HipHipHooray for Kuwait actually coming through with solid rights for women, after its original halfway commitment met with such positive reaction, as in this column, for which thanks here.

New reason for concern ('Us' being soviet espionage when the cold war ended for most of us): "For us that meant: while favourable circumstances exist it is essential to utilize the respite to deploy to the West as many Illegals as possible and to cultivate and recruit more special agents."

From former Soviet biochemical weapons agent Alexander Kouzminov, see: http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/news/shownews.jsp?content=n0518113A#

not a word on mass murder in Uzbekistan? Nothing about Rick Santorum calling democrats Nazis?

And why has no one on this site commented on the New York Times story about the torture murder of Afghan detainees --- and the two and a half year cover-up by the Bush regime of those murders?

(yet the comments from some journalist that no one ever heard of gets a full post ..... who knows if she is right or not? After all, the Bush regime isn't going to admit that it is targetting journalists, any more than it admitted these murders. They will cover up and deny the most egregious atrocities until someone finally has the cojones to leak documentary proof --- and then the Bush regime defenders will talk about how it all "happened years ago" and how much worse the "terrorists" have been....)

Uzbekistan is covered here, I thought Dan did a balanced job, you may differ. I have my own post in the works that touches on Uzbekistan, if I ever finish it. Santorum is on my list for the next update. As for the crimes at Baghram, I'd agree that it's a worthy topic. On reflection on my own reading of that article, (and I did read all six thousand words), there may be aspects that are within scope for this Briefing. That you will find all this satisfactory is not something I can guarantee.

rsmythe,

Political murder is not the same as organized hate, which is the topic of this briefing. We don't cover the Chinese gulags here, either (though there may be room to cover Tibet in this context). We could cover Zimbabwe, however, because there's a strong tribal dimension to the violence and organized hate by Mugabe's government against other ethnic groups. See the difference?

And in truth, whether you see it or not, this is what informs Lewy's coverage.

We covered Uzbekistan via regular features on this blog, lots of analysis there to think about. I'd advise you to look into it.

We don't cover normal political namecalling that doesn't rise to the level of organized, incited hatred. About the only U.S. politician I can think of offhand who rises to this level in Congresscreature Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), whose hatred of Jews is well known and often publicly stated.

JK:

You were a little piqued, for sure, and M.Smythe seems to take a censorious view of an extensive and commendable post because it missed his favored topics. I have asked myself for something to be covered, and it was, very adequately, in Kuwait.

However, Joe, you in the same paragraph disapproved of 'namecalling' and then refered to 'Congresscreature...'? While I too think antisemitism is surely less than distinguished, that still is namecalling, isn't it?

Both you and lewy14 are right to stand up for DD, of course, who does a good service.

Political murder is not the same as organized hate, which is the topic of this briefing.

I would agree. And it seems clear that what was done to the two murdered Afghanis (and heaven knows how many others who didn't happen to die) was not a "political murder", but organized hate. No one is being charged with murder in these killings --- the worst charge is "involuntary manslaughter". Much of the torture that took place was not even related to "interrogation" --- it was pure and simple beating of people because of their beliefs.

To say that this....

"He screamed out, 'Allah! Allah! Allah!' and my first reaction was that he was crying out to his god," Specialist Jones said to investigators. "Everybody heard him cry out and thought it was funny." Other Third Platoon M.P.'s later came by the detention center and stopped at the isolation cells to see for themselves, Specialist Jones said. It became a kind of running joke, and people kept showing up to give this detainee a common peroneal strike just to hear him scream out 'Allah,' " he said. "It went on over a 24-hour period, and I would think that it was over 100 strikes."

....somehow does not fall into the category of "organized hate" is absurd.

rsmythe,

You obviously read this briefing for what is does not contain rather than what it does.

Good round up Lewy.

What I really find most useful about the job you do here is not the links to those stories like the Afghan abuse which is getting wide play on the net, but the things that I tend to miss in my surfing.

And I really don't need a report about one elected official calling another elected official a name, I get it live everyday right on my TV.

