Thank you, USA

Thank you for a wonderful game that had us scared right till the very end.

But what really made me proud was when the Vancouver crowd cheered for American goalie Ryan Miller as he received his medal. And when the Canadian crowd cheered the American women's team as they received their medals. It's wonderful when your athletes do you proud, but it's even nicer when your people do you proud.

And having watched these Olympics from the US, may I say I was very impressed by NBC's coverage. It was done with a warmth and a generous spirit that I really enjoyed.

Canadian or not, it takes the Olympics though to make me watch two hockey games in one week. I watched the Canada-Russia game and the gold medal game and they were well worth watching.

Aggressive ignorance is hurting the American image and a lot more than just image

There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Unless it’s aggressive stupidity coupled with power. For this reason, aggressive stupidity exercised by Americans in positions of power is arguably the most dangerous in the world. Obama’s much-vaunted promises of change have unfortunately not taken effect. We still are faced with high-ranking American officials whose ignorance of the outside world and their own portfolios is absolutely devastating.

Take Janet Napolitano, Secretary for Homeland Security, for example. (You may have guessed that’s who I wanted to talk about all along.) She has gone on record equating the Mexican and Canadian borders, for starters. That’s not even comparing apples and oranges. That’s comparing Blackberries and oranges. The problems to the North and to the South are vastly different. To the South you have illegal immigrants flowing in; to the North you have congestion slowing down the world’s most vigorous trading partnership. Canadians are not crossing the border in isolated places hoping to find a better life in the US, at least not in numbers significant enough to matter. And those are probably neatly counter-balanced by illegal American immigrants in Canada.

On Monday, Ms. Napolitano took her foot and stuffed it into her mouth all the way up to her hip.

In an interview broadcast Monday on the CBC, Ms. Napolitano attempted to justify her call for stricter border security on the premise that "suspected or known terrorists" have entered the U. S. across the Canadian border, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack.

All the 9/11 terrorists, of course, entered the United States directly from overseas. The notion that some arrived via Canada is a myth that briefly popped up in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and was then quickly debunked.

Informed of her error, Ms. Napolitano blustered: "I can't talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here's the future. The future is we have borders."

Just what does that mean, exactly?

Even Rush Limbaugh knows better. For the record, the 9/11 terrorists all had papers in order, issued to them by the American government, and not one of them entered the US through Canada.

She has since retracted the statement, claiming she was misunderstood. Judge for yourselves.

The furor began when Napolitano was asked to clarify statements she had made about equal treatment for the Mexican and Canadian borders, despite the fact that a flood of illegal immigrants and a massive drug war are two serious issues on the southern border.

"Yes, Canada is not Mexico, it doesn't have a drug war going on, it didn't have 6,000 homicides that were drug-related last year," she said.

"Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there."

When asked if she was referring to the 9-11 terrorists, Napolitano added: "Not just those but others as well."

Misunderstood, eh? How many ways are there to understand "just" and "as well"?

Is it any surprise that Canadians are upset?

In February, the former Arizona governor--criticized as weak on security along her state's Mexican border during her term--ordered a review of 49th parallel security, saying the terrorist threat was greater there than on the Mexican border. Last month, she said Canada should be treated the same as Mexico--as if there were any real similarities.

As long as she repeats this rubbish, the corrections that follow are unpersuasive.

Canadian Ambassador to the U. S. Michael Wilson does his best to sow truth in hard soil, but this needs to be dealt with at the top. It is now for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to deal directly with Obama, to ensure the border remains open to visitors and convenient to trade.

Unchecked by higher authority, Napolitano's vaulting ignorance is capable of serious harm to Canada.

American friends have sometimes asked me where Canadian anti-Americanism comes from. There are a lot of answers to that question, some of them not too flattering to Canadians, but Napolitano’s shenanigans are an example of the kind of thing that creates a lot of ill will.

Will somebody please send the woman home to Arizona and find somebody competent to replace her? (So much for the stereotype of Republicans being rubes, and Democrats being urbane and sophisticated.) Anybody who believes for ten seconds that the Mexican and Canadian borders are in any way equivalent has no credibility. And she’s had considerably longer than ten seconds to catch on to that fact. If it hasn’t dawned on her in the months she’s held her position, there’s no hope of her ever understanding. This is a fundamental reality that she should have grasped at her very first briefing. It is one thing to be ignorant; it is another altogether to cling to that ignorance in the face of massive evidence to the contrary. And it is sheer insanity to give this kind of person the authority to act on their ignorance. The damage she can do to the American-Canadian trading relationship - and thus to the American economy - is unthinkable. We are, after all, the USA’s biggest trading partner, far eclipsing Japan, the European Union, and even China.

