They decided to keep the baby and contacted the local hospital, as Melissa had only taken the first of two pills as part of a chemical abortion.

At first they were told the foetus would not be affected, but the next day they discovered it would be.

"They said, 'It is too late - it has already starved the baby of oxygen. She will have to come in for the procedure or she will miscarry anyway in three or four weeks.' She was quite upset," Mrs Smith told BBC News.

A reader takes me to task for this remark in a posting on Friday: "Elizabeth Dole, a woman astonishing only in her mediocrity… is now, quite incredibly, a Senator."

“Come now. You're surprised a mediocre person is in the Senate? Have you seen her colleagues? Some of them are so high-chair poundingly stupid that medicority is a virtue that causes them to tremble with envy.”

He’s right. Just take some sample names, Rodham, say, or Specter, Klansman Byrd, or even that half-wit who is so worried about smoking in movies, and you realize that, in the absence of any vacancies for teaching staff in a third-rate kindergarten, Elizabeth Dole has ended up in just the right place for her rather modest array of talents.

This time in Communist China:

”Chinese television presenters have been told to stop dyeing their hair, exposing too much flesh and using English words in a government campaign to shelter young Chinese minds from the pernicious influences of sex, violence and foreign ideas.”

Maybe Peking should ask the FCC for advice.

The recent violence among Thailand’s Muslims was, given the traditionally tolerant nature of South-east Asian Islam, something of a surprise. Now the Thais are pointing fingers, and, yes, it turns out that the Saudis have been vomiting their bile across yet another previously pleasant part of the planet.

”Hidden a few kilometres down a remote country lane in the heart of Thailand's troubled deep south - where a Muslim separatist uprising has left more than 200 dead this year - is the multi-million-dollar new campus of the Yala Islamic College. With more than a dozen Arab teachers from across the Middle East and a seemingly endless flow of funds from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait, Yala has become the most obvious manifestation of what critics here say is an "Arab threat."

Qatar? Kuwait? That’s disappointing. But who runs Yala?

”Yala Islamic College is run by Dr Ismail Lutfi, a Thai graduate of the hardline Wahhabi Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He has an estimated 8,000 followers in key Islamic posts throughout the south, and the 1,500 students at the college are taught a hardcore Wahhabi interpretation of Islamic law in the Arabic language.”

Wahhabism is, quite simply, a cancer on humanity, and ‘Saudi’ Arabia is its source. Draw your own conclusions.

Martin Jacques is, with poor, dim Will Hutton, one of the sillier commentators on the British Left. As someone who edited Marxism Today he is, you would think, not best placed to give moral lectures to the rest of us. Unfortunately, Jacques, clearly, does not agree. Here he is on how the horrors of Abu Ghraib have eroded supposed claims by the West of a monopoly of both virtue and modernity. Leaving aside the point that in the West we live in a society that ceaselessly denigrates itself while at the same time promoting the imagined moral wisdom of a host of shamans, seers, holy men and other charlatans chanting their nonsense from the Himalayas to the Amazon, and leaving aside too the notion that arguing that the Western way is the best way forward (it is, in case you were wondering) is inconsistent with an understanding that Western civilization is, like any creation of men, deeply flawed, the most instructive aspect of Jacques’ piece is what he has to say about the contrasts between East Asia and the USA. For Western self-hatred it takes some beating.

Here’s Jacques on America: “President Bush claimed last week: "People seeing those pictures didn't understand the true nature and heart of America." On the contrary, they are an integral part of its "true nature and heart": a society that was built on the destruction of the indigenous peoples; that practised racial segregation until 40 years ago; that still incarcerates many of its young black people; that killed hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese; that has a messianic belief in the applicability of its own values to the rest of the world; that is willing to impose its model by force; that believes itself to be above international law. These too are American values. In this light, the behaviour of the US forces, nurturing a deep sense of racial superiority combined with a disdain for international law, is entirely predictable.”

