While he worked at that, he had to deal with my rather energetic three-year-old son. No one could have been a kinder gentleman under the circumstances. He had young kids of his own.

The cops "said they were about to arrest Culosi outside his home Tuesday night when one of the officer’s guns accidentally went off, striking the doctor in his chest."

I am not sure why they felt it necessary to draw guns on a man who was a professional doctor, rather than a gangster. We'll leave that be, though -- Doc Holliday was a dentist, after all.

What I want to know is this: why was the officer's finger on the trigger? No one alleges Dr. Culosi carried or went for a weapon. There is no excuse I can see for this "accidental discharge." The NRA itself recognizes that "accidental discharge" is shorthand for "negligence." Why were these cops so poorly trained that they had their fingers on the trigger, with no hostile weapons in sight?

I think they killed a good man for no reason. I'm sympathetic to the police as a rule, and "veteran county police officers" in particular.

I see no excuse here. None at all. Dr. Culosi was thirty-seven.

UPDATE:

The Washington Post article says it was the SWAT team that shot Dr. Culosi. We recently pointed to competing articles about the "SWAT mentality" that seems to have become popular with police departments. The argument for the pro-side, however, was always that the SWAT team's ability to bring intimidating force to bear was coupled with, and governed by, its excellent training.

If you've had only one firearms-safety class, you know to keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot. In fact, the Post found an officer to state this point:

"In my opinion, there are no accidental discharges," said John Gnagey, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association. Gnagey was not familiar with the Fairfax case but said that in general, "Most of what we see in law enforcement are negligent discharges, fingers being on the trigger when they shouldn't be."

Gnagey was in the camp that thought "SWAT teams shouldn't be doing all warrants." But once there, "the weapons are not pointed at anybody."

It's one thing to argue that the SWAT team is useful because it prevents violence by being especially well trained and capable of suppressing trouble. Maybe so; but that argument hinges on it being "well trained."

B5 bd

Happy Birthday, BlackFive:

Two celebratory posts in one day? Maybe we should just declare this a holiday. And he's only sixty-seven years old, so we might get to use this holiday once or twice more before the wake. Everyone has my permission to take the rest of the day off -- but no drinks before one o'clock, or whenever the sun gets over the yardarm where you are.

Welcome Home Kris

Welcome Home, Jarhead:

Everyone here knows JarHeadDad, frequent commenter both here and in several other places on the web. I thought you'd all like to know that his son, the "JarHead" in "JarHeadDad," has returned safely from Iraq, where he was deployed until recently. His unit has drawn some tough duty on this deployment and the last one both. If any of you want to offer a message welcoming this young man back, or congratulating his father on raising a fine Marine, the comments to this post are as good a place as any.

By the way, I've seen some of the pictures from the welcome-home party. Sorry I missed it, although I don't really like hangovers.

Challenger

The Challenger:

John Derbyshire, a longtime Shuttle opponent, reminds us that today is the 20th anniversary of the Challenger disaster. I was shocked to realize it has been so long.

Twenty years ago. I was sick that day, and stayed home; I remember that I was watching some daytime game show or other when the newscaster broke in. I don't recall which one -- they all seemed alike in those days, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings -- and he began by saying, "The space shuttle Challenger has exploded."

I remember being unimpressed with the words. Even twenty years ago, I assumed that the media exaggerated the horror of everything they reported in order to achieve ratings. "Sure," I thought. "You mean there's been an explosion on the shuttle."

Then they went to the video.

Now as then, words won't do. I guess it hasn't been that long ago after all.

UPDATE: Commenter Bryan is correct to note that I misread the date. It is Saturday, not this day, that is the anniversary.

Torture Case

What About This Torture Case?

The Armed Liberal, who is one of the more honest and pugilistic folks in the blogosphere, threw down on the Army for letting CWO Lewis E. Welshofer, Jr., off of a murder charge and an assault charge, and convicting him of only a much lesser offense. Uncle Jimbo, former Special Forces, joins in the anger.

I saw this case come out when it first hit the wires, and I had roughly the same reaction. But I remembered something important -- I remembered all the previous times that the media has gotten the details of these things flat wrong. So, rather than post an furious lashing of the Army, I decided to wait for a MilBlogger who knew the details to pony up.

