Gitmo Better Blues

by Eric Martin

The Obama administration seems to be operating under the theory that Gitmo was unpopular in the Muslim world (and beyond), and was thus such a strategic liability, because it was located in the Carribbean; that the gross violations of human rights that occurred at that venue were only abusive because of the name of the prison's locale.

How else to explain this:

The Obama administration wants to retain the ability to hold terrorism suspects from other countries at its largest prison in Afghanistan, even after it hands control of the facility to the Afghan government next year, according to U.S. officials.

If Afghan officials agree, it would give the administration a place to interrogate terrorism suspects captured in countries such as Somalia or Yemen. President Obama made a high-profile pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after taking office last year. But that would leave the administration without a lockup for those suspected of plotting attacks against the United States.

Administration officials have looked in recent months to the U.S.-run prison at Bagram air base north of Kabul as a place to hold suspects captured elsewhere. But Afghan officials have long demanded they be given control of the prison, and the Obama administration has agreed. Last month, Obama reiterated that promise.

Now, administration officials are developing a compromise plan to hand over control, but also carve out a section of the prison for non-Afghan detainees who would remain under U.S. custody, according to a senior U.S. official.

The proposal is still in early stages of development. It is the subject of quiet discussions among senior officials, and has not been submitted to the National Security Council or to Afghan officials. Afghan officials did not respond to calls seeking their views.

The issue encompasses the legal and ethical quandaries that continue to engulf U.S. detention policy. Under a recent U.S. appeals court decision, the prison at Bagram air base is outside the reach of federal courts. The ruling means that prisoners held there cannot challenge their detention or demand legal rights, unlike detainees at Guantanamo.

So, just like Gitmo, only with fewer rights afforded detainees!

Well, that ought to repair our image in the world.  The right to detain the accused in such a manner is supposedly a power that we should grant the executive branch in order to ensure our safety, even though the U.S. has been arresting, detaining and interrogating terror suspects (including the perpetrators of the most recent failed attacks) right here in, gasp, civilian courts on U.S. soil.  Adam Serwer, as usual, has a point:

I haven't even discussed the strategic implications of having a brand new Gitmo in war-torn Afghanistan. In his strategy review last year, General Stanley McChrystal specifically singled out detention operations as an area that presented "a risk to the mission" and recommended turning over authority to the Afghans. You think Gitmo damaged the U.S. reputation? Consider how the Muslim world would react to the U.S. having a Gitmo in a Muslim country, and what that does to the already nonexistent legitimacy of the current Afghan government.

This is all types of win.  Somewhere, Dick Cheney's frozen, atrophed heart just beat a little louder, a little faster.

Comments

[Brett Bellmore]

"The Obama administration seems to be operating under the theory that Gitmo was so unpopular in the Muslim world (and beyond), and was thus such a strategic liability, because it was located in the Carribbean; that the gross violations of human rights that occurred at that venue were only abusive because of the name of the prison's locale."

Alternatively, it may be that he's not particularly concerned about pissing off the Muslim world, (There are serious questions as to whether it's even POSSIBLE to not piss off the Muslim world, short of converting to Islam.) or ending torture, and is closing Gitmo only to placate his base. Whom he presumes to be sufficiently gullible that merely relocating the torture will satisfy them.

[Julian]

I agree with you Brett, although you seem to have mistaken Eric's sarcasm for earnestness.

Also, I wouldn't call "whether it's even possible to not piss off the Muslim world" a serious question.

[Eric Martin]

There are serious questions as to whether it's even POSSIBLE to not piss off the Muslim world, short of converting to Islam

There are absolutely, and totally, zero questions about this.

It is a bigoted and ugly thing to say, and I expect more. Even from you.

[matttbastard]

It is a bigoted and ugly thing to say, and I expect more. Even from you.

Yeah, well, no more or less bigoted & ugly than everything Brett has said in the past (and will say in the future) about pretty much every ethnic demographic other than Israeli Jews & WASPs.

Par. For. The. Course.

[Ugh]

Gitmo was so unpopular in the Muslim world (and beyond), and was thus such a strategic liability, because it was located in the Carribbean

Well, yes and no. I've seen many pictures from Gitmo and know exactly where it is, neither involved actively seeking them out. Nothing similar from Bagram. Out of sight out of mind.

a recent U.S. appeals court decision, the prison at Bagram air base is outside the reach of federal courts.

I still don't understand how the courts got to this point. POTUS and the Executive Branch act solely through the Constitution and the laws passed pursuant thereto, violation of either should (indeed, must) be remediable in court. It ain't that hard.

Consider how the Muslim world would react to the U.S. having a Gitmo in a Muslim country, and what that does to the already nonexistent legitimacy of the current Afghan government.

Well, we have an example of this already and it's called "Abu Ghraib." The Muslim world's reaction was, uh, not positive. The lesson the Executive Branch, and specifically the Pentagon and the Obama Administration (and Bush Administration before it), seems to have learned is "don't take pictures, and if you do, destroy them, and if you don't destroy them, have Congress change the law so you don't have to release them."

[Eric Martin]

Ugh,

Here's the thing, I'm not sure that it's as out of sight/out of mind in the Muslim world. I'm also not that certain that photographs are so important.

Western audiences? Sure. But this has been a growing concern in the Muslim world for some time, and it will grow bigger.

[Ugh]

Eric,

That's a fair point, I'm don't watch al Jazeera or watch/read any other primarily-Muslim world focused media so maybe everything is common knowledge in such places. It did seem that once 60 Minutes (?) broadcast the Abu Ghraib pictures things all went to hell, but perhaps that was coincidence (or more likely my own perception).

Have there been torture photos released (anywhere) from Bagram?

But in any event, POTUS and the Executive branch more generally have been captured by the Pentagon and National Security Establishment (obviously both part of the Executive Branch), and I don't see a way out, absent some President saying fnck it and going on the teevee laying it all bare (assuming he/she knows it all). There's always the next election and other policy concerns to take into account.

[Nate]

This whole thing is my greatest disappointment with Obama.

[Eric Martin]

Ugh, I think the photos gave a boost to the issue, but in Iraq itself, Abu Ghraib was well known and already a huge issue.

The recent wikileaks video is an example of this phenomnenon: it was a big story here, but in Iraq, everyone shrugged and basically said, "Well, obviously."

No doubt Gitmo has/had a higher profile in the Muslim world, but the black sites in Afghanistan (and Bagram) are gaining in notoriety - and for that audience, will be a big story regardless.

[Ugh]

Ugh, I think the photos gave a boost to the issue, but in Iraq itself, Abu Ghraib was well known and already a huge issue.

The recent wikileaks video is an example of this phenomnenon: it was a big story here, but in Iraq, everyone shrugged and basically said, "Well, obviously."

I agree on the wikileaks video some 5+ years after Abu Ghraib, not sure on Abu Ghraib itself. To hear someone who comments here from time to time tell it, there are (or, at least, were), believers in the U.S.'s essential goodness and commitment to justice and fairplay by the citizens of the Middle East, which required the pictures from Abu Ghraib to overcome.

Also, that Bagram is in Afghanistan and not an Arab country will lessen its relative impact, IMHO.

[Eric Martin]

That is possible.

[Dog's New Clothes]

"You think Gitmo damaged the U.S. reputation? Consider how the Muslim world would react to the U.S. having a Gitmo in a Muslim country..."

We don't have to "consider". Bagram has a well-documented history of detainee torture. Ever seen Taxi to the Dark Side?

Oh, and it's still going on: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8674179.stm

Hope! Change!

[CharleyCarp]

Ugh, it's about the failure to overrule Eisentrager, although the focus on the location of the prisoner, rather than jurisdiction over the jailer, is both wrong, and was seen as wrong at least as early as the impeachment of the Earl of Clarendon. This defect was thought to have been corrected by the Habeas Act of 1679, but the Eisentrager messed that up . . .

What mystifies me, though, is how the Administration is going to rationalize ignoring the warning paragraph deep in the opinion:

We do not ignore the arguments of the detainees that the United States chose the place of detention and might be able “to evade judicial review of Executive detention decisions by transferring detainees into active conflict zones, thereby granting the Executive the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will.” Brief of Appellees at 34 (quotation marks and citation omitted). However, that is not what happened here. Indeed, without dismissing the legitimacy or sincerity of appellees’ concerns, we doubt that this fact goes to either the second or third of the Supreme Court’s enumerated factors. We need make no determination on the importance of this possibility, given that it remains only a possibility; its resolution can await a case in which the claim is a reality rather than a speculation. In so stating, we note that the Supreme Court did not dictate that the three enumerated factors are exhaustive. It only told us that “at least three factors” are relevant. Boumediene, 128 S. Ct. at 2259 (emphasis added). Perhaps such manipulation by the Executive might constitute an additional factor in some case in which it is in fact present. However, the notion that the United States deliberately confined the detainees in the theater of war rather than at, for example, Guantanamo, is not only unsupported by the evidence, it is not supported by reason. To have made such a deliberate decision to “turn off the Constitution” would have required the military commanders or other Executive officials making the situs determination to anticipate the complex litigation history set forth above and predict the Boumediene decision long before it came down.

I don't know the record, but strongly suspect that the premise here is quite dishonest. I have no explanation, though, how Judge Sentelle talked Judge Edwards into agreeing with it -- so maybe there is something in the record. It looks, though, like a one time thing, not an opportunity for the government to turn off the Constitution.

[Jesurgislac]

Nate: This whole thing is my greatest disappointment with Obama.

Yeah: me too.

It's not exactly new news, though, Eric. Obama's plans to expand Bagram Airbase and to transfer prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to Bagram went public last year sometime. Bush set up the system, Obama's making use of it.

The next President will step into possession of an extrajudicial prison system, a bipartisan judgement that Presidential powers include the right to condemn anyone to lifelong imprisonment in Bagram without trial or habeas corpus, and the right to decide that in his administration, US soldiers can torture legally again.

Do you guys have any route an ordinary citizen can employ to enforce the rule of law on your rulers?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Also, I wouldn't call "whether it's even possible to not piss off the Muslim world" a serious question."

To be clear, what I should have said was that it was questionable if it was even possible to not piss off that fraction of Muslims who go around bombing people when they get pissed off, by anything short of converting to Islam and enforcing Shara law.

[bobbyp]

Somehow, I feel you just made it worse, Brett.

[bobbyp]

"Do you guys have any route an ordinary citizen can employ to enforce the rule of law on your rulers?"