Jacques roster of villains includes Michael Ignatieff as well as General Custer. He’s in trouble for saying that "The movements of national liberation that swept through the African and Asian worlds in the 1950s, seeking emancipation from colonial rule, have now run their course and in many cases have failed to deliver on their promise to rule more fairly than the colonial oppressors of the past." And later: "For every nationalist struggle that succeeds in giving its people self-determination and dignity, there are more that only deliver their people up to a self-immolating slaughter, terror, enforced partition and failure."

Ignatieff is, of course, right but Jacques, the (former?) Marxist sees it differently. “Historically speaking”, he claims that Ignatieff’s argument is, “nonsense. Asia is home to 60% of the world's population and has few failing states: in East Asia, where one-third live, there are almost none, and many extremely successful ones.”

Good God, where to start? How about with the fact that Ignatieff was writing about Asia and Africa? I don’t see any successes in that latter continent with the possible and, I fear, temporary exception of South Africa. And as for Asia, well let’s look at the region “historically speaking”. If Ignatieff can condemn the US today for the defeat of the Native Americans over a century ago, he needs to explain why the communal slaughter that defaced Indian, Pakistani and (later) Bangladeshi independence are no longer relevant to looking at those countries today, and he needs to linger for a moment on the reality of a Chinese state built on the bones of the murdered tens of millions. Or maybe he would like to tell us about Indonesia and ‘the year of living dangerously’ or, a decade later, the slaughter of the East Timorese, or, further North, the Cambodia of the Killing Fields and concentration camp (oh, sorry, ‘re-education’ camp) Vietnam, or Taiwan, perhaps, and the lengthy oppression of that island’s native inhabitants…

Or if it’s racism (certainly, and tragically, still a problem in the US, although far less than in the past), Jacques wants to discuss, perhaps he should see how minority peoples fare in Asia, or perhaps he should visit occupied Tibet…

The point I’m making, of course, is not to say that the West is perfect. It’s not. But whitewashing the crimes, tragedies and failures of other cultures in an attempt to denigrate America and the rest of the West is either dishonest or ignorant. Take your pick, but remember that Martin Jacques was a Marxist for a long, long time.

Over at the often interesting, if regrettably leftwing, blog, Harry’s Place, there’s more on Jacques’ piece. It’s long (but who am I to criticize that?), but well worth reading and, in particular, the last paragraph is worth repeating here:

”It is the duty of those of us who believe that the Arabs deserve better lives than they presently endure to do all we can to hasten the victory of the democrats and modernisers in Iraq and to challenge the pernicious nonsense which dresses up economic backwardness and political tyranny as an authentically 'Asian' condition wherever such arguments raise their ugly heads. Those who wittingly or unwittingly cheer the backward facing factions in Iraq today condemn their fellow humans to poverty, backwardness and misery.”

After the revelation that photos published by the rabidly-anti war Daily Mirror purporting to show prisoner abuse in Iraq by British troops were obvious fakes, the newspaper has fired its (largely unrepentant) editor. The Daily Telegraph 'mourns' his passing.

"... Morgan waded far out of his depth when he took the decision to publish photographs purporting to show soldiers of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment kicking and humiliating defenceless prisoners in Iraq. Far too late, the publishers of the Mirror admitted last night that those pictures were a "calculated and malicious hoax". The damage - and it was terrible damage - had already been done.

"Morgan may indeed have believed, at the time when he published them, that the photographs were what they pretended to be - although almost every expert who saw them, military and photographic, raised the gravest doubts about their authenticity from the first glance. At best, Morgan allowed his hunger for a good story to obscure his judgment. At worst, he was guilty of a wildly irresponsible gamble. His protestations, as recently as yesterday, that it did not really matter whether or not the pictures were genuine, because they had "revealed a can of worms", were nothing short of contemptible.

"It is no exaggeration to say that Morgan's decision to publish those fake photographs put thousands of young British lives at risk in Iraq, and has jeopardised everything that our Servicemen have sacrificed so much to achieve. What may have seemed like a bit of a game to Morgan was a matter of life and death in Iraq. The Mirror is well rid of him."