You couldn't have asked for a better one. Captain Jason van Steenwyck of the COUNTERCOLUMN turns out to have known the CWO. He's posted about it here, here, and here. His final conclusion?

The Post reporter, Josh White, clumsily tries to draw a contrast between Lynndie England and Chief Welshofer. But the difference is huge: Welshofer was acting officially, using approved techniqes when the detainee died. The Abu Ghraib gang was a bunch of board sadists who had gone off the reservation. The contrast in intent between the two is huge.

If you want to know why, he tells you at length.

I still believe that capital punishment is justified for rapists, including the folks at Abu Ghraib who used flashlights instead of their organic tools. I think a reading of the UCMJ makes clear that it doesn't matter what you use -- you ought to hang.

Nevertheless, I remain impressed with the court martial as a means of getting to the truth, and a rightful punishment. The media makes it sound bad, but that's because they don't understand and don't want to understand. Thanks to the Captain, for laying it out for the rest of us.

Stein 2

On the Radio:

I'm sure you've seen the Hugh Hewitt beating of interview with our Mr. Stein. I have to say that, for me, it can be reduced to just one exchange. This is it:

HH: Do you honor the service that their son did?

JS: To honor the service their son...now this is a dumb question, but what do you mean by honor? That's a word you keep using. I'm not entirely...maybe that's my problem. But I'm not entirely sure what you're...

At this point, I would have simply said: "Thanks for coming on the show, Mr. Stein."

A Second

A Second:

Joel Stein seconds the "military men are like toilet cleaners" comments of earlier this week. He, like the Kossak commenter, feels that the proper liberal position is to despise the soldiers:

I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.... But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying.

There is a point to be made here. We are far enough into the war that pretty much everyone involved has either enlisted or re-upped since the war began. It was an army of volunteers to start with; now, it's an army that volunteered for Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, I agree that the troops bear moral responsibility for the war. It could not be fought if they hadn't signed on, and didn't continue to sign back on. The soldiers and Marines are finally responsible for the fact that we're still fighting in Iraq, and retain the capacity to fight elsewhere.

The difference is this: does that mean they deserve the blame for the war, as Mr. Stein asserts -- or it does it mean that they deserve the praise?

Greyhawk, Uncle Jimbo, James Joyner, Michelle Malkin and others have responded to this, and I feel no need to repeat them. Instead, let's look at something else about Mr. Stein's piece, in light of today's earlier discussion on ideology. What does the piece reveal about what Mr. Stein's version of Leftist thinking has to say about what the right kind of man is, and what the right kind of society is?

On the right kind of man:

1) He should be bold. "I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas."

2) He should be able to feel guilt for doing the right thing. "I understand the guilt. We know we're sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful." Recall that Mr. Stein is arguing that it is right and proper to show ingratitude and blame the troops for participating.

3) He should be morally opposed to war, with only a few exceptions. "An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying."

4) It is all right for him to want to fight to protect the country. "I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq."

5) He should disdain the soldiers for doing what they swore to do, since keeping their oaths meant partaking in this war. "[W]e shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea."

The right kind of society?

1) It should only go to war in pursuit of pressing national interest. "It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward."

2) 'Pressing national interest' should be definied as stopping internal conflicts in regions barely associated with America. "Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo."

3) The society should be solicitous of miniority political opinion. "Trust me, a guy who thought 50.7% was a mandate isn't going to pick up on the subtleties of a parade for just service in an unjust war."

4) It should provide for ready social services for its veterans, even those who chose to fight in an immoral war. "All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return."

5) It should not celebrate them, however; but it might not go so far as spitting on them. "I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea.... please, no parades."

Every element here is emotional -- there is no obvious rationality behind any of these positions. Each one is associated with the kind of person he would like, and the kind of society he would like to live in. He wants men who are bold, but quick to feel guilt; who are willing to fight for their society, but sufficiently 'individual' to break their oaths if necessary to avoid doing something they don't think is a good idea.

