HaloScan.com - Comments

Another nail in irony's coffin.
Gus | 09.19.06 - 5:54 pm | #

You are on a roll today Glenn.

Kudos.
kindness | 09.19.06 - 5:55 pm | #

Glenn, I'd be interested in your take on the competing "torture Bills" arguments. Especially inasmuch as [my understanding is] all versions essentially do away w/ the writ of habeus corpus...
bamage | 09.19.06 - 6:02 pm | #

Does anyone else see the irony in her (I'm assuming) being in favor of these men getting a hearing before the ICC?

Make no mistake, I'm not in favor of any country giving up sovereignty to the ICC, but neither was she until (as with all neocons) it suited her purposes.

Can they be any more hypocritical?
RAC | 09.19.06 - 6:02 pm | #

I wonder what it is about this case that makes Michelle and Gateway Pundit so concerned for the Rights of Terrorists when normally they mock those who express such concern? What's different here?

that's easy.

Did our infallible Dear Leader accuse them of being terrorists? no. It was some brown-skinned foreigners who worship a false god. Of course they deserve a fair trial.
r€nato | 09.19.06 - 6:03 pm | #

Maybe there is a some new kind of virus running rampant in places where Republicans gather that destroys the ability to detect irony. We'll call it Irony Dissipation In Organ Tissue Syndrome.
e_five | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 6:07 pm | #

Now now Glenn, consistency is the hobgoblin of tiny minds. And Michelle has some nice concentration camps picked out where we can intern our hobgoblins for the duration of the Waronterra.
djangone | 09.19.06 - 6:08 pm | #

Like you said, the column writes itself. It's like Bush's claim that his terror amendments are for the sake of "clarity." Clarity to perform unspecified (and classified) acts at secret locations and to use the fruits of such "alternate procedures" at secret "trials" which don't meet any accepted standard of U.S. justice. Or as I keep asking myself - did I miss that day in Crim Pro?
Craigffm | 09.19.06 - 6:16 pm | #

And is anybody surprised by any of this?
Alan | 09.19.06 - 6:16 pm | #

I was going to add..

It think the question was rhetorically posed here or somewhere near here how the shrill right would feel if Christians (or any "true" Americans) in Muslim countries were tried under the conditions that Bush is insisting for his own pet prosecutions.

Question has never been answered until now.

Don't expect them to reconcile the inconsistency. They will simply claim that it isn't wrong when THEY do it.
Alan | 09.19.06 - 6:19 pm | #

Glenn:

The hypocrisy displayed by Dr. Jesse Malkin is just stunning....oops....I mean Michelle Malkin.
Dr. Rudy Kastner | 09.19.06 - 6:20 pm | #

Wingnuttia: A land far, far away beyond the influence of cognitive dissonance.
j swift | 09.19.06 - 6:22 pm | #

RAC: Does anyone else see the irony in her (I'm assuming) being in favor of these men getting a hearing before the ICC?

No, no one noticed. After all, it's not like Glenn's piece was sarcastic or anything.

Make no mistake, I'm not in favor of any country giving up sovereignty to the ICC

Yeah, let's not give up sovereignty to justice.

but neither was she until (as with all neocons) it suited her purposes.

The problem isn't that she's for ensuring justice there, it's that she's against it here.

djangone: Now now Glenn, consistency is the hobgoblin of tiny minds.

Please don't smear Emerson like that; he said a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
truth machine | 09.19.06 - 6:48 pm | #

To the Right, what matters is who is doing what to whom. Often different words are employed depending on whose team is under discussion. For instance: We have dedicated and resourceful covert agents committed to the preservation of our way of life while They have zealous and cunning spies sworn to perpetuating their regime. The paralells are obvious.
nyclept | 09.19.06 - 6:59 pm | #

This was the most evenhanded seeming article I could find on the subject.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006...9/news/ indo.php

That's the problem when you just root for the home team as opposed to caring about justice. You occasionally seem like a sufferer of I.D.I.O.T.S.

By the way, I'm not ignoring the possibility that these men are being set up. But the hypocracy in evidence remains unmistakable.

I wonder how long it will be before Indonesia joins the list of rogue states that we should bomb into submission?
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 7:01 pm | #

the mask is off.

the battle is not about terrorism - it's about good vs. evil, and that of course is "us" vs. "them".
.
selise | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 7:02 pm | #

Malkin writes only after drinking a half-gallon of antifreeze.
Five of Diamonds | 09.19.06 - 7:03 pm | #

They are so outlandish. Keep helping 'um fall in their own cobweb. I remember misspelling a very respectable lady...lady...a ladies name once...Her name was spelled with one "l" in Michele, not two "l's" as in blog-Michelle.

She, the one with one "l" in Michele was so lovable working on the farm in partnership; "There is NO Hell in Michele, she smiled."

I use to remain awake at night, thinking over conversation preparing/attending for DC Farmer Markets, and even smiling and longing for daybreak...She could take the war out of Rumsfeld etc.,

Oh, she is too pure for defilement like that...But I still see Michele now and then...she makes me happy as a singing bird.

Two-"l" Michelle is an abomination, to say it nicely, as vultures do pick some rotten bone to pick on at blog-roadkills?...Who gives 'uhem female blog-buzzards orders? You got to love them? How they retain such adolescent rudeness! Is any one doing a serious human psychology study about, the not so enchanting, contemp's, in legal analysis, sociology, or plain criminal behavior in ref: to mythological Helen incarnations? ref: callous modern Women?

Or in ref: to that 'ole reasons for bloody Troy? I really can't be entertained. I try to be gracious, but thanks to those who dare "touch"....it's essential. god love such harshness?
brotherbruz | 09.19.06 - 7:10 pm | #

There's alot of hypocrisy in the Bush crowd, but I have to wonder: is this the most insanely hypocrtical assertion yet?

I say 'yes'. What compares to this?
Steve | 09.19.06 - 7:13 pm | #

I previously posed a hypothetical about an American Christianist cult organizing a terror attack on Saudi Arabia or the UAE. I wonder, if SA or UAE gathered enough evidence to announce that an American citizen or citizens had organized the attack, if the U. S. Gov't would have the nerve to deport the perpetrators to face justice?
Rufus | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 7:25 pm | #

I actually don't think they're hypocrites, in this instance. Walk up to any insane Bush Brigade member, and ask him. He'll tell you that Christians are just better than Muslims and deserve better treatment. Period.

Are they bats**t insane? Very likely. Dumber than a bag of hammers? Quite. Making nonsensical arguments completely without merit? You betcha.

