Abuse at Iraqi Prison
I've rarely been so ashamed of this country. From the Washington Post article "Allegations of Abuse Lead To Shakeup at Iraqi Prison":

The lawyer for Staff Sgt. Ivan L. Frederick II, Gary R. Myers, said in a telephone interview, "We are strongly urging the general [Sanchez] to treat this as an administrative matter, just as all the senior people have been treated."

The soldiers "were provided no guidance on how to run the prison while they were there," Myers said. "They came under the influence of the intelligence community, whose interests may not be necessarily consistent with good prison management. The prison was set up in such a fashion that the intelligence community had far too much influence.

"They were instructing or advising the MPs to create 'favorable conditions' for interrogation. . . . 'Favorable conditions' were conditions where the detainees were susceptible to providing intelligence information, and that process involved techniques of humiliation."

Who exactly were these "intelligence community" people? What rule books have they thrown away? Will the investigation reach them, too?

From a second Washington Post article, "U.S. Works to Calm Furor Over Photos":

"It provides a graphic portrayal of many of the worst impressions that much of the world has about America," said Andrew Kohut, who, as director of the Pew Research Center, has polled extensively in Arab and European countries. "It's red meat to large numbers of people all around the world who are increasingly anti-American and don't think we represent the things Americans pride themselves on."

Foreign policy experts said the photos could cause lasting damage to U.S. efforts. "It is a disaster," said Michael Rubin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and until earlier this year a political adviser to the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority. "Five or six people have managed to soil the reputation of American soldiers worldwide."

I disagree only with the "five or six" part, judging by the other Post article. There had to be a culture of abuse going on for them to proudly -- my God, proudly -- take pictures. As ever, most of them -- and I mean the higher-ups here, too -- probably just checked their consciences at the door, and a few of them never had any to begin with. Nice going, assholes.


=====
UPDATE, 5/3: Sergeant Stryker has some choice words for all those involved, well worth reading. He's right, this is a failure up and down the chain of command; it shouldn't take "formal Geneva Convention training" to have an inkling any of this was wrong. (It would have sent the message that higher-ups thought it was important, though.) posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:34:00 AM -- |    

 
Volunteer Tailgate Party
Busy Mom is hosting the latest edition of the "Volunteer Tailgate Party" ... check it out!

See especially Southknoxbubba's "Black Box Voting Machines Banned" item, forwarding news about California officials recommending that the Diebold voting machines not be used in the November election, after numerous problems with them in the past few elections. SKB also provides a handy list of his prior posts on the subject. He has expert, well-informed, detailed objections to what he knows about these systems. posted by Thomas Nephew at 9:35:00 PM -- |    

 
Just in time for the OSCE Anti-Semitism conference: Norwegian TV fakes Jewish conspiracy
On occasion of the 2d OSCE Anti-Semitism conference, Gert Weisskirchen and George Voinovich wrote in the Washington Post on Wednesday (Halting the New Hatred):

The old conspiracy theories, prejudices and "world domination" fantasies are emerging in new guises and are exploiting the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

While the "old" anti-Semitism sought to stigmatize Jews as individual threats to local coexistence, the "new" anti-Semitism seeks to stigmatize Israel as a collective threat to global coexistence.

Just two days earlier, Norwegian blogger Bjorn Staerk provided an example of that stigmatization -- not just of Israel, but of people who support Israelis' right to live free of terror attacks. Staerk described how the Norwegian NRK television network created a Jewish conspiracy out of whole cloth. It began with reporter Eirik Veum's efforts to interview Ester Kristoffer, a Norwegian psychologist and co-founder of the anti-terrorism group AKSJON BUSS.* Staerk:

The journalist was quite clear on the angle. He had begun to notice a strong anti-Israeli mood in Norway, bordering on hatred, had heard about Ester's criticism of NRK and other media, and wanted to give her a chance to present her case. Because of her involvement with the antisemitism meeting, they did some filming with other people in the project present. I didn't quite believe his story, but I have no reputation I care about losing, and didn't object to being filmed.

