Some Truth in the Times


The Times notes today that the U.S. isn't to blame for all the world's problems being talked about at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. The U.S. has made concessions on fisheries replenishment, while the EU wants to continue subsidizing its commerical fishing fleet. The U.S. might have trade-distoring agriculture subsidies, but the EU is far worse and has been slammed by the developing countries. And the U.S. is joined by Japan, Australia, and Canada in opposing deadlines for conversion to renewable engery. But the U.S. is the world's badguy, accused of "unilateralism."

Recall that the U.S. wasn't the only country to be wary of the Rome Statute creating the Int'l Criminal Court. It's true that some nasties like Libya also didn't sign, but neither did the world's biggest democracy, India. Also, check out who has ratified, brining the treaty into force--mostly the Europeans (including Andorra and San Marino), a few African countries, and some Latin American countries, including such military powerhouses as Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, and Antigua. The "international community" has spoken.

And by the way--who didn't sing the landmines ban, along with the U.S.? Russia, China, India, Finland, and Korea. In other words, all the country that still need landmines for military protection. It's easy for countries like Canada to swear of landmines. They don't need them and they don't want them. I'll sign a treaty saying I'll never own a landmine, too. But nobody in the world would ever be safer, since I never planned to have one the first place and couldn't find any use for it if I had. But the US, Russia, China, and India, all major military powers with long borders, think they need them. And Finland and Korea--they're afraid of getting invaded. As one Finnish military officer is said to have remarked of his vocal landmine ban-supporting neighbors, "The Norwegians don't think they need landmines because Finland is their landmine." Oh, and who was the 60th country to ratify the landmine ban, brining it into for? That major military power...Jamaica. The world is now so much safer b/c Jamaica foreswore landmines. They really don't go well with daquiries and beaches.

Clearly We Need a New Treaty to Deal with This Global Menace

Traffic Deaths on Rise Globally, says the AP. My prediction: Prodded by NGOs, the World Health Organization will propose an international treaty to deal with road deaths, with high speed limits to be declared a violation of the human rights to life and effective public health measures. Think I'm kidding? WHO has a draft tobacco control treaty in the works now, including limits on advertising that would violate the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of commercial free speech.

Filmakers Attack US on Sept. 11th--with Canadian and French help

This is a Toronto Star article about a film called 11'09''01 that will open at the Toronto Film Festival and in France on 9-11.

Is it a commemoration of the all the innocent people killed? No, of course, not. According to the article, relying on the entertainment trade pub Variety, "[t]he work includes segments, especially those made by Chahine, Makhmalbaf and British filmmaker Ken Loach, which are fiercely critical of the United States and could prove embarrassing when the film opens in French movie houses on Sept. 11...[I]n Chahine's film, an unnamed filmmaker, who says: 'The U.S. and Israel are democracies, their governments are elected by their people — thus it is legitimate to attack their people.' Other examples cited by the trade publication include an allegedly sympathetic depiction of a suicide bomber and his family, and a tirade against the United States by British filmmaker Ken Loach."

No surprise its a French-produced film, especially given the best-selling status of the book that claims the U.S. government was behind the attacks. But I thought even the French would have some class and not show something like this on 9-11. And the Canadians? Wimps, yes, but I thought they had manners.

Background on the Temple Mount

As reports continue of the imminent collapse of the south wall of the Temple Mount because of the Waqf's destruction of Jewish archeology on the site, Moment Magazine has a good article by Herschel Shanks on the topic. My prediction: the wall collapses during Ramadan b/c of the weight of all the Muslim worshippers at the al-Aksa Mosque, and Muslims use the collapse as proof of the Israeli effort to undermine the site. The international media dutifully reports the lie.

Bring on the Lawyers

AP carries this report on "a bid by a male inmate to force the state to pay for a sex change operation and hormone therapy that would allow him to live as a woman." The federal district court said that the 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment doesn't require the treatment.

My prediction: If s/he hasn't already, s/he will next claim that the U.S. is violating international human rights law on the protection of prisoners, probably citing to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Torture Convention and listing various Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, UN, and EU reports on prison conditions in the US. S/he will gain support from various gay rights groups, human rights NGOs, and international law professors, who will write amicus briefs and law review articles on the subject and gain sympathetic hearings in Europe and on law school campuses in the fight to make the U.S. recognize "internationally accepted norms of fair treatment of incarcerated persons."

Arab Think-Tank's Jew-Hatred

The Jerusalem Post reports today that the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-up will be hosting a Holocaust denial conference. According to its website, the Zayed Center was founded by the Arab League and endorsed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Organization of African Unity.