Amen.

In November we will once again have the privilege of exercising our most precious right as citizens – the right to vote. Our choices will be made from among an array of candidates who take a variety of positions with regard to many important issues. In the midst of what could be a difficult and confusing exercise it is very important to remember that not all issues are of equal gravity. As men and women of good will we strive to achieve true justice for all people and to preserve their rights as human beings. There is, however, one right that is “inalienable”, and that is the RIGHT TO LIFE. This is the FIRST right. This is the right that grounds all other human rights. This is the issue that trumps all other issues.

The November elections will be critical in the battle to restore the right to life to all citizens, especially the unborn and the elderly and infirm. As a result of the pro-life efforts of countless Americans the number of abortions performed in our country is now declining for the first time since the appalling Supreme Court decision of 1973 that made it “legal” to kill our children. We cannot allow the progress that has been made to be reversed by a pro-abortion President, Senate or House of Representatives. Neither can we permit illicit stem cell research that makes use of aborted babies. Any movement to promote and legalize euthanasia must be halted. Our votes have the power to stop these abominations.

There must be no confusion in these matters. Any Catholic politicians who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem cell research or for any form of euthanasia ipso facto place themselves outside full communion with the Church and so jeopardize their salvation. Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences. It is for this reason that these Catholics, whether candidates for office or those who would vote for them, may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled with God and the Church in the Sacrament of Penance.

They're obviously confident that they won't be asked to leave. If that's the case, why not make a PR statement affirming the willingingness of the U.S. to respect Iraqi sovereignty after the June 30 handover?

Conservative sure are in full panic mode these days. Relax.

The rotten apple, it seems, does not fall far from the rotten tree. David Boies III is a lawyer who, to throw another metaphor into the invective, has crawled out from under some stone in Virginia to lead (USA Today reports) a pack of attorneys filing lawsuits against a number of drinks companies. Boies? A familiar name? Yup. David Boies III is the son of David Boies II, Gore’s old hack.

The claim itself? That Coors, Heineken and others have run advertisements targeted at ‘underage’ drinkers. Well, while it’s perfectly true that some of their commercials may indeed happen to play well with the younger crowd, that’s because their appeal is, you know, pretty broad. Lip quivering with maidenly indignation, Boies III (or one of his flunkeys) whines that "in one (Bacardi) ad, a scantily clad young woman is standing on a bar stool pouring a shot of rum down the front of her chest while a young man licks the rum off her exposed midriff.” Well, I can’t speak for 19-year-olds, Boies old chap, but that’s a not entirely unattractive image to some older folk too.

In its greed, its cant and its worthlessness, Boies III’s lawsuit is perfect for our times. Doubtless, it has a shot.

It’s also worth noting that one thing, apart from Boies III’s shamelessness, that has made such litigation possible was the idiotic increase in the nationwide drinking age to 21. This, of course, was a Reagan-era aberration forced through by his useless transportation secretary, one Elizabeth Dole, a woman astonishing only in her mediocrity, who is now, quite incredibly, a Senator.

Dear Peter,

Clive James is Australian.

Cheers.

The book of my enemy has been remaindered
And I rejoice.
It has gone with bowed head like a defeated legion
Beneath the yoke.
What avail him now his awards and prizes,
The praise expended upon his meticulous technique,
His individual new voice?
Knocked into the middle of next week
His brainchild now consorts with the bad buys,
The sinkers, clinkers, dogs and dregs,
The Edsels of the world of movable type,
The bummers that no amount of hype could shift,
The unbudgeable turkeys.

From a reader:

Hi Jonah. To your reader who asked about a good book on Che Guevara, Jon Lee Andersen's "Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life" is probably the best. Andersen is objective throughout, and is particularly good at describing Che's intransigence and brutality during Castro's show trials shortly after the revolution. From what I know there are no really critical books about Che, but Andersen's is the best-researched (access to Che's widow, documents in Cuba, etc..), and the most balanced. It does a good job of demystifying the romantic image of Che, but it also recognizes those aspects--such as Che's charisma--that made even the Cuban-American CIA operative who oversaw his murder in Bolivia in 1967 feel a sense of admiration towards him.