Yeah, I'm steamed. Sorry. And when you find somebody else, make sure it's somebody who has actually crossed the border at least once? Napolitano has flown over it, but has never set foot, or even car tire, in a Canadian border crossing. For crying out loud...

Reset button needs resetting

Am I the only one who doesn't think this is funny?

When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton greeted Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva on Friday before sitting down to their working dinner, she presented him a small green box with a ribbon. Inside was a red button with the Russian word "peregruzka" printed on it.

"I would like to present you with a little gift that represents what President Obama and Vice President Biden and I have been saying and that is: 'We want to reset our relationship and so we will do it together.'"

Clinton, laughing, added, "We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?" she asked Lavrov.

"You got it wrong," Lavrov said." Both diplomats laughed. "It should be "perezagruzka" (the Russian word for reset,) Lavrov said. "This says 'peregruzka,' which means 'overcharged.'"

Nobody in the American State Department is proficient in Russian? They try very hard to get a single word right and can't do it? For a photo-op that most of the world will see?

May I politely suggest that the State Department get its head out of its nether regions and realize that it is their job to understand how the rest of the world thinks and that they can't possibly do that if they don't speak the language?

The American government is like an out-of-touch executive, thinking that the occasional walkabout is a substitute for really knowing somebody.

And for what it's worth, this is not a Democrat/Republican thing. It's a part of the mindset that says, "I'm so important, everybody else has to know who I am while I forget their names." It's been a characteristic of American foreign policy for decades and is a big part of the reason why they get it so terribly wrong so often.

Technorati tags: Reset button

I am reluctantly changing my mind

I hate conspiracy theories. Especially big conspiracy theories. I rarely give them the time of day. I don't read about them, I avoid conversations about them, and listen with glassy-eyed politeness when such conversations are imposed on me. Nutbars see conspiracies everywhere and some of them are pretty persuasive. I have better things to do with my time than to even try to debunk them.

At the repeated urging of a family member or two, I have finally taken the time to consider the evidence presented by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This is a group of professionals who have made a scientific analysis of the collapse of the three buildings in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 and found the official explanations not only wanting, but impossible.

These are not wild-eyed ranters and ravers, but bespectacled, balding men in business suits with Power Point presentations and a lot of hard evidence, the kind of thing I can respect. This is not the sort of presentation that normally brings me close to tears, but in this case I found myself struggling a time or two. The implications are horrific.

Here is Richard Gage, founder of the organization, giving one of his recent public presentations. Be forewarned, this is lengthy. Explore their website if you prefer. You will find no political theorizing, no demonization, but a great deal of skepticism toward official explanations, and a lot of science. The basic thesis? That the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, not in a spontaneous collapse. They present ten characteristics of controlled demolitions that were demonstrably present, and none of which can be explained by official theories.

There are now well over 500 architects and engineers publicly demanding a new, independent inquiry. What do you think?


Technorati tags: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, World Trade Center

Poor Barack

Seriously, congratulations and all, Mr. Obama, but what a position to be in.

The victory was so complete, hopes are so high, the expectations are positively staggering. There is nowhere to go but down.

A couple of quick samples:

From the Associated Press:

Naming the staggering list of problems he inherits — two wars and "the worst financial crisis in a century," among them — Obama sought to restrain the soaring expectations of his supporters.

"We may not get there in one year or even in one term," he said. "But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you, we as a people will get there."

A tide of international goodwill came Obama's way on Wednesday morning, even as developments made clear how heavy a weight will soon be on his shoulders.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev issued a congratulatory telegram saying there is "solid positive potential" for the election to improve strained relations between Washington and Moscow, if Obama engages in constructive dialogue.

Yet he appeared to be deliberately provocative hours after the election with sharp criticism of the U.S. and his announcement that Russia will deploy missiles near NATO member Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans.

Reaction in Africa:

Many Africans fervently hope his victory will mean more U.S. support for local development and an improvement in living conditions for the majority on the world's poorest continent.

"We trust that you will also make it the mission of your presidency to combat the scourge of poverty and disease everywhere," former South African President Nelson Mandela said.