Joe, TG, I appreciate the comments and I agree with them. I would offer a few [OK, many] words of additional clarification.

With respect to politicians and political speech, it is true that zorkie and I mostly look the other way, because it’s so common and goes with the territory. As to derogatory remarks about public servants as a class, “Congresscritter” (the more common form) has such currency that I’m surprised my word processor considers it a spelling error. [E.g. on HBO’s Deadwood, psycho killer Wolcott said in reference to the county commissioner: “I am a sinner, and I do not expect forgiveness, but at least I am not a Government official”. Funny as sh-t. Arguably unfair, cynical, and rude, and still a huge (and likely bipartisan) laugh line. This is Hatewatch, not Mannerswatch].

I make exceptions for particularly egregious racial or religious insults directed at political figures, especially those which I don’t think get adequate coverage. Further, there is the whole business of comparison to the Nazis, where even if the target of the comparison should be expected to have a thick skin, the continual facile and dubious comparisons devalue the historical impact of the actual Nazis and their crimes. Wal-Mart fell into that bin this week; I’m going to look closely at Santorum’s comments in that regard.

Finally on the crimes at Baghram: many motives can be considered, among them Vengeance, and Wrath. This isn’t Sin Watch, it’s Hatewatch, and I don’t cover road rage either. And before you flip over my flip remark, rsmythe, keep reading. The pure fascination of hurting others for sport also seems to be at play here, but this isn’t Sadism Watch either. Now Vengeance, Wrath and Sadism are all to be condemned, vigorously: I know some who would disagree about the Vengeance part but I’m not among them. Another aspect is torture for the production of intelligence. I’ll acknowledge that this is a serious issue but again it’s not like this isn’t discussed in other places. With respect to Baghram, there remains the possibility that on aspect of motive for the torture and killing of the two prisoners wasn’t a sickness of the Soul, or the Psyche, or a (possibly criminal) attempt to obtain Intelligence – but instead, a collective and organized will to punish people for who they were and what they believed. And that would surely make it a topic for this briefing, and I have to say that the excerpt you quoted provides some evidence of this possibility. I’ll take another look at the article.

Joe may have a different opinion here; I think the question would revolve around the critical mass for what one would consider “organization” of organized hate – was this case spontaneous, or premeditated in some way? And where does the standard of evidence and benefit of the doubt lie? I’m open to input.

rsmythe, I’ve answered you at length because your concern and distress appears to me to be sincere, and not a product of our rather obvious political differences, and your response is considered and civil. I appreciate this, thanks.

rsmythe, I’ve answered you at length because your concern and distress appears to me to be sincere, and not a product of our rather obvious political differences, and your response is considered and civil. I appreciate this, thanks.

Thank you.

To me,warfare in itself is usually a form of "organized hate" -- we (rightfully) require our soldiers to kill "the enemy" without any regard for their humanity, or the morality of taking another human life. We do, however, demand that the "hate killing" be done in a "lawful" manner --- and it is America's insistence upon "the law" that makes us possible for us to be say that we are different from the pre-modern "rape, pillage, and torture" model of warfare.

There are certain aspects of that article that strongly suggest that the limits imposed by "the law" were being ignored --- and that this was deliberate. I found these quotes particularly shocking...

Even though military investigators learned soon after Mr. Dilawar's death that he had been abused by at least two interrogators, the Army's criminal inquiry moved slowly. Meanwhile, many of the Bagram interrogators, led by the same operations officer, Capt. Carolyn A. Wood, were redeployed to Iraq and in July 2003 took charge of interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison.

But documents and interviews reveal a striking disparity between the findings of Army investigators and what military officials said in the aftermath of the deaths. Military spokesmen maintained that both men had died of natural causes, even after military coroners had ruled the deaths homicides. Two months after those autopsies, the American commander in Afghanistan, then-Lt. Gen. Daniel K. McNeill, said he had no indication that abuse by soldiers had contributed to the two deaths. The methods used at Bagram, he said, were "in accordance with what is generally accepted as interrogation techniques."