But, they're not being hypocritical, in light of the fact that they'll fully admit they apply different standards to people like themselves than they will to Muslims. They don't understand the hypocrisy and irony in THAT, of course, but that's a separate matter.
Kristin | 09.19.06 - 7:28 pm | #

What, they didn't torture them into a false confession?

Amateurs.
dk | 09.19.06 - 7:29 pm | #

Oh, I get it now. It's only Muslim terrorists who have no rights. Christian terrorists are doing God's work and (like our Dear Leader) are therefore exempt when THEY kill innocent civilians. Thanks for clearing that up.
dalloway | 09.19.06 - 7:41 pm | #

Glenn - The article you point to shows another example of why the positions of McCain, Warner and Graham make no sense. It make no difference what the hell the U.S. does with respect to the Geneva Conventions, because other countries who are also signatories only selectively follow its provisions.

In this instance the religion of peace majority was brutally persecuting the Christian minority in Indonesia (Where else have we seen Islamic violence against Christians folks?). According to the defense, exculpating witnesses were prevented from testifying. Who knows what actually happened among the beheadings and machete killings. Given that the Muslims wanted to remove the Christians from the part of the country under question, I have my suspicions.

I think it's a leap to your hypocrisy charge Glenn. It's more like a death penalty protest in this country and again a perfect example of why what we do with the Geneva Conventions doesn't seem to matter.
daleyrocks | 09.19.06 - 7:49 pm | #

Makes you wonder what her position is on Jewish terrorists like Yehuda Etzion?
NobodySpecial | 09.19.06 - 7:54 pm | #

I have been dissecting posts on the right and left of the blogwars, and I have to say that Glenn is a great champion of logos. As for the right, their arguments are often grounded in emotion and pathos. For lack of a better description, their positions are unconsidered and primitive. For instance, in this post, the egregious Don Surber argues in that if liberals do not support the WOT, the terrorist bogeymen will "will wake them up someday with a burqa over their pointy heads."

Is this what policy debate in this country has come to? Tales to scare children?

Likewise, Malkin's arguments betray the pure tribalism of her worldview; "members of my 'tribe,' (whether christian, american, conservative, whatever) deserve loyalty and unquestioning protection against acts of members of other tribes. Our actions are always above reproach, and those foreigners better watch their butts!"

So there you have it, the essence of the "War on Terrorism." Pure lizard-brain tribalism, a grim manifestation for the Right-wing authoritanians' lack of ability to self-analyze.
stogie | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 8:01 pm | #

It doesn't matter if someone murders Daleyrocks in his sleep, because that's not as bad as what Stalin and Pol Pot did.
truth machine | 09.19.06 - 8:04 pm | #

Daleyrocks, leader of the rush to the lowest common denominator. NobodySpecial

What, you mean it shouldn't be the US's goal to get on the list of notorious human rights abusers?
Anonymous | 09.19.06 - 8:06 pm | #

Please don't denigrate lizards, which are solitary and, for the most part, rather gentle and laid back creatures (unless you're an insect). Tribalism is a distinctly human trait.
truth machine | 09.19.06 - 8:13 pm | #

Daleyrocks...

It matters what we do with respect to our Geneva Conventions obligations because it's the law of the land...not to mention that it's humane to treat captives as we would wish to be treated...humanely.

Yes, other countries may abrogate their legal obligations...that makes them lawless nations. That doesn't validate our following them into lawlessness. That's the only reason we can ever have claimed any sort of moral superiority to other peoples...when, and to the extent, we have stood by the law and forsworn pursuing the expedient (and emotionally satisfying) measure of vengeful action.

If we wish to provide a moral example to the world, if we want to tell ourselves pretty stories with pretty words about "democracy" and "freedom" and "justice for all," we must stand by that moral and legal standard ourselves...this is part of that whole lawful/lawless divide. When the "lawful" resort to the tactics of the "lawless," then there is, really, no law, and no one can rightly object--on moral or humane grounds--to whatever depravities anyone may inflict on those they deem inimical to their particular social order.

As John McCain, whom I do not much admire, did say, admirably, in objecting to torture: "It's not about who they are; it's about who we are."
Robert1014 | 09.19.06 - 8:15 pm | #

It makes no difference what the hell Daleyrocks beats his wife with, because Scott Peterson killed his.
truth machine | 09.19.06 - 8:17 pm | #

Tribalism is a distinctly human trait.

Actually a number of mammals can be described as tribal; chimps, wolves and lions come to mind right away.

The real irony is that people seem to think that religion separates us from the animals when the reality is that it help enforce our animal nature.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 8:19 pm | #

DALEYROCKS - The article you point to shows another example of why the positions of McCain, Warner and Graham make no sense. It make no difference what the hell the U.S. does with respect to the Geneva Conventions, because other countries who are also signatories only selectively follow its provisions.

This has nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions becuase they are not prisoners of war. But what did the Indonesian Government do here that you think is a violation of the Conventions? They gave the defendnants a full trial with witnesses and evidence and are only punishing them after conviction.

As I said, that is a lot better treatment than U.S. detainees receive while in U.S. custody - including U.S. citizens. But you're making a point that this shows that other countries don't abide by the Conventions. Leaving aside whether that means we should also violate them, what exactly do you think that Indonesia did that was wrong here?
Glenn Greenwald | 09.19.06 - 8:19 pm | #

It doesn't matter if someone murders Daleyrocks in his sleep, because that's not as bad as what Stalin and Pol Pot did.
truth machine

heh indeed!
r€nato | 09.19.06 - 8:34 pm | #

That's the only reason we can ever have claimed any sort of moral superiority to other peoples.

Why should we want to claim moral superiority over others -- if not to justify our own immorality? "Pride goeth before a fall". Morality is about what behavior we approve of. If one party is morally superior to another party, then someone is doing something we don't approve of, and we shouldn't take pleasure out of the mere fact that it isn't us.

When the "lawful" resort to the tactics of the "lawless," then there is, really, no law, and no one can rightly object--on moral or humane grounds--to whatever depravities anyone may inflict on those they deem inimical to their particular social order.

No; one always can -- and should -- object to moral wrongs. There is nothing wrong with Michelle Malkin objecting to moral wrongs elsewhere, even if she or her nation commits the same wrongs. What is wrong is that she not only doesn't object to her nation committing those same wrongs, she condones and even promotes them. The point of the hypocrisy charge is that she demonstrates that she herself holds these things wrong, yet approves of them when carried out toward by parties or toward ends she favors.

As John McCain, whom I do not much admire, did say, admirably, in objecting to torture: "It's not about who they are; it's about who we are."