The missus and I are going to London the week after next on a mixture of business and vacation. Anybody have really good restaurant suggestions? We've been to London before -- it's even where I asked the Fair Jessica to stoop to marrying me -- but we always feel like we're missing gastronomic opportunities.

1) I am in constant, longterm, search for examples of the following premise: Politicians on both sides of the aisle are unwilling or incapable of arguing that an idea is good even though it's not supported by the American people. If they propose a policy they insist that it be phrased to the public in such a way that polls show it is favorable. If social security reform is a good idea, it should be regardless of whether or not Americans support it, right? Unfortunately, we have a chicken-or-egg situation where reforms cannot be sold until they are popular and they cannot be popular until they are sold.

2) Serious critiques of Pragmatism, John Dewey, William James etc. preferably from avowed philosophical approaches, i.e. Libertarians on pragmatism, conservatives on it, Marxists, etc.

3) Any good essays that actually define, programmatically, ideologically or philosophically the American "Old Right" by which I mean the pre-WWII right. I've read quite a bit on the subject and the group still seems like a grab-bag of different personalities.

4) Contemporary and historic examples of "lying for justice" -- be it environmentalists exaggerating environmental threats, racial hoaxes on campus, etc.

5) And, as always, examples of absurd arguments ad hitlerum, i.e. arguments where the Nazis, Fascists or the Holocaust are compared to minor budget cuts, opposition to affirmative action etc.

As always, please send book-bleg responses (with appropriate subject headers) to JonahResearch@aol.com

From a reader:

I'm generally willing to give Nick Berg's dad a free pass on his bizarre commentary. I literally can't even complete the thought of my son being murdered in the way that his was. I think it would just about drive me insane, and I wouldn't be operating rationally, and its likely that I'd say some crazy things, too. And I think that is what is happening with Nick Berg's dad, so I don't want to see people harshly criticize someone suffering as deeply as he is.

But the question is, if we can agree that the guy is being
(understandably) irrational, then why are people putting microphones in
front of his face??? Once his comments are out there, which are
perfectly consistent with the sort of things that ANSWER, etc. has been
saying all along, I think it needs to be refuted and exposed for the
silliness that it is. I don't want it to be done, but the news
organizations who are putting his comments out there are almost forcing
our hands. Why not let the Berg family mourn in at least some amount of
privacy? I suspect its at least in part because the media likes the
anti-Bush message.

Sends Air Conditioners to Iraq.

One note: I have every reason to believe this is a real and generous outfit and I'm just saying this as a generic commentary rather than anything like criticism or even suspicion about Op AC. Don't assume that I've -- or anybody else -- has taken the time to check out whether groups like this are on the up-and-up. I wouldn't post a link to anything I thought wasn't kosher, but that doesn't mean I've vetted the places either.

From a reader:

Jonah,

As an active duty Army officer, I agree with one of the emails – it is the officers’ fault. One of the reasons an officer gets paid more, saluted, called ‘sir’, etc, is that he is ultimately responsible for the actions of his troops. Everyone from Karpinski on down should be canned – end of career, at a minimum.

Your Marine friend, however, is somewhat off base. While I do agree that the Marines as a whole hold to a higher a level of discipline (lots of factors for this, but not the time to go into it), the soldiers were at that low level of discipline because they are reservists. The Guard/Reserve simply has lower levels of standards in every area, from entry to retention to promotion. I said to my wife as soon as I saw the first picture, before I knew who they were. “Those are guard or reserve.” Putting reserve units in these kind of situations is a bad idea. It’s one thing to put them in Iraq doing support – another thing entirely to have them doing full time prisoner control.

