Assault on the media

This is a really good article. If I had time, I would have written it. :-)

LM

---------------------------------------

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Friday, May 27, 2005; Page A27

So it turns out that the FBI has documents showing that detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, complained about the mistreatment of the Koran and that many said they were severely beaten.

The documents specifically include an allegation from a prisoner that guards had "flushed a Koran in the toilet."

And yesterday, Pentagon officials said investigators have identified five incidents of "mishandling" the Koran by military guards and investigators. It was the first time Pentagon officials had acknowledged mistreatment of the Muslim holy book, though they insisted that the episodes were minor and occurred in the Guantanamo facility's early days.

What, then, is one to make of the Bush administration's furious assault against Newsweek magazine for bringing allegations about the abuse of the Koran to popular attention?

Vew the entire article.

Free Lynndie?

Pfc Lynndie England beat the wrap in the Abu Ghraib trial, and I’m not sure whether that’s a good or bad thing.

An Army judge Wednesday ended the court martial trial of England — the woman who became the poster child for Iraqi prison abuse — saying that her guilty plea was not believable. Under military law, the judge could not accept England’s plea unless he was convinced she knew she was committing an illegal act. England first claimed she was only following orders, but said Monday that she knew her actions were wrong.

Why might this be a bad thing?

England finally admitted she was wrong, and the judge said “I don’t believe you.”

Having served in the Army during a deployment, I can understand how a situation like Abu Ghraib could spin out of control but not how a person wouldn’t know it was wrong.

In the Army, maintaining the integrity of the chain of command is paramount. If a soldier given a lawful order by someone senior, that soldier is expected to follow it. There is no tolerance for disobeying a lawful order, especially during wartime. This is essential because a wayward soldier making an independent decision could cost lives. The military works best when everyone is on the same page. Drill sergeants are fond of saying “we are here to defend democracy not practice it.”

You’ll notice that I was careful to note that you are duty bound to obey a lawful order. The military also makes that distinction because if you receive an unlawful order, you are also duty bound not to follow it. That’s part of your instruction during basic training. Moreover, if you do receive an unlawful order, you should report the person dispensing those unlawful orders. Those are the rules.

So England now says that she thought she was receiving a lawful order. Everyone was doing it. She didn’t receive training. It was war. He was older. Blah Blah Blah.

The Army shouldn’t need to tell you that putting a naked man on a leash and taking a picture with him is wrong. You should have received that block of training from your Mama. That’s called home training.

I can’t imagine any conditions under which I would let somebody, of any rank, talk me into doing what England did. And if any child of mine ever did, the Army wouldn’t need to discipline him — at least not until I got first crack at him. They can have what’s left after I’m done with him.

How many times have you heard a mother say, “I don’t care how many people are doing it. If they all jumped off a cliff, would you follow them?”

Well they all jumped off a cliff and England followed them. She was clearly wrong, and she knew it. That she might not experience any consequences of her actions is a bad thing.

Why might it be a good thing?

It could force the Army to confront the systemic problem of leadership. It was no surprise to anyone familiar with military culture that the only people prosecuted were enlisted, and lower enlisted to boot. These are the people at the bottom of the scale in terms of pay, responsibility, training, and everything else. Yet, they carry all the weight in this scandal.

When an enlisted crew does outstanding work, every officer in their chain of command falls over themselves to take credit for the “inspirational leadership that created the conditions for success.” When things go awry, that same leadership should also be accountable. If that happens, it would be a good thing.

My college professor used to say, “ambivalence is watching your mother-in-law drive off a cliff in your brand new BMW.”

Watching England potentially go free elicits the same emotions.

Is it so hard to say "I'm sorry?"

In the midst of all the fuss about whether or not Jennifer Wilbanks is selfish or misunderstood, you can get an important cue from her parents.

Last week, when Jennifer was missing and presumed dead, the family lined up three deep for a news conference where they tearfully begged the community for its help.

Deluth, Ga., responded with over 100 volunteers forming search parties that worked around the clock to find the missing bride. Of course, now we've learned that Jennifer skipped town in an attempt to side step the wedding.

Since returning home, there's been a small chorus rising that Jennifer was just acting selfishly and should realize some consequence for her choices. Expect it to continue its crescendo. Why? The family has been unable to muster the one thing that could possibly work to dampen this feeling of betrayal, an apology. It's been almost 48 hours since her discovery and we've heard nothing from the family.