South African Nobel Peace laureate Desmond Tutu likened Obama's victory to his country's triumph over apartheid and Nigeria's President Umaru Yar'Adua said the result had "finally broken the greatest barrier of prejudice in human history."

Analysts have cautioned, however, that Obama may have little scope to bring tangible benefits to Africa, and that he does not have a strong track record of interest in the continent.

More international reaction:

Financial markets in Asia were higher Wednesday as traders were hopeful that Obama could successfully tackle the global economic crisis. But in Europe and later on Wall Street the main markets were down by at least 1 percent.

...

In an open letter to Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy offered "my warmest congratulations, and through me, those of the entire French people."

He said Obama's election raised in France, in Europe and around the world "an immense hope" and that the American people "had expressed with force their faith in progress and the future."

One CNN reader Toby Nevin wrote on a blog: "I stayed up through the night to watch from Paris. What a wonderful moment. It seems that the tide has turned from division and fear towards hope, responsibility and unity.

"Obama is a great leader for a United States of America that deserves him as a guide through these troubled times. Let us all remember our engagement to this spirit of positive change!"

There are, of course, many more moderate responses, noting the magnitude of the challenges Obama faces. And if he manages to rise to just some of the expectations, America will be well off.

And for the election-weary, the BBC offers this Not-the-election quiz. I managed not to be a total loser. Bet you can't do much better.


Technorati tags: Barack Obama

"When you mix politics and religion, you get politics."

Republicans should read that and weep. I read it and rejoice.

It is Rev. Gene Carlson speaking, an aging conservative leader and pastor from Wichita, Kansas. According to a feature-length article in the New York Times Magazine by David D. Kirkpatrick, we are on the verge of a sea change in political thinking in evangelical circles.

"The religious right peaked a long time ago," [Carlson] added. "As a historical, sociological phenomenon, it has seen its heyday. Something new is coming."

I myself have been watching the very cozy relationship between the Republican Party and the so-called religious right with a great deal of squeamishness from my vantage point north of the 49th parallel. It was my opinion that when the church gets in bed with politics, she just gets screwed. Like in any bad relationship, there is a point where she has to realize that staying will only result in an ongoing erosion of independence and integrity. And it looks as if this realization is sinking in. Some of the old guard conservative religious leaders are being repudiated, others are changing their tune, and still others risk becoming irrelevant to their own constituency.


The new leaders are tired of being defined in terms of what they stand against instead of what they stand for, and while they have not dropped their opposition to gay marriage and abortion, they see a number of other issues that are just as important, while questioning whether the political road is the best one to follow to see the changes they desire.

"In the evangelical church in general there is kind of a push back against the Republican party and a feeling of being used by the Republican political machine," he continued. "There are going to be a lot of evangelicals willing to vote for a Democrat because there are 40 million people without health insurance and a Democrat is going to do something about that."

Democrats, on the other hand, should probably not read that and rejoice too loudly. While they are likely to benefit in the short term, it should be noted that millions of evangelical Americans are not turning in their Republican Party membership cards in exchange for Democratic Party ones. They are going independent.

High time, I say. No political party should ever believe they have any church in their pocket, and no church should ever allow itself to become the mouthpiece of a political organization. I do not mean for a minute that Christians should not speak out on political issues, but rather that they should maintain an independence of movement and thought. Christians who enter politics should remember where their highest loyalty lies (and I honestly salute those who have chosen to enter the fray) and not prostitute themselves for political gain.

This growing political sophistication of the American evangelical movement can only be a good thing, as I see it. And who knows, maybe it will help heal the destructive polarization that has characterized the American political discourse for too long now.

Read the whole article, it is fascinating.

Technorati tags: Evangelical Politics

The real beginning of the civil rights sit-in movement

This post at Stubborn Facts literally had tears streaming down my cheeks. It tells the story of the true and almost forgotten beginnings of the civil rights movement in the US, when a group of black teenagers, with immense dignity and perseverance, insisted on being served at a drugstore lunch counter. There is a memorial in downtown Wichita, Kansas, with no explanatory plaque.

If there were, that plaque would note that on July 19, 1958, several black teenagers, members of the local NAACP chapter, entered the downtown Dockum Drug Store (then the largest drug store chain in the state) and sat down at the lunch counter. They were ignored. They kept coming back and sitting at the counter, from before lunch through the dinner hour, at least twice a week for the next several weeks. They sat quietly, creating no disturbance, but refusing to leave without being served.

