Guantanamo Trials

The US Supreme Court has ruled against military tribunal trials for detainees at Guantanamo.

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court, in major defeat for President George W. Bush's administration, blocked the U.S. military's current terrorism tribunal system, ruling 5-3 the commission's "structure and procedures" violate both military rules and the Geneva Conventions.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in a decision that drew five votes on significant points, said the military must revamp the system. "We conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions," Justice Stevens wrote.

In hearing the case of detainee Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the high court was reviewing several matters, including the ability of the U.S. military to try terrorism suspects held in Guantanamo Bay outside prisoner-of-war procedures and the legality of a 2005 congressional act restricting Supreme Court review of those cases.

The as per the Geneva Convention, PoW cannot be put on trial by their captors. This stands to reason as there can only be one outcome of any such trials: Guilty! We should treat the Guantanamo detainees the same way. As we cannot and should not put the detainees on trial, and we should not and must not release them to commit more acts of terrorism, they should be detained until the War on Terror is won, or until their State of origin requests their return.

Update
From the WSJ

The Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, invalidating for now the use of military commissions to try al Qaeda and associated detainees, may be a setback for U.S. policy in the war on terror. But it is a setback with a sterling silver lining. All eight of the justices participating in this case agreed that military commissions are a legitimate part of the American legal tradition that can, in appropriate circumstances, be used to try and punish individuals captured in the war on terror. Moreover, nothing in the decision suggests that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay must, or should, be closed.

Indeed, none of the justices questioned the government's right to detain Salim Ahmed Hamdan (once Osama bin Laden's driver), or other Guantanamo prisoners, while hostilities continue. Nor did any of them suggest that Mr. Hamdan, or any other Guantanamo detainee, must be treated as civilians and accorded a speedy trial in the civilian courts. Precisely because opponents of the Bush administration's detention policies have advanced these, or substantially similar claims, Hamdan has dealt them a decisive defeat. Together with the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld -- directly affirming the government's right to capture and detain, without criminal charge or trial, al Qaeda and allied operatives until hostilities are concluded -- Hamdan vindicates the basic legal architecture relied upon by the administration in prosecuting this war.

As I suggested, we should just keep them as detainees without trials, military or civilian.

Inconvenient Truth behind the "Inconvenient Truth"

What exactly is the truth and science behind global warming? Is it really an Inconvenient Truth?

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

HT Roger Simon

the Left

George W Bush went to Iraq today, and returned safely. But I wonder what the news would have been like had he been killed. Would there be glee from the left that an American President has been killed?

Zarqawi is dead

Congratulation to Iraqi!


More at:
Iraq the Model
It is no big deal per CNN

Memorial day

Honor those who served, still missing in action, interred in rest, and living victorious. From the WSJ.

Here's a Memorial Day quiz:

1. Who is Jessica Lynch?

Correct. She's the Army private captured, and later rescued, in the early days of the war.

2. Who is Leigh Ann Hester?

Come on. The Kentucky National Guard vehicle commander was awarded a Silver Star last year for fighting off an insurgent attack on a convoy in Iraq. The first woman to receive a Silver Star since World War II, and the first woman ever to receive one for close combat.

If you don't recognize Sergeant Hester's name, that's not surprising. While Private Lynch's ordeal appears in some 12,992 newspaper and broadcast reports on the Factiva news service, Sergeant Hester and her decoration for extraordinary valor show up in only 162.

One difference: Sergeant Hester is a victor, while Private Lynch can be seen as a victim. And when it comes to media reports about the military these days, victimology is all the rage. For every story about someone who served out of conviction and resolutely went on with his civilian life, there are many more articles about a soldier's failure or a veteran's floundering.

It's a sign of some progress that the men and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are not spit upon and shunned as Vietnam vets were. Yet there may be something more pernicious about mouthing "Support Our Troops" while also asserting that many of them are poor, uneducated dupes who were cannon fodder overseas and have come home as basket cases, plagued by a range of mental, emotional and financial problems.

The vast majority of vets don't fit that description. Many, like one returned Army guardsman we talked to, chalk up this portrayal to the media's fascination with bad news in general. As for his combat in Iraq, both "going to war and coming home is very overwhelming," he says. "But you make choices in life . . . and through inner strength and support, I am making a choice that I want to be healthy."

