Confessions of a Dangerous Mind
Plus, Amnesty's amnesia.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 13, 2005, at 3:30 PM PT
A favorite slice of reality TV in today's Iraq is the melodramatically named program Terrorism in the Grip of Justice. Aired on state-run Al Iraqiya, which doesn't require a satellite dish, it shows the confessions of captured "insurgents," mainly foreign fighters. When possible, it also shows the videos that these people have made, so that, for example, a man can be viewed as he slices a victim's throat and then viewed, looking much less brave, as he explains where he comes from, how he was taught to rehearse beheadings and throat-slittings on animals, and other insights into the trade. On occasion, these characters are confronted with the families of their victims. At other times, they have been able to tell the families of the missing what happened to their loved ones. The aim is to demystify the holy warriors and also to encourage civilians to call in with further tips.
Some of the confessions, such as one from an alleged Syrian intelligence officer who said that the insurgency was run by Syria, are a little too convenient. And the possibility exists that other confessions are either staged or coerced. Nonetheless, the program, which originated in the northern city of Mosul, has been very influential in exposing the origins and character of the forces that are bent on wrecking Iraqi society.
Terrorism in the Grip of Justice could only be shown once the transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi government had been made. The United States could not have put any of these people on television, because the Geneva Conventions forbid the exhibiting of prisoners. (I don't know what the law would say about showing the program on U.S. television, and in any case the video-beheadings recorded by the captured perpetrators would be too hideous for mass consumption.) In my opinion, at any rate, the elected Iraqi authorities are well within their rights in using this means of propaganda. Indeed, they are entitled to all the presumptions of a war of self-defense.
The position of the United States is different, because not only is it a signatory to the Geneva protocols, it is also the power that has pressed other nations to both sign and observe them. (It was also the United States that pressed all member states of the United Nations to sign Eleanor Roosevelt's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia at first declined to do.) Any wavering on the part of Washington thus has consequences far beyond itself.
The forces of al-Qaida and its surrogate organizations are not signatory to the conventions and naturally express contempt for them. They have no battle order or uniform and are represented by no authority with which terms can be negotiated. Nor can they claim, as actual guerrilla movements like the Algerian FLN have done in the past, to be the future representatives of their countries or peoples. In Afghanistan and Iraq, they sought to destroy the electoral process that alone can confer true legitimacy, and they are in many, if not most, cases not even citizens of the countries concerned. Their announced aim is the destruction of all nonbelievers, and their avowed method is indiscriminate and random murder. They are more like pirates, hijackers, or torturers—three categories of people who have in the past been declared outside the protection of any law.
The administration therefore deserves at least some sympathy in its confrontation with an enemy of a new type. I should very much like to know how a Gore administration would have dealt with the hundreds of foreign sadists taken in arms in Afghanistan. I should also like to know how other Western governments, which are privately relieved that the United States assumed responsibility for the last wave, expect to handle the next wave of fundamentalist violence in their own societies. No word on this as yet.
An axiom of the law states that justice is more offended by one innocent person punished than by any number of guilty persons unapprehended. I say frankly that I am not certain of the applicability of this in the present case. Mullah Omar's convoy in Afghanistan was allowed to escape because there was insufficient certainty to justify bombing it. Several detainees released from Guantanamo have reappeared in the Taliban ranks, once again burning and killing and sabotaging. The man whose story of rough interrogation has just been published in Time had planned to board a United Airlines flight and crash it into a skyscraper. I want to know who his friends and contacts were, and so do you, hypocrite lecteur.
You may desire this while also reserving the right to demand that he has a lawyer present at all times. But please observe where we stand now. Alberto Gonzales was excoriated even for asking, or being asked, about the applicability of Geneva rules. Apparently, Guantanamo won't do as a holding pen until we decide how to handle and classify these people. But meanwhile, neither will it do to "render" any suspects to their countries of origin. How many alternatives does this leave? Is al-Qaida itself to be considered a "ticking bomb" or not? How many of those who express concern about Guantanamo have also been denouncing the administration for being too lenient about ignoring warnings and missing opportunities for a pre-atrocity roundup? I merely ask. I also express the wish that more detainees be brought, like the wretched American John Walker Lindh, before a court.