From a reader:

Jonah,

I'm also suffering from the same line of thought about Nick Berg, though I'm hearing on the news this morning that while the father is clearly a wingnut, the son supported the war and the FBI investigated and cleared the Moussaoui connection. But assuming that he was the Iraqi Lori Berenson, and like you, I hope he wasn't, the implication is more perverse than the point you made: that they killed a do-gooder because he was easier to catch. I think the larger point is this: they sawed the head off someone who agreed with them because he was an American (and, likely, a Jew). What on earth would they do to the Americans who don't agree with them?

And for my part, the father's most troubling comment was that al-Qaeda are "probably as bad" as Bush and Rumsfeld. Not for nothing, but I've seen what happens to a family when a child dies and there is a great deal of anger. But when my brother died, my father didn't take the opportunity to make political comments about the drunk driver who killed him. Didn't do it, couldn't have done it at the time. Grief usually subsumes politics, and in cases like this, the anger is usually directed at...oh, I don't know...how about the guy with the knife?

Know anybody (if not yourself) who can recommend a good book on Che Guevara to an NRO- and NRODT-reading, Simpson-loving, Derbyshire-loving, commie-hating guy? I'm looking for a bio that is fair and honest, but also comes down solidly on the side of "this guy was a mass murderer and Stalinist thug." Maybe the Corner could help? I'm trying to save a 14-year old, Che-infatuated know nothing from making an ass of himself.

Best to you and the family.

There were really two shows last night. Up until ten minutes left, it was easily an A-, possibly even an A. Although there were too many loose ends to wrap up in one episode, it did what sitcoms were supposed to do: make you laugh—and with only one sex joke!

However, in the wake of the somewhat schmaltzy ending, I'd probably knock it down to a B+ overall--much superior to Friends but not on par with Newhart or Cheers. Had they really thrown us for a twist—Frasier going back to Cheers and Lilith, or Diane, or even ending up with Roz—I would have been much more impressed. But all in all, a classy finale worthy of television’s most honored comedy series.

I'm begining to get the feeling -- I suspect like a lot of people -- that Nick Berg may have had some similarities to such folks as Rachel Corrie or Lori Berenson .

The connection to Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, is too coincidental. They went to the University of Oklahoma together and the FBI had investigated Berg because Moussaoui had used his email account. Berg carried around anti-Semitic pamphlets. Berg was apparently something of a leftwing peacenik and his parents apparently belong to ANSWER. Travelling around Iraq alone the way he did is just odd. See the Philly Inquirer's story for more.

Then there's Berg's dad who's anger is understandable, but whose anger at America is getting more than a bit odd. The soundbite I find most troubling is the one where he says how al Qaeda was dumb for killing him because he was their, and Iraq's, best friend.

Obviously, I have no idea what really happened out there, but I'm getting this sneaking suspicion that Berg was suffering from a taste of radical chic in his desire to go to Iraq, travel to all the hotspots alone and help out over there. I doubt he was a would-be terrorist or anything like that. But it wouldn't surprise me if his murderers had first taken him in not as a hostage but as a dupe of some kind. I hope I'm wrong. But even if I'm not, in a way this makes his murder all the more gruesome. Murdering a do-gooder because he's easier to catch is even more repugnant.

UPDATE: I misspoke here, as numerous readers have pointed out (and as I did in post above). Berg's parents were apparently peaceniks, there's no evidence I've seen that Nick Berg was. I apologize for misstatement.

It’s been a week of international crisis and domestic political tension, so what was Senator John Ensign, a ‘Republican’ from Nevada, busy doing? He was attending hearings of the Senate’s Commerce Committee, hearings that he had called. The topic? The supposed threat to the nation represented by smoking in the movies. Fatuous, pointless, dumb? Of course, but one of the Senator’s aides explained the rationale, and, yes, yes, it was, oh, you know, well, let’s allow the aide to speak for himself:

"Children are being influenced by the presence of smoking in movies.”

Sigh.

