THE VOICE OF APPEASEMENT

Of course, George Galloway had to offer the following statement:

The loss of innocent lives, whether in this country or Iraq, is precisely the result of a world that has become a less safe and peaceful place in recent years.
We have worked without rest to remove the causes of such violence from our world. We argued, as did the Security Services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners have now paid the price of the government ignoring such warnings.
We urge the government to remove people in this country from harms way, as the Spanish government acted to remove its people from harm, by ending the occupation of Iraq and by turning its full attention to the development of a real solution to the wider conflicts in the Middle East.
Only then will the innocents here and abroad be able to enjoy a life free of the threat of needless violence.

The opposite, of course, is true. If we give in to these forces of murder in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, their determination to attack us will only grow. While Brits may well have strong disagreements about the war and the conduct of the war, as Americans do, I do not believe that they are in any doubt as to who is responsible for these barbaric acts; and will not flinch from fighting the real enemy. That enemy is not our own flawed, fallible but elected governments. It is the people who would remove our ability to elect anyone.

NOW, LONDON

I guess this was inevitable at some point; but, of course, it is still horrifying and barbaric and a reminder of the terrible danger we still live under. My brother, who works in London, is fine. I found these images, taken by ordinary people and posted by them, to be among the most distressing and necessary. This one reminds me, as it must, of the blitz. Londoners, unlike New Yorkers on that September morning, have dealt with this kind of violence before and have endured. My father’s response will perhaps be typical of many, as it often is. He told me not to worry, that this was “not nice,” and that “we’re too bloody p.c. over here.” From one blog, an eye-witness account:

I’m fine, but I was in a tube at King’s Cross when when one of the explosions happened. I was stuck in a smoke-filled, blackened tube that reeked of burning for over 30 minutes. So many people were hysterical.
I truly thought I was going to die and was just hoping it would be from smoke inhalation and not fire. I felt genuine fear but kept calm (and quite proud of myself for that).
Eventually people smashed through the windows and we were lifted out all walked up the tunnel to the station. There was chaos outside and I started to walk down Euston Road (my face and clothes were black) towards work and all of a sudden there was another huge bang and people started running up the road in the opposite direction to where I was walking and screaming and crying. I now realise this must have been one of the buses exploding.

The coordination is like Madrid. But Britons will not respond by blaming their government. They will respond by stiffening their will to fight back.

AN EMAIL FROM IRAQ: This is as good a time as any to print an encouraging email from a military medic in the field. Some excerpts:

We are riding out the ninth month in country and it seems like I have been here for half of my life. I have even started to recognize the faces of ordinary Iraqi citizens when we pass through the local villages. I have watched this country change over the last few months. When we first arrived, the main mission was to gain control over the area. Terror was rampant and gunfights, ambushes and IED’s were all we seemed to deal with. The unit we replaced had not done as good a job as they could have (or maybe we are just better trained for it), and as a result, we got the impression that we were in for a rough ride. My battalion commander is an awesome leader, though, and we quickly started to gain control. As an example of this, when we first arrived, the newly formed Iraqi units were afraid to even show their faces while in uniform. In November, when threatened by the insurgents, they all left their posts and hid. Since then, we have trained three new battalions of soldiers. We have run four basic training classes and are on our fourth NCO course. We used to have to practically drag the IA (Iraqi Army) soldiers along on missions. Now it is hard to keep up with them.

For my medics and me, the daily mission was usually at night and was to root out and capture the bad guy. Now, it is daytime MEDCAP’s (medical civil action program) where I usually spend an hour or two playing football with the kids out on their front lawn after seeing to a few cases of arthritis in the elderly. We have set up and supplied each of the three IA battalions with the same supplies I run my aid station with and have started training their medics to take care of their own. One of my proudest moments was recently when, in the middle of the night, an IA team brought in a terrorist (yes, we still treat them) who had multiple gun shot wounds to the leg and arm. I started the routine of assigning my medics the tasks of vitals, IV, airway and such. The IA medic grabbed me by the arm and asked why I didn’t give him a position. I showed him a particularly nasty wound on the leg and told him to go to town. He cleaned, wrapped and splinted it as good as any of my medics could have done. When we were done, I told him he did an awesome job and asked him why he even bothered to bring the guy to me instead of taking care of him himself. He told me that he has such respect for us that he thought he would let us get in on the action because he knows we like doing our job so m uch. It was then that I reminded him that the more he shows his country that he can fend for himself, the sooner it will be that we can get back to our own families.

This past Saturday, an event took place that could be remembered as another milestone in the history of the new Iraq. In Quyarrah, over a thousand citizens and police held the first “march against terrorism”. It was led by sheiks, mukhtars, and imams. They are the mayors and religious leaders from the local areas. The crowd was composed of people from all over the Ninewah Province. That is the whole area my battalion covers (basically all land south of Mosul for about 60 miles). Although we had Special Forces in and around the area, the only other US presence was my medics. Even then, we were well out of sight on the edge of town. The people have said they are tired of the terrorism and are not afraid any more. Kudos to them. There was not a single casualty at the event. If you are interested, there should be a ton of press coverage floating about. I hear there were over 10 different news crews on site.