About Amnesty International's disgraceful performance, however, I can tell as well as ask. I was at one point quite close to its London headquarters, and I used to both carry and return messages for the organization when I went as a reporter to screwed-up countries. The founding statutes were quite clear: An Amnesty local was to adopt three "prisoners of conscience," one from either side of the Cold War and one from a "neutral" state. Letters were to be written to the relevant governments and to newspapers in free countries. Though physical torture and capital punishment were opposed in all cases, no overt political position was to be taken. (I remember there was quite a row when an Amnesty "country report" on Argentina went so far as to describe a guerrilla raid as "daring.") By adhering to these rules, AI became a credible worldwide group to which even the most repressive governments sometimes had to pay attention. All honor to its founder Peter Benenson, who died earlier this year.
And now look. I think it is fairly safe to say that not one detainee in Guantanamo is there because of an expression of opinion. (And those whose "opinion" is that all infidels must die are not exactly prisoners of conscience.) Morally neutral on this point, apparently, Amnesty nonetheless finds its voice by describing the prison itself as "the gulag of our times." No need to waste words here: Not everyone in the gulag was a "prisoner of conscience," either. But if an organization that ostensibly protects the rights of prisoners is unaware of the nature of a colossal system of forced labor and arbitrary detention—replete with physical torture, starvation, and brutal execution—then the moral compass has become disordered beyond repair. This is not even neutrality between the fireman and the fire. It surely expresses a covert sympathy with the aims and objectives of jihad and an overt, if witless and sinister, hatred of the United States. If only this were the only symptom of that tendency.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Friday, June 17, 2005
VDH's Private Papers::The Sorry Bunch
VDH's Private Papers::The Sorry Bunch Article about Islam/goals/actions with editorial info.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Iraq's leadership says militants seeking talks - Boston.com - Middle East - News
Iraq's leadership says militants seeking talks - Boston.com - Middle East - News: "Iraq's leadership says militants seeking talks
June 12, 2005
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The Iraqi government said on Sunday that some rebels had approached it looking for peace terms and repeated its willingness to negotiate with groups which renounced violence and which had not killed Iraqis.
Government spokesman Laith Kubba, speaking at a regular news conference, gave no details of who had made contact.
While many nationalist guerrillas concentrate their attacks on U.S. occupying forces, high-profile groups like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq would appear to be excluded from any dealings with the government because they have mounted bloody assaults on Iraqi civilians and security forces.
'Many have been trying to open channels to talk in recent weeks,' Kubba said. 'Some were calling directly, saying 'We did not kill any Iraqis but took up arms to resist the occupation and want to participate in the political process.'
'To those who have not carried out any killings of Iraqis and who are willing to give up violence and intend to take part in the political process, the door is open.'
The Shi'ite-led government of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari has often said it is willing to talk to rebels who stop fighting. Most insurgents, who have killed more than 850 people in the couple of months since the government was formed, are drawn from Saddam Hussein's once-dominant Sunni minority.
Some, like Zarqawi himself, come from other Arab countries. "
June 12, 2005
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The Iraqi government said on Sunday that some rebels had approached it looking for peace terms and repeated its willingness to negotiate with groups which renounced violence and which had not killed Iraqis.
Government spokesman Laith Kubba, speaking at a regular news conference, gave no details of who had made contact.
While many nationalist guerrillas concentrate their attacks on U.S. occupying forces, high-profile groups like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq would appear to be excluded from any dealings with the government because they have mounted bloody assaults on Iraqi civilians and security forces.
'Many have been trying to open channels to talk in recent weeks,' Kubba said. 'Some were calling directly, saying 'We did not kill any Iraqis but took up arms to resist the occupation and want to participate in the political process.'