In some cases, the depiction of military personnel as damaged goods serves the antiwar agenda. Yet retired Marine Lieutenant Colonel Tom Linn sees more basic impulses at work. "I honestly believe it is guilt" and even resentment, he says. The military type as misfit "is a stereotype that a lot of people from the Vietnam era have held on to." Then, as now, "they saw men and women who did more than they did . . . and they'd compensate by casting those folks in an inferior status."

This Memorial Day, most of us will remember the Americans who have served their country since the Revolutionary War not with pity but with admiration. For those who want to show their gratitude, Major John Morris has some recommendations. He's deputy chaplain for Minnesota's Army National Guard and a founder of a state program called Reintegration: Beyond Reunion. Its broad goal, he explains, is to help returning guardsmen and reservists frame their "experience, to draw from it everything that they can to grow into productive citizens."

How can we help? For one thing, he says, don't assume that all struggling vets are sick, since what looks like abnormal behavior may be culture shock. But do give vets and their families the tools to adjust. Major Morris explains: "Schools, look out for these military kids. Neighbors, cut their grass and shovel their snow, babysit and do chores around the house. Employers, make sure those jobs are still there." It's the least we can do, he says: "Since there are so few of us fighting the war, it's easy for the rest of us to try."

Immigration 2: Legal Residency Instead of Citizenship

Previously I considered allowing illegal immigrants the opportunity to become citizens. I now think a better idea would be to allow them legal resident status but do not grant them citizenship. As legal residents they would be protected by the law and be eligible for medicare and medicaid, but not be eligible for social security or voting rights. As any comprehensive immigration policy must include boder security, I would expect the total numbers of illegal immigrants to decline with time, as well as a proportionate decline in the number of illegal immigrants who become legal residents.

Victory in Iraq 2

Interesting report from Powerline and Ed Morrisey

1. It has been proven that the Shiites have a power and influence in Baghdad that cannot be taken lightly, particularly when the power of the Ministries of Interior and Defense is given to them, compared with the power of the mujahidin in Baghdad. During a military confrontation, they will be in a better position because they represent the power of the state along with the power of the popular militias. Most of the mujahidin power lies in surprise attacks (hit and run) or setting up explosive charges and booby traps. This is a different matter than a battle with organized forces that possess machinery and suitable communications networks. Thus, what is fixed in the minds of the Shiite and Sunni population is that the Shiites are stronger in Baghdad and closer to controlling it while the mujahidin (who represent the backbone of the Sunni people) are not considered more than a daily annoyance to the Shiite government. The only power the mujahidin have is what they have already demonstrated in hunting down drifted patrols and taking sniper shots at those patrol members who stray far from their patrols, or planting booby traps among the citizens and hiding among them in the hope that the explosions will injure an American or members of the government. In other words, these activities could be understood as hitting the scared and the hiding ones, which is an image that requires a concerted effort to change, as well as Allah’s wisdom.

2. The strength of the brothers in Baghdad is built mainly on booby trapped cars, and most of the mujahidin groups in Baghdad are generally groups of assassin without any organized military capabilities.

3. There is a clear absence of organization among the groups of the brothers in Baghdad, whether at the leadership level in Baghdad, the brigade leaders, or their groups therein. Coordination among them is very difficult, which appears clearly when the group undertake a join operations

4. The policy followed by the brothers in Baghdad is a media oriented policy without a clear comprehensive plan to capture an area or an enemy center. Other word, the significance of the strategy of their work is to show in the media that the American and the government do not control the situation and there is resistance against them. This policy dragged us to the type of operations that are attracted to the media, and we go to the streets from time to time for more possible noisy operations which follow the same direction.

This direction has large positive effects; however, being preoccupied with it alone delays more important operations such as taking control of some areas, preserving it and assuming power in Baghdad (for example, taking control of a university, a hospital, or a Sunni religious site).

At the same time, the Americans and the Government were able to absorb our painful blows, sustain them, compensate their losses with new replacements, and follow strategic plans which allowed them in the past few years to take control of Baghdad as well as other areas one after the other. That is why every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin’s control and influence over Baghdad.