The store tried to wait them out by ignoring them. They kept coming back and sitting there, silently, day after day, waiting to be served. On one occasion three police officers tried to coerce and intimidate the teenagers to leave, and succeeded. But they came back, and the police did not return. They were breaking no law, only a store policy, and the store was not willing to challenge them directly.

...

On August 11, while the early arrivals were sitting at the counter waiting for their friends to show, a white man around 40 walked in and looked at them for several minutes. Then he looked at the store manager, and said, simply, "Serve them. I'm losing too much money." He then walked back out. That man was the owner of the Dockum drug store chain.

That day the lawyer for the local NAACP branch called the store's state offices, and was told by the chain vice-president that "he had instructed all of his managers, clerks, etc., to serve all people without regard to race, creed or color." State-wide. They had won, completely. Their actions inspired others, and the sit-in movement spread to Oklahoma City. By the middle of 1959, the national NAACP was losing disaffected members for refusing to endorse the scattered but spreading sit-in protests, gave in, and sponsored the Greensboro sit-ins.

Nineteen months before the Greensboro sit-ins that have been credited with being the start of the civil rights sit-in movement, it really began at a downtown drug store in Wichita, Kansas. The Dockum sit-ins were largely ignored by the NAACP in their archives, probably out of embarrasment, and were unknown even to many civil rights historians. That error was corrected by the NAACP this summer.

Do go around to Stubborn Facts to read the whole inspiring story. It reminds me yet again that you do not need fame, power, or connections to effect real change.

Technorati tags: Wichita, Dockum Drug Store, NAACP

Gleanings from the blogosphere, Oct. 19

Rafique Tucker at Liberal War Journal is bemoaning the use of "Rovian" tactics by lefty blogger Mike Rogers, who is busy "outing" Republican congressmen. OK, one Republican congressman. Rafique says the tactic smacks of McCarthyism.

Reader_iam at Done with Mirrors tells a kafkaesque tale of the limits of free speech on campuses, which is unfortunately becoming all too common. It appears classrooms are free speech zones, but office doors aren't. Dave Barry is verboten, a truly offensive subversive.

Will Garth Turner go Green? Devon Rowcliffe has an interesting and well-researched post on the topic.


Technorati tags: Mike Rogers, Garth Turner

American power: the view from Germany

With all the flap over Iraq, North Korea and Iran, Russia's latest shenanigans have been largely flying under the North American radar. Not so in Europe. Putin has been pressing for a free trade pact with the European Union, making politely threatening comments about how it supplies most of Europe's petroleum. Theodore Roosevelt would recognize the tactic.

In an editorial entitled "The Decline of America" (in German) Stefan Kornelius at the Süddeutsche Zeitung bemoans the loss of American power as an effective counterweight and contends that the loss of American prestige and influence has made the world a much more dangerous place. "Be careful what you wish for, you may get it," he comments. Now they've got a less powerful America, they don't much like it. But don't think that makes Kornelius a Bush fan - far from it!

Here is a summary.

Why Washington's influence is diminishing, and why this is becoming a problem for the entire world

On September 20, 2002, the White House unveiled its National Security Strategy. This testimony to American hubris came when America was at the height of its greatness. Six months later, the Iraq war began, which would lead to the end of American omnipotence. Now, four years later, the American Secretary of State travels the world, running into the limits of American power and influence everywhere she goes. America's weakness is a problem for the entire world, actually making it more difficult to build multipolar alliances. An autocratic Russia is flexing its muscles as a petroleum imperialist and China is recognized as a superpower, even as it pulls its head into its shell before its northern nuclear neighbour.

Lack of leadership Two of the three "axis of evil" members are showing how confrontation with the US can spread terror, and up their market value at the same time. This new multipolar world came into being faster than the most vehement Bush critics could ever have hoped - and centrifugal forces are tearing apart the world's stability as a result of America's inability to form effective coalitions. The epicentre of this wave of destruction lies in Iraq, with repercussions in the entire region. A Camp David initiative for Lebanon or Palestine is now unthinkable. And now North Korea has found a new raison d'être in its nuclear provocation of the US. Only the possible sale of nuclear technology to terrorists prevents us from dismissing Kim Jong Il out of hand. Nobody seems able to stop the man, giving hope to a half dozen other nuclear wannabes.

Bush's administration did not create these problems, but has greatly furthered them through its policies. Bush's imperial hubris will not be forgiven him in his two remaining years in office; quite the contrary, opposition will grow ever shriller, even at home. But when the Schadenfreude has dissipated, there will be wide recognition that this lack of power has not been good for the world. The European Union must be conscious of its own weakness; its influence is too weak to trade a couple of democratic values for Russia's gas.