'To those who have not carried out any killings of Iraqis and who are willing to give up violence and intend to take part in the political process, the door is open.'
The Shi'ite-led government of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari has often said it is willing to talk to rebels who stop fighting. Most insurgents, who have killed more than 850 people in the couple of months since the government was formed, are drawn from Saddam Hussein's once-dominant Sunni minority.
Some, like Zarqawi himself, come from other Arab countries. "
Winds of Change.NET: The Arab/Islamic World's Cultural Gaps
Winds of Change.NET: The Arab/Islamic World's Cultural Gaps: "The Arab/Islamic World's Cultural Gaps
by Guest Author at June 10, 2005 08:46 AM
Look here
JK: U.N. Reports capture part of the issue, but not all of it. Winds of Change.NET's Cairo correspondent Tarek Heggy (see his article archive) looks at the cultural deficits that are the root cause of the Arab/Islamic world's current backwardness and status as non-competitive states, with links to past Winds articles. This article was originally featured on To The Point News.
The Arab Mind
by Tarek Heggy in Cairo, Egypt
I have written many books and articles over the last ten years about the defects in the Arab mind-set, all of which are cultural defects stemming from three main sources. The first is the repressive climate that prevails throughout Arab societies, the second a backward educational system that lags far behind modern educational systems and the third a mass-media apparatus operated by those responsible for the climate of political repression to serve their interests.
The following are the most obvious defects from which the contemporary Arab mind-set suffers:
1. A lack of intellectual hospitality;
2. It is steeped in a culture that encourages conformity and discourages diversity;
3. Limited tolerance for the Other;
4. Limited tolerance for criticism and the virtual absence of self-criticism;
5. The adoption of stands not on the basis of their coherence, validity or intrinsic value but on the basis of tribal or religious affiliations;
6. Deep feelings of inequality with others in terms of results and achievements makes for a sense of inadequacy that is sublimated into an exaggerated and unfounded pride;
7. A tendency to indulge in excessive self-praise and to glorify past achievements as a way of escaping our dismal reality;
8. The prevalence of what I call the ‘big-talk culture’, in which overblown rhetoric is used to compensate for the appalling lack of concrete achievements;
9. A lack of objectivity and the growth of individualism;
10. An unhealthy nostalgia for and escape into the past;
11. An aversion to the notion of compromise, which is deemed to be a form of capitulation and defeat;
12. Lack of respect for women;
13. A tendency to unquestioningly accept stereotypes at face value;
14. Setting great store by the conspiracy theory and believing that the Arabs are always the victims of heinous plots hatched against them by their enemies;
15. An ill-defined sense of national identity: is it Arab, Muslim, Asian, African or Mediterranean?
16. The spread of the personality cult phenomenon in Arab societies, where the relationship with the ruler is based not on mutual respect and accountability but on the excessive adulation, not to say deification, of the ruler;
17. The prevalence of an insular culture that knows next to nothing about the outside world and the real balance of power by which it is governed, let alone the science or culture of others;
18. A lack of appreciation for the value of the bond that links the human species together, which is their common humanity. For most people in the region, the only bonds that count are either tribal, sectarian or nationalistic, although humanity is the most exalted common denominator of all;
19. The spread of a mentality of fanaticism due to a number of factors, the most important being the tribalism that dominates the Arab mind-set to varying degrees;
20. Finally, the Arab mind-set is not overly concerned with the notion of freedom for the simple reason that the Arabs have enjoyed only limited doses of political rights and civil liberties.
The twenty defects listed above are by no means exhaustive; I have no doubt that any Middle East expert can come up with many more. However, all these defects are acquired, which means they are amenable to reform. Moreover, they can all be found, albeit to different degrees, in other societies. As I mentioned, they stem from the prevailing climate of political despotism and outdated educational and information systems designed and operated to serve the interests of a power structure intent on maintaining its iron grip.