We do. But it is unlawful.

[alphie]

Could Obama's handlers really still be trying to appeal to wingnut voters with acts like this?

[Sebastian]

The whole thing is deeply depressing.

[Hartmut]

Let me be the cynic again. If there was no Gitmo and no Bagram and no Abu Ghraib anymore, what would you expect the US administration to do? My guess is, it would be return to extraordinary rendition, i.e. outsourcing torture to foreign regimes with detailed specifics about the desired info and likely an updated manual on more advanced 'interrogation' techniques.

[Jesurgislac]

Let me be the cynic again. If there was no Gitmo and no Bagram and no Abu Ghraib anymore, what would you expect the US administration to do?

I'm sure that if Bush and Cheney had not invented Gitmo and Bagram and established the practice of extrajudicial imprisonment and torture by the US, then Obama would, as Clinton did, and other Presidents before him, sometimes send suspects off to other countries to be imprisoned and tortured there.

But if you think that a country that owns the prison and torture system isn't more likely to use it, you are not cynical enough.

[Hartmut]

I think the 'deniability' ('they promised us they would not torture the guys we rendered to them, what more can we do?') plays a role there, at least for the government. If one can delegate the 'responsibility' to others that could ease the inhibitions.
Heck, a lot of RWers would love public torture as in the days of old but even they for the most part realize that there could be negative consequences. Few politicians would have the 'courage' of Peter I. of Russia to take part in public torture and executions themselves, expecially not in the oldfashioned way with axes and hot pincers.

[Jesurgislac]

Hartmut: I think the 'deniability' ('they promised us they would not torture the guys we rendered to them, what more can we do?') plays a role there, at least for the government. If one can delegate the 'responsibility' to others that could ease the inhibitions.

Yeah, but, this is not an "either-or".

Having Bagram or Gitmo available for prisoners you don't care if the world knows you're holding extrajudicially, does not mean you won't also send prisoners you don't want to admit to, off to "friends and associates" who will torture them for you. They can then even be shipped back to your own prison, with the records of what they confessed to handy for your own torturers
to work with.

This does not require cynicism, Hartmut: you just have to look at what happened. We don't know exactly how many people were rendered to other countries for torture during Bush and Cheney's regime, but I think it's a fair guess that the ones who showed up in Guantanamo Bay were the tip of the iceberg. You're not being cynical enough: you're being a sweet, mild, trusting dove.

[Hartmut]

We also do not know how many met a 'different fate' as the lesser Bush put it.
Well, at least the US does not yet officially boil opponents in oil as did the former pillar of democracy in (iirc) Uzbekistan (who turned from cherished ally to villain by closing US air bases there).
On the other hand I have repeatedly stated that Rummy* in oil and/or mustard would meet my at least partial approval.

*plus of course Chain-Eye and other accomplices. But only water for John Yoo.

[Hartmut]

I wonder if Bush himself watched torture videos (Chain-Eye iirc did and bragged about it).

[Eric Martin]

It's not exactly new news, though, Eric.

Yeah, but the deal with the Karzai govt is.

To be clear, what I should have said was that it was questionable if it was even possible to not piss off that fraction of Muslims who go around bombing people when they get pissed off, by anything short of converting to Islam and enforcing Shara law.

And, again, you display your excessive ignorance about counterterrorism.

Two general thoughts:

1. It's not just those that are radicalized to commit attacks, but the relative support or opposition from the underlying population. Absolutely crucial. See, ie, the number of attacks thwarted by the cooperation of locals.

2. Most terrorists are not committed to converting the world to Sharia, and are woefully ignorant about Islam. They've been seduced by "the narrative" and view the Muslim world as being besieged by the West. They think they are fighting back, misguided as that might be. Bagram and Gitmo feed the narrative like coal on a fire.

You know, Petraeus and McChrystal (not to mention every counterterrorism official, agency, group, think tank) are concerned about the effects of Gitmo, and the way it feeds radicalization.

[McKinneyTexas]

But this has been a growing concern in the Muslim world for some time, and it will grow bigger.

I seem to recall a recent thread where I was castigated roundly for making a reference to Jihadists, a term which apparently is so vague that no one can really say what it means. Yet, we all seem to know what the the Muslim world means.

At least a part of the Muslim world rioted across the globe, with attendant fatalities and significant property damage, over a cartoon in Denmark. One might, given this not unique event, be willing to acknowledge a faction within the Muslim world that tends to overreact. If it is racist to believe that there are identifiable elements within the Muslim world that will not be happy with the US, no matter what, then I would like to know the criteria by which it is acceptable to speak neutrally or positively of the Muslim World, but never, regardless of how careful the word choice is, say a negative thing about the Muslim world in general or subsets thereof in particular. For example, should we forego criticism of the place women hold in Muslim society? Certain problematical issues with Sharia law? The refusal of elements of Muslim society to integrate with host countries such as the UK and Holland?

Yet many enlightened, secular progressives routinely refer to Jesus as Jeebus, with much follow-on contempt for Christianity. Yet, none are called out, as Brett was above, for what is clear religious bigotry.

If there is a tactic Progressives over use and over use unfairly, it is their free and easy willingness to accuse anyone who is outside their world view of racism at the drop of a hat. While, in many, many ways practicing their own forms of bigotry without even a second thought.

[Eric Martin]

Yet many enlightened, secular progressives routinely refer to Jesus as Jeebus, with much follow-on contempt for Christianity. Yet, none are called out, as Brett was above, for what is clear religious bigotry.

That's odd. When I say Jeebus, it is precisely because I want to avoid saying "Jesus" as an exclamation - because that might offend Christians. Which is, I believe, the origin of the word in the first place. As is, I believe, "Geez." And I have never, ever, written contemptuously about Christianity. Not my style.

If there is a tactic Progressives over use and over use unfairly, it is their free and easy willingness to accuse anyone who is outside their world view of racism at the drop of a hat. While, in many, many ways practicing their own forms of bigotry without even a second thought.

Two thoughts:

1. I didn't accuse Brett of racism. I said that it was a bigoted thing to say. On the merits, it clearly was. Brett said that anything we do will piss of Muslims unless we convert to Sharia law.

I'm not sure which part of that statement you want to defend as not bigoted, but I'd be willing to have that discussion.

2. I seem to recall a recent thread where I was castigated roundly for making a reference to Jihadists, a term which apparently is so vague that no one can really say what it means. Yet, we all seem to know what the the Muslim world means.

You weren't called a bigot for using the term "Jihadist" - at least by me - but rather I pointed out that it was meaningless and obscured more than it illuminated because it didn't accurately describe any actual group (but lumped together many disparate groups that are often at odds with each other, with vastly divergent goals that can also work at cross purposes).

As for "Muslim World," it means the global population of Muslims. It is similar to saying something like, "the Western World" - which people do all the time, with some understanding of what it means.

On its own, it is not problematic. However, when the actions of a subset are taken as representative of the whole, that can be bigotry (or whitewashing).

For example, if bin Laden said that the Western World is porn addicted, drug taking libertine atheists that have no faith in God and rejoice in violent movies, video games and TV shows, would you agree?

Would you point out that it was bigoted to say, and that such traits, while present in some subsets, are not representative of the Western World as a whole?

At least a part of the Muslim world rioted across the globe, with attendant fatalities and significant property damage, over a cartoon in Denmark. One might, given this not unique event, be willing to acknowledge a faction within the Muslim world that tends to overreact.

One might. And if one is factually accurate, within reason, that would be totally acceptable to say.

If it is racist to believe that there are identifiable elements within the Muslim world that will not be happy with the US, no matter what, then I would like to know the criteria by which it is acceptable to speak neutrally or positively of the Muslim World, but never, regardless of how careful the word choice is, say a negative thing about the Muslim world in general or subsets thereof in particular.

I do not believe that is racist. When Brett clarified his comment, I discussed it in terms of counterterrorism, not bigotry.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, since when he clarified, I very clearly shifted my focus.

For example, should we forego criticism of the place women hold in Muslim society?

As long as you recognize that much of it is cultural as well. That is, women in the Muslim world have varying degrees of rights depending on the country in question. For example, in Turkey, Iran and Iraq (moreso preinvasion and liberation, ironically enough), women have more rights and higher standing than, say, in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.

As long as you are factual, and accurate, you will likely steer clear of ignorance and bigotry.

Certain problematical issues with Sharia law?

I don't see why not, as long as you are factual and accurate.

The refusal of elements of Muslim society to integrate with host countries such as the UK and Holland?

Sure, and then contrast that with the experience in the US. And you might just get an inkling that it has less to do with Islam and more to do with other factors. But it's a conversation that is fair game for sure - again, as long as you are factual and accurate.

[McKinneyTexas]

Eric, and who decides whether I am being factual and accurate, both concepts being pretty much in the eye of the beholder? As for cultural differences, are we free to denigrate a culture--say one that practices cannibalism--without running afoul of the rules on racism and bigotry? Can we say that culture X is superior to culture Y and that culture Z has little if any to commend itself without being a bigot? Can these judgments ever be made subjectively,i.e. value judgments, or must the criteria be objectively factual accuracy?

[Oyster Tea]

Eric,

Your patience is impressive.

[Hogan]

At least a part of the Muslim world rioted across the globe

Gracious of you to concede that it may not, in fact, have been the entire Muslim world that rioted across the globe. But further research may be required.

[Jesurgislac]

At least a part of the Muslim world rioted across the globe, with attendant fatalities and significant property damage, over a cartoon in Denmark.

At least a part of the Christian world aggressively attacked two Muslim countries, causing over a million fatalities and significant infrastructure damage, over a terrorist attack in New York with fatalities of about 3000. In the course of that war, the Christian ruler of the United States had thousands of Muslims kidnapped, tortured, and murdered.

If you want to put it in religious terms, that is. Do you really?

[DecidedFenceSitter]

And Jes, don't forget Bush calling the war against terrorism a "crusade" five days after 9/11.

[Eric Martin]

Eric, and who decides whether I am being factual and accurate, both concepts being pretty much in the eye of the beholder?

No, facts are facts. By virtue of their being facts, they are specifically NOT in the eye of the beholder.

Your words will stand on their own, to be judged by the people viewing them, but their factual accuracy will be determined by the facts nonetheless.

Frex: If I said that all Muslims will be angered at any action the West takes absent mass conversion and submission to Sharia, that would be FACTUALLY inaccurate. Not because my eye beholds something, but because it is EMPIRICALLY false.

