Month: February 2006

Here’s a new and good test for those who have defended freedom of the press in the West against Muslim sensitivities. Now that some extra Abu Ghraib pictures have been released, will they publish them? Or will that offend too many Bush supporters?

Troubling testimony on the Hill yesterday. We have widespread evidence of detainee abuse and widespread lack of any real accountability. Now we have alleged punishment of witnesses to war crimes:

Spec. Samuel Provance, also dressed in Army green, said he was demoted and humiliated after telling a general investigating the Abu Ghraib scandal that senior officers had covered up the full extent of abuse during interrogations of detainees at the U.S. military prison in Iraq.

"Young soldiers were scapegoated while superiors misrepresented what had happened and tried to misdirect attention away from what was really going on," Provance said. "I considered all of this conduct to be dishonorable and inconsistent with the traditions of the Army. I was ashamed and embarrassed to be associated with it."…

Provance made a new allegation about the Abu Ghraib controversy, saying that U.S. forces had captured the 16-year-old son of an Iraqi general under Saddam Hussein, Hamid Zabar, to pressure the general into providing information.

"I was extremely uncomfortable about the way General Zabar had been treated, but particularly the fact that his son had been captured and used in this way," Provance said. "It struck me as morally reprehensible, and I could not understand why our command was doing it."…

Asked what his current military duties are, the former computer specialist replied," The only thing I’ve been doing since being demoted is picking up trash and pulling guard duty."

The soldier’s testimony fits the pattern, however, as revealed in the various government and international inquiries. In this war, the U.S. has clearly used threats against family members to coerce testimony from detainees.

A reader fills me in:

"After your post, I took a quick look around at the Texas criminal code.  Here is the section concerning negligent homicide:

‘Sec. 19.05.Criminally Negligent Homicide. 
(a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.

(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
  "Criminal negligence" is defined in Sec. 6.03(d) thusly:

A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint.’

From my reading of the statute, a person would be criminally negligent only where their conduct was grossly negligent under the circumstances. It isn’t a subjective standard, so it doesn’t matter whether Cheney knew that what he was doing was particularly dangerous. It would be enough if a reasonable person would realize that his actions would create a substantial risk of harm. Given the facts that we have heard concerning the White House so far, Mr. Cheney’s conduct would probably not amount to criminal negligence. But without more facts, who knows? At this point, I would think that Texas officials should be investigating the circumstances surrounding the shooting, to find out what actually occurred. I can understand, though, why Mr. Cheney has clammed up till this point. How many public statements would you like to make if you knew they could be introduced as evidence against you in a possible criminal trial?"

Thanks for the info.

A reader writes:

"I am a great fan of yours, but have to tell you to please, kindly, shut up already. I can’t believe I‚Äôm about to say this, but O‚ÄôReilly has it right: who does this affect? Yes, the public is entitled to full disclosure, but the reaction to this is nothing more than the pent up frustration of the media looking to finally stick it to a White House that has consistently stuck it to them. That doesn‚Äôt make the media wrong, just childish. There are a thousand more important stories (the Danish Cartoon story has practically disappeared from the television screen) and countless hours are being spent on this tripe. If the media outrage is justified because the lack of disclosure from the VP office represents a ‚Äúpattern‚Äù of behavior … well that‚Äôs a nice footnote about this administration but neither substantive nor hard news. This is not Iraq; this is not 9/11 nor Katrina. This is one hunting buddy shooting another. Re-read your ‘Dear Mr. Cheney’ post. It sounds ridiculous and more appropriately belongs on Huffington Post, along side of O’Donnell‚Äôs incisive ‘Was Cheney Drunk?’ (and 80 percent of your recent posts)."

I was actually beaten to the punch in asking Cheney to speak to the press directly by … National Review. Yes, they wanted the press to be represented by Brit Hume, but the point’s the same. Can you believe all those liberals at NRO?

The intimidation continues in Germany. And he didn’t even draw you-know-who. In Ohio, a local Muslim representative says the following: "Allah curses and condemns [the editors of the Akron Beacon-Journal] and every Muslim in this community should curse and condemn them." Why? A cartoonist made fun of CNN. The effrontery! Eugene Volokh comments:

"So I guess it’s not just that we aren’t supposed to draw pictures of Mohammed as terrorist, or of Mohammed at all; we aren’t even supposed to draw pictures that are obviously not of Mohammed, and that are meant to mock the inability to draw pictures of Mohammed."

Yes, Eugene. The point is this: everyone is supposed to observe the religious constraints of one particular faith, regardless of whether we share it. And if we don’t observe Islamic etiquette … we’re lucky if we only get cursed and condemned. Get that?

Just a word, if I may. You are employed by the American people. You are not a monarch; and you are not a Pope. You have seriously wounded another human being. The news was kept from the public for a day. The man is in intensive care. There are many serious questions about the incident: How did it happen? What happened immediately thereafter? Why the decision to keep it secret for so long? The least the American people deserve is your own account in public in front of the press corps. Who are you hiding from? And who on earth do you think you are?

Now Russian Muslims are threatening to attack anyone who participates in a planned Gay Pride parade in Moscow this spring. Money quote from Chief Russian Mufti Talgat Tajuddin: "The parade should not be allowed, and if they still come out into the streets, then they should be bashed." I am constantly being told that violent Muslims do not represent the real Islam. But this is the chief Muslim spokesman in Russia, issuing what amounts to a threat. Remind me: Why should I respect bigotry, backed by violence?

He’s 78. He got hit in the face and body by a spray of tiny pellets. He’s back in intensive care. It’s not inconceivable that the vice-president may have accidentally killed someone. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that. I don’t know Texas law; and I’m not a lawyer. But wouldn’t this be a case of something like negligent homicide? Maybe some Texas lawyers are out there; and could clarify.

So great, in fact, that He cannot tolerate a few Danish cartoons. What a vulnerable deity. And so the violence continues.

"Under the unitary executive theory of Article II, the President of the United States, as Commander-in-Chief, has inherent authority to shoot anyone he likes, and he may surely delegate that authority to his second in command, the Vice President of the United States…"

The memo continues here.