These defects will continue to grow unless radical changes are introduced to all three areas. The political system must be overhauled with a view to providing a wider margin of freedom and allowing people a greater say in determining the shape of their present and future. The educational systems in force must be reorganized from the ground up, their philosophy, curricula and methods brought into line with the requirements of the age.
Last but not least, the media must be removed from under the thumb of government and allowed to function in complete political and economic freedom as a credible forum for the dissemination of culture, ideas and information.
For more of Tarek Heggy's writtings in English, please visit"
by Guest Author at June 10, 2005 08:46 AM
Look here
JK: U.N. Reports capture part of the issue, but not all of it. Winds of Change.NET's Cairo correspondent Tarek Heggy (see his article archive) looks at the cultural deficits that are the root cause of the Arab/Islamic world's current backwardness and status as non-competitive states, with links to past Winds articles. This article was originally featured on To The Point News.
The Arab Mind
by Tarek Heggy in Cairo, Egypt
I have written many books and articles over the last ten years about the defects in the Arab mind-set, all of which are cultural defects stemming from three main sources. The first is the repressive climate that prevails throughout Arab societies, the second a backward educational system that lags far behind modern educational systems and the third a mass-media apparatus operated by those responsible for the climate of political repression to serve their interests.
The following are the most obvious defects from which the contemporary Arab mind-set suffers:
1. A lack of intellectual hospitality;
2. It is steeped in a culture that encourages conformity and discourages diversity;
3. Limited tolerance for the Other;
4. Limited tolerance for criticism and the virtual absence of self-criticism;
5. The adoption of stands not on the basis of their coherence, validity or intrinsic value but on the basis of tribal or religious affiliations;
6. Deep feelings of inequality with others in terms of results and achievements makes for a sense of inadequacy that is sublimated into an exaggerated and unfounded pride;
7. A tendency to indulge in excessive self-praise and to glorify past achievements as a way of escaping our dismal reality;
8. The prevalence of what I call the ‘big-talk culture’, in which overblown rhetoric is used to compensate for the appalling lack of concrete achievements;
9. A lack of objectivity and the growth of individualism;
10. An unhealthy nostalgia for and escape into the past;
11. An aversion to the notion of compromise, which is deemed to be a form of capitulation and defeat;
12. Lack of respect for women;
13. A tendency to unquestioningly accept stereotypes at face value;
14. Setting great store by the conspiracy theory and believing that the Arabs are always the victims of heinous plots hatched against them by their enemies;
15. An ill-defined sense of national identity: is it Arab, Muslim, Asian, African or Mediterranean?
16. The spread of the personality cult phenomenon in Arab societies, where the relationship with the ruler is based not on mutual respect and accountability but on the excessive adulation, not to say deification, of the ruler;
17. The prevalence of an insular culture that knows next to nothing about the outside world and the real balance of power by which it is governed, let alone the science or culture of others;
18. A lack of appreciation for the value of the bond that links the human species together, which is their common humanity. For most people in the region, the only bonds that count are either tribal, sectarian or nationalistic, although humanity is the most exalted common denominator of all;
19. The spread of a mentality of fanaticism due to a number of factors, the most important being the tribalism that dominates the Arab mind-set to varying degrees;
20. Finally, the Arab mind-set is not overly concerned with the notion of freedom for the simple reason that the Arabs have enjoyed only limited doses of political rights and civil liberties.
The twenty defects listed above are by no means exhaustive; I have no doubt that any Middle East expert can come up with many more. However, all these defects are acquired, which means they are amenable to reform. Moreover, they can all be found, albeit to different degrees, in other societies. As I mentioned, they stem from the prevailing climate of political despotism and outdated educational and information systems designed and operated to serve the interests of a power structure intent on maintaining its iron grip.
These defects will continue to grow unless radical changes are introduced to all three areas. The political system must be overhauled with a view to providing a wider margin of freedom and allowing people a greater say in determining the shape of their present and future. The educational systems in force must be reorganized from the ground up, their philosophy, curricula and methods brought into line with the requirements of the age.