As for cultural differences, are we free to denigrate a culture--say one that practices cannibalism--without running afoul of the rules on racism and bigotry?

That depends on how it's done, but I generally try to steer clear of denigrating an entire culture because of one aspect (or one aspect practiced by a subset). I think it's totally fair to criticize certain aspects of certain cultures, but just be clear about what your meaning is, what the context is, and how many motes might lie in your own eye.

Frex: Would someone be right to say that the Confederate/pre-war Southern culture was morally vile because of slavery? I think that would be overly broad. Slavery sure was, but there were other aspects of the South that were not so vile. Post slavery period as well - treatment of blacks was vile, other aspects, not so much. And not all Southerners were/are racist and violent.

Can we say that...culture Z has little if any to commend itself without being a bigot?

See above. That depends on the facts. I don't personally know of any cultures have "little if any to commend itself." Did you have any examples that I might be missing because that seems like a statement that would be so overbroad and categorical so as to be bigoted.

But maybe there's a tribal culture somewhere that I'm unaware of that was simply terrible about everything across the board.

Certainly wouldn't apply to the Muslim world. I mean, just read some of the Persian poets (or Rumi), or refer to modern mathematics or astronomy, or refer to the beauty of the Hadiths, the music of Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, the culinary options from Morrocco to Pakistan, etc.

Can we say that culture X is superior to culture Y

I suppose you could say it, but only if you had a series of criteria that you were using to judge, and only if you had properly thought through and thoroughly investigated each culture using the stated criteria.

"Better" is meaningless unless there is some qualifier attached. "Better" in what way? Economically? Artistically? Musically? Literarily? Standard of living? Human rights? etc.

Can these judgments ever be made subjectively,i.e. value judgments, or must the criteria be objectively factual accuracy?

They can be made subjectively, but only insofar as you acknowledge that it is subjective and don't claim it as objective fact.

Meaning, if you say: "For me, Italian food is the best food in the world." Or, "I think Europe offers the most comfortable lifestyle for me." That is fine. But if you say, "European lifestyles are better than American, and that's a fact", well then, you've probably crossed the line. Not necessarily bigotry or racism, but just chauvinism.

[Jesurgislac]

McKinney: I seem to recall a recent thread where I was castigated roundly for making a reference to Jihadists, a term which apparently is so vague that no one can really say what it means. Yet, we all seem to know what the the Muslim world means.

"Jihadists" is actually a proper religious term to Muslims, though with a fairly wide range of meaning. To use it, as you did, as if it were a synonym for "terrorist" or "extremist supporting terrorism" is as unacceptable as if I were to use "ordained priest" as if that phrase were a synonym for "child molester". Or, closer to home, as if someone were to castigate Israelis for "blood libels" they told about Palestinians, without awareness that "blood libel" is a term with a specific meaning. It's uselessly offensive, McK, and it's not even amusing.

(I was being uselessly offensive in my last comment to you, but I was also trying to be amusing - though I probably failed miserably: I don't get any feeling that you were trying to be offensively funny when you used the term "jihadist", just that you were ignorant of what it meant to Muslims - or even that it had any meaning to Muslims.)

Yet, we all seem to know what the the Muslim world means.

Have you no concern whatsoever for the reputation and honor of your country, McK? I ask because you seem more concerned with getting to define what "the Muslim world" means, rather than concerned that the previous administration of your country set up an extrajudicial prison and claimed it was legal for US soldiers to torture prisoners. Even if it were possible to keep these criminal acts secret from the rest of the world, there would still be US soldiers who had been made responsible for kidnapping, torturing, and murdering people, by their own Commander in Chief. Yet that is of no concern to you?

[Julian]

"who decides whether I am being factual and accurate, both concepts being pretty much in the eye of the beholder"

This is an odd thing to say. The words "factual" and "accurate" imply objectivity. Therefore, "who" decides should not matter. Furthermore, Eric has not nominated himself (or anyone else) as arbiter of "factual" and "accurate." I imagine the way that Eric proposes deciding those by submitting evidence (i.e. links to studies, articles, and so on where claims are made and supported) to the conversation.

Of course, subjectivity is hard to eliminate, and reasonable people can disagree on things, or the evidence can be inconclusive. However, many of your claims are so vague as to be nearly useless.

"At least a part of the Muslim world rioted across the globe, with attendant fatalities and significant property damage, over a cartoon in Denmark."

What's the significance of claiming the >1 people rioted? You don't specify how many, and yet, how many or what approximate fraction would seem to be crucially important to determining the significance and validity of this observation. Eric illustrates this by formulating an analogous claim which is, strictly speaking, true.

[McKinneyTexas]

Henceforth, I will make it a point to underscore the many generalizations that everyone, including myself, routinely employ at this site, as well as the value judgments all of us make of others, as individuals and as members of identifiable groups. With respect, bias drives what is acceptable discourse and what is not, and this site is not immune from this affliction.

As a separate matter, ethnicity and culture are conflated with religion, here and elsewhere.

A disparaging comment about Islam in general, treatment of women being a prime example, is a cultural, not an ethnic judgment. Just as, for example, the Catholic Church's stand on birth control or homosexuality is fair game for comment and criticism. Or fundamentalists' belief that the earth is 4500 years old.

Cultures are a reflection of societal and religious values. No culture is perfect, but those that strive for tolerance and a respect for differing opinions are superior to those that close off debate in the name of a deity or political orthodoxy.

Ethnicity, on the other hand, is purely a matter of who one's parents happened to be. Ethnicity is neutral, or should be. Neither Brett nor I have ever singled out any one ethnic group as being inferior/superior to any other.

Back on topic, Obama is continuing the Bush administration's policy of indefinite incarceration without trial, despite his campaign promises and despite what appears to be a very real personal bias on the President's part against this type of program. Rather than analyze the impact on the Muslim world (a good part of which practices de facto indefinite incarceration without trial as a matter of course), a fair question might be: why would this administration do what it is doing? A possible answer is that, considering all of the other options, doing so is the least undesirable.

[Sebastian]

"What's the significance of claiming the >1 people rioted? You don't specify how many, and yet, how many or what approximate fraction would seem to be crucially important to determining the significance and validity of this observation. Eric illustrates this by formulating an analogous claim which is, strictly speaking, true."

How about, Islam is the only religion where a sufficient number of people riot in response to the kind of mockery that South Park makes of every religion, that Comedy Central thought it necessary to pull the episode?

The fact that MT overstated his initial claim is no reason to dramatically understate the underlying truth. You can make fun of any of a large number of other religious founders without getting the magnitude of violent (in the sense of actually put people in physical danger and actually causing the loss of life) response that you get from Islam. This is especially true considering the kind of response you get extremely distant from the original 'insult'. You might get pushing and shouting IN TEXAS when you show "Piss Christ" IN TEXAS. But you wouldn't get riots resulting in death in Texas over showing Piss Christ in Holland.

That is a qualitative difference.

[Sebastian]

None of which, btw, is a defense of Gitmo, or Gitmo-like facilities wherever we put them. Obama shouldn't be doing that.

[Ugh]

OT - Foxnews.com headline:

Is the President Funding Terrorism?

[Jesurgislac]

How about, Islam is the only religion where a sufficient number of people riot in response to the kind of mockery that South Park makes of every religion, that Comedy Central thought it necessary to pull the episode?

And the Catholic Church is at the moment the only religion which openly advocates that if doctors can't save both woman and fetus, and the only way to save the woman is to perform an abortion, the pregnant woman ought to be left to die. The Catholic Church, unlike Islam, is running hospitals in your country and mine - and strongly influencing legislation in countries elsewhere that impacts on all hospitals, Catholic-controlled or not. I find that more significant than cartoons. But then, I'm just a tedious person who values human life over South Park episodes.

Shall we therefore judge all Catholics by the murderous pronouncements of a few bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and Popes? Just because the religious extremists are advocating for the death of women, is that a reason to dismiss every Catholic as a misogynist murderous ass?

I don't think so.

Likewise with Islam.

[Paulk]

Henceforth, I will make it a point to underscore the many generalizations that everyone, including myself, routinely employ at this site, as well as the value judgments all of us make of others, as individuals and as members of identifiable groups. With respect, bias drives what is acceptable discourse and what is not, and this site is not immune from this affliction.

As a separate matter, ethnicity and culture are conflated with religion, here and elsewhere.

And if you were to do this, you would be viewed as a reasonable commentator. It's not really that complicated. If you use other peoples' mistakes to justify your own, you will not be.

[nous]

Seb -- that is, indeed, a qualitative difference, but the objections here are mostly that making this a statement about Islam, rather than contextualizing it, implicates a lot of moderate co-religionists. It's pretty obviously that there is more than just religion driving the reaction. Those other factors truly do matter in the calculus and seem to matter more than religion or else the riots would be a lot more widespread.

And most of this would probably not matter in the least if the people making the claims about Islam were being clear that the problem here is not Islam itself, but the combination of factors that make particular groups dangerously volatile. We could then discuss what it is about the combination that makes it so volatile and what steps can be taken to mitigate that.

We can't have that discussion if people keep insisting that the problem is the religion. And there are a lot of people who are doing that insisting. McKT and Brett would have to speak for themselves on this matter because I truly can't tell with them.

[Eric Martin]

As a separate matter, ethnicity and culture are conflated with religion, here and elsewhere.

Well, sure, but I was using your terminology.

Ethnicity, on the other hand, is purely a matter of who one's parents happened to be. Ethnicity is neutral, or should be. Neither Brett nor I have ever singled out any one ethnic group as being inferior/superior to any other.

You will note that I did not call you a racist for your use of "Jihadism" nor did I call Brett a racist, or even a bigot, for his ugly characterization of all Muslims upthread.

I said that his comment was bigoted, which it was.

I would also note, McTex, that Brett and I go back for about 6 years on various blogs, and I have known Brett to single out African Americans quite frequently, making arguments about crime rates and poverty rates to imply certain innate characteristics.

He did not do that, however, on this thread.

And I have no recollection of you ever doing so.

[Phil]

Neither Brett nor I have ever singled out any one ethnic group as being inferior/superior to any other.

Uh, I'd be careful what horses I hitch my wagon to, were I you. Unless you think describing all Palestinians as "rabid dogs" is somehow OK. (As a bonus, ask Brett whether he thinks blacks are genetically dumber than whites.)

Perhaps apropos of nothing, and courtesy of Radley Balko, this concerning a protest about the "mosque" being "built at Ground Zero":

At one point, a portion of the crowd menacingly surrounded two Egyptian men who were speaking Arabic and were thought to be Muslims.