Via blogger Radley Balko

Note: Just so you know, I don't want to be a conduit for inter-service debates about which is the best. Anyway...
From a reader:

Jonah

I read the argument that NCO's train folks to OBEY orders and to disobey an unlawful order is unthinkable. Every Marine Officer, as do other services' officers, swear allegiance to the Constitution, whereas NCO's swear to obey the lawful orders of superiors. That is NOT a subtle distinction. Officers must have a proper grounding in what the constitution allows the services to do. NCO's must understand what officers may do.

I can't speak for the Army, but in the Marine Corps, Marines are taught to think. There are distinct differences in philosophy in the services, which is a saving grace for our country instead of the General Staff unified system of other countries. Each service brings strengths to the country and counteracts the slothful ways of a monopoly.

In the Army, anything that is not explicitly stated is not allowed, whereas the Marines believe that anything that is NOT explicitly disallowed is available. The difference is that one has to understand what you are doing and that judgement is honed with experience.

Without undue bragging, one can see the differences in how effective the services have been in accomplishing their missions. Similarly, one can see the differences in disciplinary efforts. I am sorry that anyone would commit the offenses alleged, yet I am not surprised that the Marines have not had the same degree of issues as have been shown in recent days. All Marines are taught the basic skills of security of gear and of POWS during their basic training.

Somehow, despite my falling out of airplanes five times and thus getting my jump wings, I am not convinced me that the letter that you posted properly convey the ability of junior soldiers, airmen, sailors, Coast Guardians, or Marines to understand and to obey lawful orders and to know the difference of those that are not.

From a reader:

I spent ten years in the military, two years as an
officer platoon leader in the parachute infantry, and
it annoys me a bit when I hear people say that you can
disobey an illegal order.

The army trains its soldiers from day one to obey
orders unhesitatingly. Most NCOs would have the ass
of any soldier who said, "Well, Sergeant, I think I'm
going to have to let that order pass since it seems
illegal to me." Most soldiers wouldn't even think of
trying it on for size.

I saw one order disobeyed when I was in the army and
that was when a new replacent battalion commander
ordered one of our rifle companies to move into an
area where there was a major wildfire and an enormous
amount of unexploded ordnance. As soon as it was
explained to the major, he backed off.

These enlisted men/women deserve some punishment, but
the real miscreants are the officers. No excuse.
Either they authorized this nonsense, created the
environment where it could flourish or were so
delinquent in their duties that they didn't spend
enough time with their people to know what was going
on.

Hang 'em high!

From a reader:

Jonah, As repellant as the new Abu Ghraib photos and videos sound, they at least make it less probable that this goes up the chain of command. I can conceive of officers telling guards to frighten or humiliate prisoners to soften them up for interogation. (I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's at least plausible.) But ordering guards to have sex with each other in front of prisoners? That's the weirdest "torture" I ever heard of. It might reinforce Muslim attitudes about Western decadence, but I don't see it eliciting much information.

I was reading through a very interesting discussion at Instapundit on how the media is obsessed with Abu Ghraib, while Americans are concerned with Nick Berg -- and it got me thinking. Now, I agree with all the people who say that we should hold Americans to a higher standard than we do our enemies. And, I even agree that the American press should be more concerned by the abuses of its own government than the actions of foreign governments or individuals.

But I keep thinking of a point made by Bret Stephens, the editor of the Jerusalem Post, when asked why Israel keeps killing members of Hamas when it's so "counter-productive." He said something to the effect of (paraphrasing from memory):

"I think it's an odd sort of racism which assumes that Arabs are like cockroaches or insects and that they have no regard for their own lives and that we can kill terrorists forever and it will do no good because there's an infinite supply of Arab murderers." He went on to say something like "We don't believe all Palestinians are interchangeably animals who want to murder women and children."

Now, I am butchering what he said but I think I've got the thrust right. At the time, I confess, I thought it wasn't a particularly good argument (and I still think it has some flaws). But when I look at the coverage -- or lack thereof -- of Nick Berg's murder versus the coverage of Abu Ghraib, I can't help but shake the feeling that the American press thinks Arabs are savages and therefore it's not a big deal -- or a good idea -- to remind Americans of that fact.