But with President Bush's final determination in February 2002 that the Conventions did not apply to the conflict with Al Qaeda and that Taliban fighters would not be accorded the rights of prisoners of war, the interrogators believed they "could deviate slightly from the rules," said one of the Utah reservists, Sgt. James A. Leahy. "There was the Geneva Conventions for enemy prisoners of war, but nothing for terrorists," Sergeant Leahy told Army investigators. And the detainees, senior intelligence officers said, were to be considered terrorists until proved otherwise.

That instruction included an overview of "pressure-point control tactics" and notably the "common peroneal strike" - a potentially disabling blow to the side of the leg, just above the knee. The M.P.'s said they were never told that peroneal strikes were not part of Army doctrine. Nor did most of them hear one of the former police officers tell a fellow soldier during the training that he would never use such strikes because they would "tear up" a prisoner's legs. But once in Afghanistan, members of the 377th found that the usual rules did not seem to apply. The peroneal strike quickly became a basic weapon of the M.P. arsenal. "That was kind of like an accepted thing; you could knee somebody in the leg," former Sgt. Thomas V. Curtis told the investigators.

Now certainly, some of what happened at Bagram (and Abu Ghraib) can be chalked up to a lack of training. But there is far too much that suggests that "the rules/the law" did not apply at Bagram --- and that the dehumanization of the enemy that is a necessary part "organized hate" of warfare was allow/encouraged to extend itself to the treatment of detainees.

I have a great deal of empathy for those who committed the torture of prisoners --- how was the average soldier supposed to interpret the transfer of Captain Wood from Afghanistan (where things were slowing down) to Iraq (where things had heated up?) other than as approval/acquiescence to the methods employed that resulted in the deaths of Habibullah and Dilawar? To me, the real guilty parties are not the soldiers who committed these heinous acts, but the leadership (all the way to the top) that (at best) sent mixed signals about what was permissible.

rsmythe,

Factual point: The Geneva Conventions do not apply to the conflict with al-Qaeda. Much of the raison d'etre for those very Conventions is tied up with why that is so.

And why anyone would campaign strenuously to put those terrorists under a system to which they are not entitled and in which they are not obliged to answer any questions is beyond me. Personally, I think that worldview is insane.

War is not part of the hatewatch briefing. We have lots of other briefings for that. This briefing is about organized mass hatred outside of war - and when you look at the death tolls last century, war loses in a landslide - around 169M to 36M).

There's a reason we chose to cover this stuff.

Nor, given that definition, is this a forum even for the ennumeration of torture. If it were, the Islamic Republic of Iran, China, and many other nations would easily fill these posts to overflowing. Note their absence.

Lewy, if those example are fit, I would expect to hear lots about Chinese, Iranian and other systems as well in future briefings. Personally, I would look at that as a distraction from the animating purpose of this briefing and the serious issue it represents. One of the filters I use in referring things, for instance, is "is this the sort of thing that could lead to the systematic murder of thousands outside of war."

Much as I despise the Iranians, it would be hard to fit their torture practices into that unless we were talking about it as emblematic of treatment of Bahais in general. And that might be a stretch. The Chinese may have more exposure given the Tibetan issue, but even then my tendency would be to focus HateWatch on the macro-level cultural genocide/ ethnic cleansing aspects, which to me are both better fits and more consequential on a larger scale.

My 2 cents.

and that the dehumanization of the enemy that is a necessary part "organized hate" of warfare was allow/encouraged to extend itself to the treatment of detainees.

how can you dehumanize that which is already inhuman ?

No, our enemies have dehumanized themselves, by their own actions.

Its our humanity we are interested in preserving. not theirs, they have none.

That is why we hold a dim view of those of us that violate our standards.

And for that, we certainly need no advice from the left, standing beside their mountain of skulls.

The Geneva Conventions do not apply to the conflict with al-Qaeda.