“Go home,” several shouted from the crowd.

“Get out,” others shouted.

In fact, the two men – Joseph Nassralla and Karam El Masry — were not Muslims at all. They turned out to be Egyptian Coptic Christians who work for a California-based Christian satellite TV station called “The Way.” Both said they had come to protest the mosque.

“I’m a Christian,” Nassralla shouted to the crowd, his eyes bulging and beads of sweat rolling down his face.

But it was no use. The protesters had become so angry at what they thought were Muslims that New York City police officers had to rush in and pull Nassralla and El Masry to safety.

“I flew nine hours in an airplane to come here,” a frustrated Nassralla said afterward.

[Eric Martin]

Seb,

I would respond the way nous and Jes do.

That is true of Islam, but other things are true of modern Christianity (or simply Catholicism), and the non-religious factors are integral to the story.

The focus on Islam tends to derail the discourse though, as opposed to focusing on things like the value of tolerance (all around the horn).

[Oyster Tea]

If I were an alien reading this thread, I would conclude that some are trying to understand why a violation of their "rule of law" is ongoing, while the other group is arguing that the victims deserve everything they get, so the rule of law doesn't matter. I would reason that, for the latter group, either the victim's culture/religion is really bad and/or the "rule of law" is just window dressing, or both.

Of the former group I would reason that they either have a greater respect of the rule of law or less fear of the victim's culture/religion, or both.

Personally, I think the alien is right, but that with experience he,she,it would learn that the fear of badness in the "other" is the driving force causing the difference.

We argue about so many things where the degree of fear of the "other" is the root cause of our differences.

[Hogan]

A disparaging comment about Islam in general, treatment of women being a prime example, is a cultural, not an ethnic judgment.

Except that Islam is not a culture; like Christianity, it's a religion with universalizing claims that is practiced in different ways in a variety of cultures. If you're talking at a level that can't distinguish between the status of women in Saudi Arabia and the status of women in Pakistan, then you're not making a cultural judgment. (Or an ethnic one, for that matter, since by any reasonable definition of ethnicity Arabs and Pakistanis don't belong to the same one.)

[Eric Martin]

Back on topic, Obama is continuing the Bush administration's policy of indefinite incarceration without trial, despite his campaign promises and despite what appears to be a very real personal bias on the President's part against this type of program. Rather than analyze the impact on the Muslim world (a good part of which practices de facto indefinite incarceration without trial as a matter of course)

And those practices are, also, extremely unpopular in the Muslim world.

Part of al-Qaeda's appeal, and somewhat independently, America's lack of popularity in the region, is the brutality of these regimes, and the fact that the US supports them.

There is no general tolerance for these injustices just because so many are subjected to them themselves. America does not get a pass because the Egyptian regime is also brutal. Quite the contrary, we are seen as complicit, so it's a double whammy.

a fair question might be: why would this administration do what it is doing? A possible answer is that, considering all of the other options, doing so is the least undesirable.

That is both a fair question and a possible answer.

I would suggest another possibility (or two) as well:

First, very rarely do leaders/governments willingly cede a power that was vested in them. George Washington is revered, in part, because he voluntarily abdicated the presidency after two terms. This is considered noteworthy.

So it is possible that, upon taking office, Obama became less willing to part with a tool that he thinks might come in handy.

Second, it is certainly more politically expedient to keep these policies in place to deflect blame if something happens. If he stops all of these, and something happens, Cheney and the rest of the GOP will say that the attack only happened because Obama stopped torturing, indefinite detentions without trial, etc.

Hell, even the failed attacks are being blamed on Obama stopping torture even though he hasn't!

[Ugh]

Meh, I think Obama made the calculated decision that it was worth it to him to let these people rot in Gitmo/Bagram so that his domestic legislative agenda could advance. Not that that has to be the exclusive reason but I think it is the primary one.

[Jesurgislac]

Ugh: I think Obama made the calculated decision that it was worth it to him to let these people rot in Gitmo/Bagram so that his domestic legislative agenda could advance.

I'm sure you're right. Now if only his domestic legislative agenda was advancing, Obama might even think that selling hundreds of brown-skinned people down the river was worth his while.

[McKinneyTexas]

I am unaware of any major religion other than Islam in which religious leaders currently, not in past centuries,pronounce death sentences on people who insult some aspect of their religion. Or in which conversion by the sword is a viable doctrine. Or in which nonbelievers are subject to fines, taxes, etc. Or in which Holy War is valid, existing concept. I am equally aware that most Muslims, if left to themselves, want no part of anyone's riot or war or anything else save getting by and improving their individual lot in life. I am also aware that religious wars, conversion by the sword, inquisition, etc. were past hallmarks of Christianity, both Protestant and Catholic.

In the here and now, there is only one major world religion in which appreciable numbers of adherents actively preach and/or practice violence against others. That religion is Islam.

Americans didn't discuss Islam prior to the first WTC bombing, at least not very much, largely out of benign indifference. After 9-11, people started paying attention full on. Some fixate excessively on the more extreme tenets of Islam, just as others dismiss or deny they even exist. One doesn't have to fixate to be aware of Islam's shortcomings. Ninety-nine percent of any and every religion's shortcomings should be and usually are a matter of indifference to everyone else. This would be true of Islam as well if a part of its program didn't impact directly on nonbelievers and if X percent of practitioners weren't in various stages of acting on that program.

If this discussion were of white Christian supremacists, we could denounce and decry until the end of time without dissent at this site. Why it is bad manners or worse to identify and criticize present conduct by Muslim religious and political leaders that is tied directly to their faith and is plainly outside any objectively acceptable western value is beyond me.

Now, back on thread--so Obama is (1) locking up people because he has no other choice, i.e. letting them go, because of the kind of people they are, is an even less appealing alternative, (2) afraid if he lets a bad person go and that bad person does something else bad, he will be blamed and he doesn't want to be blamed, so he is locking up a bunch of innocent people too or (3) rather than debate the merits of trials/release and jeopardize his domestic agenda, he is behaving as in No. 2 above, only for this other reason, and not for fear that he might let a bad person go.

Seems to me that No. 1 is a position that, whether one agrees with it or not, can be respected. Hard circumstances compel difficult decisions. Nos. 2 and 3, OTOH, don't speak so well for the President. What's interesting is that the tendency here is to assume 2 or 3, and in Jes' case, to juice the cynicism by adding a racial component to it.

I would have expected the President to receive a better hearing.

[Hogan]

In the here and now, there is only one major world religion in which appreciable numbers of adherents actively preach and/or practice violence against others. That religion is Islam.

If you don't count Hinduism. And the Rev. Ian Paisley is still alive, so a version of this in Christianity does exist in the living memory of some pretty young people. But maybe you can put some kind of perimeter on what is an "appreciable number."

[Jesurgislac]

I am unaware of any major religion other than Islam in which religious leaders currently, not in past centuries,pronounce death sentences on people who insult some aspect of their religion.

Religious leaders of the Catholic church routinely, today, last week, next month, pronounce death sentences on women who have insulted their religion by getting pregnant and then discovering the only way they can live is by having an abortion.

Or in which conversion by the sword is a viable doctrine.

I'm not aware of any imam in Islam today arguing that non-Muslims should be "converted by the sword". I am aware of Ann Coulter, who argued - to much applause from right-wing American Christians - that the right way to deal with Muslims is "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity". Coulter wrote that on September 13, 2001. How many right-wing Christians condemned her and renounced her for her celebrating "conversion by the sword"?

Or in which nonbelievers are subject to fines, taxes, etc.

I'm not aware of any aspect of Islam which requires believers to levy taxes or fines on non-Muslims. The only aspect of Islam which deals with money, is the Pillar which requires Muslims to give a tithe of their income to the poor.

Or in which Holy War is valid, existing concept.

You live in the country whose Christian President described his attack on Muslim countries as a "crusade". A valid, existing concept which has now killed over a million Muslims isn't enough for you?

And again - just why are you concerned to justify the US torturing prisoners and holding prisoners in indefinite extrajudicial detention, by trying to make out that Islam is a bad religion?

Aren't you ashamed of being a citizen of a country that tortures people?

[Jesurgislac]

McKinney: Now, back on thread--so Obama is (1) locking up people because he has no other choice, i.e. letting them go, because of the kind of people they are, is an even less appealing alternative, (2) afraid if he lets a bad person go and that bad person does something else bad, he will be blamed and he doesn't want to be blamed, so he is locking up a bunch of innocent people too or (3) rather than debate the merits of trials/release and jeopardize his domestic agenda, he is behaving as in No. 2 above, only for this other reason, and not for fear that he might let a bad person go.

I'm not American, McK. Asking me to care more about Obama's "domestic agenda" than a bunch of foreigners being kidnapped, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered?

I care about my LGBT friends in the US having the right to marry, or to serve in the military without lying. I care about Americans having access to healthcare. I care about the US economy not going down the tubes.

But I care about the US not claiming the legal right to kidnap, torture, and murder foreigners a hell of a lot more.

What makes me wonder is why you care more about condemning Islam as a bad religion, than you do about condemning your country for legalizing torture.

[Ugh]

McKinney - as I said above, probably a combination of all three, and I think (3) is the primary driver. Why should the President get a better hearing?

[Eric Martin]

I am unaware of any major religion other than Islam in which religious leaders currently, not in past centuries

That bolded part does a lot of work for you, as you later acknowledge.

Or in which conversion by the sword is a viable doctrine

Explain this, if you would.

Or in which nonbelievers are subject to fines, taxes, etc.

Non-believers are subjected to disparate treatment in Israel, a Jewish state.

Or in which Holy War is valid, existing concept

It is valid and existing in both Christianity and Judaism (pretty sure Sikhs recognize it as well). Don't know enough about the Hindu faith to say. Though Buddhism is generally more peaceful than the rest.

In the here and now, there is only one major world religion in which appreciable numbers of adherents actively preach and/or practice violence against others. That religion is Islam.

Not sure what this means. Christians are pretty darn violent people, adherents and preachers, urging on wars and torture and other violence. Jews too. Hindus too.

If this discussion were of white Christian supremacists, we could denounce and decry until the end of time without dissent at this site. Why it is bad manners or worse to identify and criticize present conduct by Muslim religious and political leaders that is tied directly to their faith and is plainly outside any objectively acceptable western value is beyond me.