5. The role that the Islamic party and the Islamic Scholars Committee play in numbing the Sunni people through the media is a dangerous role. It has been proven from the course of the events that the American investment in the Party and the Committee were not in vain. In spite of the gravity of the events, they were able to calm down the Sunni people, justify the enemy deeds, and give the enemy the opportunity to do more work without any recourse and supervision. This situation stemmed from two matters:

First, their media power is presented by their special radio and TV stations as the sole Sunni information source, coupled with our weak media which is confined mainly to the Internet, without a flyer or newspaper to present these events.

Second, in the course of their control of the majority of the speakers at mosques who convert right into wrong and wrong into right, and present Islam in a sinful manner and sins in a Muslim manner. At the same time we did not have any positive impact or benefits from our operations.

6. The mujahidin do not have any stored weapons and ammunition in their possession in Baghdad, particularly rockets, such as C5K Katyosha or bomber or mortars which we realized their importance and shortage in Baghdad. That was due to lack of check and balance, and proper follow-ups.

7. The National Guard status is frequently raised and whether they belong to the Sunnis or Shiites. Too much talk is around whether we belong to them or not, or should we strike and kill their men or not?

It is believed that this matter serves the Americans very well. I believe that the Committee and the Party are pushing this issue because they want to have an influence, similar to the Mujahidin’s. When and if a Sunni units from the National Guard are formed, and begin to compete with the mujahidin and squeeze them, we will have a problem; we either let them go beyond the limits or fight them and risk inciting the Sunnis against us through the Party’s and the Committee’s channels.

I believe that we should not allow this situation to exist at all, and we should bury it before it surfaces and reject any suggestion to that effect.

Again, observe how Al Qaeda strategy involves playing our media. And amazingly, our media appear to be all willing accomplists.

Islamism and Terrorism 2

There are two problems at hand here. One is with with Islam itself. The other is the adoption of Sharia as legal precendence (i.e. the lack of separation between church and state). Efforts to reform Islam such as this one by Malek Chebel are being proposed:

In his Manifesto for an Enlightened Islam (Manifeste pour un islam des lumières), Chebel puts forth 27 proposals for extensively reforming Islam. He turns to the values of the 18th-century European Enlightenment for guidance, when rationalism and secularism guided the drive towards cultural, social and political progress. Chebel's first two propositions set the principles of reform: a new interpretation of the Koran, and the preeminence of reason over creed. However, he dismisses atheism, noting that "nothing very important is achieved outside the framework of religion." [1]

Chebel calls for putting an end to violence in the name of Islam; for renouncing Jihad, which is, in his eyes, immoral; for abolishing all fatwas calling for death; and for abolishing Islamic corporal punishment. Chebel stands against female genital mutilation and for banning slavery and trafficking in human beings in the Arab world; for strict punishment of the perpetrators of honor crimes and for promoting the status of women.

Most of Chebel's propositions deal with politics: He advocates an independent judiciary, the preeminence of the individual over the Islamic nation, and the struggle against political assassinations in an effort to promote democracy in the Arab world. He also advocates fundamental cultural changes, such as turning freedom of thought into a Muslim value, renouncing the cult of personality, respecting the other, and fighting corruption.

His other propositions address technology, bioethics, ecology, and the media. The last one reaffirms the preeminence of human beings over religion. Chebel's propositions aim at providing keys to a modern, reformed, enlightened Islam.

With regards to separation of church and state, the state will only reform when it sees a threat. That threat has now been recognized in the form of terrorism. Saudi Arabia is moving toward reforms to minimize the terrorism threat.
Country Terrorism Report: Saudi Arabia
Saudi Effort Draws on Radical Clerics to Combat Lure of Al-Qaeda
Saudis to Clean Up Libraries

In addition, effective reform must also come from the people.
Learning to Think and Tolerate Differences in Saudi Society
Saudi Human Rights Organization

Why must we fight?
Part of me died when I saw this cruel killing.
*Update* Atwar Bahjat Beheading Video a Hoax
United 93

Also:
Islamism and Terrorism 1
"Allahu Akbar" Indeed at All Things Beautiful

Bigot Crossings

From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

Which party has more bigots -- Republicans or Democrats?

Conventional wisdom says the GOP. After all, the vast majority of African-Americans vote Democratic, and the establishment media frequently imply the GOP harbors hostility to minorities (as in the comment by a network correspondent that a GOP effort to project an "image of tolerance and diversity [is] starkly at odds with reality").