Indeed, this was part of my initial criticism of CBS's release of the Abu Ghraib photos; it seems like the press is gung ho to make Americans look savage whenever possible and, conversely, to make those they consider to be savages look like decent misunderstood victims.

When it comes to murderous Third Worlders, it seems the press suffers from the soft bigotry of low expectations.

From a reader:

Dear Jonah, As your (former?) Navy reader states, the most disturbing aspect of the Abu Ghraib scandal is the involvement of NCO's (non-commissioned officers, or sergeants) in these incidents. Since the Revolutionary War, NCO's have been the conscience of the military and the upholder of it's standards, as well as the enforcers of discipline. These individuals, if they are indeed guilty of committing these acts, have betrayed military law, their honor and the honor of all NCO's. You might be interested to know that in a court martial, NCO's usually get the harshest sentence for a given offence. Everything being equal, they will serve more jail time than an officer or lower enlisted. Another little known fact is that while the jury in a court martial is usually composed of officers, an enlisted defendant can request that NCO's are on the jury. This is not a good idea, as NCO's are more likely to vote for conviction and the maximum sentence allowed than officers. By the way, in the Army, jail is called the stockade, not the brig ( a Navy term).

Derb - I've got to finish two columns (can't you tell by how much I'm procrastinating in the Corner?), but I've got to say I'm surprised. Considering your views on "buggery" alone, I would have assumed you would have disapproved of the actions of the Abu Ghraib guards. I certainly agree with you that there's a whole separate scandal which isn't getting enough attention -- the outrageous stupidity of allowing cameras into these prisons for any reason whatsoever (a point I've made from the begining).

But, barring some new -- and unlikely -- evidence, this certainly sounds like a bunch of sadistic perverts abusing prisoners for the joy of it and not for much else. "Kicking" prisoners to find out what they know is one thing, trying to film your own violent porn movie with POWs is quite another. The coverage may be overblown and their may be more to the story, but I think we make a huge mistake -- tactical and moral -- if we pretend that this wasn't a very, very bad thing.

I've gotten a bunch of email asking me to distance myself from Derb's comments about Abu Ghraib. My guess is that they've mostly been driven by Andrew Sullivan's outrage. I have no desire to get in the middle of their differences. But let me say:

A) I didn't get the impression that Derb was actually saying he believes that the Abu Ghraib perps should have kicked the prisoners more and that they deserve only 30 days in the brig. Rather, he was saying that was one of his "emotional states." There is a difference of course between one's gut reaction and ones intellectual conclusions. My feelings about, hmm, the whole Arab world are sometimes driven by passions elicted by a very narrow subset of statements and actions from terrorists (as well as Arab newspapers, Arab leaders, Arab apologists etc). But I also know in my heart and my head that these emotional states should not be translated into policy.

However, B) if that is Derb's actual conclusion and not his temporary emotional state, then I think Derb's wrong. And we can have that debate if necessary.

Here's the link to the conversation/interview I had with Rep. Chris Cox. It was a weird sorta thing, I must say. But Cox was very, very charming and very smart. Clarification: He misspoke about NRO's traffic -- we don't get 2 million visitors a day (it's more like per month on a good month), and our readership is greater than the combined circulations of all the major political print mags (TNR, NR, Weekly Standard, Washington Monthly) but the way he said it, it sounded more grandiose than it is.

Kathryn -- In the first months of my job as Ben Wattenberg's research assistant, Ben brought me to a party in New York where I ended up in a situation where I had to shake Vladimir Pozner's (SP?) hand. Remember him? He was the Soviet flunky with the perfectly accented english who Phil Donahue thought was the most brilliant man in the world. I was new to my job and I didn't want to cause a scene around Ben. But I've regretted shaking his hand ever since and not saying something particularly biting. When I told a friend I shook Pozner's hand he immediately replied "How long did it take to wash the blood off."

I always thought something along those lines would have been perfect.

Jonathan Rauch -- the very, very smart journalist -- has an excellent essay excerpted from his new book Gay Marriage : Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America in the current issue of Reason (which I read on the shuttle down from Boston).