I think you answered your own question. If we were talking about Christian supremacists, we'd probably be focusing on how they pervert the teachings of Christ, how they are not representative of Christians in general and how they are a fringe element that should be marginalized, not exaggerated and aggrandized.

However, the urge seems to be to do the opposite with Muslims. That is what is objected to.

Besides, what's a Muslim political leader? If you mean a political leader who is also a Muslim, does that mean we get to take any actions by Christian political leaders and tar Christianity? If so, Cheney Christians have a lot of 'splainin to do. Not to mention Hitler's Christians. Mussolini's Christians?

What about the Christians that endorsed, or turned a blind eye, to the holocaust. Not to mention, of course, the Christians that perpetrated it.

Basically, this: if you want to pick out discrete issues that you see as problematic for Islam as a faith, and discuss those, I don't think it's bad manners at all (you might want to brush up on the Old Testament beforehand, as you'll see any manner of evil justified in that text, from slavery, to war, to executions for what are considered mere sins).

[Eric Martin]

Now, back on thread--so Obama is (1) locking up people because he has no other choice, i.e. letting them go, because of the kind of people they are, is an even less appealing alternative, (2) afraid if he lets a bad person go and that bad person does something else bad, he will be blamed and he doesn't want to be blamed, so he is locking up a bunch of innocent people too or (3) rather than debate the merits of trials/release and jeopardize his domestic agenda, he is behaving as in No. 2 above, only for this other reason, and not for fear that he might let a bad person go.

Seems to me that No. 1 is a position that, whether one agrees with it or not, can be respected. Hard circumstances compel difficult decisions. Nos. 2 and 3, OTOH, don't speak so well for the President. What's interesting is that the tendency here is to assume 2 or 3, and in Jes' case, to juice the cynicism by adding a racial component to it.

I would have expected the President to receive a better hearing.

I'm all for a full hearing.

But generally speaking, my dedication to civil liberties transcends Party lines, and is more important than blind support for a political leader doing a bad thing.

Keep in mind some facts:

1. The vast majority of detainees at Gitmo were innocent.

2. Seems to me that No. 1 is a position that, whether one agrees with it or not, can be respected. Hard circumstances compel difficult decisions

That argument could be used to justify any and all infringements on civil liberties that you can conjure: Sure, these new drug/rape/murder laws resulted in 60% innocent people being imprisoned for life and tortured, but drugs/rape/murder are serious crimes, and hard circumstances compel difficult decisions.

We have a criminal justice system, and we have rules for POWs. These have served us well for centuries. We have been arresting, trying and imprisoning terrorists for decades.

No need to usurp our own Constitution now, for negligible and debateable benefits.

[Sebastian]

"I would respond the way nous and Jes do.

That is true of Islam, but other things are true of modern Christianity (or simply Catholicism), and the non-religious factors are integral to the story.

The focus on Islam tends to derail the discourse though, as opposed to focusing on things like the value of tolerance (all around the horn)."

First, I can't imagine what you're agreeing with in Jes' comment. That the principle of teaching against abortion is equivalent to rioting over a cartoon? That teaching against abortion is the same as whipping up a mob over a cartoon? You'll need to be more specific.

Nous' comment I at least understand what you might agree with.

But I think you are both wrong. There is something in the current expression of Islam *as a religion* which is operating differently on a large scale from any of the other major world religions at this point.

"I am unaware of any major religion other than Islam in which religious leaders currently, not in past centuries

That bolded part does a lot of work for you, as you later acknowledge."

So what? We are talking about how the religons of the world now are operating in the world now. Yes other religions have been interpreted in such a way in the past as to make the equivalent of fatwas of execution more prevalent in the past. But Islam is the one doing it now. You recognize the fallacy when someone brings up Democratic Party racism from the past compared to Republican Party racism in the present. It is the same answer in both cases--they are the ones doing it now, they need to be called on it now.

"Besides, what's a Muslim political leader? If you mean a political leader who is also a Muslim, does that mean we get to take any actions by Christian political leaders and tar Christianity?"

This feels like a minimizing dodge. The fatwa against Rushdie for example wasn't endorsed by just a side splinter group or by a handful of political leaders who also happen to be Muslim. It was ratified by some of the most important religious leaders available, and by many Muslim political leaders in multiple countries. If the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury had publically authorized the murder of Mapplethorpe, and been joined by the prime ministers and presidents of France, the UK, Holland, Germany and the US, such that Mapplethorpe were in legitimate concern for his life and had to hide for more than a decade even living in a country not largely inhabited by adherents to Christianity, *then* you would have an equivalency.

The fact that the equivalency looks completely ridiculous, shows a major difference between how Christianity and Islam function as religions on the international scene.

[Jesurgislac]

That the principle of teaching against abortion is equivalent to rioting over a cartoon?

No. The teaching against abortion kills thousands of women each year: exactly how many people did the riots over the Danish cartoon kill? The Catholic teaching against abortion, when enforced on hospitals, is worse, by any measure that values human life.

[someotherdude]

I have spent years at churches who taught a coming war with the Communist Empire would usher in an apocalyptic world war that would purify mankind. And actively sought to adjust Unites States’ foreign policy to reflect that world view. It was a foreign policy that slaughtered millions of people.

Recently, many of these same churches are teaching that a coming war with “the Islamic world” will usher in an apocalyptic world war that would purify mankind. And actively seek to adjust the United State’s foreign policy to reflect that world view. It is a foreign policy that has slaughtered millions of people.

Crazy minorities in the world’s most powerful Empire have a lot of sway. A lot more than in God forsaken refugee camps and poor nations.

[Hartmut]

There is no pope in Islam, so at what level can someone be considered a leader? And on the other side how 'high' must a Christian leader be to be considered significant? Under the previous pope at least one high Vatican official publicly complained that burning people (and aborting women in particular) at the stake was not an option any more. German clerics and some Christian politicians consider the blasphemy laws far too lenient. Catholic groups used to weekly throw rocks through windows of the Bavarian education department just a few years ago because there is still sex education in schools. I would not recommend to identify yourself as non-catholic in certain places at certain times in Germany either. And that is harmless compared to Poland. In Africa Christian fanatics are birds of a feather with their Muslim counterparts. Iirc the Lord's Resistance Army is considered to still keep the trophy of most murderous religious thugs around.
---
As for Obama keeping Gitmo to avert criticism, that reminds me of Britain/England keeping the anti-witch statutes on the books in order for the population to feel safer because the government ostensibly took the threat seriously. Ironically the statute got dusted off and used during WW2 in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Duncan>two http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Rebecca_Yorke>cases. Caveat: this was not about witchcraft but occultism

[Hartmut]

Just for the pedants. the witchcraft acts had been changed from persecution of 'real' witches to fraudulent ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft_Acts>link

[Uncle Kvetch]

Hartmut makes a number of good points. One might also consider the role of conservative Protestant churches in the particularly vicious homophobia found in English-speaking Caribbean countries like Jamaica, which has been described by many observers as "the most homophobic country in the world."

[Jesurgislac]

There is also the considerable evidence that many Catholic priests and nuns were complicit with or actively aided the massacre of Tutsis in Rwanda.

Shall we presume from their actions that the Catholic Church is on the side of genocidal killers? We could make a case for it - we could note Pope Pius XII's passive acceptance of the Nazi holocaust, the present Pope's teenage record as a member of Hitler Youth, and his support of Pope Pius XII's cause for beatification. We could note that the biggest single killer in Africa today is AIDS, and the Catholic Church has as a matter of religious principle argued that it's morally wrong for an HIV+ husband to use condoms to avoid infecting his wife: and generically that condoms shouldn't be used or safe-sex practices advocated. We could point out that the Catholic Church launched crusade after crusade to massacre the "infidel", that Catholic crusaders often ended up massacring the Jews or the Protestants the next town over rather than bothering to get all the way to Palestine to kill well-armed Muslims.

There is a certain type of angry atheist that does in fact argue this way: that religions are just wrong, point, point, point. Even when they're historically correct, I still think, as an atheist, that they're wrong.

No religion is of itself good or bad. It's what the believers do in the name of their religion that is good or bad. Catholics have and are doing monstrous evil in the name of their religion. So are Muslims. So are Jews. So are Protestants. It doesn't make their religion evil. It makes the believers evil.

McKinneyTexas, it appears, believes in the United States, and therefore would sooner believe that Islam is evil than that torture is evil.

[Sebastian]

"There is no pope in Islam, so at what level can someone be considered a leader? And on the other side how 'high' must a Christian leader be to be considered significant? "

This still seems like a dodge. There is nothing even close to the Rushdie fatwa. It has high level Muslim leaders from all over the place, and high level political Muslim leaders as well, and was intended to be carried out in the UK.

[Phil]

I think a bill supporting the death penalty for homosexuals in Uganda, tacitly if not openly supported by leading American evangelicals and politicians including the pastor who gave the invocation at the Obama inauguration, as well as Congresspeople who are members of evangelical organization "The Family," comes pretty damned close to the Rushdie fatwa, which has not really affected Rushdie's life in the slightest and which is very nearly a joke to all involved at this point.

[J.J. (Jay Jerome)]

Jesurgislac: No religion is of itself good or bad. It's what the believers do in the name of their religion that is good or bad.

Most religions (and especially the monotheistic big three) are based on irrational beliefs (a single omniscient entity is in control of every blade of grass, every human destiny, etc) -- and irrational belief inevitably leads to irrational behavior. The more widespread those irrational beliefs the more irrational the outcomes.

You can equate your statement above to the rationalizing gun possession adage that 'guns don't kill people, people do.' But if we radically decreased the availability of guns, we'd dramatically reduce the number of people killed by them. And if we could radically diminish the number of zealots who swallow whole the dogmas and doctrines of the Koran and the Old Testament and the New, we'd have a saner, safer world.

Therefore fantastical religions are inherently bad in the same way potholes in the road are bad: impediments to safety that lead to fatal scenarios.

[Turbulence]

The refusal of elements of Muslim society to integrate with host countries such as the UK and Holland?

I have relatives of middle eastern descent that have moved to various european countries (Germany, France, the UK, and Denmark). They are all Christian. And without a doubt, they've all faced more difficulties integrating into their new countries than my parents did integrating with American culture. My sense is that the difficulty has increased over the last decade or two. Remember, these are Christians. The women are just as educated as the men. They don't wear veils. But they look like Arabs (because they are) and they speak with an Arabic accent. And they have trouble being accepted by their neighbors. Just like Muslim immigrants do.