If only he meant it enough to honestly face who we are.
truth machine | 09.19.06 - 8:34 pm | #

Hi,

Nice blog very informative. Hope you don't mind but i have bookmarked it.

Financial Blog
darren | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 8:36 pm | #

I don't comment much, Glenn - I have a serial addiction to argue and I rarely have much to argue about here - but I want to thank you. Again.

Frankly, your blog makes me not ashamed only of the conservative blogosphere, but the liberal one - for its muted passivity. It's hard to believe that you're the only one out there with a laserlike focus on right-wing abuse of power and demonization, but you are.

DaleyRocks:

Your argument is terribly simplistic. Individual rights in every country are threatened by their rollback anywhere else. And that goes double, triple or more for hegemonic leaders like the US. We haven't been following the Geneva Conventions for half a decade now. It's quite possible - even assuming that these Indonesian trials weren't *more* in line with the Geneva Conventions than ours, which you shouldn't -

that our betrayal of the conventions have helped convince indonesian leaders that it is equally safe to disobey them.

Governments imitate each other. They don't perfectly imitate each other, but they nevertheless push each other to resemble each other. When we abandon the Geneva Conventions, we abandon even the hope or possibility of further human-rights improvement across the globe.

Which endagers everyone, US citizens included, more than the actions of any terrorist group on the planet.
glasnost | 09.19.06 - 8:37 pm | #

"what exactly do you think that Indonesia did that was wrong here?"

Well, they could have done alot of things wrong - simply having a trial doesn't mean that it was conducted fairly. I don't know if it was conducted fairly or not - but the hypocrisy is staggering regardless! For Malkin to criticize Indoneisa for a lack of due process while constantly arguing that the US should selectively deny due process is all you need to make the argument that she's a hypocrite, which Daleyrocks is arguing isn't true. The legitamacy of the trials in question in Indonesia are beside that point.

And let's face it - this is nothing but another way to say "aren't Muslim's just the scum of the Earth?". Even though she must know that she of all people shouldn't be going on about due process for terrorists (!), she can't help but post on this issue, becasue she wants so badly to tell us just how awful Muslims are.
Steve | 09.19.06 - 8:39 pm | #

was just watching the re-run of last night's Daily Show with Clinton. For all his flaws..... there was a REAL president, a REAL leader.

How sad it is that we have been forced to live under the regime of a sad excuse of a man, a figurehead, a puppet, a mean, petty little bully, a congenital liar about Things That Really Matter, an inarticulate, ignorant fool who cannot string together a coherent sentence, a man who is fed his lines through an earpiece, a subverter of the Constitution, a wanna-be dictator, an advocate of torture, an avowed enemy of everything that's made this country great.

Impeachment is only the beginning of what this pathetic, contemptible excuse for a president deserves.
r€nato | 09.19.06 - 8:40 pm | #

How many Christian terrorists are there in the U.S.?

Does this mean we should start spying on Christians, just in case?
AkaDad | 09.19.06 - 8:44 pm | #

Actually a number of mammals can be described as tribal; chimps, wolves and lions come to mind right away.

Only if one ignores everything salient. In the case of wolves and lions, these are immediate kin groups, not tribes. One can see the beginnings of tribal behavior in chimpanzees, but if anything that reinforces my point -- evolutionarily, tribalism is an advanced, not primitive, development. But we haven't yet taken the next step, from warring tribes to a single human "tribe".

The real irony is that people seem to think that religion separates us from the animals when the reality is that it help enforce our animal nature.

It is not "animal nature" to oppress, torture, or slaughter one's own kind, particularly for having the wrong beliefs. Language and symbolic thought separate us from non-humans, and religion is just one manifestation of that. Symbolic thought can be rational or irrational, and humans display both.
truth machine | 09.19.06 - 8:51 pm | #

Islam in Indonesia?

What pray tell is Muslim's doing in Indonesia?

They were lost tourist?

Next thing to ask: What are Christians doing in Indonesia? Lost tourist too?

Apparently no one knows how to read a map.

Want some advice? Get rid of both concepts. You'll do better.
James | 09.19.06 - 8:59 pm | #

Animal may have symbolic thought in some form or another. I think alot of the cognitive abilities that seperate us from the animals are similar qualitatively, but quantitatively greater. The things that are truly qualitatively different are language and art. I've still never seen evidence of an animal making art.
Steve | 09.19.06 - 9:02 pm | #

But we haven't yet taken the next step, from warring tribes to a single human "tribe".

I frequently think that we're being subjected to just that test. Can we learn to live together on this tiny little planet without destroying it first? The fact that there are people who seem to think that destroying the planet is the object of the game boggles the imagination but it was only 2 or 3 posts ago where that was the main topic.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 9:02 pm | #

One wonders how long the likes of Malkin or daleyrocks here would hold up under the circumstances these Christian 'terrorists' underwent.

We know they'd fold like a cheap tent if they were ever sent to Camp X-Ray. Pleasant thought, isn't it?
yankeependragon | 09.19.06 - 9:09 pm | #

Animal may have symbolic thought in some form or another.

Some animals may have the capacity for limited symbolic thought when trained by humans who provide symbols to them. There's also a very limited sense in which signals are "symbolic", but there's no evidence that animals in the wild think with symbols. We, OTOH, mentally manipulate symbols, and our cognitive processes are often of the symbols, rather than what they symbolize.

The things that are truly qualitatively different are language and art. I've still never seen evidence of an animal making art.

Indeed. Now, what does the word "symbolic" mean?
truth machine | 09.19.06 - 9:12 pm | #

I frequently think that we're being subjected to just that test. Can we learn to live together on this tiny little planet without destroying it first?