Cooperation with China Europe is also too weak to pressure China or to stabilize Afghanistan or the Middle East. Condoleezza Rice should use the North Korean situation as an opportunity to reassert American influence, showing a new openness and willingness to bargain. Working with China, it should be possible to lure North Korea out of its isolation and come to some kind of new non-proliferation agreement. Because only when America makes new deposits into the security account, can it expect to be able to make withdrawals.

Technorati tags: George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Stefan Kornelius

Gleanings from the blogosphere, Oct. 18

Alan at Maverick Views presents a very good argument why the Democrats' rising star Barack Obama should NOT aim for the presidency in 2008.


Greg at Sippican Cottage is holding forth on the follies committed in the name of business. He has administrators nailed cold.

These gentlemen thought that the building of large and complicated things out in the landscape from Canada to Florida and Martha's Vineyard to Sausalito existed simply to give them figures to Rubik around on their desktop. They did not realize that they existed to support the actual operation. They thought they were the actual operation. Everyone in the government makes this same mistake, 25 hours a day, 11 days a week, by the way. A quarter of a billion dollars was going through that business a year. Very few of my colleagues had ever seen one bit of it generated.

John Burgess at Crossroads Arabia has an interesting round-up of opinions and reactions to the veil debate currently going on in the UK, as a result of Jack Straw's remarks.

Technorati tags: Jack Straw, Barack Obama

Gleanings from the blogosphere, Oct. 16

Dave Schuler at the Glittering Eye explains, facts and statistics in hand, why he thinks it will make little difference whether the Democrats or the Republicans take control in November's elections. He compares the historical results of Democratic or Republican dominance.

It didn’t make a bit of difference. Taxes went down during periods of complete Democratic control. Taxes went up during periods of complete Democratic control. Taxes went down during periods of complete Republican control. And up. We’ve been to war, expanded entitlements and civil rights, had booms and busts under both Democrats and Republicans.

Media distortions seem to be hitting all sides. Vues d'ici tells us (in English) how Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff has had his words twisted by removing the context.

Technorati tags: Michael Ignatieff

North Korea's nuclear explosion in doubt

No airborne radioactive particles have been found by either American or Chinese monitors.

The U.S. government remains uncertain of the nature of the underground explosion, although the air sampling tends to reinforce earlier doubts about whether the test blast was entirely successful, officials said. Data from seismic sensors indicated the explosion was smaller than expected.

This makes it highly unlikely that North Korea actually carried out a successful nuclear detonation. (Hat tip to my friends at Stubborn Facts.)

Although I have posted briefly on the North Korean nuclear situation here and here, I have been unable to really get into panic mode over the whole affair, in large part because the smallness of the seismic signature of the detonation inspired doubt from the very start. Those doubts now seem to be vindicated.

The world has been given a grace period to do something about North Korea before it starts selling nuclear technology to every terrorist group with sufficient financial backing. This was the clear danger from the very start, as not even Kim Jong Il is crazy enough to provoke a nuclear war with either its neighbours or the US. There are disheartening signs, such as Russia and China's pressure in the UN to keep reaction low-key in favour of diplomatic solutions, which has too often been UN-speak for accomplishing nothing whatsoever and giving tyrants a free hand.

On the other hand, Shinzo Abe, Japan's new right-wing, nationalist prime minister made his first foreign visit to China last week, just before the test and got along famously with his hosts (remember the saying: Only Nixon could go to China?) with one of their main points of agreement being the necessity of keeping North Korea in line. I find it encouraging that the first impulse has not been to start an antagonistic military build-up in the Far East between the two great regional powers.

So while the situation in North Korea is still a subject of grave concern, there is not yet any need to panic. Indeed, Kim may have done us all a favour by making it very difficult to ignore his shenanigans and galvanizing world opinion enough to accomplish something before critical mass is obtained. That's a bit optimistic on my part, I know.

[Read the comments.]

Technorati tags: Kim Jong Il, Shinzo Abe, Nuclear test

Amish schoolgirls demonstrate courage - and more

"Shoot me first."

Thirteen-year old Marian Fisher hoped to buy time for her younger schoolmates and offered her own life to give them a chance.

Her 11-year old sister - who survived - asked to be shot second.