Having traveled a fair bit, I think it is difficult for Americans to understand a great deal about culture in European countries, let alone the immigrant experience there. Suffice it to say: MckinneyTexas is an ignorant person who has no clue what he's talking about.

[Jesurgislac]

I wasn't going to respond to the troll, but:

Most religions (and especially the monotheistic big three) are based on irrational beliefs (a single omniscient entity is in control of every blade of grass, every human destiny, etc) -- and irrational belief inevitably leads to irrational behavior. The more widespread those irrational beliefs the more irrational the outcomes.

I think that most humans have the capacity to act irrationally because of what they believe in.

That belief doesn't have to be a monotheistic god, or a polytheistic god, or an atheistic ideal, or anything like that: but yeah, irrational actions come from irrational beliefs.

It was completely irrational for a respectable middle-aged spinster watchmaker, working in a flourishing family business, who had never done anything illegal in her life, to turn to a life of crime at the age of 48 that would lead to the deaths of her father and her sister and nearly herself.

But Connie ten Boom did it.

Irrational doesn't equal evil. Not even close.

[Turbulence]

Have either Seb or McTex bothered to respond to Jes' comments about our Christian nation, under the leadership of a great Christian who spoke of his crusade and its apocalyptic basis started a war for nothing that annihilated a million Muslims?

I'm sure that Rushdie is a big deal. And, you know, the cartoon riots are an incredibly significant thing. Taken together, they might have caused several dozen deaths. But annihilating a million Muslims seems...like a much bigger deal. And given just how much of a Christian nation the US is (conservatives just won't stop telling me all about it) and just how strong Bush's faith was and just how much support the non-sensical war had amongst the most fervent Christians in the US, surely it says something about the barbarity and viciousness and bloodlust of Christianity in general, yes?

Oh well. I suppose this comment will be ignored just like all of Jes' comments on this subject have been.

[Sebastian]

"I think a bill supporting the death penalty for homosexuals in Uganda, tacitly if not openly supported by leading American evangelicals and politicians including the pastor who gave the invocation at the Obama inauguration, as well as Congresspeople who are members of evangelical organization "The Family," comes pretty damned close to the Rushdie fatwa, which has not really affected Rushdie's life in the slightest and which is very nearly a joke to all involved at this point."

"Tacitly if not openly?" I seriously doubt it. I'll need a cite to a major evangelical leader who said this. Because I actually know evangelical Christians, and they don't support homosexual death penalty in Uganda.

Also I want to remind readers that the fatwa was issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, a rather high profile figure.

"Have either Seb or McTex bothered to respond to Jes' comments"

I've been trying not to get sucked into her ridiculous abortion side note. Plenty of non-Christians aren't very happy about abortion. I'm not aware of a large group of non-Muslims who riot over depictions of the Prophet.

The Iraq war wasn't a religious war. In fact Iraq's status as a Muslim country is well down on the list of reasons it was invaded.

George Bush is not to Christianity what the Ayatollah Khomeini is to Islam.

Secular politics is engaged in by people of all religions.

The fatwa was not secular politics. (Hell, the word means religious edict/interpretation).

[someotherdude]

Religion, race and ethnicity get all tangled when developing relationships and solidifying power. Today, when the Mexican-American War is discussed, the reasons for the differences between the two cultures is discussed as a difference between Protestant and Catholic (there is also a true story of an Irish brigade who left the US side to fight with their Catholic brothers), however the literature of the time spent more time talking about the mongrel/mestizo nature of Mexicans. And the fact that European Catholics were given huge swaths of land that once belonged to Mexican and Indian Protestants.

During the Spanish-American War, it was inconceivable for many Americans to view Pilipino, Cubans and Puerto Ricans as Christians, although they were Catholic.

Arab Christians and Arab Jews ruin secular Zionist and Apocalyptic Protestants narratives of “The Holy Land’, so it is in their interests to focus on the irrational character of Islam.

[Turbulence]

I've been trying not to get sucked into her ridiculous abortion side note.

I don't know why you're saying this. I didn't write anything about abortion.

I'm not aware of a large group of non-Muslims who riot over depictions of the Prophet.

If you focus on a sufficiently proximate cause, you can make any behavior sound crazy, no matter how rational it may have been. Muslims do not riot over the depictions of the Prophet. There is a giant depiction of the Mohammed on the Supreme Court building. It's been there for almost a century. It doesn't enrage anyone. Because simple depictions aren't the issue.

The issue is depictions of the Prophet deliberately intended to insult Muslims. If you tell people "fuck you!" then some of them are going to become angry. Especially if you and your friends have a history of abusing them. Or propping up corrupt dictators in their countries. Sometimes angry people conduct demonstrations. Surely you understand this. And sometimes demonstrations turn into riots.

I have to say, I don't really see what the big deal is here. Obviously, riots are bad. But people all around the world engage in riots all the time for all sorts of reasons. People in Europe like to throw soccer riots that kill people. If you're going to do a bad act like participate in a riot, which is a better justification: because some soccer team won a game or because you have been insulted by powerful people who kill you and your coreligionists with impunity?

[Turbulence]

In fact Iraq's status as a Muslim country is well down on the list of reasons it was invaded.

Was it now? Let's consider the reasons. I think we can both agree that we did not invade Iraq for oil. And the WMD excuse was a sham: no one believed that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons capability. And since any chemical engineer or chemist can make chemical weapons in their kitchen, there is no way to remove Iraq's chemical weapons capabilities without completely destroying Iraqi industry. Which no one had any interest in doing. Supporting terrorism and human rights abuses were obviously a sham: many nations did far worse in both areas and we fund some of those nations.

Now you tell me that the fact that Iraq was a Muslim nation in the middle east had nothing to do with the invasion. You might be right. But given how many lies the government has told in order to justify the invasion, can you really blame any non-American for doubting you?

George Bush is not to Christianity what the Ayatollah Khomeini is to Islam.

To most Muslims, Ayatollah Khomeini is no one. He holds no authority that they recognize as valid. Most Muslims are not Shia.

To many Christians, George Bush was a great leader. Many Americans have conflated nationalism and evangelical protestantism; that's why there were so many scandals about evangelicals in the military doing and saying crazy things. And Bush often spoke in religious terms regarding his crusade in Iraq.

Secular politics is engaged in by people of all religions.

Who decides what is secular politics? You, as a Christian who knows little of Islam, look at bad acts done by Muslims and think "Aha! They did that because of their religion!". Likewise, many Muslims look at bad acts done by the most Christian nation on Earth, a nation lead by a leader who boldly proclaimed his Christianity as the basis for his actions, and watched that nation start a war that annihilated a million Muslims. For nothing. Can you honestly blame them for believing that Christian nations are dangerous?

By the way, Seb, I am curious. As a Christian, do you believe that American Christians have special obligations to atone for the million lives annihilated by our pointless little war? Do those deaths trouble you in any way?

The fatwa was not secular politics. (Hell, the word means religious edict/interpretation).

Human organizations of all kinds sentence innocent people to death all the time. Most of those organizations are governments. Obviously, condemning Rushdie was wrong. But he's one man. And on the list of global problems that concern me, one innocent man condemned to death over two decades ago just isn't that important to me. I'm unclear what makes it so important to you. Can you explain? Do you think that "authors refusing to write stuff that offends Islamic clerics" is one of the fundamental problems in Muslim majority countries today? Do you think it is even in the top ten?

To put it another way: for every Salman Rushdie, there are thousands of Muslims that the Egyptian government has tortured and executed because they dared to question the dictator that we prop up. Which is more important? Why is it significant that Rushdie was condemned by religious authorities while all the nameless democracy activists in Egypt were condemned by a "secular" authority? Does that make them less dead?

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian: "Tacitly if not openly?" I seriously doubt it. I'll need a cite to a major evangelical leader who said this.

Rick Warren, Obama's pal, has tight links to homophobic ministries in Uganda - Warren himself was politic enough to condemn the Anti Homosexuality Bill, but he's never spoken out against the more casual murders, rapes, and torture of GLBT Ugandans. While Warren has never shown any concern for the welfare of GLBT people in Africa, rather the reverse, he and many other right-wing Christians who have promoted homophobia in Africa have many of them been diplomatic enough to claim that when they said homosexuality is evil, caused by child molestation, and homosexuals can be cured, they never meant Ugandas to kill homosexuals based on this.

Scott Lively is the co-author (with Kevin Abrams) of The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party: he's also president of Abiding Truth Ministries, former state director of the California branch of the American Family Association, founder of Watchmen on the Walls (based in Latvia, WotW identifies itself as "the international Christian movement that unites Christian leaders, Christian and social organizations and aims to protect Christian morals and values in society"). Lively went to Uganda in 2009, with Don Schmierer (board member of Exodus International) and Caleb Lee Brundidge (an employee of International Healing Foundation), two organizations whose raison d'etre is the claim that they can "cure homosexuality", promoting the idea that the "cause" of homosexuality is the molestation of children by older lesbian or gay people.

They went to Uganda to present their thesis that you and I, Sebastian, are evil people, nazis, racists, exploiters, sexual abusers, who need to be stopped before we do more evil. Lively's contention is that the "homosexual agenda" is one of violent fascism, and he did a presentation on his "Pink Swastika" thesis at a three-day conference in Uganda, attended by Ugandan MPs, including the author of the Anti Homosexuality Bill, David Bahati.

While all three men have publicly claimed they never meant the legislation to actually include execution of gay people, Scott Lively met with Uganda lawmakers to discuss its drafting, and Ugandans both for and against the bill all agree the conference, and the influence of American evangelicals in Uganda, was the inspiration for it.

Bishop Senyonjo of Uganda, an Anglican who once had to flee his own country for six months because he believes: "God wants me to help oppressed peoples. Homosexuals should enjoy all the rights and benefits that heterosexuals enjoy" thinks that the US evangelicals are "doing more harm that good".

But hey: he's just a old black guy, Sebastian, feel free to dismiss everything he has to say on the grounds that the white Evangelicals you know assure you that they really don't want you dead.

Scott Lively says he thinks our execution is "the lesser evil", by the way. Just in case you wondered. (cite)

[Jesurgislac]

Turbulence: Have either Seb or McTex bothered to respond to Jes' comments about our Christian nation, under the leadership of a great Christian who spoke of his crusade and its apocalyptic basis started a war for nothing that annihilated a million Muslims?

Given their contention that Islam is an evil religion, I'm uncertain why either of them should be expected to care that over a million Muslims have been killed by the US on what George W. Bush described as a "crusade".