Rather than destroying the planet, we will destroy our habitable environment, and thus ourselves -- or at least our culture and its achievements. But the planet will go on spinning, the cockroaches will go on scurrying, and the dominant lifeform on the planet for the last several billion years -- bacteria -- will continue to thrive.
truth machine | 09.19.06 - 9:17 pm | #

Glenn, while I realize the purpose of this post is to slam Michelle Malkin for her blinkered hypocrisy (easy target, but fun nonetheless) - I couldn't help but wonder, though, whether the trial of the three Indonesian Christians (?Catholics?) was indeed a fair and just one. It is no news that other countries don't always hew to the same high standards as the US in their criminal-justice proceedings (well, neither do we, but at least we have high standards!) - the three Indonesian convicts might well be the bloodstained terrorists they have been tarred as: or they might be innocent martyrs to sectarian injustice. The linked articles don't give much of an unbiased view: If Michelle Malkin is flogging a position on an issue, the likelihood that she is wrong is probably overwhelming (and your snark is certainly well-placed) - but in this case, a little more research might be in order.
Jay C | 09.19.06 - 9:22 pm | #

I compose this from Thailand. I have submitted a comment at the Huffpost site under the Thai story that was showing there overnite. I also have tried several times over past few hours to submit a comment at Washington Post website known as
the Achenblog where I have made many
comments over the past year. For some unusual and unknown reason(s)
my comments are being routed into
a "blog owner review" niche upon being submitted. Dont know why and it remains a mystery. Mention of
"an american in siam..." to the WAPO
blogger,Joel Achenbach should bring
on a note of recongnition from him.
So whats going on at the WAPO?
Thailand has undergone a long and
tumultous history since the absolute
monarchy was ended in 1932 by the
first of a long history of coups and
governments coming and going. The
monarchy itself having played a role
since 1932 as the pinnacle and seat
of Thai Royal authority in Thailands
Constitutional Monarchy.
The Thai military is relatively
stable and closely aligned with
the monarchy. As events ripple
out thruout today it should be
more evident as to the who,why
and what sort of ?'s.
R.Ashen | 09.19.06 - 9:24 pm | #

Islam in Indonesia?

What pray tell is Muslim's doing in Indonesia?

They were lost tourist?

Uh, no, they were mostly born there -- about 216 million of them.

Next thing to ask: What are Christians doing in Indonesia? Lost tourist too?

They too were born there -- nearly 20 million of them.

Apparently no one knows how to read a map.

Certainly most American chauvinists.

Want some advice? Get rid of both concepts. You'll do better.

While we would probably do better without either concept, we would not do better to "get rid of" them, as that entails massive coercion and murder.
truth machine | 09.19.06 - 9:28 pm | #

and the dominant lifeform on the planet for the last several billion years -- bacteria -- will continue to thrive.

Ok, so here we get to the meat of what makes human's unique. I'm first willing to assert that animals think in symbols. When a lion sees an antelope he is incapabale of thinking of an "antelope" as a concept but I'm sure that "tasty but fast" do come to mind as concepts. What we bring to the table is the ability to preserve information so that it has a life of it's own. But it doesn't change the fact that, like other animals, we see the world through the salient features that are important for our own survival. Where a lion might see an antelope and think "tasy but fast" we might look at someone of a different race or culture and think "different and dangerous"

One of the prime difference between liberals and conservatives today is that liberals call it a bug, conservatives call it a feature!
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 9:33 pm | #

I'm first willing to assert that animals think in symbols.

Like I said, we display rational and irrational thinking. Assertions without evidence fit in the latter category.

I'm sure that "tasty but fast" do come to mind as concepts.

I'm sure that your certainty is unwarranted, and uninformed.

One of the prime difference between liberals and conservatives today is that liberals call it a bug, conservatives call it a feature!

Everyone seems to consider their own irrational beliefs to be features.
truth machine | 09.19.06 - 9:45 pm | #

Come now Glenn don't you know satire is dead?Has been for quite some time now.Conservatives are free to contradict themselves with perfect impunity.Its this "post 9/11 world we're living in" thing.
pinkobait | 09.19.06 - 10:09 pm | #

Here's an article by someone far more informed and rational on this subject, in which he explores, among other things, whether vultures eat rotting carcasses because they find them tasty (but for some reason they stop being tasty when having rotted beyond some point), stoically eat them despite finding them revolting (but their revulsion overcomes them when the carcasses have rotted beyond some point), or perhaps something else entirely.

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/ l...nim_csness.html
truth machine | 09.19.06 - 10:10 pm | #

Earlier comment was somewhat more
complete before I was prompted to
reduce carriage return counts down
several times. Would have been more
complete localview of what took place
last night(it is WED AM here now) and
also more historical information was
originally worked in. Whats up with
this carriage return count prompt?
I am by no means a serial poster of
"milelong" comments or word streams
of mindless verbatim relays from
articles or prior written material.
R.Ashen | 09.19.06 - 10:10 pm | #

Come now Glenn don't you know satire is dead?

Not dead -- superfluous.
truth machine | 09.19.06 - 10:11 pm | #

In this instance the religion of peace majority was brutally persecuting the Christian minority in Indonesia...
daleyrocks

Dailycrock - terrorist sympathizer!
Anonymous | 09.19.06 - 10:24 pm | #

Whats up withthis carriage return count prompt? I am by no means a serial poster of "milelong" comments or word streams of mindless verbatim relays from articles or prior written material.
R.Ashen

Plenty of other Bushista trolls are.

The WaPo is a Bushista paper. maybe they don't want unfiltered opinions coming from Thailand right now. welcome to the new Evil Empire. New and Improved.
Anonymous | 09.19.06 - 10:27 pm | #

Truth Machine,

Perhaps, rather than say "claim moral superiority" (referring to America) I should have said "set a moral example."

Or, if the word "moral" carries too much connotative meaning related to religious dogmas, we can substitute "humane" or "just" or "compassionate."

In short, if we expect others to pay attention to our ideas of the better way to live and behave with and toward others, we have to live up to our best rhetoric and show not only that it can be done, but that it is desirable to do so.
Robert1014 | 09.19.06 - 10:33 pm | #

Daleydoseofdumb writes:

The article you point to shows another example of why the positions of McCain, Warner and Graham make no sense. It make no difference what the hell the U.S. does with respect to the Geneva Conventions, because other countries who are also signatories only selectively follow its provisions.

First, I guess your parents didn't tell you: TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT.

Second, the Geneva Conventions don't apply to this matter! When that rightwing, neocon bastard Timothy McViegh blew up the Courthouse in Oklahoma, he was not covered by the ****ing Geneva Conventions. The terrorist bastard still got a fair trial because it was required as part of our Constitutional guarantees that our country will pursue "the right thing to do come hell or highwater."

In this instance the religion of peace majority was brutally persecuting the Christian minority in Indonesia (Where else have we seen Islamic violence against Christians folks?).

Religions don't murder people, people do. The perversion of a relgion by some fanatical nutcase is just a tool by the fanatical nutcase to get the job done - evil.

However, as they say in Jacarta: it's Indonesia, love it or leave it, punk!

According to the defense, exculpating witnesses were prevented from testifying. Who knows what actually happened among the beheadings and machete killings. Given that the Muslims wanted to remove the Christians from the part of the country under question, I have my suspicions.

Irregularities and suppression and false witnesses and manufactured evidence? Sounds like the LAPD!!! And, really, why do you care? You guys are always telling us you "have to break a few eggs to make an omlet" and JUSTICE IS SERVED.