I didn't catch the interview, and NRK hasn't put it online, but it appears that when it aired on Saturday, the friendly angle had been replaced by a conspiracy theory in which the Israeli embassy supports a secret network of Christians, through which it hopes to manipulate Norwegian opinion. This is utterly false, pure invention. It's the kind of lie that demonstrates the inspiration of antisemitic ideas on modern anti-Israelism. People don't just spontaneously come together to contradict what everyone agrees to be common sense. No, they form secret networks, with nameless and influential members. And at the center of it all, pulling the strings, there's always a Jew.

Bjorn translated Ms. Kristoffer's detailed letter denouncing the NRK report and detailing the deceptions and misleading reporting it engaged in, all tailored to reinforce the stereotypical image of some secretive Jewish conspiracy. She concluded:

The report might well be seen as the Norwegian version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It claims that the Israeli government are the conspirators behind a secretive network, with mystical, influential and nameless persons, who take advantage of naive people, primarily Christians, who gather money to defend Israeli policies. The report can be seen as the most extreme example of antisemitic propaganda NRK has ever shown.

We are a foundation with a group of people around us who wish to focus on terrorism, and take a stand against antisemitism. We thought both goals were legitimate. Some of us have also criticized the media in particular circumstances for one-sided coverage of the Middle East conflict. The NRK report, on the other hand, indicates conspiracy theories which can be perceived as classic antisemitism, and the report is seen as an act of revenge against people who criticize the media.

Many people see the report as the worst of its kind concerning antisemitism and personal attacks because of media criticism. We object particularly to the many assurances of the reporter that his intention was to present friends of Israel in a positive way, to reduce antisemitic tendencies in Norway.

Responding to comments about the post, Staerk wrote that "this goes further in that direction [anti-Semitism] than anything else I've come across in mainstream Norwegian media. I'm still uneasy about labelling European anti-Israelism in general antisemitic." Agreed, of course, that criticizing Israel about its settlements or other policies is not anti-semitic per se.

The NRK broadcast was not about Israeli policies, though. So if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like duck, then it probably is a duck -- the NRK twisted a humanitarian group into a sinister conspiracy, twisted some more to make the Israeli Embassy in Norway the so-called conspirators' puppetmaster, and stigmatized Ms. Kristoffer and other AKSJON BUSS members as dupes or worse of the Israeli government.

The 2003 OSCE conference report (Acrobat file) included consideration of the role of media in fomenting and amplifying anti-Semitism. But it seemed to mainly focus on the threatening role the Internet could play as a breeding ground for extremists (e.g., p. 10). Episodes such as this one or the Sharon eating a baby cartoon in the Independent a year ago show that the "respectable" mainstream media are not at all above playing such a role themselves.



=====
*I'm guessing that translates like it sounds, Action Bus, given that the group is putting a bombed Israeli bus on display in Oslo. posted by Thomas Nephew at 8:15:00 PM -- |    

 
Karen Hughes followup
Via Kathryn Cramer, I see that Karen Hughes has denied making the implication that abortion rights advocates were like terrorists, calling that a "gross distortion" of what she said.

But the Washington Post article by Dan Balz provides the "bridge" between the two remarks I quoted Monday, and basically, she made the implication that abortion rights advocates were like terrorists:

Asked by host Wolf Blitzer how big an issue she thought abortion would be in this year's presidential election, Hughes responded: "Well, Wolf, it's always an issue. And I frankly think it's changing somewhat. I think after September 11th the American people are valuing life more and realizing that we need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life."

The former White House counselor then noted that President Bush has urged Americans to "be reasonable" about the issue and to encourage a reduction in the number of abortions performed each year in a variety of ways, including by encouraging more adoptions.

"And I think those are the kind of policies that the American people can support, particularly at a time when we're facing an enemy, and really the fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life," she added.