Jennifer is supposed to hold a news conference to say something, sometime. We know she's crazy, but what I find odd is that we've not heard a word from her parents. These are the same people who mobilized their community in what turned out to be a hoax, and now they are silent. Nothing more to say? How about sorry. How about thank you.

With all the family members who were free to line up when they thought Jennifer was missing, you'd think ONE of them could find the time now that she's surfaced. They wouldn't even have to turn on her. They could say something like this.

"Last week we prayed that Jennifer would return to us alive, and she did. For that we are extremely grateful. Even if a wound is self-inflicted, we still count our blessings when it isn't fatal. Last week, we asked for our community's help, and we were overwhelmed with the response. We always thought of our community as a family and last week, at our lowest point, you proved us right.

Sometimes in families, our family members disappoint us. In those times, we try to teach, practice and pray for forgiveness, healing, and love. This is a time where we've been obviously disappointed. We ask you to show the same forgiveness, healing, and love that we would give to any other person in our family who has disappointed us.

There is still much we need to learn, to get to the root causes and begin the process of recovery. We ask for your prayers as we undertake that journey. Finally, in this world that we live in, it could be an unfortunate reality that someone else in this community may need to call on your generosity and sup-port for a family member who might be missing. We all hope and pray that our situation will not dampen the spirit of love that we experienced. You can count on us to be in the number volunteering our support should that occur. Thanks again for your support and love. You make us proud to be citizens of Deluth."

See how easy that was. But we still haven't heard any reasonable facsimile. And if the parents don't have the decency to apologize, how can you expect the daughter to?

There's an old saying, "the fruit don't fall far from the tree.

Why the 'Capital' Checks Won't Clear

It seems George Bush has exhausted his political capital.

You might remember in the wake of his presidential election victory, President Bush held a news conference where he discussed his new mandate.

“I earned political capital, and I intend to spend it,” proclaimed the newly-reelected president.

President Bush then got out his executive check book and presidential pen and proceeded to spend his capital on Social Security, judicial nominees, and an energy policy, to name a few items on his shopping list.

He should have confirmed the balance in his political capital account, because it seems President Bush’s love bank didn’t have as big a deposit as he thought.

According to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, Americans are rejecting the president’s proposals, and his standing is at an all time low.

The numbers tell a story few could have predicted. This week’s Washington Post-ABC News poll put the president’s overall job approval score at 47 percent — matching the lowest score of his 51 months in office. In the survey highly negative ratings outnumbered the very positive 3-to-2.

On the issues, President Bush was also hurting. His signature proposal, Social Security, has not excited most Americans in a way that the administration would have liked. Only three in 10 respondents approved of the job the president is doing on Social Security, and the momentum is moving in the wrong direction. In mid-March, 56 percent favored private accounts. Now that number is down to 45 percent, an 11 percent plunge.

If things weren’t bad enough, it seems the Republican Party has also been siphoning funds from the political capital account. Tom Delay’s ethics troubles, the party’s decision to change the ethics rules, and the midnight intervention in the Terry Schiavo situation, all contributed to the account depletion.

That’s assuming there was that much capital to begin with.

What if the president really didn’t have political capital after the election? It’s not like he hasn’t been wrong about anything before.

During the election, the president ran on John Kerry’s record. His basic message was “at least I’m not that guy.”

That guy, John Kerry, proved indecisive, impersonal, and clueless. It was easy to paint a caricature of him. Let’s face it, John Kerry turned off or scared many Americans, and for the ones he didn’t, Theresa was there to pick up the slack.

So Americans agreed. “You’re right, we don’t want that guy.”

To win by default doesn’t necessarily endow the victor with spoils, however.

In fact, most Americans had no clue what the president’s new agenda would be, since he ran largely on Terrorism. Even at the Inauguration, President Bush talked about spreading democracy, not reforming Social Security.

So when the president attempted to enact his bold agenda, he ran into a couple problems:

1) No one had actually voted for that agenda in the last election.

2) His good will was confined to Terrorism and to not being John Kerry.

When the economy started eclipsing terrorism in the minds of most Americans, and he didn’t have Sen. Kerry to kick around any more, he learned the harsh truth:

Dear Mr. Bush, we regret to inform you that the check you presented to your Political Capital account is being returned due to insufficient funds.