Some experts had been concerned that the Amish schoolchildren, so sheltered from TV violence, would be ill-equipped to handle the unspeakable experience of the Nickel Mines shooting.

It would appear that prolonged exposure to goodness is a more effective preparation to face evil than exposure to simulated violence.

[Update] A fuller report

Hat tip to the Anchoress.

Technorati tags: Amish, Nickel Mines

Gleanings from the blogosphere, Oct. 5

Jared at Total Depravity is thoroughly worked up about a vital issue of male - er - human rights...

I generally try to avoid getting involved in the heady realm of Norwegian politics, but an issue has arisen which has serious, far-reaching implications for fathers, our sons, and the very soul of manhood.

At Donklephant, Justin Gardner and his commenters are debating the status of waterboarding - and both sides have some pretty powerful arguments.


John Burgess at Crossroads Arabia explains why the 1973 oil embargo will never be repeated.


In case you've missed this, Patterico is doing a series of interviews with an Army mental health specialist who was treating the detainees at Guantanamo. It is absolutely fascinating. Pour yourself a cup of coffee or bookmark the first page; there's a lot of material. Hat tip to Stubborn Facts.

Technorati tags: Guantanamo, Waterboarding

Gleanings from the blogosphere, Oct. 2

Armstrong Williams at Town Hall is lamenting the dangers of a culture obsessed with celebrity and entertainment.

It is only when we as a nation recognize that every pre-eminent nation that succeeded us fell when they became enamored with sports, entertainment, and thus became consumed with lifestyles of the rich and famous. We must recognize that we can learn quickly from their mistakes and misplaced values so that we can avoid the same decline.

Unlike most commentators, he doesn't wallow in gloom and doom though; he sings the praises of a program designed to point children toward academic excellence - the Carson Scholarship program. Hat tip to Booker Rising.


Cicero at Winds of Change, shares a bleak and realistic assessment of America's options in a new world of nuclear proliferation. Nonetheless, he seems some small cause for hope. The preamble is a bit lengthy; skip the first four paragraphs if you're not in a leisurely mood.


On a more optimistic note, the Strategy Page outlines the reasons to believe that Al-Qaeda's influence and strength are waning.


Technorati tags: Al-Qaeda

Canadian teen obtains justice in Pennsylvania

The Amazing Wonderdog delivers the denouement of the Travis Biehn story, which was big news last year, but is now being neglected in the media.

Travis Biehn, the Newfoundland-born teenager who was convicted in Pennsylvania last year of making a bomb threat against his school and possessing explosives, has won his appeal. Biehn's conviction was overturned last month, and the DA has not filed a counter-appeal.

...

Fear is what this whole sorry story is about. Biehn was charged, in the absence of evidence, because of fear. He was convicted, based on innuendo, in a climate of fear. His conviction became news touted by a media that acts to magnify that fear, and commented on by bloggers who were, by and large, too busy pissing themselves to use their brains.

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, and Biehn has been cleared. Diane Gibbons, the District Attorney who was attempting re-election at the time, had tried to make Biehn's nationality an issue, although the judge (also named Biehn, but unrelated), who clearly didn't like Travis, had said that anti-Americanism was not a factor.

Technorati tags: Travis Biehn

Excellent commentary on the detainee bill

Finally! I feel like I've seen the light at the end of the tunnel! This is the absolute best commentary on the detainee bill and the issues surrounding it that I have seen yet. Not just commentary either, but a practical roadmap for the future. I wish Jonathan Rauch of the National Journal Group were in power. (My thanks to Pat of Stubborn Facts for drawing this article to my attention.)

In "The Right Approach to Rough Treatment," he grapples with the moral, legislative, and practical aspects of the detainee bill and offers some common sense solutions whereby virtually everybody on every side of this debate could come away reasonably satisfied. And all in a relatively short article in wonderfully clear and lucid language. A sample:

In any case, if a law bans the use of "alternative methods" even in the direst circumstances, it will succeed only in driving those methods underground. "Any president, Democrat or Republican, faced with really frightening, bone-chilling threat reports and credible claims that he can stop bad things from happening, is going to be very hard-pressed not to push his powers to the full extent of the law," says Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School and a former official in the Bush Justice Department. Responsible law-making respects not just human rights but also human realities.