A recent analysis by Yale's Ebonya Washington in the Quarterly Journal of Economics sheds a different light on the question. It examines the phenomenon of crossover voting -- specifically, the percentage of voters from either party who pull the lever for the other party's candidate.

In the several elections between 1982 and 2000 that Ms. Washington studied, when the Republican congressional candidate was black and the Democratic candidate was not, Republican crossover voting increased 25 percent. In gubernatorial contests with the same racial dynamic, GOP crossover voting increased 18 percent.

Now flip the script. When the Democratic candidates were black and the Republican candidates were not, Democratic crossover votes increased 38 percent in congressional contests and 20 percent in gubernatorial contests.

In short, Democrats flee from black candidates more often than Republicans do.

Interesting how what popular impression is different once analyzed.

Taxes: Cuts and Income

As this WSJ article suggests, we should focus on total revenue rather than sticking it to the tax payers.

With the House and Senate preparing to vote on extending George W. Bush's investment tax cuts, it's no surprise the cries against "tax giveaways to the rich" grow increasingly shrill. Just yesterday Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid charged that the Bush tax plan "offers next to nothing to average Americans while giving away the store to multi-millionaires" and then fumed that it will "do much more for ExxonMobil board members than it will do for ExxonMobil customers."

Oh really. New IRS data released last month tell a very different story: In the aftermath of the Bush investment tax cuts, the federal income tax burden has substantially shifted onto the backs of the wealthy. Between 2002 and 2004, tax payments by those with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) of more than $200,000 a year, which is roughly 3% of taxpayers, increased by 19.4% -- more than double the 9.3% increase for all other taxpayers.

Between 2001 and 2004 (the most recent data), the percentage of federal income taxes paid by those with $200,000 incomes and above has risen to 46.6% from 40.5%. In other words, out of every 100 Americans, the wealthiest three are now paying close to the same amount in taxes as the other 97 combined. The richest income group pays a larger share of the tax burden than at anytime in the last 30 years with the exception of the late 1990s -- right before the artificially inflated high tech bubble burst.

Millionaires paid more, too. The tax share paid by Americans with an income above $1 million a year rose to 17.8% in 2003 from 16.9% in 2002, the year before the capital gains and dividend tax cuts.

The most astounding result from the IRS data is the deluge of revenues from the very taxes that were cut in 2003: capital gains and dividends. As shown in the nearby chart, capital gains receipts from 2002-04 have climbed by 79% after the reduction in the tax rate from 20% to 15%. Dividend tax receipts are up 35% from 2002 to 2004, even though the taxable rate fell from 39.6% to 15%. This is as clear evidence of a Laffer Curve effect as one will find: Lower rates produced increased revenues.

What explains this surge in tax revenues, especially at the high end of the income scale? The main factor at play here is the robust economic expansion, which has led to real income gains for most tax filers. Higher incomes mean higher tax payments. Between 2001 and 2004, the percentage of Americans with an income of more than $200,000 rose from 12.0% to 14.2%. The percentage of Americans earning more than $50,000 a year rose from 40.8% to 44.2% -- and that's just in two years. While these statistics are not inflation-adjusted by the IRS, price rises were relatively modest during these years, so adjusting wouldn't alter much.

We can already hear the left objecting that the rich are paying more taxes simply because they have hoarded all the income gains, while the middle class and poor wallow in economic quicksand. But, again, the IRS data tell a more upbeat story of widespread financial gains for American families. The slice of the total income pie captured by the richest 1%, 5% and 10% of Americans is lower today than in the last years of the Clinton administration.

So how can the media contort these statistics to conclude that the Bush tax cuts only benefited the affluent? The New York Times claims that the richest 0.1% got 5,000 times the tax benefit than those with less than $50,000 of income. That figure can only be true if one assumes that there were no economic benefits from the tax cuts whatsoever; and that lower taxes on income, capital gains and dividends resulted in no changes in the real economy -- not the value of stocks, not business spending, not employment, not capital flows into the U.S., not corporate dividend payments, not venture capital funding -- nothing. The underlying assumption of this static analysis is that tax cuts don't work and that incentives don't matter.