I have Rauch's book here, but I haven't had a chance to read it with all of the other things going on these days. But I have to say that this essay is really wonderful. I may be particularly impressed because it reads almost as if it were ained directly at me. My case against gay marriage has never been particularly religious (which has annoyed a lot of readers) and it has never been particularly grounded in social science (which may or may not annoy the Kurtzites) and it's never been bound-up in anti-homosexual animus (despite what various gay readers and bloggers assert or suggest).

My case has always been explicitly Burkean and Hayekian; you don't tear apart an institution which serves as a granite-spine to social arrangements overnight. Here's how I put it at the conclusion of one my earlier
spats with Andrew Sullivan three years ago:

Marriage is an ancient, bedrock institution born thousands of years before anyone even knew how to spell democracy. It is impossible to even guess how many other institutions it supports. As Friedrich Hayek noted, such institutions are the real storehouses of human knowledge: "[M]ore 'intelligence' . . . is incorporated in the system of rules of conduct than in man's thoughts and surroundings."

And that's why I'm willing to wait a while longer — to muddle through as we sort all this out — before we radically redesign marriage. If Andrew is right about gay marriage, waiting is no doubt unfair to gays seeking to have their monogamous relationships legitimized by the state. But it was Edmund Burke — the champion of temperamental conservatism — who noted that sometimes we "must bear with infirmities until they fester into crimes." Indeed, the conservative must point out that the beaches of history are littered not only with the human wreckage of bad ideas rushed out too quickly, but with the wreckage of good ideas rushed out too quickly as well.

Anyway, Rauch's essay attacks precisely this point from within the Hayekian framework rather than from without and he does a very good job. Ultimately, I think he misses the mark a few places, but it's an impressive effort nonetheless. When it's online and I have a bit more time, I'll try to respond at length in a G-File (way too inside-baseball for the syndicated column).

[Note: I accidentally deleted this, so if you linked to this post earlier, the link won't work]

Here's the 2003 article from the (formerly pro-war) Atlantic about torture by Mark Bowden I mentioned earlier. I didn't think it was his best stuff, but it was very good and very informative nonetheless. Anyway here's his conclusion:

"The Bush Administration has adopted exactly the right posture on the matter. Candor and consistency are not always public virtues. Torture is a crime against humanity, but coercion is an issue that is rightly handled with a wink, or even a touch of hypocrisy; it should be banned but also quietly practiced. Those who protest coercive methods will exaggerate their horrors, which is good: it generates a useful climate of fear. It is wise of the President to reiterate U.S. support for international agreements banning torture, and it is wise for American interrogators to employ whatever coercive methods work. It is also smart not to discuss the matter with anyone.

If interrogators step over the line from coercion to outright torture, they should be held personally responsible. But no interrogator is ever going to be prosecuted for keeping Khalid Sheikh Mohammed awake, cold, alone, and uncomfortable. Nor should he be.

From a reader:

I used to work in a ship's brig so I know a bit about abusing prisoners. Basically, if young men are allowed to exert authority without supervision, they will try to put all of their charges through boot camp. The problem is, the thrills escalate. That is why you need intervention.

I have no problem with beating prisoners, per se, regardless of Geneva or anything else. However, killing or maiming people is flat out wrong, and that includes attacks by dogs.

The grossest part of the Abu Ghraib thing were not the beatings or the humiliations but rather the sexual element. This was simply depraved. Note that there were two senior mid-30's non-commissioned officers who appear to have directed traffic here, they are responsible not only for the sexual abuse of prisoners, but also depraving the morals of their junior enlisteds (cf. Drudge today on Pvt England).

In addition to the propaganda damage of what they did, they have also damaged the reputation of the Army (anyone want to let their little girls become MP's now?) as well as exposed themselves as dangerous perverts (would you want these senior enlisteds as your neighbors?). They should do SERIOUS brig time. 30 days won't cut it. They are dangerous.