OK, I keep hearing these reports about Al Qaeda types claiming that they will treat western prisoners like their "Iraqi brothers" in Abu Ghraib.

So, what are they going to do? Make them j3rk off while wearing womens' underthings on their heads? Somehow, it doesn't seem like them...

"It is going to get much worse. The graphic videos and photographs that have so far been shown only to Congress are, I have been persuaded by someone who has seen them, not likely to remain secret for very long. And, if you wonder why formerly gung-ho rightist congressmen like James Inhofe ("I'm outraged more by the outrage") have gone so quiet, it is because they have seen the stuff and you have not. There will probably be a slight difficulty about showing these scenes in prime time, but they will emerge, never fear. We may have to start using blunt words like murder and rape to describe what we see. And one linguistic reform is in any case already much overdue. The silly word "abuse" will have to be dropped."

Hitchens in Slate today.

In other words, you ain't seen nothing yet.

I'm curious as to the hawkish side of the blogosphere's silence on the memo, which if implemented, (and no-one has denied that) would mean the end of the Republic, in practice if not rhetoric.

Only the exercise in cognitive dissonance known as Andrew Sullivan has had much to say.

Duncan, I've never defended what occured at Abu Ghraib. I've repeatedly called the people who did it morons (and that applies as far up the line as necessary). Whoever bears responsibility should be punished, as far up as it goes, and the fact that that's likely to occur is what differentiates us from others (e.g., the UN).

But I'm not impressed by criticism from Al Qaeda, or the UN, or HRW, or the ICRC, for various reasons.

And the notion that if we didn't do such things we'd be treated better by the minions of bin Laden is, to use the most gentle word possible, absurd. So much so that only an intellectual could believe it.

That was the link to the toxic Gonzalez memo. Here is the link to the supertoxic Yoo memo. [PDF]

And the notion that if we didn't do such things we'd be treated better by the minions of bin Laden is, to use the most gentle word possible, absurd.

The record on Islamic hostage-taking points to a slightly different story. While Beirut was no picnic, nobody set dogs on Terry Waite. And even in Iraq, western hostages have been released unharmed. In the main, non-U.S. hostages. There might be a link.

Al-Queda needs to be crushed, decisively - but there is no way that is going to happen if you decide its members are some sort of demonic animal, instead of human beings. No way.

The record on Islamic hostage-taking points to a slightly different story. While Beirut was no picnic, nobody set dogs on Terry Waite. And even in Iraq, western hostages have been released unharmed. In the main, non-U.S. hostages. There might be a link.

You're dumping a bunch of incidents into a single box. Some non-American hostages have been murdered, some American hostages have been released. We don't know in all cases who were the hostage takers, or what their motives were. Danny Pearl happened a long time before Abu Ghraib.

Sorry, but I don't see the pattern.

Al-Queda needs to be crushed, decisively - but there is no way that is going to happen if you decide its members are some sort of demonic animal, instead of human beings. No way.

I'm trying to figure out what this means in the context of anything that I've ever written, or what you propose that we do.

Danny Pearl happened a long time before Abu Ghraib.

But after Afganistan. Abu Ghraib has its roots in what happen after the fall of the Taliban. While everybody was still in a justifiable red-fog back then, it got fairly brutal for the detainees. Primarily by the locals, but there were hints of direct U.S. involvment.

In terms of Al-Queda, they will be ultimately defeated if a): their membership becomes politically disillusioned; b) their host populations hate Al-Queda more than they hate the West.
Assuming that they are totally beyond appeal will not achieve objective a).

My impression of the Pearl incidence is that the decision to kill him came after his kidnaping.

Danny Pearl happened a long time before Abu Ghraib.

But after Afganistan. Abu Ghraib has its roots in what happen after the fall of the Taliban.

Really?

Really?

I'm having trouble getting my head around the notion that people who had no qualms about murdering flight crew so they could fly the airplanes into populated skyscrapers would somehow acquire some kind of scrupulousness about not beheading American journalists.

In terms of Al-Queda, they will be ultimately defeated if a): their membership becomes politically disillusioned; b) their host populations hate Al-Queda more than they hate the West.

That already appears to be happening in some parts of Iraq.

Assuming that they are totally beyond appeal will not achieve objective a).

Why? And if so, why is objective (a) critical? It would seem to me that objective (b) is sufficient.

My impression of the Pearl incidence is that the decision to kill him came after his kidnaping.

What would elict such a strange impression?

I'm having trouble getting my head around the notion that people who had no qualms about murdering flight crew so they could fly the airplanes into populated skyscrapers would somehow acquire some kind of scrupulousness about not beheading American journalists.

The dupes who fled planes into the World Trade Center had no concerns about their future captivity.

Carrot and stick...

And if so, why is objective (a) critical?
Because every population has its stupid young men.
Klebold and Harris were gunning for literally hundreds of students. It's fortunate that they failed Bombmaking 101.
That's Bali and Madrid level.
And that was in a nice Denver suburb.

The key is giving these idiots a way out of madness.

"fled" = flew, of course...

The dupes who flew planes into the World Trade Center had no concerns about their future captivity.

I continue to be amazed that you really believe that these creatures have any knowledge of the Geneva Conventions, or that they predicate their actions on them.

The key is giving these idiots a way out of madness.

They already have one: STOP MURDERING INNOCENT AMERICANS.

When they appear to show some interest in taking that way out, we can show some interest in lightening up on them.

One thing the Islamists have shown is a willingness and ability to take the guilt and words of the west and use it for their own gain. Judge what they do, not what they say.