Of course, in the real world, financial incentives through tax policy changes matter a great deal in altering economic behavior. And we now have the evidence to confirm that the latest round of tax cuts worked -- five million new jobs, a 25% increase in business spending, 4% real economic growth for three years and a $4 trillion gain in net wealth. So now the very class-warfare groups who, three years ago, swore that the tax cuts would tank the economy rather than revive it, pretend that this robust expansion would have happened without the investment tax cuts. Many Democrats on Capitol Hill recite this fairy tale over and over.

One final footnote to this story: Just last week, the Department of the Treasury released its tax receipt data for March 2006. Tax collections for the past 12 months have exploded by 14.4%. We are now on course for a two-year increase in tax revenues of at least $500 billion, the largest two-year increase in tax revenue collections after adjusting for inflation ever recorded. So why are the leftists complaining so much? George Bush's tax rate cuts have been among the most successful policies to soak the rich in American history.

Mr. Moore is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.

Moussaoui 2

Now that the Jury has sentenced him to life. I still believe as I did in Moussaoui with additional thoughts:

Firstly, the death penalty should be reserved for those actually guilty of having commited a grievious crime, not just for having planned to participate in one.

Secondly, why are we even treating terrorism as a law and order problem for this to be in a court of law? We should treat terrorism as an act of war. We should either hold them as PoW, as illegal combatants, or execute them as spies. All such options are in compliance with the Geneva convention.

Neo-neocon for more thoughts.
In From the Cold for where he is likely to spend his remaining days.
As long as he is not sent to France

Policy

What should be the prime driver of our policy?
Equality?
Peace?
Security?
Prosperity?
or Justice?

Asia

The future is Asia. As a Pacific nation, the US should reaffirm our economic and military alliance with Japan and Australia. The US should also reach out to rising powers of India and China. Both India and China should be engaged as future partners for cooperation and competition rather than competition alone. First economic, later military.
We should turn our gaze away from Eurabia.
More on this later.

Generals in war, 5 vs. 6

From today's WSJ Editorial pages by JOHN CROSBY, THOMAS MCINERNEY, BURON MOORE AND PAUL VALLELY. The last paragraph is really all you need to read:

Foes of the Bush administration described the recent calls by six retired generals for Donald Rumsfeld to resign or be fired as "growing military pressure" for him to do so. These retired generals claim he should go for, among other things, ignoring the advice of senior military leaders and bungling the global war on terror in Iraq with poorly planned war-fighting strategies and post-Saddam planning efforts. We strongly disagree.

Like former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers, we do not believe that it is appropriate for active duty, or retired, senior military officers to publicly criticize U.S. civilian leadership during war. Calling for the secretary's resignation during wartime may undercut the U.S. mission and incites individual challenge to the good order and discipline of our military culture. At best, such comments may send a confusing message to our troops deployed on dangerous missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. At worst, they can also inspire and motivate the evil forces we seek to defeat.

Since our nation's founding, the principle of civilian control over the military has been a centerpiece of our system of government. Under our constitutional system, it places elected and appointed government leaders in charge. American soldiers are bound by this tradition to subordinate themselves to civilian authority. We give advice but it is ultimately up to civilian leaders to make key strategic and policy decisions. Unlike many other democracies, this is one important reason why we have never been ruled by the military, and have been the most successful country the world has ever seen.

Some critics suggest that the calls by the six retired generals signify widespread discontent in the military with Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership. It is preposterous for them to suggest that this small group represents the views of the 1.4 million men and women serving on active duty or the 7,000 retired generals and flag officers who respect, understand and appreciate the established American tradition of the military being subordinate to civilian control and direction.

Moreover, despite the frustration of the current situation in Iraq, military morale remains high, as evidenced by the high re-enlistment rate of active-duty forces. This fact belies the contention that there is rising military discontent.

The notion that Secretary Rumsfeld doesn't meet with, or ignores the advice of, senior military leaders is not founded in fact. During his tenure, senior military leaders have been involved to an unprecedented degree in every decision-making process. In addition to the Senior Level Review Group, Defense Senior Leadership Conference, and Quadrennial Defense Review, in 2005 Secretary Rumsfeld also participated in meetings involving service chiefs 110 times and combatant commanders 163 times. Gen. Myers correctly describes these meetings as "very collaborative" with a free flow of information and discussion. Gen. Tommy Franks, U.S. Central Command Commander during the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, echoes Gen. Myers's comments and supports Secretary Rumsfeld as collaborative in the decision-making process. Gen. Franks has stated recently that he is a tough collaborator and demands sound thinking and recommendations from the senior military leadership and staff.