My view is worth no more than yours or anyone else's, but here it is: The law should leave room for exceptional recourse to "alternative" interrogation techniques, while making sure that their use is genuinely exceptional. On that score, both the Bush bill and the Senate alternative improved on the post-9/11 Bush regime, under which the president made up the law as he went along and no one could say boo about it; and both improved on the Supreme Court's Hamdan regime, under which almost any sort of rough interrogation, however necessary, might be judged a war crime.

Both bills, though, made the same mistake: While concerning themselves quite properly with legality, they omitted accountability.

Read the entire article, as this excerpt taken out of context doesn't really do it justice. If I were an American citizen, I would be contacting my Congressman and Senators to promote Rauch's solutions.

As a normal rule, I don't comment much on internal American affairs, for the simple reason that I'm not an American. I've made an exception for the whole question of torture for several reasons. First, the moral issues are so profound and could have such a major impact on the rest of the world in so many ways, that I felt it would be irresponsible to just look the other way. Secondly, foreign nationals, including Canadians, are directly impacted by American legislation and practices. Lacking a vote and a representative to affect the issue directly, I have to hope that my discussion of it will, in some small way, contribute to the best possible outcome.

Technorati tags: Detainee Bill, Jonathan Rauch, National Journal Group

Text of the declassified NIE

This is the integral text as released earlier today.

Declassified Key Judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States” dated April 2006

Key Judgments

United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations; however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement—which includes al-Qa’ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells—is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.

• Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.
• If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.
• Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa’ida, could erode support for the jihadists.

We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse. New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.

• We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in importance to US counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the Homeland.
• The jihadists regard Europe as an important venue for attacking Western interests. Extremist networks inside the extensive Muslim diasporas in Europe facilitate recruitment and staging for urban attacks, as illustrated by the 2004 Madrid and 2005 London bombings.

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

• The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.
• Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq “jihad;” (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims—all of which jihadists exploit.

Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the jihadists’ radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.

• The jihadists’ greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution— - an ultra-conservative interpretation of shari’a-based governance spanning the Muslim world - —is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists’ propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.
• Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.
• Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.

If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless, attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities
for jihadists to exploit.

Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.

• The loss of key leaders, particularly Usama Bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into smaller groups. Although like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements.

We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less serious threat to US interests than does al-Qa’ida.

• Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global threat.
• The increased role of Iraqis in managing the operations of al-Qa’ida in Iraq might lead veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations.

Other affiliated Sunni extremist organizations, such as Jemaah Islamiya, Ansar al-Sunnah, and several North African groups, unless countered, are likely to expand their reach and become more capable of multiple and/or mass-casualty attacks outside their traditional areas of operation.

• We assess that such groups pose less of a danger to the Homeland than does al-Qa’ida but will pose varying degrees of threat to our allies and to US interests abroad. The focus of their attacks is likely to ebb and flow between local regime targets and regional or global ones.

We judge that most jihadist groups— - both well-known and newly formed— - will use improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to implement their asymmetric warfare strategy, and that they will attempt to conduct sustained terrorist attacks in urban environments. Fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics.

• CBRN capabilities will continue to be sought by jihadist groups.

While Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, remain the most active state sponsors of terrorism, many other states will be unable to prevent territory or resources from being exploited by terrorists.

Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint.

• We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial support.

Original text available here in PDF format.

Technorati tags: National Intelligence Estimate, Al-Qaeda

View Related Articles by Canadian bloggers

The National Intelligence Estimate and what it means [Updated]

Leaked reports by unnamed sources of the National Intelligence Estimate that came out a few days ago have been generating an enormous amount of media buzz.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

Needless to say, the Democrats are all over it, saying that this justifies withdrawing from Iraq as soon as possible.

The blogosphere is all over it too. Being committed to the idea that examining different viewpoints is essential to coming to any intelligent conclusion, I offer you some of the varying viewpoints.

Glenn Greenwald of Unclaimed Territory adamantly opposes the war in Iraq, and sees the report as providing the ultimate justification for that position. He didn't actually call for immediate withdrawal, mind you, at least not in this post.

So, a recap of the Iraq war: there were never any WMDs. The proliferation of government death squads and militias in Iraq means that, compared to the Saddam era, human rights have worsened and torture has increased to record levels. Iranian influence has massively increased, as a result of a Shiite fundamentalist government loyal to Tehran replacing the former anti-Iranian regime. We've squandered hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. And we have -- according to the consensus of our own intelligence community -- directly worsened the terrorist problem with our invasion, and continue to worsen it with our ongoing occupation.

Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters approaches the issue from the other side and dismisses even the basic premise of the report.