Here's material from the Center's most recent conference on "Semitism":

"In his opening speech Mr. Mohammed Khalifa Al Murar, the Executive Director of the Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up repudiated Israelis claim of being the real Semites. 'Paradoxically, they accuse Arabs who are Semites themselves, of anti-Semitism. After having usurped the land of Palestine, they claim to be the sons of soil. They have exploited all possible tactics and their military and political clout to change world opinion in their favor. They know the hollowness of their claims...[T]hey churn out lies after lies till they make people believe that they are Semites and are being persecuted by others. They resort to this in order to cover their heinous crimes perpetrated against the Palestinian people...Jews claim to be God’s most preferred people but the truth is they are the enemies of all nations. Most philosophers like Zimmer, consider Jews as cheaters whose greed knows no bounds. Today, after having controlled print and electronic media, they distort facts to suit their objectives.'" He claimed that today's Jews are descendants of the Khazars who settled in Eastern Europe. (No comment about Jews from Arab lands or DNA tests that show Jews genetically related to Armenians and Arabs.)

Recent speakers at the Center have included both Lydon Larouche and his wife and Kurt Waldheim, described as "a strong supporter of oppressed people in general and the Palestinian people in particular...[who faced] the fierce campaign lead by Israel and global Zionism against Waldheim, accusing him of the grossest offences. Such accusations were just a Zionist reaction to this man’s honorable stances, as manifested in the issue of UN historical Resolution on considering Zionism a racist movement."

Appearing next week: former French Prime Minister and European Parliamentarian Mr. Michel Rocard, "well known for his pro-Arab stances and in particular his latest stand in which he called upon Israel to stop its blatant aggression against Palestinian people in different towns and villages."

But lest we think that the Center is just a collection of nutty Jew-haters, other visitors have included the German ambassador to the UAE and the US charge d'affairs in the UAE, and the Center has recieved mainstream scholars of Islam and high gov't officials from France (inlcuding Pres. Chirac), Japan, Germany, India, and Romania (including Pres. Ion Iliescu), and messages of support from Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. Many of the other activities of the Center appear to be straight-forward seminars and publications on events in the Muslim world.

And that's what is most scary. For all I know, this place actually is a standard, well-regarded Arab think-tank. And Jew-hatred is part of their regular fare.

Day of Mourning Declared as Satirewire Closes Down

Satirewire.com, which overtook the Onion as the web's best humor site, announced today that it is closing down. Very sad. My favorite stories:

God Names Next "Chosen People"; It's Jews Again.
"Oh Shit," Say Jews

U.S. Promises to Consult Allies Before Doing What It Was Going to Do Anyway

Correction: Bush Faints After Choking "The" Pretzel, Not Choking "On" Pretzel

U.S., Russia Sign Historic Nuke Treaty Neither Side Plans to Abide By

Canadian Warship Seizes Tanker In...Wait...Canada Has a Warship?

ACLU Takes Over Terror Investigation, Will Focus Attention on No One in Particular

Idiocy Watch--Jane Goodall

Too stupid for comment:

"Primate expert Jane Goodall told participants at the U.N. development summit Tuesday the fight against terrorism threatens to overshadow environmental concerns in the United States.

"Since Sept. 11, Americans haven't wanted to speak out for the environment because it doesn't seem patriotic,'' Goodall said. "If we allow our planet to deteriorate any more, the terrorists will get their victory."

More on the Lying UNH Professor

The UNH professor who blithely reports Taliban civilian casualty figures (see my 8/21 blog below) to criticize the war in Afghanistan has this gem in his "dossier":

"What I am saying is that when the 'other' is non-white, the scale of violence used by the U.S. government to achieve its state objectives at minimum cost knows no limits. A contrary case might be raised with Serbia which was also recently subjected to mass bombing. But, the Serbs were in the view of U.S. policymakers and the corporate media tainted ['darkened'] by their prior 'Communist' experience."

The stupidity of this comment is amazing. First, how does he know what was in the view of US policymakers and media? He doesn't quote anyone saying, "Let's bomb the Serbs; who cares if they're former Commies." He's just making that up in oder to dismiss a clear case of the U.S. bombing Europeans that contradicts his thesis. Second, note how he turns the experience of being Communist into "darkening." Another made-up distinction. Who said being Communist is darkening? There are lots of other former Communists who have joined NATO--Poles, Hungarians, Czechs. No one thinks of them as "dark." But the liar has to use that term in order to make a connection between Serbs--who are white Europeans--and Afghans so that his thesis holds up. Note, too, that he uses "communist" in quotes, as if Yugoslavia wasn't a self-proclaimed communist state. Third, he fails to point out that the people the U.S. was saving by bombing the Serbs were...Muslims. In fact, people that the Serbs acutally did view as an "other" who deserved to be killed. And the U.S. was saving them by bombing the Serbs. But that doesn't fit his narrative, so he just lies about the facts and twists reality to make the U.S. bombing of European Serbs to protect Muslims into an example of Western hatred for dark people. Such is the world these lying American-haters live in.