And, of course, God'll sort them out. So where's your faith as they go to a "better place" as true Christian martyrs?

I think it's a leap to your hypocrisy charge Glenn. It's more like a death penalty protest in this country and again a perfect example of why what we do with the Geneva Conventions doesn't seem to matter.

Why do you keep bringing up the Geneva Conventions? These are CRIMINAL TERRORISTS OPERATING AGAINST THEIR OWN COUNTRYMEN IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS DON'T APPLY.

Which gets us to hypocrisy. How could Glenn by hypocritcal when your analysis is fundamentally wrong? The Geneva Conventions only apply with respect to armed conflict, not internal policiing and daily governance of countries.

If I get a speeding ticket and argue I was mistreated IAW the Geneva Conventions, they should rightly laugh at me. And send me in for observation as I'm clearly not grounded in reality and may hurt myself.
Moses | 09.19.06 - 10:40 pm | #

I did post at 02:48pm at HUFFPOST
in the article comments section on
Thailand story. The day here has
begun and Thai TV normal programs
are now returning to national cable
system. Some principle Thai military
leaders just having appeared on Thai
national tv outlets with brief read
of announcements. This time of year
is busy on academic campuses across
Thailand. My Thai friend indeed was
at first uncertain this am about
a scheduled commencement exercise
but it indeed is in progress as
scheduled. The patterns of normal
living and life seemingly largely
untouched by last nights events.
Herein lies a great strength of
such countries as Thailand with
deeply set patterns of order and
social cohesiveness. Remarkable to
be in middle of all this. Hopefully
the power centers will regain balance
and focus soon enough. The past
months have been quite agitated on
the political front which is very
traceable to some major missteps on
the PM's part. He could not have been
too surprized over last night.
R.Ashen | 09.19.06 - 10:42 pm | #

Perhaps, rather than say "claim moral superiority" (referring to America) I should have said "set a moral example."

Sounds right to me.
truth machine | 09.19.06 - 10:43 pm | #

The International Criminal Court is not located in Geneva, but in The Hague, and it would have no jurisdiction about this case.
ICC | 09.19.06 - 10:53 pm | #

Glenn:
Do Malkin and her comrades want to protect terrorists more than innocent people? Sure seems that way. And just look at how brutal and inhumane Muslims are -- convicting people of terrorism despite evidentiary irregularities in their trial. That is the Evil we are battling in our War of Civilizations.

So, is there no distinction between unfairly killing someone and sending them to Club Gitmo? If there isn't, we can solve all our problems with the detainees just by shooting them.
Thanks Glenn, it works for me.
shooter242 | 09.19.06 - 10:56 pm | #

"If a lion could talk, we could not understand him."
-- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations
Creeping Truth | 09.19.06 - 10:57 pm | #

Michelle Malkin's a liberal! Who would have known? Conservatives just keep topping themselves in stupidity and hypocrisy...
Janeane The Goblin | 09.19.06 - 10:59 pm | #

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagggggggggggg ggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, but after 5 years of trying to understand wingnut logic, I've finally given up.
pontificator | 09.19.06 - 11:03 pm | #

Jeebus, what a hypocrite she is!
anonymity | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 11:10 pm | #

So, is there no distinction between unfairly killing someone and sending them to Club Gitmo?

Non sequitur.

If there isn't, we can solve all our problems with the detainees just by shooting them.

Non sequitur.

Thanks Glenn, it works for me.

Yes, we know.
truth machine | 09.19.06 - 11:11 pm | #

"Which gets us to hypocrisy. How could Glenn by hypocritcal when your analysis is fundamentally wrong? The Geneva Conventions only apply with respect to armed conflict, not internal policiing and daily governance of countries."

Then why try to compare it enemy combatants? Seem like you are the hypocrit. They aren't al Quaeda types, they are accused of being abortion-bomber types. To mock Malkin because is only trying to help victims of sectarian injustice seems rather non-progressive of you.
Oh, and the typical brownskin posts on this board won't do since these Christians are brown.
Anonymouse | 09.19.06 - 11:12 pm | #

That's the problem when you just root for the home team as opposed to caring about justice. You occasionally seem like a sufferer of I.D.I.O.T.S.

No, WE'RE suffering from idiots... er... inflicted with... surrounded by?

-_-

Never mind.

*mumbles* We're certainly not suffering them gladly.
StealthBadger | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 11:13 pm | #

I gave up on Malkin several years ago when she did a column on "foreigners" using fradulent schemes to get government and charitable funds for the families of 9/11 victims. She kept refering to "Puerto Rican nationals" involved in the schemes. Did she think Americans were really that dumb? In high school civics class we were taught that Puerto Ricans were American citizens! She's either a fool or takes her readers to be fools! She's nothing but a post-modern performance artist who gets paid big bucks for saying outrageous things. KC Star still runs her column every Friday! I wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire!
Slyder | 09.19.06 - 11:15 pm | #

File this under "You've gotta be fucking kidding!"
Slippytoad | 09.19.06 - 11:16 pm | #

> Here's an article by someone far more informed and rational
> on this subject, in which he explores, among other things,
> whether vultures eat rotting carcasses because they find them
> tasty (but for some reason they stop being tasty when having
> rotted beyond some point), stoically eat them despite finding
> them revolting (but their revulsion overcomes them when
> the carcasses have rotted beyond some point), or perhaps something else entirely.

Seems to me, the uninformed viewer, that, I dunno, they eat them because they're hungry?

-fred
Fred Fnord | 09.19.06 - 11:17 pm | #

So, is there no distinction between unfairly killing someone and sending them to Club Gitmo?

Who exactly at Guantanamo has been convicted of terrorism in a trial? (And are you saying that the death penalty has been ruled out if they are convicted?)
Tulse | 09.19.06 - 11:23 pm | #

Seems to me, the uninformed viewer, that, I dunno, they eat them because they're hungry?

So why don't we eat them when we're hungry? "because they're hungry" clearly isn't a sufficient explanation. Note that the context was symbolic thinking -- the question is, do they choose rotting carcasses as their food because they think they're tasty?
truth machine | 09.19.06 - 11:25 pm | #

I suspect that truth machine and I disagree much less than he realizes if he points me to Daniel Dennett to refute anything I may have asserted. It appears that we share similar starting points for our thinking.

ps: my homepage link includes a correct e-mail address if you care to continue the discussion in a less public forum....
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 11:31 pm | #

Tulse | 09.19.06 - 11:23 pm
Who exactly at Guantanamo has been convicted of terrorism in a trial?