The society he wants provides for the poor generously, including the poor foolish soldier. It takes care of those too stupid or immoral to do what's right while wearing its uniform; but it lets them know it doesn't approve of them, even if it doesn't quite go so far as spitting on them.

Exactly how this is meant to be consistent with providing for their "mental health" is not clear -- as unclear as what the "pressing national interest" was in Kosovo. Stopping ethnic cleansing may be the right thing to do, but it's hard to point to a region less directly related to American fortunes than Kosovo. Stopping ethnic cleansing in southern Iraq, where there is also a pressing national interest in the form of oil access and the ability to address the poisonous political structures? Well, not if it means fighting this war.

Nor is it clear how an army could be maintained if people were free to break their oaths at will. No, not even for fighting off invasions from Mexico -- which, by the way, has either made 216 armed incursions into the United States in the last nine years, or has been unable to prevent large drug gangs from wearing its military uniforms while doing so:

The U.S. Border Patrol has warned agents in Arizona of incursions into the United States by Mexican soldiers "trained to escape, evade and counterambush" if detected -- a scenario Mexico denied yesterday.
The warning to Border Patrol agents in Tucson, Ariz., comes after increased sightings of what authorities described as heavily armed Mexican military units on the U.S. side of the border. The warning asks the agents to report the size, activity, location, time and equipment of any units observed.... A total of 216 incursions by suspected Mexican military units have been documented since 1996 -- 75 in California, 63 in Arizona and 78 in Texas, according to a Department of Homeland Security report.

Attacks on Border Patrol agents in the past few years have been attributed to current or former Mexican military personnel.

One wonders what Mr. Stein thinks of the Border Patrol, which is in form and function much like the Texas Rangers during the famous days of the Old West: a few men, mobile and well-trained, trying to control a vast frontier full of hostiles. Do they get a pass, since they really are trying to control invasions from Mexico? Or does Mr. Stein share his city's prejudice against them too, preferring to defy Federal laws that the Patrol is bound to enforce?

The good news for Mr. Stein is that the troops will be more forgiving than others he's offended in the past. An apology and a few cases of the good stuff will go a long way to making it up to them -- if you can get past the fact that you might be interpreted as supporting them.

The bad news is that few of them, or other young men looking for an ideology, will be persuaded to his vision. The hard facts of reality will drag it down, and it apparently can no longer consider them with anything like a clear eye.

Bangladeshi Rumors:

Bill Roggio has links to a potentially huge story out of India and Bangladesh.

Bill mentions that Bangladesh has two Islamist ministers in the government; the more important of these is Industries Minister Nizami, who is also the head ("emir") of the largest Islamic political party in Bangladesh, Jamaat-e-Islami. Nizami isn't just an Islamist; he's been accused of being the real mastermind behind the bombing campaigns that have wracked Bangladesh through the autumn and winter.

The claim has been made by captured sympathizers of the JMB terrorist group, but more emphatically by the opposition political parties. The main opposition group is a collection of leftist/socialist groups called the Awami League. The AL has refused to participate in government anti-terrorist efforts, and has instead maintained that the government (and J-e-I in particular) is behind the terror.

Meanwhile, J-e-I and Nizami have maintained that really, it is Indian and Israeli intelligence behind the terrorist campaign. Increasingly, Nizami has posited that the AL must be an additional partner, given their refusal to participate in government anti-terror efforts and their constant criticism of those efforts. (No one seems interested in the possibility that Islamists are "really" behind the campaign to establish an Islamic state in Bangladesh through terrorism -- it's not a useful possibility for their real political game of gaining or holding control of the country's government.)

The capture of the leader of JMB in India will feed J-e-I's claim that he was partnered with Indian/Israeli intelligence. If he says anything in captivity that can be construed as blame for Nizami, the AL will feed on that. Both groups, the Islamists and the leftists, have the capability of fielding massive protests through the country -- and, in the case of the leftists, of making use of general strikes among unionized labor.

The capture of this terrorist, if it proves out, could be the beginning of complete chaos in Bangladesh. It would be an irony if it was the capture of JMB's leader that put an end to the fledgling democracy in Bangladesh, given that doing so was JMB's great desire all along.