Why take this guy seriously? Because he has, unfortunately, had an impact b/c credulous Euroweenies and assorted American leftists and media believe him. We have to expose his lies.

And he just plain pisses me off.

Who Does the Times Like?

Today's Times carries an op-ed by James Bamford likening the admistration to the persecutors of Josef K in Kafka's "The Trial." Bamford implies that the slander against Josef K is what the administration is doing to innocent victims of the war on terrorism. Bamford should know all about slander. He's the guy who claimed in a book published last year that Israel intentionally attacked the USS Liberty during the Six Day War in order to hide the killing of prisoners of war. This was a new twist on an old lie that the attack on the Liberty was intentional. Of course, it's not true, as Michael Oren and CAMERA demonstrated. Bamford doesn't even know the basic history of the war, relies on dubious sources, makes up other sources, and straight out lies about the sources he does cite, such as articles in the Times itself that just don't say what he claims they say.

The Times credulously reported the publication of his book as front page news, altho' the book review section (as shown in the CAMERA piece cited above) noted the problems with the book. Now, the last book that the Times reported as news on its front page was Michael Bellesiles', who claimed that most early Americans didn't own guns and that, therefore, the 2nd Amendment applied only to state militias and did not establish an individual right to possess firearms. Reporters from the Boston Globe and National Review and other scholars have exposed Bellesiles as a fraud who made up a lot of his sources and mischaracterized others, and he's been put on leave by Emory while his case is investigated. The Times, months after the allegations against Bellesiles had been reported on by other people, finally did a story about Bellesiles lies, but never mentioned that its own paper had given him front-page coverage. The Times simply likes to report frauds--and won't apologize for it--when they advance its editorial line.

Religous Law on Capital Punishment

Today's National Review on-line has an article about Muslim views of cap pun. The author mistakenly views capital punishment in Islamic law outside its context, however. It is true that Islamic law contains stringent requirements of proof before a capital sentence is imposed, such as having two upstanding Muslim witnesses (defined as those who have two character witnesses testify that among other things, they attend mosque, fast during Ramadan, etc.) to the crime, etc. But Islamic law makes a distinction between "fiqh"--lawmaking authority by the ulema, the Muslim clergy--and "siyasa"--lawmaking authority by the secular ruler. If a criminal cannot be punished by a religious court b/c of failure to meet the Qu'ranic burden of proof, he's not set free. He is simply punished by the secular ruler under less stringent rules. The reason is the need for religious authorities to be absolutely sure of their proof b/c they are engaged in a religously mandated action and are imposing Allah's will on the criminal. The secular ruler, however, is ony imposing what society needs for its functioning. It's important to keep this distinction in mind, something the author of the NRO article didn't.

The same distinction exists in Jewish criminal law, where the king could always punish criminals based on society's need for social order even if a rabbinical court couldn't. The commonly cited Talmudic requirements of two witnesses, forewarning, etc. before imposing capital punishment did not apply to the king. In fact, the Talmudic criminal law was not, historically, a the primary criminal justice system. Thus, even if the evidentiary rules do express some kind of Jewish view of the ethics of cap pun, that view has to take into account that the rabbis knew that murderers were still subject to cap pun in another forum. Had murderers not been liable to the king's justice--or for that matter, to God's--then a very different view might have been expressed. Furthermore, even within the Talmudic system, the rabbis would suspend the evidentiary rules if the times required it, and they would execute people for non-biblically proscribed offenses. When opponents of cap pun cite the Talmudic evidentiary bars to cap pun as evidence that Jewish law is opposed to it, they are obscuring these facts.

"If there are murderers who are not subject to the [rabbinic] death penalty, then an Israelite king may execute them by his royal prerogative and by reason of societal need, if he so wishes. Likewise, if a court wishes to execute such a person as a temporary measure, they may do so if such are the need of the hour." Maimonides, Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Rotziach 2:4

"R. Eleazar b. Jacob says, 'I have heard that a court may decree capital punishment without the warrant of the Torah. This would not be in violation of the Torah but to protect it Such was the case with a man who rode a horse on the Sabbath in the days of the Hellenists, for which he was brought to court and stoned to death. It was not that such a punishment was biblically mandated for that act, but that the times required it.'" Sanhedrin 46a

NPR Collaborates

NPR--commonly known as "National Public Radio"--should remame itself "National Palestinian Radio." They had a report today on the murder of a Palestinian mother of seven for alleged collaboration with Israel, one of whose sons says that he and his mother were tortured into confessing. According to NPR, guess who is to blame? That's right...Israel, for making life so bad for Palestinians that they have no choice but to turn each other in and for using collaborators in the first place. Of course, the NPR reporter didn't say that herself. She just interviewed Palestinian and Israeli "human rights activists" who said that for her. Naturally, the reporter didn't bother interviewing anyone who provided a contrary, sane, not "blame the Jews" view of the situation.