And if neither of them care about the US torturing its own Muslim prisoners (Sebastian used to, but perhaps he's changed his mind, as he's joining in with McT's argument that Islam is evil anyway) why should they care about the government of Egypt torturing thousands of Muslims?

Just as the Ugandans justify torture, rape, and murder of LGBT people because they have been told by Christians that homosexuality is evil, so McKinneyTexas (and Sebastian too, apparently) are justifying the torture, rape, and murder of Muslims because Islam is evil.

Sebastian, I thought you were against torture? Changed your mind?

[Sebastian]

"Who decides what is secular politics? You, as a Christian who knows little of Islam, look at bad acts done by Muslims and think "Aha! They did that because of their religion!"."

Condemning someone/killing them because of insults to religion isn't secular politics. Throwing a "who decides" in doesn't invalidate the category. And I don't look at most bad acts done by Muslims and think that they did it because of their religion. Most of the bad acts done by Muslims are done for greed, or jealousy, or lots of motivations shared across all cultures. It is only when they are doing things that are not as frequently found in the rest of the world that I begin to suspect their religion.

"By the way, Seb, I am curious. As a Christian..."

I'm not a Christian.

"Do those deaths trouble you in any way?"

They do trouble me. And not as a Christian, as I'm not one. Their deaths were caused by American policy, not Christian policy. Again, Bush is not analogous to the Ayatollah.

"I'm unclear what makes it so important to you. Can you explain? Do you think that "authors refusing to write stuff that offends Islamic clerics" is one of the fundamental problems in Muslim majority countries today?"

Actually I do think it is a manifestation of one of the fundamental problems in Muslim majority countries today. It shows how many of them have more trouble accepting the inevitable differences in others that you discover when you find yourself dealing in an international world. It explains why they have so little exposure to dissent. It shows a difficulty separating religious and secular ideas.

"To put it another way: for every Salman Rushdie, there are thousands of Muslims that the Egyptian government has tortured and executed because they dared to question the dictator that we prop up. Which is more important?"

Which is more important to what? The price of tea? The set up of Egypt? A cartoon drawer in Holland? An artist in the US?

The question is not "are there bad things in the world" but "does Islam bring about certain types of bad things that aren't found as often without it and do those bad things effect non-Muslims in other countries?" Bad governments exist everywhere. They do bad things to their people. This is true whether or not they are religiously bad governments. But many of the Islamic bad governments are bad not only to their own citizens (normal) but also to random people who offend them in the international community (Rushdie). That is more of an international problem.

If there were a major Dutch religious group that started killing artists in Iran for offenses taken, I'd call that a religious problem too.

But of course that hypothetical looks rather ridiculous, because Islam *as currently expressed and as a religion* is doing a lot of things well outside the boundaries of Muslim majority countries that pretty much no one in Holland would do.

And before you raise the US, yes the US does nasty things to lots of people. But not *because of* Christianity. There is almost nothing to be gained of an analysis of US behavior by noting that it is Christian. The US, as a super power can do a lot of things that other 'Christian' nations can't.

Take just about any country below the clout of France or Germany. Everything from Burma all the way up to the Holland. Can you imagine any non-Islamic one trying to put a death sentence on a UK citizen for an insult? Would Mexico do that? Chile? Brazil? Switzerland? Japan? India? Hell, even China wouldn't do that.

But we can imagine it in the Muslim countries *and it isn't even remotely shocking*.

That is because there is something different going on.

[Sebastian]

"If you're going to do a bad act like participate in a riot, which is a better justification: because some soccer team won a game or because you have been insulted by powerful people who kill you and your coreligionists with impunity?"

Holland?

The South Park creators?

[Jesurgislac]

This is true whether or not they are religiously bad governments. But many of the Islamic bad governments are bad not only to their own citizens (normal) but also to random people who offend them in the international community (Rushdie).

Jesus Christ, Sebastian.

"But the US is bad not only to its own citizens (normal) but also to random people who offend them in the international community (LIKE A MILLION DEAD IRAQIS)"

Jesus effin' Christ onna CRUTCH.

[Jesurgislac]

Can you imagine any non-Islamic one trying to put a death sentence on a UK citizen for an insult?

Yes. The US tried to put a death sentence on UK citizen Moazzam Begg for ... less than an insult, in fact.

You really don't care any more about opposing US torture of prisoners? You care about how evil Islam is so it's OK for the US to torture and murder Muslims?

[Jesurgislac]

This is what the US did to a UK citizen, Sebastian: no theoretical death sentence as passed on Rushdie.

Moazzam Begg:

"You're never going to see your family again." Marti's words in Bagram came back when I saw his face. "You could be facing execution by firing squad, lethal injection, or gas chamber." ..... They told me that if I didn't sign, several things could happen, none of them good. They included sitting in Guantánamo for many years before anybody even looked at my case, then a summary trial – a formality before conviction. "It's going to be one very short trial, they're going to look at the evidence we present, and they're going to take that on face value. That means you'll be imprisoned for life, or you could face execution, or both – execution after a very long time."

Nine UK citizens were kidnapped and taken to Guantanamo Bay where they were imprisoned for years, threatened with death, and tortured.

Your assertion that you can't imagine a non-Muslim country "trying to put a death sentence on a UK citizen for an insult"? I don't have to imagine it: the US did it - to nine UK citizens whose crime was less than Rushdie's insult: the US did all of that to nine UK citizens whose crime was to be Muslim in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You "can't imagine" it? Who are you and what did you do to the Sebastian who seemed well aware of what the US was doing to Muslims in the wrong place at the wrong time, only a few years ago?

[someotherdude]

The ability of certain elites in the United States to employ mass death on non-citizens or non-white citizens has a long historical legacy...and is still being practiced today.

Torture, mass death and mayhem have been the normative methods for United States foreign policy, since its inception. Africa, the Americas, Asia have all experienced this…and now the Middle East.

All in the name of God and country, and freedom and liberty, of course.

(Is it Christianity? Are Europeans inherently violent people? Maybe it’s all the liberals.)

[Eric Martin]

To most Muslims, Ayatollah Khomeini is no one. He holds no authority that they recognize as valid. Most Muslims are not Shia.

Thank you.

Seb, most Muslims, the vast majority, are not Shia. Thus, Khomeini means nothing, and any Shia fatwa, means nothing to them.

So...huh?

[Eric Martin]

Holland?

The South Park creators?

West Ham? England?

I mean, you didn't actually answer his question.

[Turbulence]

Holland?

Yes. It was a stunt to piss off Muslims. It contributed absolutely nothing to any debate. And when the same newspaper had been given insulting cartoons of Christ, it declined to publish them. Which makes sense: bullies pick on powerless people and in Denmark, Muslims are few in number and little power while Christians have large numbers and significant power.

The South Park creators?

Can you please provide a link to a news article describing riots that occurred because of the South Park cartoon? Also, would you please include a list of people killed in those riots. Thanks.

[Jesurgislac]

That "can't imagine" list for Sebastian: nine UK citizens who were kidnapped, imprisoned, often threatened with death, and tortured, by the US; even if he "can't imagine" it, it still happened, and the whole frickin' point of the original post was that Obama intends to maintain, expand, and make use of the system which kidnapped, tortured, imprisoned, and attempted to pass death sentences on at least hundreds of people who had offended the US by being Muslim and in the wrong place.

Feroz Abbasi; Ruhal Ahmed; Moazzam Begg; Richard Dean Belmar; Asif Iqbal; Jamal Abdullah Kiyemba; Martin Mubanga; Shafiq Rasul.

More at www.cageprisoners.com.

[Turbulence]

Take just about any country below the clout of France or Germany. Everything from Burma all the way up to the Holland. Can you imagine any non-Islamic one trying to put a death sentence on a UK citizen for an insult?

Yes, pretty much all of them. In fact, it probably happens many times a year. This is how it goes: some British asshole goes to a foreign country, gets completely smashed, and starts insulting people left and right. If he manages to insult a powerful local person and proceeds to act stupidly (as drunks are want to do), he'll get the shit beaten out of him and may very well be executed. It'll get written up as a mugging or random crime or some such, but that doesn't change the fundamental facts: UK citizen made an insult and the foreigners executed him for it.

My wife has actually watched drunk British dudes explain to her in foreign countries how grateful she should be for British colonization of the subcontinent. Frankly, it is a wonder that these people survive at all.

And again, I think executing someone for an insult is horrific and very very wrong. But executing someone for no reason at all is just as wrong. And executing 290 people for no reason at all is surely much worse than executing one man for an insult. As you know, the US executed 290 people on an Iranian passenger airliner. Some people claimed it was an accident, but since the US government refused to apologize and refused to accept responsibility, there's no reason to believe it was an accident. After all, what kind of monster wouldn't apologize after accidentally killing almost 300 people?

[Phil]

Thanks for the backup, Jes,

They do trouble me. And not as a Christian, as I'm not one. Their deaths were caused by American policy, not Christian policy.

Except that George Bush stated that he believed he was uniquely placed by God into the White House to lead the country into greatness.

[someotherdude]

According to a new account, President Bush tried to enlist France's support for the Iraq invasion by telling French President Jacques Chirac that the war would fulfill Biblical end of times prophecies.

Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/08/did-bush-justify-the-iraq-inva.html#ixzz0qgzdeQ69

From:
Did Bush Justify the Iraq Invasion As Biblical Prophecy?

This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery used on covers of daily military intelligence briefings from Donald Rumsfeld to George W Bush, had allegedly become routine.

Donald Rumsfeld’s Beast of A Christianity-Nationalism Hybrid

President George Bush has claimed he was told by God to invade Iraq and attack Osama bin Laden's stronghold of Afghanistan as part of a divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East, security for Israel, and a state for the Palestinians.

The President made the assertion during his first meeting with Palestinian leaders in June 2003, according to a BBC series which will be broadcast this month.

From:
Bush: God told me to invade Iraq

[Sebastian]

"You really don't care any more about opposing US torture of prisoners? You care about how evil Islam is so it's OK for the US to torture and murder Muslims?"

Yeah, ummm this is why I typically don't engage you Jes. Caring about one thing, doesn't mean I don't care about other things. It is actually a fairly normal human possibility.

"Seb, most Muslims, the vast majority, are not Shia. Thus, Khomeini means nothing, and any Shia fatwa, means nothing to them."

Argh. The Pope is not Protestant. I'm well aware.