Much of the acrimony expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld's military critics appears to stem from his efforts to "transform" the military by moving to a joint expeditionary force that is lighter and more mobile in nature to meet the nation's current and future threats. Many senior officers and bureaucrats did not support his transformation goals -- preferring conventional weapons of the past like the Crusader artillery piece and World War II war-fighting strategies, which prove practically useless against lawless and uncivilized enemies engaged in asymmetric warfare. It unfortunately appears that two of the retired generals (Messrs. Zinni and Newbold) do not understand the true nature of this radical ideology, Islamic extremism, and why we fight in Iraq. We suggest they listen to the tapes of United 93.

Despite criticisms, Mr. Rumsfeld is arguably one of the most effective secretaries of defense our nation has ever had. Under his watch, the U.S. military has been transforming; it brilliantly deposed Mullah Omar's barbaric Taliban regime (Osama bin Laden's sanctuary) and Saddam Hussein's ruthless Baathist regime, freeing 50 million people from oppression and placing the countries on democratic paths. With these actions, terrorists have been denied secure home bases. These are a few key factors why terrorists have been unable to attack the American homeland again. The policy and forward strategy implemented by Secretary Rumsfeld has taken the fight to the enemy as did the nation in World War II and the Cold War.

Some, like Generals Zinni, Newbold, Eaton, Batiste, Swannack, Riggs and others, may not like Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership style. They certainly have the right as private citizens now to speak their minds. Some may feel that he's been unfair, arrogant and autocratic to some senior officers. But those sentiments and feelings are irrelevant. In the end he's the man in charge and the buck stops with him. As long as he retains the confidence of the commander in chief he will make the important calls at the top of the department of defense. That's the way America works. So let's all breathe into a bag and get on with winning the global war against radical Islam. In time the electorate, and history, will grade their decisions.

Lt. Gen. Crosby (ret.) is former deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. Lt. Gen. McInerney (ret.) is former assistant vice chief of staff, U.S. Air Force. Maj. Gen. Moore (ret.), U.S. Air Force, was director of Central Command during Operation Desert Storm. Maj. Gen. Vallely (ret.) is former deputy commander of the U.S. Army, Pacific.

It doesn't really matter why the six retired generals are now speaking up in near unison, or what their motives are. Let me repeat the money phrase:

In the end he's the man in charge and the buck stops with him. As long as he [Rumsfeld] retains the confidence of the commander in chief he will make the important calls at the top of the department of defense. That's the way America works. So let's all breathe into a bag and get on with winning the global war against radical Islam. In time the electorate, and history, will grade their decisions.

No war has ever been fought with perfect forsight and planning. Even so, with all the misteps thus, the last six years the US military had seen unprecendented success on the battlefield.

Immigration

I am for legal immigration. Perhaps I am bias for being a legal immigrant myself. Never the less I do recognize the problems of illegal immigrants. My thoughts are as follow.

1. We must make it easier for foreigners to immigrate here to meet our labor needs. These guess workers must be screened prior to entry and tracked, taxed, and identified. After a set period of time, they should be able to apply for citizenship.

2. We must secure the border. If it takes a wall, so be it. But it must start with more regular and more vigilant patrols.

3. Those here illegally must apply to stay as guess workers, with possibility for citizenship. Those that fail the guess worker application must be deported.

4. Citizenship requires a test covering the constitution of the land and the political processes. The language of the land should be English but xceptions can be made for children and the elderly. While expecting illegal immigrants to pay back owed taxes may seem appealing, but the amount due cannot be confirmed. A financial requirement for citizenship, even based on what is due, will be the equivalence of buying citizenship and should be avoided.

Genocide vs women

A shocking article if true by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

One United Nations estimate says from 113 million to 200 million women around the world are demographically "missing." Every year, from 1.5 million to 3 million women and girls lose their lives as a result of gender-based violence or neglect.