It's a fascinating article, and one CQ readers should read in its entirety. It makes the classic logical fallacy of confusing correlation with causation, and the basic premise can easily be dismissed with a reminder of some basic facts.

First and foremost, Islamist radicalism didn't just start expanding in 2003. The most massive expansion of Islamist radicalism came after the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, when the Islamists defeated one of the world's superpowers. Shortly afterwards, the staging of American forces in Saudi Arabia to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait created the most significant impulse for the expansion of organized Islamist radicalism and led directly to the formation of al-Qaeda. It put the US in Wahhabi jihadist crosshairs for the first time.

Finally, Bobby at Stubborn Facts approaches the whole issue from a military background and provides a rather sophisticated analysis that is not as overtly partisan. His basic argument is that while the war in Iraq may have started as a war of choice, it has now become a war of necessity, and an immediate withdrawal could have disastrous consequences.

On the other hand, it does not logically follow that our security interests would be any better served by handing over control of the country to those radical Islamists who would likely come to power in a premature American withdrawal. In fact, in the event of a premature withdrawal (and by premature, I mean any withdrawal before the legitimate Iraqi government has developed the functional capability to provide for its own security, repond to the needs of its citizens, and provide for a stable Iraqi society that does not support international terrorism), it's far more likely that the Islamist radicals would be far better able to exploit this defeat-- by celebrating their victory and establishing bases of operation-- that would make the radicals more lethal, in terms of quantity and quality, in their attacks against the West.

I strongly recommend having a look at all three, especially Bobby's. At least read the ones you disagree with...

[Update - Sept. 26] John in the comments links us to Robert Kagan's column in the Washington Post. Anonymous Liberal has seen it too, and he sure didn't like it. He takes it on blow by blow in his post today. Meanwhile, Captain Ed is calling for the release of a redacted version. He's got his own set of quotes from the NIE, courtesy of Spook86, which suggest that there's a lot more nuance to it than the NYTimes' initial report would lead us to believe. He has a point. Selective quotes from unnamed sources are not exactly the bedrock of comprehensive, balanced reporting.

Technorati tags: National Intelligence Estimate

Torture techniques specifically banned

The Washington Post is reporting that John McCain has specifically named some extreme measures that would no longer be allowed under the compromise detainee bill.

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) named three measures that he said would no longer be allowed under a provision barring techniques that cause serious mental or physical suffering by U.S. detainees: extreme sleep deprivation, forced hypothermia and "waterboarding," which simulates drowning. He also said other "extreme measures" would be banned.

McCain's remarks were unusual because public officials involved in the lengthy public debate about U.S. interrogation practices have rarely made specific references to the CIA's actions. Instead, they have made general claims about the need for rough interrogations or a desire to stop abusive behavior.

"It's clear we have to have the high moral ground," said McCain, a former POW tortured by prison guards in Vietnam, on CBS's "Face the Nation." "I am confident that some of the abuses that were reportedly committed in the past will be prohibited in the future."

McCain spoke after officials of Human Rights Watch and others pressed him to spell out ways in which the controversial draft legislation would constrain the CIA's actions. The bill, introduced in the Senate on Friday, does not mention specific interrogation methods, causing some experts to say it would leave room for abuses. President Bush endorsed the bill after CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said it meets his agency's needs.

McCain, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and their staffs were heavily involved in drafting the bill's language, so McCain's reading of it may carry weight in any court battle over its meaning. Aides said he did not clear his remarks with the Bush administration in advance, and spokesmen for the CIA and the White House declined to say yesterday whether they accept McCain's conclusions.

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters takes umbrage at the fact that McCain made this information public.

What kind of damage could this do? Islamists who watch American media will note the exceptions McCain listed and tell their operatives that they will not need to prepare for waterboarding and can prepare for less rigorous techniques. While it isn't quite the same thing as telling them all of the approved techniques, it gives another edge to the Islamists -- an edge we didn't need to give them.

Serious and responsible people would understand this. Apparently, John McCain doesn't qualify as either.

Sorry Ed, I have to disagree. (Boy, I bet that will keep him awake all night...) I don't think it's a mistake at all to let detainees, future detainees, the American public and the rest of the world to know that the US will not stoop that low. Or will no longer stoop that low. Quite apart from the moral ramifications, which are considerable, it will generate respect for the US, as opposed to disgusted fear. In the long run, it will go a lot further.

Technorati tags: John McCain