And that fact does not mean that there is no such category as 'religious Christian leader', which is what Turbulence would apparently have us believe. And that also doesn't mean that there isn't such a thing as secular leader who has a religion, which is apparently what Jesurgislac would have us believe.

These are all perfectly normal categories. Pretending that Bush was a Christian leader in the same sense that the Ayatollah is a Muslim leader is just being silly. And pretending that the fact there are multiple Muslim sects means that the Ayatollah is not a major Muslim religious leader is also silly.

The pope is a major Christian religious leader. That statement is not particularly confusing, is not wrong, and does not deny the existence of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Nor is the truth of that statement contradicted by the existence of Protestants.

That Margaret Thatcher was a leader in the UK, was a Christian, but not a Christian religious leader is also not particularly confusing, and is also true.

The fact that I have to hyper-parse completely normal English is side-tracking the conversation entirely. At this point it looks more like distraction than discussion. If you want to claim that there is nothing whatsoever Islamic about what we are talking about, feel free to do so without also attacking basic English.

"Yes, pretty much all of them. In fact, it probably happens many times a year. This is how it goes: some British asshole goes to a foreign country, gets completely smashed, and starts insulting people left and right. If he manages to insult a powerful local person and proceeds to act stupidly (as drunks are want to do), he'll get the shit beaten out of him and may very well be executed."

You are just highlighting my point. Any country can do crazy things in their own country. It is a completely different proposition to need police protection *in the UK* when a foreign leader put you under a death sentence for the commission of art. It is also a completely different proposition to make the insult from *within the UK* and be put under death sentence. Very few countries think they can get away with that. In fact even the US wouldn't try to kill a UK citizen for the commission of art in the UK.

The fact that the US might do something nasty to people doesn't contradict the argument at all. The US is the only remaining super power. It can do lots of nasty things that other countries wouldn't think they can get away with.

But look at other countries with Iran's relative status. Would Brazil try it? No. Would Mexico? No. Hell, China wouldn't try to get away with a death edict against someone in the UK for insulting Mao's ancestors. And China is definitely a few weight classes above Iran.

Notice that I'm NOT critiquing every aspect of Iran's foreign policy as being "Islamic". Which is what you all are trying to do in labeling all of US foreign policy as "Christian". If Iran wanted to express displeasure over the nuclear sanctions by refusing to trade oil with the rest of the world I wouldn't label that "Islamic".

I'm labeling freakouts over alleged insults to the Prophet as religious. That is rather indisputably true. I'm labeling the religion doing so as Islam, which is also indisputably true.

Contrast this with abortion. You can disagree with the Jesurgislac position on abortion and not even be Christian. That is because it is an actual secular political question separable from religion. You can't be murderously insulted by depictions of the Prophet without being Muslim. That is because it is a religious question. If you take the religion out of it, there is no question left.

[Sebastian]

"Except that George Bush stated that he believed he was uniquely placed by God into the White House to lead the country into greatness."

So that makes him the pope? Or that makes him some other Christian religious leader?

I don't follow that logical chain.

President Mubark is the president of Egypt. He is a leader in Egypt. He professes to be Muslim. He is NOT a Muslim religious leader.

President Bush was the president of the US. He was a leader in the US. He professes to be Christian. He was NOT a Christian religious leader.

[someotherdude]

The Ayatollah is indeed a religious leader and national leader. He believes his faith/religion is tightly wound up in his national identity. This is no different than the US’s white Protestants. Bush was no theologian, but he was deeply accepted as, more than a national leader for many white Protestants.

The war was a mission from God, for the majority of the white evangelicals.

[Donald Johnson]

I'm in agreement with someotherdude (and I'm friends with the same sort of Christians), Turbulence, and Jes. I think what Sebastian is doing is singling particular ways in which Muslims are violent which you don't find in modern Christianity so much and claiming that this has great moral significance. Frex, the Pope wouldn't put out a declaration that some blasphemous anti-Catholic writer should be executed and some Muslim religious leaders have, therefore according to Seb this means Islam is much worse than Christianity. But rightwing American Christians have been enthusiastic supporters of Reagan's policies in Central America and Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, and Bush's invasion of Iraq and they claim they support these policies on Christian grounds. It's not the same as putting a death sentence on Salman Rushdie, but I can't see that it's better.

[someotherdude]

Very many Americans have way more power over the lives of non-citizens. American citizenship offers many protections…however, the lives of foreigners…that is something all together different.

It’s nice to be The King (and part of his entourage)

[Glaivester]

A few thoughts that haven't been brought up yet...

The whole closing Gitmo thing was never that important to me, because the fact of the prison in Gitmo was never the real issue; the treatment of prisoners and the process for determining who was detained were the real issues. Somehow during the endless "War on Terror" debates this got sidetracked into whether or not to pledge to close a particular institution.

I will also be honest and say that the treatment of those prisoners who actually were terrorists was never the biggest concern with me. This may have been due to naivete as to how bad things were at Gitmo, but prisoner abuse at Gitmo was never somethign I thought much about (Abu Ghraib, on the other hand...)

Ther biggest concern with me was the question of what processes were in place to insure that we were imprisoning people who deserved it? Some people glossed over this (Mike Gallagher, notably, at least had the integrity to admit that he thought that imprisoning ten innocents to get one terrorist was worth it, almost everyone else simply assumed guilt and never bothered to consider the question; a very few people insisted that there were sufficient measures in place, but for some reason this was never the major talking point).

Here's the thing, I'm not sure that it's as out of sight/out of mind in the Muslim world. I'm also not that certain that photographs are so important.

Western audiences? Sure. But this has been a growing concern in the Muslim world for some time, and it will grow bigger.

The problem is, the Muslim world can't do much to harm us (yet) and Muslims are not a significant voting bloc in the U.S.

So it's likely that the President doesn't care what they think.

Now, back on thread--so Obama is (1) locking up people because he has no other choice, i.e. letting them go, because of the kind of people they are, is an even less appealing alternative, (2) afraid if he lets a bad person go and that bad person does something else bad, he will be blamed and he doesn't want to be blamed, so he is locking up a bunch of innocent people too or (3) rather than debate the merits of trials/release and jeopardize his domestic agenda, he is behaving as in No. 2 above, only for this other reason, and not for fear that he might let a bad person go.

The issue isn't letting everyone go, it is having some sort of fair judicial proceeding to determine guilt or innocence. I can understand the argument that you have evidence that proves someone to be a terroirst abut are afraid of it being suppressed on a technicality, but certainly if the President can use indefinite detention he can work around the rules of evidence; and I think that violating the Constitutional rules of evidence is certainly a lesser sin than simply indefinitely detaining someone, as in the very worst case scenario, the result is the same.

[J.J. (Jay Jerome)]

turbulence: "As you know, the US executed 290 people on an Iranian passenger airliner. Some people claimed it was an accident, but since the US government refused to apologize and refused to accept responsibility, there's no reason to believe it was an accident. After all, what kind of monster wouldn't apologize after accidentally killing almost 300 people?"

This is an intemperate stupid assertion. To say that it was not an accident suggests the US government intentionally ordered the downing of the airline, or that there was in place a policy to down any aircraft at any time at the discretion of the captain of the Vincennes.

It was a tragedy for all those innocent people to die that way, and I agree with the subsequent independent reports from the National Geographic documentary, and the Newsweek article, and other contemporary reports, that the captain of the ship 'acted recklessly without due care'-- but there was no suggestion in any of the documentation that the plane was shot down on any other authority then the captain's order, no evidence of US policies issued at any level of higher authority to shoot down civilian aircraft, nothing but your insinuation of it...

And as far as apologies, the US in fact sent letters of regret to the families of the victims, and about $62 million dollars to the heirs and legatees of the incident, which was included in the full settlement amount of $131 million (the government of Iran got the rest of it).

Of course to this day the government of Iran hasn't offered one cent in restitution to the victims or families of the 52 American Embassy staff they kidnapped and held prisoners for 444 days, or any note of regret or apology for the tortures and indignities suffered at the hands of their Iranian captors. -- But I'm sure you'll find some way to denigrate their incarceration and justify it...

[Donald Johnson]

The wikipedia article on the Vincennes shootdown of the airliner says this--

"The US government issued notes of regret for the loss of human lives and in 1996 paid reparations to settle a suit brought in the International Court of Justice regarding the incident. The United States government never admitted wrongdoing, nor apologized for the incident. In August 1988 Newsweek quoted the vice president George Bush as saying "I'll never apologize for the United States of America. Ever, I don't care what the facts are."[19][20][21] Bush used the phrase frequently[22] during the 1988 campaign and promised to "never apologize for the United States" months prior to the July 1988 attack and as early as January 1988."

I remember Bush posturing in that manner and he wouldn't have done it if he hadn't thought it would go over well with many voters.
And the US, according to wikipedia, didn't apologize or admit responsibility. I don't think it was deliberate--I think our country's response to it afterwards was just another example of American narcissism .

[Hartmut]

Can Pat Robertson be considered a religious leader? He called, on TV, for the assassination of Hugo Chavez among other vile things. It's of course possible to dismiss that because this was not justified with regard to religion unlike the stuff e.g. Ann Coulter (no religious authority) spouts for a living.
US religious figures on the right (these days) tend to call God's wrath down on their opponents instead of calling for murder. But some of their followers don't wait for the predicted earthquakes and meteor strikes but are willing to do God's work for him. One could be tempted to call/name the actions of the leaders 'godwhistling'. Khomeini was at least man enough to be open about it.
Caveat: I have no idea how much of the hatred spread by RW religious figures is actually genuine seeing e.g. how many anti-gay zealots were caught in the act themselves.

[Jesurgislac]

Of course to this day the government of Iran hasn't offered one cent in restitution to the victims or families of the 52 American Embassy staff they kidnapped and held prisoners for 444 days, or any note of regret or apology for the tortures and indignities suffered at the hands of their Iranian captors.

Did the US ever offer restitution to the families of the victims of the Shah of Iran, a monarch installed by the US in a coup d'etat overthrowing a democratic government? Mohammed Reza Pahlavi reigned for 26 years, propped up by the US, and the only semi-apology ever offered by any US government was Albright's acknowledgement that it didn't work out very well.

In 1976, Amnesty International noted that Iran had the "highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief. No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran."

That's what the US decided to do to the Iranians, for 26 years, to ensure access to oil. What happened to the 53 hostages was terrible: but far worse had happened to far more Iranians under the rule of the Shah.

Has the US ever offered restitution to Iran for installing such a monster and keeping him in power?