You can believe Hughes' denial this was an incredible insult to pro-choice demonstrators -- fellow Americans too, remember? -- if you want to. But you'd be wrong. This was a nasty, clumsy shoe-horning of the abortion issue into the war on terror as copyrighted by the "anything goes" Bush administration.

Shame on Karen Hughes, and shame on George W. Bush for letting her speak for him. John Kerry ought to get that CNN tape and turn it into a campaign advertisement.


=====
UPDATE, 4/30:

CNN covered a press conference in which leaders of last weekend's march demanded Hughes apologize for her statements; they're also providing a provisional transcript of Hughes remarks, which bears out the Washington Post account.

Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood has a web page where you can add your name to a petition demanding an apology. But since they know that apologies don't come naturally to the Bush administration, they also provide Ms. Hughes with helpful pointers, developed by the University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension, about "When And How To Apologize":

One key to getting along well with people is knowing when to say you're sorry. Sometimes little comments or actions can hurt or offend others. Heavy workloads and stress may keep us from seeing how our actions make others feel. The little things can add up. It doesn't take long for someone to hold a grudge and for grudges to grow into conflicts. In most cases, if someone is offended by something you do or say, it's much better to apologize right away. That solves the small problem and keeps it from getting bigger.

Who knows, maybe Karen would even get a great big hug!

posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:05:00 PM -- |    

 
Wild West Wing
Yes, "The West Wing" is a fantasy world where implausibly intelligent people run the country, but I've kind of grown fond of the old thing. One very nice touch is the Hollywood Western-style score in the introduction (by W.G. Snuffy Walden). There's more to like, but I just love that score; apparently, I'm not the only one. (One of my other favorite TV scores is/was the one for the Star Trek Voyager series, which had a similar feel to it.) posted by Thomas Nephew at 9:26:00 PM -- |    

 
Conscientious Objector Policy Act
On April 21, the Michigan House sent a remarkable bit of legislation on to their Senate for approval.

Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.

The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.

The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.
(via War Liberal and Eschaton)

Wow, am I behind the curve: I was all set to waste my time just being furious with doctors for their reluctance to treat monkeypox. Now they'll have a slew of additional reasons to refuse treatment to all but the most unobjectionable, virtuous, or well-heeled among us. Reading through the text of the bill, at least dogs and garbage will be relieved to learn that in Michigan, "health care provider does not include a sanitarian or a veterinarian."

According to a press release (Acrobat file), the Michigan Catholic Conference lobbied for this bill as a way of preventing...

Catholic health care providers [to be forced to] offer services that conflict with Catholic moral teaching and to prevent affiliations or mergers between them and other-than-Catholic entities. If successful, these efforts would undoubtedly force Catholic hospitals to close – or substantially reduce their service to the community – rather than violate their consciences. Approximately 5.1 million Michigan residents are served annually by the 26 Catholic hospitals across the state.

Wouldn't want to prevent a merger. A heretical thought -- would closing some of these Catholic hospitals have been such a bad thing in the long run? My faith in the free market assures me that other hospitals would soon arise to meet any temporary unmet needs; sensitive health provider consciences would be spared the daily agony of treating moral reprobates, and public health policy would not be held hostage to the demands of religious healers: win, win, win!

It seems clear the bill is primarily designed to prevent hospitals and health care workers from having to perform abortions. I confess I'm actually of two minds about this; while I'm pro-choice, I'm also sympathetic to someone's choice not to participate in an elective procedure they're morally opposed to. The bill does stipulate that objections may not be raised to providing health care in situations requiring immediate action, public health emergencies, on the basis of a disease, or to persons covered by a Michigan civil rights act.