I believe we are waiting for Congress to determine the shape of proceedings, but no matter. My remains even if I restate as "So, is there no distinction between unfairly killing someone and unfairly sending them to Club Gitmo?"

(And are you saying that the death penalty has been ruled out if they are convicted?)

If we aren't allowed to scare them, I doubt we'll be allowed to kill them.
shooter242 | 09.19.06 - 11:31 pm | #

Well, there are several problems with Michele's post. Does she deal with the question of whether or not these ChristoFascists were citizens?
If not, then the government of Indonesia made a grave mistake by not locking them up, torturing them to extract confessions, and then executing them. If they were citizens, then we must make sure that due process was followed---meaning that the supreme leader of the country agreed that the terrorists were guilty.

The only possible flaw that I can see in the Indonesian governments approach is that they may not have clarified how the Geneva Conventions apply to ChristoFascists. I'm sure Abu Gonzalez or John Yoo could advise them on the proper wording of a new law on this subject.
marky | 09.19.06 - 11:32 pm | #

So, is there no distinction between unfairly killing someone and sending them to Club Gitmo? If there isn't, we can solve all our problems with the detainees just by shooting them.
Thanks Glenn, it works for me.

Shooter, you are clever only to those who don't look closely. First, there is no assumption that there is no difference between applying the death penalty and torturing or holding people in isolation without charges. Why do they all have to be identical in order to want due process for all those the government fingers as criminals? Why should only those who commit capital crimes be given a fair trial?

And even if there is "no distinction" between the two sorts of case, it does not follow that we get to kill everyone. It could just as easily follow that we don't get to kill anyone. Glenn was pointing to Malkin's hypocrisy, which is still going strong regardless of whether it is ever just to bring the penalty of death. You see, her deal is that she minds punishment without due process in one case, but has no problem in another.

Just like you.
jd in nyc | 09.19.06 - 11:33 pm | #

shooter242: So, is there no distinction between unfairly killing someone and sending them to Club Gitmo? If there isn't, we can solve all our problems with the detainees just by shooting them.
Thanks Glenn, it works for me.

Actually, that brings up an interesting question. Given that we already know that the United States has already detained people and had them tortured without trial, and that you seem not to object, may I assume that you wouldn't object to their being executed either?

If you don't object, then precisely what is your criticism of Glenn?
sammy baby | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 11:35 pm | #

I was too slow. In the time it took to me to respond to shooter, truth machine made exactly the same points in three short sentences. Sigh.
jd in nyc | 09.19.06 - 11:35 pm | #

I was too slow. In the time it took to me to respond to shooter, truth machine made exactly the same points in three short sentences. Sigh.

Yeah, but thanks for fleshing out the basis for my "Non sequiturs" for the slowpokes. :-)
truth machine | 09.19.06 - 11:39 pm | #

I don't see any inconsistency.

Malkin's writing and political views are motivated by a deep and abiding anger that she just can't shake, and she has no idea why.

So she's angry at Indonesians who don't accord due process to Christians, and she's angry at people who are detained in U.S. prison camps without due process, and anyone who says that's a bad thing, and she's angry at liberals, and at Mexicans, anyone non-white who isn't as rabidly far-right as she is (i.e. all of 'em), and the poor, probably can't stand her plumber for some reason or other, and mostly likely has a bunch of unresolved issues with her mother. Consistent all the way.

Years, years of therapy. The blogging isn't helping her.
clb72 | 09.19.06 - 11:43 pm | #

I suspect that truth machine and I disagree much less than he realizes if he points me to Daniel Dennett to refute anything I may have asserted.

If you think he doesn't, then you don't understand him at all. Particularly, I was challenging your certainty that animals think symbolically, a certainty that Dennett attacks in that article. Dennett is the major proponent of the view that consciousness depends upon having language, and he quotes Helen Keller as saying that she had no self before she got language.
truth machine | 09.19.06 - 11:45 pm | #

was challenging your certainty that animals think symbolically

Perhaps our problem is with the word "symbolically" What I mean by the term includes what computers do, let alone what creatures do. After all brains can only represent the world, not recreate it; hence "symbols"
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 11:50 pm | #

(And are you saying that the death penalty has been ruled out if they are convicted?)

If we aren't allowed to scare them, I doubt we'll be allowed to kill them.

Listen, you fucking moron, we're allowed to kill them after they are convicted. And even then, we're allowed to kill them but not torture them, because we've got something called a Constitution that bans "cruel and unusual punishment", and the U.S. Supreme Court has, rightly or wrongly, declared that the death penalty, properly administered, isn't cruel or unusual.

It's not just history that you know nothing about, fuckwad.
truth machine | 09.19.06 - 11:53 pm | #

Well the last time I looked nobody had been executed at Gitmo. It might be that these people are guilty of some crime...or maybe not. I doubt that you have any better clue than I do about their case. But if you are disturbed that this case poses supposed simularites to what is going on here please remember this. You are drawing parlor room analogies that may or may not be correct. 3 people who may or may not have been legally convicted right now could possibly lose their lives.

What the hell is wrong with you people?

PS We'll see how open minded and devoted to free speech you are by whether you allow this to be posted.
Christopher R. Grantham | 09.19.06 - 11:54 pm | #

people who may or may not have been legally convicted right now could possibly lose their lives.

Which sounds like a good reason to oppose the death penalty in ALL cases.

The idea is consistent justice. As in "all men are created equal". As opposed to all Christians are martyrs and all Muslims are Islamofascists.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 11:58 pm | #

C. Grantham,
If anything, the fact that KSM et. al. have NOT been executed is very strange, considering how right wingers fetishize the death penalty.
As a matter of fact, only Moussaoui was close to getting the death penalty, and he was only marginally connected to Al Qaeda. I don't see the relevance of the death penalty. If that was the important factor, then you should compare the case in Indonesia with capital cases in the US. Want to try that experiment?
marky | 09.20.06 - 12:01 am | #

Death of 25 held in US custody are under investigation

By John J. Lumpkin, Associated Press | May 9, 2004

WASHINGTON -- They were shot during riots and while trying to escape. One passed out during an interrogation and died. Some of the deaths of prisoners in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan have been ruled homicides. Others were attributed to natural causes. Many cases are unexplained.
clb72 | 09.20.06 - 12:03 am | #

Glenn and Moses - It was Glenn's shaky attempt to apply Indonesian court practices to conservative views on rights for terrorists and trials for terrorists that make the charges of hypocrisy a stretch as both of you and a few readers have pointed out. I don't see Malkin's pointing out what she perceives as a flawed domestic trial as hypocrisy with respect to her position on the U.S. treatment of terrorists.