How could this possibly be true? Here are some of the factors:

In countries where the birth of a boy is considered a gift and the birth of a girl a curse from the gods, selective abortion and infanticide eliminate female babies.

Young girls die disproportionately from neglect because food and medical attention is given first to brothers, fathers, husbands and sons.

In countries where women are considered the property of men, their fathers and brothers can murder them for choosing their own sexual partners. These are called "honor" killings, though honor has nothing to do with it.

Young brides are killed if their fathers do not pay sufficient money to the men who have married them. These are called "dowry deaths," although they are not just deaths, they are murders.

The brutal international sex trade in young girls kills uncounted numbers of them.

Domestic violence is a major cause of death of women in every country.

So little value is placed on women's health that every year roughly 600,000 women die giving birth.

Six thousand girls undergo genital mutilation every day, according to the World Health Organization. Many die; others live the rest of their lives in crippling pain.

According to the WHO, one woman out of every five worldwide is likely to be a victim of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime.

What is happening to women and girls in many places across the globe is genocide. All the victims scream their suffering. It is not so much that the world doesn't hear them; it is that fellow human beings choose not to pay attention.

It is much more comfortable for us to ignore these issues. And by "us," I also mean women. Too often, we are the first to look away. We may even participate, by favoring our sons and neglecting the care of our daughters. All these figures are estimates; registering precise numbers for violence against women is not a priority in most countries.

Read it all.
HT: LGF

Moussaoui

We have every right to kill our enemies. When we kill our enemies on the field of battle, it is both out of immediate and future self preservation. We kill because our enemy poses a threat to us, now and or later. But once we have captured them and have effectively declawed them, can we still claim a threat necessitating extermination? Sure we still have the right to kill our captured enemy, but it is not quite the same. A captured enemy is no longer an imminent threat, or even a likely potential threat. So to kill the captured foe requires a justification of more than just because he is an enemy. We can kill him because he has committed egregious acts. But what if he hasn't yet. Should we enact punishment for what could have been? Or is it for retribution and vengeance we should kill him?

I am a supporter of the death penalty in general, but I do not believe Moussaoui should get it. While he may have plotted and planned mass homicide, he actually did not do it. To put him to death would be in essence punish him for what the terrorists, but not he, did on 911.

We should reserve the death penalties for people who have actually committed a heinous acts.


Related:
Neo-Neocon

V for Vendetta, not quite a movie review.

V for Vendetta

In a democratic society, the government is empowered by the people rather than in power over the people. When such a government becomes oppressive and homicidal, it loses its prerogative to rule and the people are expected to replace it, by force if necessary. This movie actually undermines this principle premise. The people are portrayed as helpless sheep capable of action only after being prodded by a hero, a person of extraordinary ability and means. What kind of message is that, telling the oppressed to wait for a Savior?

As living individuals, average and ordinary, we all have the power and capability to enact changes. All of us are capable of heroic actions. To wait in silence is tacit endorsement of oppression, acknowledgement that the oppressor holds power in themselves rather than as a conduit of our power. To wait in inaction is to allow others to suffer first, until yours come knocking. I find the waiting-for-the-savior ideation diminish all of us as sentient individual human beings.

Naturally our individual power is magnified when collected as a group. All revolution fails without popular support. Thus, successful insurrection requires timing and organization of popular support. And what is popular support other than a collection of individuals?

Before storming the streets, it is worthwhile to determine whether your cause is just, and the enemy real rather than manufactured and manipulated. That requires thought and analysis. That can be started by any individual, average and ordinary even.

Other Reviews:
Architecture and Morality

Public Relation on the War on Terror

Over at Neo-neocon there is a post about public relation and propaganda during a war. My response, with regard to the War on Terror is as follows.

The war against terror is a misnomer. This is a war against fundamental and militant Islam as represented by Wahhabism, spreading among the Arabs and through the Middle East. Thus if you see this as the primary threat, then you have to formulate a strategy to defeat it.

This administration's strategy is to fight fundamentalist Islam with liberalized Islam. They believe that if given the choice, most Muslims as most humans would not kill and maim innocent non-Muslims. Liberalism at its root is predicated on individual freedom. Where could they cultivate a sufficient number of liberal Arab Muslims to stand against the fundamentalists? By taking those who would crave individual choice after years of being denied individual choices and liberate them. You start with those oppressed the worse and work your way up. Thus first liberate the Afghans under the Taliban and follow that up with Iraqi under Saddam. Risky? Very.