If that conflict is regarded exclusively as a "law enforcement" issue, that is the case -- and then other aspects of international law apply.

However, when we start talking literally about a "war on terror", all individuals captured in battle or who are under the control of an occupying authority/the military are subject to the Conventions. That does not mean that everyone is treated like a POW -- civilians are not treated like POWs, for instance, but civilians cannot be detained "indefinitely" unless there is evidence of criminal activity.

There is no "suspected terrorist" category in the Geneva Conventions, nor is there any special category for a "war on terror" --- when the US uses military force outside its own territory, the Geneva Conventions apply, and when the US places non-American citizens under US military authority, the Conventions apply.

The Conventions were designed to be "open-ended", i.e. they were intended to cover all instances concerning the use of military force. The US has attempted to claim that there exists some sort of amorphous "twilight zone" that allows it to ignore the basic human rights when it comes to those it detains in what it is calling "the war on terror". But this twilight zone does not exist except in the imaginations of those who wish to justify their impulses to ignore human rights because of their fear.

Must be nice when you can just make up international law as you go along, rsmythe. The fact that we're talking about a "war on terror" vs. a police action is irrelevant. The key is the status of "unlawful combatants" (which depends only on our enemies' conduct) and WHY the distinction is made.

I would advise those who are interested in this topic to go do some research... but really, this topic is a digression from the subject of the post. I did not wish to let that fact allow rsmythe to say things that simply weren't true without an answer - but having had a back-and-forth and referred people to do research if they're interested, I'll let Lewy14 decide if he wants discussion on that topic to continue in his thread.

I was away for a while as I got a serendipitous chance to go out to eat and see the Star Wars movie. Back now. Movie is off topic – and so is the Geneva conventions. Believe me there is a great deal I’d love to add to the discussion but I’m going to role model some focus here and shut up. I’d encourage all to join me in shutting up. Strongly.

Regarding the torture – I agree with Joe in that torture per se isn’t a sufficient indicator for inclusion in this Briefing. I do think there is a legitimate question as to whether specific, virulent, organized hate was responsible for the abuses at Baghram. Some people may object to even raising the question, but I’ll take it seriously and give it a straight answer.

The kind of expressions which are indicative of hatred and are highlighted in this Briefing are generally “over the top” and quite explicit. You don’t have to “connect the dots”. The burden of proof is pretty high but the sad thing is so many items meet that burden so easily every damn week.

Having reviewed the article again and though hard about it: the evidence points to a kind of collective degeneration to sadism and vengeance, as opposed to organized hatred of Muslims. There was negligence in letting this arise and fester, and delay in squelching it, and it was costly, in lives and reputation. I do think the topic requires attention.

But it does not require it here.

There as yet may come an “idiotarian” quote from some military or government official, demonstrating a completely haywire and unapologetically messed up moral compass, which will find a home in the eponymous section of the Briefing. As yet there is no "smoking idiot".

In general, I’m on the same page with Joe about the topic scope, which is no accident because we discuss it. Large scale is indeed the focus, though sometimes admittedly the casualty statistics are small – e.g. the young woman killed by her parents because she wanted to marry a Muslim – this struck me as a noteworthy expression of religious hate. I think hatred against the Bahai or Zoroastrians (or the Ahmadiyya Muslims of Pakistan) would certainly count; there are stories on the latter that I’m keeping my eye on. The Chinese say a lot of bad things about the Tibetan Buddhist lamas, but not that they should all be killed – if zorkie or I do find something like that, or someone sends it in, it will likely run.

Discussions of scope arise here frequently. Sometime I have more patience and time to answer them. Sometimes less, and for this Briefing said patience is nearing exhaustion. Aside from omissions on account of discovery and time and space (bits are cheap, reader attention is dear) there will always be editorial judgments involved. In this Briefing as of now, those judgments belong to zorkie and myself, with Joe as the final arbiter. If your wondering if we’re totally fair, we aren’t, as measured either by Objective Reality (which we have no privileged access to), or by agreeing with “you” (whoever “you”) are.