Your commenters, however, want America to demonstrate it's moral superiority and attendant exceptionalism, even though they decry American exceptionalism, and tell the rest of the world how they should conduct themselves. Where is the proof that Lindsay Graham cites that this approah protects the lives of Americans in the military?

Our focus should be on saving American lives, civilian and military. Becoming forced to publicly debate U.S. policy in this area because of an irrational paranoia, fear, hate and mistrust of the administration on the part of the left is not a productive use the country's resources.
daleyrocks | 09.20.06 - 12:04 am | #

The Chickenhawks come home to roost?

I for one welcome neocon bubbleheads to explore the error of foregoing the ICC. I hope someday that we can be a leader in international law- like we were during the cold war, when our real leaders could get the job done without needing to ask congress for torture- then-get-out-of-jail-free cards.

And for those who don't have a nose for irony, I would invite you to re-read Mr. Greenwald's post- as I read it he too would like for the US government to acknowledge and ratify the ICC and to provide for those accused of terrorism by our government the right to a fair trial.
Stumptown Dave | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 12:04 am | #

Perhaps our problem is with the word "symbolically"

The problem is with your claim that I'm sure that "tasty but fast" do come to mind as concepts, when we haven't even established that they have minds.

What I mean by the term includes what computers do

You've got a confusion of levels here. The computer is conceptualized by us as a symbol processing machine, but that does not mean that it "thinks symbolically". Concepts such as "compound interest" do not come to the mind of a computer running a spreadsheet -- at the very least we can't be sure that they do.
truth machine | 09.20.06 - 12:05 am | #

Well the last time I looked nobody had been executed at Gitmo.

Have any of you wingnut morons actually read Glenn's piece, or paid any attention to the parallels and analogies he does point out?

PS We'll see how open minded and devoted to free speech you are by whether you allow this to be posted.

And now we know, dumbfuck.
truth machine | 09.20.06 - 12:12 am | #

Christian Jihad! I used to wonder if pundits like Malkin had ever read the whole Bible, now i'm convinced that the New Testament was written in Swahili, because they will fall over themselves to justify christian extremists, while denying muslims similar protection.
johnmsmith | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 12:15 am | #

It might be that these people are guilty of some crime...or maybe not. I doubt that you have any better clue than I do about their case.

Gee, I guess that's as good a reason as any to detain them for years on end without filing any charges.

3 people who may or may not have been legally convicted right now could possibly lose their lives.

That's a legimate concern. Funny, though, that Malkin claims that other people with other legitimate concerns are traitors.

What the hell is wrong with you people?

That's what we ask -- legitimately.
truth machine | 09.20.06 - 12:17 am | #

sammy baby | 09.19.06 - 11:35 pm
Actually, that brings up an interesting question. Given that we already know that the United States has already detained people and had them tortured without trial, and that you seem not to object, may I assume that you wouldn't object to their being executed either?
If you don't object, then precisely what is your criticism of Glenn?

What I think isn't the issue. It's the equating of a flawed process that ends in death, with a flawed process that ends up in being incarcerated with most of the comforts. I'd say that's a substantial difference. Have the people Glenn is dinging advocated executions? Not that I know of.

I agree that without knowing all the details that it looks hypocritical to me as well, but experience teaches me that Glenn can be fast and loose with the backround of an argument if it doesn't add to his case. Malkin is a pretty steady albeit loud commentator. I have the feeling there is more to this than meets the blog.

It would also be fair to acknowledge progress via Hamdan with establishing the legalities. This article though, raises interesting points of it's own regarding the legal status of the prisoners, the legal problems of admitting enemy combatants to the domestic legal system, and the likelihood that a sharp lawyer could not only get them acquitted but that punitive damages are possible. That is not hyperbole.

As Rich Lowery put it, we'd be the first and only nation incapable of that basic self protection, detaining and incapacitating people that want to kill us. I hope you don't need reminding that these detainees are indeed enemy combatants, not Boy Scouts.
shooter242 | 09.20.06 - 12:19 am | #

I get it now. To a right winger, a person who plots to kill hundreds of Muslims is a hero. So, regardless of whether they are guilty, Malkin is angry about the death sentence.
marky | 09.20.06 - 12:22 am | #

Christopher:

Glenn was pointing out that Malkin apparently thinks it's fine to punish someone without due process if a Christian does it, but it's not fine to to punish someone without due process if a Muslim does it. Though getting excuted is a much more extreme punishment than being held in prison, I am almost certain that Malkin would shed no tears if Gitmo detainees started being executed.
RCP | 09.20.06 - 12:23 am | #

truth machine?

You met Michele didn't you? Not the two 'l' blog-one, the one 'l' Michele?
brotherbruz | 09.20.06 - 12:25 am | #

Wow. I guess we're to take from Prof. Malkin that for some reason, the rights and lives of Christians are worth more than those of Muslims. Or perhaps she is just both immoral and lacks an irony detector...
methodishca | 09.20.06 - 12:25 am | #

So right wingers have been reduced to arguing that a flawed judicial process which does not result in the imposition of the death penalty is ok. I'm afraid that the metric of moral relativity is being stretched to the breaking point here.
marky | 09.20.06 - 12:26 am | #

Becoming forced to publicly debate U.S. policy in this area because of an irrational paranoia, fear, hate and mistrust of the administration on the part of the left is not a productive use the country's resources.

yes, democracy is a luxury we can ill afford in the face of Islamic terrorists, an existential threat to our country's existence far more dangerous than Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia ever was.

In fact, we should cancel future elections and declare George W. Bush president-for-life. If public debate is a luxury we can ill afford, certainly we cannot risk a change in our country's leadership while terrorists lurk in the shadows, who hate us and want to kill us for our freedom to worship at the altar of George W. Bush.

As for your allegation of 'irrational paranoia, fear, hate and mistrust of the administration'... certainly there has been nothing this administration has done to create such mistrust. This administration has been completely truthful about the reasons we needed to go to war with Iraq, the costs of the war, the amount of troops needed, how long they would need to be there, or the prospects for victory over the insurgency.

The Iraq war effort - particularly the Coalition Provisional Authority - has been remarkably free of corruption, wastefulness and utter incompetence. The Administration repeatedly sent qualified, experienced technocrats to help rebuild Iraq rather than choosing to fill positions solely on the basis of political loyalty to Bush and the GOP.

And speaking of the utter lack of political cronyism, the entirely competent management of the post-Katrina disaster was a credit to FEMA, which just like the CPA, was staffed with competent professionals rather than political cronies with no qualifications for disaster management.