On the other hand, as Representative Chris Kolb (D-Washtenaw) pointed out following the vote, there's more to it than just not performing a procedure, and the language of the bill allows other kinds of "moral" decisions to enter the medical sphere:

The Michigan State Medical Society has stated that protecting a health care provider from referring a patient to potential medical procedures or counseling them on all possible treatments violates a doctor's code of ethics in caring for their patient. A patient needs to know all possible treatments available to them, regardless of whether that physician can or will provide them, in order to make informed decisions about their care. Current accreditation rules already require hospitals to have procedures in place to accommodate employees' conscientious objections through the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JACHO) standards.

People in Michigan who choose to be health care providers should not be able to restrict the services available to those they are licensed to care for. This bill allows health care providers to deny needed health care services to any individual not currently protected from discrimination under the state's Elliot-Larsen civil rights act. Thus, a health provider could refuse health care to an individual based upon a patient's actual or perceived sexual orientation. I adamantly oppose this legislation and believe that this is a very dangerous path for Michigan to travel down.

=====
EDIT, 4/27: added data (first name, party, county, URL) about Rep. Kolb, and a link to the journal of the 4/21 Michigan House proceedings. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:33:00 AM -- |    

 
Terrorists and Nazis take over Washington, D.C.!
The Center for American Progress highlights a couple of rabid reactions to this weekend's huge pro-choice rally in Washington, D.C.:

Karen Hughes, Bush's close political advisor:

"I think that after September 11, the American people are valuing life more and we need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life....Really, the fundamental issue between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life."
(via Kevin Drum)

The New York Times -- which Bob Somerby is persuading me is a dysfunctional newspaper -- dropped the Hughes quote from the final version of their story about the rally.

I remember happening to watch Hughes for a while on Charlie Rose a few weeks back, and, so help me, I thought she actually seemed OK. (The low expectations two-step: they don't froth at the mouth and presto! they're reasonable people.) It's one thing to be sincerely troubled by or opposed to abortion; it's another to group your opponents with terrorists. Given the Times' past artful use of ellipses, it's just possible there was some kind of sane bridge between Hughes' first and second sentence. Probably not, though.

Terry Randall, long-time pro-life activist and current president of the anti-abortion group Society for Truth and Justice, speaking to CNN:

"These celebrities who have attached their names to [the march], their names are going to have a certain amount of shame with it. Remember, Adolf Hitler in the mid '30s had really big crowds and had a lot of famous people saying he was a great guy. It didn't do him much good in 1945."

Both items are clearly not designed to win over middle-of-the-roaders, they're "just" more red meat for the religious far right. As long as we're throwing around "Nazi" charges, allow me to guess that Randall Terry would probably like the Nazi Party's social prescription for women (Kinder, Kueche, Kirche: children, kitchen, church) a lot more than, say, Kate Michelman or Hillary Clinton ever would.

posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:51:00 PM -- |    

 
German conservative presidential candidate: ''Power went to the Americans' heads''
The Munich newspaper Sueddeutsche reports that the conservative CDU party's candidate for president, Horst Koehler,

accused the USA of not having a strategy for postwar Iraqi politics. He called US behavior "arrogant."

According to [Sunday newspaper] Bild am Sonntag Koehler said at his introduction to North-Rhine Westfalian state legislative delegations of the CDU and [allied] FDP that one could certainly get the impression that "power went to the Americans' heads." But one should still not leave the United States in the lurch in this difficult situation, it was instead important to "positively motivate the leading power." Friendship with the USA was of great value, and Germany had "no reason to look on the United States with ridicule."

The German presidency is more ceremonial than powerful, but by the same token it demands a more bipartisan touch (or in Germany's case a more multipartisan touch) than other offices in the German political system.

What seems interesting to me is that this is being said by a (now) major figure in German conservative politics, in a bid to show he understands and shares a consensus judgment within German society. He also made an interesting analysis and offer:

Without involving the neighboring states Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey there would be no stability in the region. With its good relations to the Arab world, Germany could play an important role in these efforts. The conservative politician is quoted as saying that "I've noticed with great interest, that the German government affirms again and again that it has no interest in seeing U.S. policy in Iraq fail."

posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:43:00 AM -- |