Damn.

The terrorism high

For George Bush, it’s looking like 2001 all over again — the pre-9/11 2001.

In his first term, President Bush was off to an awful start. Down in the polls, pushing an unpopular agenda, dodging charges that he was the clueless puppet of the vice president.

Then a terrorism attack and a bullhorn changed everything. You know the cliché: September 11, 2001 changed everything. And for George Bush it did. It gave him an issue, a cause, and a reason to be. He assembled both houses of Congress and gave an electrifying speech to the nation. At that moment, he was presidential.

President Bush and the country were on a terrorism high. We were united in a common tragedy against a common enemy. The flag was in vogue. Congress was singing in unison. But it is hard to sustain that level of energy indefinitely, and fatigue began to set in.

Anyone who works with addicts will tell you, after the first “hit,” users spend their lives chasing the euphoria of that first high.

Americans have notoriously short memories, so something else had to sustain the terrorism high that buoyed the president. The answer: the Global War on Terrorism — first stop Afghanistan. After that, Iraq. Then there was the high drama of the election, which provided the perfect opportunity to remind us all about the evils of terrorism and the perils of retreat.

Now with the economy sinking, the high is wearing off, and Americans are looking at the president with sober eyes. It is starting to feel like 2001 all over again.

Forget rehab. Brace yourself for the next hit.

Will kill for life

Not far from the site of an extremely controversial battle, a mother hunkers in her home. She is afraid to leave. She fears for the safety of her two children and their father. The family has received threats that if they are caught out-side their doors, they will be killed.

The government promises her protection, but the mother knows that won’t be enough. There is a very strong possibility that people outside her doors will make good on their promise. Now she bunkers in her home fearing that the very people who have sworn to protect life will kill her.

Knight Ridder Tribune reports that the other woman in Michael Schiavo’s life, Jodi Centonze, fears for the safety of Michael Schiavo and their children. Centonze was told that she was “next.” Last week, we learned of a man who was arrested for taking out a bounty on Michael Schiavo’s head.

Throughout years of court battles, KRT reports that Centonze stayed in the background. She backed Michael Schiavo, visited his wife and even did her laundry.

Now people new on the scene want to kill her.

Those of us who don’t quite ‘get it’ watch with amazement as pro lifers bomb abortion hospitals and execute doctors at abortion clinics. I watch that situation enabled by a system that provides legal support for people who would carry out these missions.

In Iraq and around the world, we call people who would bomb and kill other individuals, terrorists. I’m trying to figure out why the same term wouldn’t apply here. Citizens who want to exercise their constitutional rights and the doctors whom they employ live in fear.

They know that a stranger can deliberately kill them at any time. They know that the killing would happen in support of an ideological cause and celebrated as a victory for “God.” And so they are terrorized.

When radical Islamists commit acts of terror, Americans demand that main-stream Islam supporters speak out, and conservatives bemoan the fact that mainstream Muslims don’t speak out forcefully enough.

Well it’s time for conservatives to start practicing what they preach. It’s about time someone starts speaking out against the extreme fringe right to lifers who think it is justified to take a life while campaigning to save one.

More importantly, it’s time that conservatives start speaking out against the extremists who would commit such atrocities in their name. That denunciation needs to be heard loud and clear from the top. We should clearly hear vows about hunting down pro-life terrorists and bringing them to justice.

If George Bush and his party have denounced these acts, I haven’t heard them. That, to me, is further evidence of his sincerity; I have heard everything else he’s wanted me to hear.

I heard him spout on and on about why Social Security is broken and needs to be fixed. I heard him declare that freedom is on the march in Iraq. I heard in celebrate the virtue of tax cuts.

But I’ve not heard one word against pro lifers who would kill innocent people. On that form of terrorism, he and other conservatives are uncomfortably silent.

I’m sure if pressed they would say, “of course we don’t support taking another human life,” but they have to be pressed. That’s the problem.

It’s time for Bush to go after the terrorists – “wherever they are.” It’s time for Bush to speak up in support of life. All life.

“To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards of all men.”

Tech toting teachers

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050326/ap_on_re_us/nra_safe_schools_2

The National Rifle Association says we should start arming teachers. They were serious.