My emailer tells me this guy is not a dreamer; that his previous emails have been pretty gloomy. He sees progress. If he does, so should we. The war in London will be won in part in Iraq. Resolve in one place is indistinguishable from resolve in the other.

FITZGERALD IS (LARGELY) RIGHT

My readers are better than Google. Here’s a handy explanation:

The logic of Fitzgerald has sound basis in the American legal system. Despite the noble work journalists sometimes do, reporters, much like any other citizen/resident, do not have carte blanche to aid in the concealment of a criminal act simply on the basis of their profession. In a case based on federal law (such as the law at issue for Fitzgerald, Cooper and Miller, one making it a crime to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert agent of the United States), the Federal Rules of Evidence hold that the privileges against compulsory testimony that apply are the privileges that arise under the Common Law. Examples of these are the attorney-client privilege, the privilege against self-incrimination, the priest-penitent privilege, and the marital communications privilege. The courts have refused to recognize new privileges, such as an accountant-client or reporter-source privilege, which have never been recognized under the Common Law. For historical reasons, the ultimate value to society in ferreting out the truth in a case or controversy (here, a criminal case) through the obtainment of evidence has been ajudged paramount. Note that Judge Hogan’s ruling here is based on Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the First Amendment interest asserted by the newsperson was outweighed by the general obligation of a citizen to appear before a grand jury or at trial, pursuant to a subpoena, and give what information he or she possesses.” For more information on privileges, try the handy run-down here.

Thanks. Still, it seems to me that Fitzgerald’s bald statement that no one in America can rely on confidentiality is excessive.

WHY POT AND NOT METH?

A reader provides an obvious answer:

There is a drug problem. The police will be judged by how many arrests they make, and how many tons of drugs they confiscate. It is easier and safer to arrest a bunch of hippies and college kids then it is a bunch of crazed meth producers who operate out of the trunks of cars, one of which killed an Oklahoma police officer a year or so ago. The way the police are rewarded is based on the wrong measurement. Thus the result is not ideal.
The same holds true on DUI offenses. DUI is a problem, people die from it. Most DUI fatalities are caused by people driving with a blood alcohol level of .18 or above. So what is the answer? The police are judged not by DUI fatalities, but by the number of arrests they make. So the governments lower the acceptable BAC limit from .10 to .08. Now, the cops arrest a bunch of regular guys who had two beers after work, most of whom they stopped for reasons like speeding. They get to up their DUI arrest rates, simply by changing the law to ensnare more people. However, it does nothing to reduce the damage. Changing the law is easier than having more shifts out at midnight following people home from bars.
People will always respond to the benchmarks by which they are judged, and governments in conjunction with the media and the public are usually focused on the wrong benchmarks.

That’s why the legalization of marijuana makes so much sense. It can help law enforcement concentrate on the real drug problems, not the phony ones.

RE-THINKING CIRCUMCISION

The data seems clear enough to me; and certainly clear enough for there to be a push for widespread circumcision of males in those parts of Africa where the procedure is rare. Some skepticism is in order, however:

Although the apparent protective effect of circumcision has been noted for more than 20 years, doubts linger as to whether circumcision itself is protective, or whether the lower risk may be the result of cultural practices among those who circumcise. HIV rates are low in Muslim communities, for example, which practice male circumcision but also engage in ritual washing before sex and frown on promiscuity.

Does all this prompt me to reverse my view that the circumcision of infants is a violation of every man’s right not to have his body mutilated without his consent? In principle, no. The studies involved adult men who agreed to be circumcised; and my position was always primarily about consent, not the procedure itself. But in practice, in Africa, obviously yes: for convenience’s sake. The key thing here is reverse transmission, i.e. from women to men. If you can stop or slow the process of infection both ways, you can make a real dent in the epidemic. So as Keynes once said, when the facts change, I change my mind.

THE LOGIC OF FITZGERALD

I’m as intrigued as anybody by the identity of the person who called Matt Cooper today to release him from the pledge of confidentiality he gave as a journalist to a source. The suspicion, obviously, is that Cooper’s source is not the same as Miller’s. I’m in awe of Miller’s courage as she faces jail; and equally dumbfounded by the zeal of the prosecutor. This quote from U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald struck me: “Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality – no one in America is.” Does that mean, for example, that the doctor-patient and priest-confessee confidentiality pacts are now up for grabs by zealous prosecutors? Or that between two spouses? Just asking.

THE OLYMPICS

I’d comment but I find the entire event a crashing bore. I’m glad that Britain beat France. But I’d be glad if Britain beat France in a turtle race. I just hope London isn’t crippled by the wrong kind of development. But if they survived the Millennium Dome, I guess they can survive anything. Even the tedium and cant of the “Olympic Spirit.” Grouchy enough for ya? Bah: humbug.