Author: Andrew Sullivan

Here’s a piece of idiocy, approvingly quoted by Glenn Reynolds:

I bet if the media voluntarily stopped showing any pictures of all terror attacks, that the terror would stop. Thus ending the GWOT without a shot. This policy would be NO DIFFERENT than how they cover folks who run on to baseball fields: they do NOT show them on TV; they ignore them. Would the media ever put peace above their ratings/profits? Never.

Glenn comments: “Sadly, that’s probably right.” I suppose I see the underlying point: that terror needs media oxygen to survive. But the notion that we should somehow not cover mass murder, or that it’s equivalent to misbehavior at sporting events, or that the only reason for covering it is “ratings/profits” is nutty. People have a right to know what’s going on in their own countries and around the world. If the MSM decided to stop reporting terror attacks, bloggers would fill the gap. Yesterday, for example, was remarkable for the first-hand accounts of terror we were able to read – within hours of the massacres – by citizen journalists. Would Glenn like to see them silenced? Yes, these events shouldn’t be hyped; yes, they should be put in context. But this out-of-sight-out-of-mind mentality is a form of denial. The same goes for abuse and torture accusations. Instapundit won’t actually link to credible accounts. By ignoring them, he somehow thinks they don’t exist or will go away. They won’t. Similarly, exposing the violence perpetrated by the Islamists is simply what the media does. Moreoever, it doesn’t always help the terrorists; it also hurts them. We need to see the atrocities these fanatics commit, however appalling, however vile. The job of the media, even in wartime, is to relay facts, not to skew coverage for purposes of morale.

What Washington needs to do. Jon Rauch brings his usual clarity to the legal question, although I’m not as sanguine as he is about what may have happened during Gitmo interrogations.

Some encouraging realism about the Jihadists in the German media are detailed here.

The BBC’s original references to “terrorist” bomb attacks seem to have now been removed from the news service’s material. Harry’s Place investigates.

Some encouraging signs that the Bush administration may shift priorities in the drug war.

J.R.R. Tolkien’s tribute to the stoicism of Little England:

“[Merry and Pippn] turned and walked side by side slowly along the line of the river. Behind them the light grew in the East. As they walked they compared notes, talking lightly in hobbit-fashion of the things that had happened since their capture. No listener would have guessed from their words that they had suffered cruelly, and been in dire peril, going without hope towards torment and death; or that even now, as they knew well, they had little chance of ever finding friend or safety again.
“‘You seem to have been doing well, Master Took,’ said Merry. ‘You will get almost a chapter in old Bilbo’s book, if ever I get a chance to report to him. Good work . . . But I wonder if anyone will ever pick up your trail and find that brooch. I should hate to lose mine, but I am afraid yours is gone for good . . . ‘”

Very English chit-chat. From the “Two Towers.”

“I really appreciated what you wrote this morning regarding the nature of your blog. As a reader, I can say that it has been very refreshing to know that there is at least one political commentator who has not firmly and blindly allied himself to one of the two camps in our bipolar political climate. I absolutely love that you have shown, repeatedly over the years, an ability to actually change your mind, which again, is a precious commodity in the times in which we find ourselves.

That being said, I want to raise something regarding that quote from your blog from 2002:

“These terrorists are not soldiers. They are beneath such an honorific. They are not even criminals. In that respect, Dick Cheney’s and Donald Rumsfeld’s contempt for the whines of those complaining about poor treatment is fully justified.”

Since you held this attitude then, is it not possible that the same kind of attitude animated the actions of those who committed or abetted the system of torture that eventually emerged? I must say, back in 2002 I held this attitude as well. I think at that time the anger over 9/11 was still very acute in my mind. But the passing of time brings a different perspective, doesn’t it? Not that we all should forget about 9/11, but that in our anger we should never push aside the values that make our society unique. I fear that in our collective post 9-11 rage, most of us, including you, including myself, forgot this. And I think the timing of this discussion is important, coming as it does one day after the attacks in London. In the face of such violence, anger is acceptable. But I hope Londoners don’t make the same mistake many of us did after 9/11, and allow their anger to overcome their principles. Given what little I know about the spirit of the British people, somehow I sense that they will pull this off better than we did.

This subject also reminds me of an article I read recently about Abraham Lincoln, which discussed his unique emotional intelligence, chief among which was his ability to empathize with his enemies. Near the conclusion of the Civil War, he told Sherman that he hoped that leaders of the Confederacy, such as Jefferson Davis, could somehow escape the country without his knowing it. Even after a long, tremendously bloody civil war, Lincoln still had the capacity to sympathize with those who had caused so much bloodshed. In fact, in one speech he indicated that if the situations had been reversed, and if Northerners had found themselves forced with the decision to either protect the slavery system or give it up, that Northerners probably would have come to the same conclusion Southerners did. Perhaps that spirit should reside in us during these difficult times as well. Like Lincoln, we need firm resolve, but we also need his essential humanity, and we need to recognize the essential humanity of those who would do us harm.”

Here’s a selection from Britain; here’s a three-part round-up of surrender-now pieces from the Guardian. Robert Fisk sinks to the occasion with this interesting formulation (for subscribers only):

‘If you bomb our cities,’ Osama bin Laden said in one of his recent video tapes, ‘we will bomb yours.’ There you go, as they say. It was crystal clear Britain would be a target ever since Tony Blair decided to join George Bush’s ‘war on terror’ and his invasion of Iraq. We had, as they say, been warned.

It’s Blair’s fault. But notice one word that does not appear: Afghanistan. That’s a war Fisk also opposed. The solution? Give them what they want. And hope they don’t want more.

Just as in the U.S. after 9/11, some who once dismissed terrorism as an over-rated threat have begun to change their minds a little.

Back to the old ways. According to the Beeb, the bombings were apparently a response to the re-election of Tony Blair. His support for the Iraq war is somehow responsible. Money quote about Britain’s support for democratizing Iraq:

Britain therefore remains in the front line, and the option of withdrawing from Iraq and minimising the risk of further attacks is not presently open to British voters. They have taken their decision and must accept the consequences.

But didn’t the al Qaeda group claiming responsibility also cite intervention in Afghanistan as a grievance? And does this BBC editorialist believe that somehow the Jihadists are interested in some kind of deal with Britain, rather than being fanatically opposed to all forms of government that allow for religious and political freedom? Here’s his attempt to answer that question:

There are those who argue that it does not matter what Western governments do these days, that they are all under threat and some will come under attack. However, that discounts the level of political thinking which is evident among al-Qaeda groups. They certainly have their political strategy and judge governments accordingly. Al-Qaeda might not have a detailed political manifesto but it does have aims.

No space left for him to detail those aims. One of them is making sure that a writer for the BBC will never write freely again. You can, of course, infer some kind of political strategy behind this BBC argument: deflect the attacks to America or the Middle East; if we can keep our heads down, they won’t target us first; if we withdraw from Iraq, they’ll leave us alone. Sure, we can agree to disagree about the Iraq war. But the notion that al Qaeda needed such a war as a pretext for murdering Westerners is simply belied by history; and it represents a failure to understand even the basics of their ideology.