Thus if you are about to undertake a massive social-political-religious transformation, do you declare you intent for all to hear, especially the target of your work? There was no way this could have or ever would be declared.

So where do you start after 911? By declaring an apparent target of threat, in this case terrorists in particular and states that harbor and support them. But if you are bound by certain international laws, like the UN charter, what are your options? With Afghanistan it was easy in appearance, the Taliban had al Qaeda and refused to hand them over, thus with a blur the Taliban and al Qaeda was treated as one and the same. Now it was Afghanistan-al Qaeda that attacked the US on 911 and thus we had the legal context to strike back. Done.

But Afghanistan is far away from the core of the problem of Wahhabism that is in the Middle East (Afghanistan more Central Asian). It would have been pointless to attack Saudi Arabia because you cannot cultivate the Saudi to fight Wahhabism. The Saudis were not craving freedom from oppression. Thus Iraq. Legal context? Violation of the ceasefire from 1991.

As much as possible all the international actions had to be interpreted as consistent with our international rights and obligations. The greatest stumbling block has been the American public perception that the war against terror should only be against terrorists in general and al Qaeda in particular.

What I am getting at is that while this administration has been poorer at PR than necessary, the nature of this war's strategy does not lend itself to a PR campaign. While it maybe easy now to sell capitalism over communism, this wasn't so clear 30 years ago. But at least we could announced that was your intention for all to hear. How do you go about declaring that we will turn moderate Muslims against their brethren the fundamentalist Muslims? How do you go about selling this to your domestic public and not let the international audience hear about it? I don't think it can be done well if at all.

I am satisfied with the reasons and motives for the war on terror, and its progress thus. Bad PR included, as you cannot always declare your intentions.

Modernity and Islam

Islam is currently at war with itself. Most obvious is the fight between Shia and Sunni. However, this is merely a manifestation of the war between what Islam was, and what Islam should be. The flag waved by those who defend and try to perpetuate what Islam was are predominantly carried by fundamentalists. Many of their banners were written not in the Koran, but in teachings through the ages, adopted as laws. Those who seek to reform Islam wants it modernized, but still within the teaching of Mohammed. I find this article in Asharq Alawsat very interesting (HT Xroad Arabia):

The juristic opinions expressed by Sheikh Gamal Al Banna, the brother of Sheikh Hassan Al Banna who founded the Muslim Brotherhood caused much controversy last week as the conservatives considered Banna's views daring and unacceptable. Gamal is an Islamic intellect well known for his conflicting opinion of the tradition of interpretation. Al Azhar had condemned his book entitled, "The Responsibility for the Failure of the Islamic State in the Modern Age." The book reflects what he had once said in an interview with Al Arabia Net, that if a Muslim woman in European society felt it was safer not to wear the veil in light of recent events then she is permitted religiously to wear western headgear rather than the traditional hijab.

What is positive about this Sheikh is that he insists on declaring that he is a religious scholar despite the fierce attacks waged against him by traditional scholars and religious figures. He persistently defends the image of his late brother Hassan Al Banna that many, he states, seek to "distort."

In his most recent statements (which are not new, as they have been expressed in his books) Gamal Al Banna regarded free-mixing between the two sexes as not only permissible religiously but in fact necessary. He views the connection of men and women as natural because separation in his words is a "vicious process."

However, Gamal Al Banna has not been the first Sheikh to express such surprising and bold statements and he will certainly not be the last. Why should such bold opinions be oppressed when they are derived from the same sources as those of traditionalists and not from Western literature. This is especially the case relating to women, which many believe (including myself) is the battleground for social modernity in the Islamic world. The fact remains that the widespread fear of the modernist discourse is caused by the redefinition of the female role i

One of the major point of contention pertains to the role of the sexes. If one think about it, the hallmarks of modernity rely on equality and rights. Equality of men and women, as well of the races, thus the social fabric that binds together the community. The rights and freedoms define how individuals may act within that fabric. Seems that many if not most Muslims have already accepted in idea if not in practice the value of individual, i.e. human rights. The battle of the sexes continues.

Related post:
All Things Beautiful