I hereby propose two more renamings for NPR. The morning show should be called "Morning Sedition," and the afternoon show should be called "All Things Distorted."

Spain, Turkey, and Terrorism

Spain is moving toward outlawing Batasuna, the Basque independence political party, for having ties to the Basque terrorist group, ETA. Judge Baltazar Garzon (best known for indicting right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet but not left-wing dictator Fidel Casto) today suspended the party's political activities, and Parliament is meeting in special session to endorse a gov't move to have the Supreme Court outlaw the party entirely.

These are good policies for groups that attack innocent Spaniards, killing, most recently, a six-year-old girl in a bombing, and a politician in front of his wife and children. But they raise, once again, the issue of European hypocrisy.

In addition to these recent moves, the then-Socialist Spanish government ran death squads in the early-to-mid 1980s called Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberacion (GAL, Antiterrorist Liberation Groups). The GAL kidnapped, tortured, and executed a few dozen suspected and actual Basque separatists in both Spain and France, partly to put pressure on the French, who had let Spanish Basques operate from French terroritory with impunity. (French appeasement of terrorists is nothing surprising, but ignoring terrorists harming another European country? Again, not surprising. The French let go a couple of Iranian agents wanted by the Swiss for killing an Iranian dissident in Geneva. And French military officers let Serb war criminals wanted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia know that American and Dutch NATO troops were planning an operation to arrest them. Remember that the next time the French say anything about U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court.) But back to the Spanish. The GAL were finally shut down after the Defense Minister and other top leaders were arrested and convicted of planning the kidnapping of a Basque businessman who, it turned out, was not tied to ETA. But during the trial, information came out that suggested that the Socialist prime minister, Felipe Gonzalez, might have known about GAL. Even the guys convicted in that case recieved pardons and served almost no time for the crimes.

Are other Europeans any better? Well, the British government under Maggie Thatcher had a shoot-to-kill policy against IRA terrorists, including the famous operation in Gibralter when Special Air Service (SAS) commandos killed three terrorists who were apparently trying to surrender. A British police inspected named, of all things, Stalker, documented this in a report following the Gibralter operation and subsequently had his career ruined.

Amnesty International also has reported that ETA prisoners are tortured and their tortures hardly punished. I don't believe AI is a reliable source at all, but I should note that the Euroweenies trust AI implicitly on anything it says about the US, Turkey, or Israel, but ignore them when it their own ox on the alter. I should also point out that AI apparently has been condeming ETA terrorism for years, but only just got around to condeming Palestinians a couple of months ago.

But what's okay for the Spaniards and Brits isn't okay for the Turks. When Turkey has taken similar actions to destroy the Kurdish terrorist group, PKK, and to shut down political parties that support it, it has been condemned by the EU, and those actions have been used as an excuse to delay Turkey's entrance into the union. It seems that the only Muslims Europeans are willing to tolerate in Europe are the radicals who preach hatred in Hamburg, Paris, and London's Finley Square mosque. Secular, pro-American, anti-Communist Turks aren't good enough. The PKK ran its tv station out of London and raised money and sympathy among leftists in Europe. Furthermore, like ETA and Batasuna, the PKK and their Kurdish political party supporters are Marxist-Leninist and raise money through extortion and drug-dealing. Despite the Europeans, the PKK was mostly crushed by harsh military measures and its leader, Abdullah Ocalan (pronounced "URGE-alan"), captured after hiding out in the Greek embassy in Kenya. (There were rumors of Israeli assistance to the Turks in the operation to get Ocalan. I can only hope that's true.)

The vast majority of Turks wanted Ocalan executed, and he was tried and sentenced to death. But then the EU intervened and said that his execution would cause problems for Turkey's EU membership application. And, indeed, Turkey's cabinet recently voted to abolish cap pun, a move opposed by the nationalist party in the governing coalition to no avail. Do the Turks really think that will help? The Euroweenies will find another excuse to keep them out (note--my use of the term "Euroweenies" implies no animus whatsoever toward weenies. I quite fond of my own, tho' I prefer that other people keep theirs to themselves. Live and let live, I say.)

I should add that I don't particularly have a problem with the Spanish are doing, or what the Brits, and one of my favorite politicians, the Iron Lady, did. But why can't the Turks, the Israelis, and U.S. do the same? Who the are the Euroweenies to criticize other countries' antiterrorist activities?

Wedgie Death

If I had been as uptight as this guy , my older brother would not have survived adolescence: "A man accused of trying to kill a friend who gave him a 'wedgie' will stand trial on an attempted murder charge, a judge ruled."