Last but not least, the media must be removed from under the thumb of government and allowed to function in complete political and economic freedom as a credible forum for the dissemination of culture, ideas and information.
For more of Tarek Heggy's writtings in English, please visit"
One Hand Clapping � Blog Archive � Universal right to bear arms?
One Hand Clapping � Blog Archive � Universal right to bear arms?: "Canadian Joe Katzman writes, here
We have a pretty different attitude to guns up here, and I must say that American gun culture has always kind of puzzled me. To me, one no more had a right to a gun than one did to a car. Well, my mind has changed. Changed to the point where I see gun ownership as being a slightly qualified but universal global human right.
What changed my mind? This simple conclusion:
The Right to Bear Arms is the only reliable way to prevent genocide in the modern world.
His tag line is direct: “The Right to Bear Arms. It’s not just for Americans any more.”
I wrote an essay in 2002 entitled, “Civilization, Violence, Sovereignty and the Second Amendment: Why the right to keep and bear arms is the fundamental right of a sovereign people.” I claimed then, and now, that civilization is founded and maintained on violence or the threat of violence, not an original thought of mine but one well developed by Christian philosopher Jacques Ellul in his book, Violence: Reflections from a Christian Perspective (go to the bottom of the linked page where there are links to the complete text in PDF and RTF, and an incomplete HTML version.)
Hence, if the ultimate authority of the state is to be found in the people of the state (as a condition of nature, as America’s Founders understood), then the people must also have the ultimate power to protect their sovereignty. That means, bluntly, the power of coercion. And coercion necessarily includes the use of violence.
What does this mean elsewhere in the world? Joe quotes a speech by Tendai Biti, an MDC member of parliament, referring to the mass starvation of Zimbabweans by dictator Robert Mugabe.
“I can’t tell you - and the hundreds of Central Intelligence Organisation officers who I know are listening to me right now - about who is going to provide the leadership, who is going to do what, and so forth - but what I can guarantee you is that the anger is overflowing in the veins of the average Zimbabweans. They will defend themselves. The time for smiling at fascism is over.”
Let’s hope so."
We have a pretty different attitude to guns up here, and I must say that American gun culture has always kind of puzzled me. To me, one no more had a right to a gun than one did to a car. Well, my mind has changed. Changed to the point where I see gun ownership as being a slightly qualified but universal global human right.
What changed my mind? This simple conclusion:
The Right to Bear Arms is the only reliable way to prevent genocide in the modern world.
His tag line is direct: “The Right to Bear Arms. It’s not just for Americans any more.”
I wrote an essay in 2002 entitled, “Civilization, Violence, Sovereignty and the Second Amendment: Why the right to keep and bear arms is the fundamental right of a sovereign people.” I claimed then, and now, that civilization is founded and maintained on violence or the threat of violence, not an original thought of mine but one well developed by Christian philosopher Jacques Ellul in his book, Violence: Reflections from a Christian Perspective (go to the bottom of the linked page where there are links to the complete text in PDF and RTF, and an incomplete HTML version.)
Hence, if the ultimate authority of the state is to be found in the people of the state (as a condition of nature, as America’s Founders understood), then the people must also have the ultimate power to protect their sovereignty. That means, bluntly, the power of coercion. And coercion necessarily includes the use of violence.
What does this mean elsewhere in the world? Joe quotes a speech by Tendai Biti, an MDC member of parliament, referring to the mass starvation of Zimbabweans by dictator Robert Mugabe.
“I can’t tell you - and the hundreds of Central Intelligence Organisation officers who I know are listening to me right now - about who is going to provide the leadership, who is going to do what, and so forth - but what I can guarantee you is that the anger is overflowing in the veins of the average Zimbabweans. They will defend themselves. The time for smiling at fascism is over.”
Let’s hope so."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
