The Dish

Ackerman witnesses the testimony of a Gitmo guard accused of threatening a 20 year-old Canadian with rape and death if he did not tell him what he wanted to hear:

Interrogator #1 would tell the detainee, “I know you’re lying about something.” And so, for an instruction about the consequences of lying, Khadr learned that lying “not so seriously” wouldn’t land him in a place like “Cuba” — meaning, presumably, Guantanamo Bay — but an American prison instead. And this one time, a “poor little 20-year-old kid” sent from Afghanistan ended up in an American prison for lying to an American. “A bunch of big black guys and big Nazis noticed the little Afghan didn’t speak their language, and prayed five times a day — he’s Muslim,” Interrogator #1 said. Although the fictitious inmates were criminals, “they’re still patriotic,” and the guards “can’t be everywhere at once.”

“So this one unfortunate time, he’s in the shower by himself, and these four big black guys show up — and it’s terrible something would happen — but they caught him in the shower and raped him. And it’s terrible that these things happen, the kid got hurt and ended up dying,” Interrogator #1 said. […]

This interrogator was the only one who found Omar Khadr “uncooperative.” He was later court-martialed and jailed for detainee abuse.

A reader writes:

Re:

"These people are thoroughgoing frauds – a bunch of right-wing victim-mongers whining about something they have no actual ideas about confronting. They are not something new. They are the decaying stench of the Republican corpse. If they get into power somehow, it will be Weekend At Bernie's for conservatism."

I'd offer one slight alteration — the Bush administration was Weekend at Bernie's for conservatism; if they return to power, it will just be the Weekend at Bernie's sequel that never should have happened.

Yes, you can vote drunk and you can bring your dog with you into the polling booth. You are also fully entitled to scrawl on your ballot terms like "Fuck The System!" What a civilized place.

As euphemisms go, it’s not as powerful as “circumcision” but its potential to legitimize the mutilation of young girls’ genitals seems horrifying to me. PZ Myers brings to light the fact that the American Academy Of Pediatrics – yes, the American Academy of Pediatrics – is endorsing a kinder, gentler version of female genital mutilation for cultural reasons in America:

Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, and pediatricians should decline to perform them, even in the absence of any legal constraints. However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life- threatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC. It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.

PZ notes this particularly loathesome passage from the AAP’s statement:

“Mutilation” is an inflammatory term that tends to foreclose communication and that fails to respect the experience of the many women who have had their genitals altered and who do not perceive themselves as “mutilated.” It is paradoxical to recommend “culturally sensitive counseling” while using culturally insensitive language. “Female genital cutting” is a neutral, descriptive term.

I heartily second PZ’s endorsement of Equality Now, a group I’ve donated to and supported in the past, and which is a vanguard in defending core human rights, with respect to women. Equality Now is horrified by this concession to political correctness – check out their alert page here.

What I find particularly troubling is the slow adoption of attitudes toward female genital mutilation that still adhere to male genital mutilation. FGM in its severest forms is far, far worse. But MGM is an indefensible denial of core human integrity and autonomy – and yet its widespread acceptance has helped make “female genital cutting” more acceptable. If men or women wish to mutilate their own genitals as adults, that it their choice. But forcing this onto infants, male and female, even if it is just a cut or a nick, is a form of barbarism.

A staggering quote from a man who later confessed he had no idea what had happened in the financial collapse of 2008:

"We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the debate, and in this regard it is possible to lose control of a process that only we fully understand."

This man is a Hayekian?

Voters arrive at the Hare and Hounds pub which is being used as a polling station on May 6, 2010 in Corsham, England. Vote early. Vote often. Vote drunk!  By Matt Cardy/Getty.

Massie has a guide. Turnout is apparently high. I'll be on Colbert tonight talking about the election and my beardage. The Dish will be covering the results non-stop as the night progresses. My gut tells me the Tories will do better than expected. Clegg made the case for change. But only Cameron can really deliver it.

Emily Bazelon is befuddled by the reaction of many neoconservatives to the delayed Mirandizing and interrogation of Shahzad:

Miranda worked! Law enforcement officials can invoke a public safety exception and delay reading a suspect his rights to get information that would save lives. In Shahzad's case, the FBI invoked the public safety exception. The agency called in its crack interrogation team, asked Shahzad questions with no Miranda warning, and reaped what the FBI says was "valuable intelligence and evidence." Then Shahzad was read his rights. And lo and behold, he waived them and kept talking. …

[T]he FBI did have its priorities—and McCain's and Bond's—in order. It invoked the public safety exception. The facts don't line up at all well with the senators' reflexive tough-guy posturing. And yet the Republicans have to posture anyway. And the Washington Post editorial page (isn't it supposed to be calmer and wiser?) has to join them, asking: "How long was Mr. Shahzad questioned before he was read his Miranda rights? And what triggered the Justice Department's decision to suspend the 'ticking time bomb' exception in case law that gives law enforcement officers an opportunity to gather information before advising a suspect of his right to remain silent?"

What is the Post talking about? Or was the editorial board so eager to pounce on the Obama administration for its handling of the case that it didn't even read its own newspaper?

The Post hired a stenographer for war criminals as a "columnist". What more do you need to know?

One of the likelier scenarios on Friday is a Tory-DUP coalition, the DUP being the leading Unionist party in Northern Ireland. Not only could this mean unsightly blackmail – the DUP would demand an exemption from spending cuts in an already over-subsidized province – it could mean even more strain on the peace process. An Irish reader writes:

The DUP, the party of Ian Paisley, would surely demand a raft of concessions favourable to its unionist constituency. With relations already tense between Unionists and Nationalists on the North's power-sharing executive, the perception of Downing Street being beholden to or "in the pocket" of one section of the community could bring old tensions to the surface. Hence many Irish nationalists over here hope that if Cameron wins tomorrow, he wins big.

A strong Tory government is rarely pined for in Ireland, but if it prevents further friction in Ulster, then many of us will readily accept it.

Fallows explains the slow demise of the newsweekly.