Daleyrocks is 100% correct. Obviously the Left suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome and has no rational reason to distrust this Administration.
r€nato | 09.20.06 - 12:27 am | #

What I think isn't the issue.

Then why subject us to your stupid, ignorant, and vile thoughts?
truth machine | 09.20.06 - 12:27 am | #

Christopher R. Grantham | 09.19.06 - 11:54 pm |
...3 people who may or may not have been legally [?morally] convicted right now could possibly lose their lives.

It is actually worth keeping in mind. Indonesia does not have a stellar human rights record, i.e. the recent history of East Timor. A possible miscarriage of justice there is not something any of us were attempting to celebrate, just as (unlike Ms. Malkin) we don't celebrate the likelihood of identical miscarriages of justice in the U.S.

What the hell is wrong with you people?
PS We'll see how open minded and devoted to free speech you are by whether you allow this to be posted.

We have, most of us, like most people, an aversion to self-aggrandizing chest-thumpers who proclaim themselves holier-than-us. It makes us testy, seeing that. I believe you chose to post a comment with this pettish and self-righteous tone in order to garner the sort of verbal abuse that would puff up your own sense of consequence.
Fluffy | 09.20.06 - 12:28 am | #

It's the equating of a flawed process that ends in death, with a flawed process that ends up in being incarcerated with most of the comforts. I'd say that's a substantial difference.

Right, so anything is ok as long as it's not as bad as some other thing.

As I said of Daleyrocks, it's there's no problem with Shitter being murdered in his sleep, because there's a substantial difference between that and what Stalin and Pol Pot did.

Or let's just stick him in Gitmo for the rest of his life -- he should be happy with "most of the comforts" that he'll find there.
truth machine | 09.20.06 - 12:31 am | #

"will take their case before the International Criminal Court in Geneva, as per a human rights convention ratified by Jakarta, to safeguard the three men’s right to life and to denounce irregularities of Indonesian trials."

Right to life? If three people are responsible for the massacre of 200, they most certainly have lost the right to life. Even if they are Christians kiling Muslims. These double standards are sicking.

Thanks for a very well written piece. I have linked to you from my own blog.
Omar Bongo | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 12:38 am | #

But truthmachine...these detainees are "enemy combatants" so they're obviously guilty of something right? It's impossible to detain anyone by mistake (even if a third or more of the Gitmo detainees have been released now because oops...they were innocent all along!) Once somebody has declared you an enemy combatant, who needs evidence of any wrongdoing (though I guess a tortured confession can be arranged if need be...), much less a trial?! One had better just incarcerate you indefinitely then just to be sure we're kept safe...

Or let's just stick him in Gitmo for the rest of his life -- he should be happy with "most of the comforts" that he'll find there.
methodishca | 09.20.06 - 12:40 am | #

oh SNAP!!

Best. Post. EVER!!!
brendan | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 12:40 am | #

Right to life? If three people are responsible for the massacre of 200, they most certainly have lost the right to life.

I don't think you've quite got Glenn's point.

These double standards are sicking.

Moral relativists like Malkin and Shitter apparently don't subscribe to the concept of "unalienable rights []of] life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
truth machine | 09.20.06 - 12:45 am | #

But truthmachine...these detainees are "enemy combatants" so they're obviously guilty of something right?

See Glenn's previous post on "the central defect in the mindset of Bush followers".
truth machine | 09.20.06 - 12:47 am | #

oop...my 12:40 comment was meant to be sarcastic :-/
methodishca | 09.20.06 - 12:55 am | #

I understood that. I was simply pointing out that Glenn's post was relevant.
truth machine | 09.20.06 - 1:02 am | #

ah...gotcha. sorry...

I understood that. I was simply pointing out that Glenn's post was relevant.
truth machine
methodishca | 09.20.06 - 1:07 am | #

The hypocrisy is astounding. Malkin wants due process, fair trial rights, appeals, a hearing of all relevant evidence, enforcement of the Geneva convention, rejects the death penalty, and she is siding with defense lawyers for accused terrorists.

Uh oh, you mentioned "death penalty". But no one at Gitmo has been killed, so none of this is relevant, there is no analogy, and there is no hypocrisy, doncha know?
truth machine | 09.20.06 - 1:13 am | #

Surely one can find right wingers who extol the Christians as heroes, assuming they massacred hundreds of Muslims. I just tried to find something with google, but didn't succeed.
marky | 09.20.06 - 1:14 am | #

Yet another example of basic right-wing morality: "Good is when I steal from you; evil is when you steal from me."
Anonymous | 09.20.06 - 1:18 am | #

This is why I don't watch Colbert. Reality is much more entertaining!
Al | 09.20.06 - 1:27 am | #

Daleyrocks, proving that neocons were dropped on their heads too often that they don't have enough healthy brain cells knocking together to get through kindergarten. The rest of us figured out about two wrongs not equalling a right by the time we were five years old. Even in their 90s, the Neocons spend hours trying to get that formula to work anyway, sort of like that Far Side cartoon.
LJ/Aquaria | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 1:29 am | #

Or, more simply, Shitter's formulation: good is when we win, evil is when they win. Unfortunately, that attitude is not limited to the right wing.
truth machine | 09.20.06 - 1:29 am | #

My theory is, is that everyone WANTS to be on the "good" side of every conflict, and thus every person must choose one of two ways in order to see themselves as good:

1) Change yourself to match the definition of good

2) Change the definition of good to match you.

Its:

"In order to be good, I must follow the law."

vs.

"Whatever I do must be good, and if the laws don't agree, then they must be changed."

Glenn is the first type, and Michelle is the second.

Remember Nixon?

"When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."

Oviously a type II like Michelle.
Nylund | 09.20.06 - 1:45 am | #

RCP noted:

" Though getting excuted is a much more extreme punishment than being held in prison, I am almost certain that Malkin would shed no tears if Gitmo detainees started being executed."

Malkin's quite famous reaction to the suicide deaths at Gitmo was "Boo Freakin' Hoo." So, you're right, she would shed no tears. Given her book on the Japanese camps in California during WWII, no doubt she views Gitmo as a necessary tool against terrorism.

Makes you wonder how many Indonesian Muslims are saying "Boo Freakin' Hoo" to the three convicted Christians.

Daleygoldilocks intones:

"It was Glenn's shaky attempt to apply Indonesian court practices to conservative views on rights for terrorists and trials for terrorists that make the charges of hypocrisy a stretch as both of you and a few readers have pointed out. I don't see Malkin's pointing out what she perceives as a flawed domestic trial as hypocrisy with respect to her position on the U.S. treatment of terrorists."

I think Glenn's point of hypocrisy is well taken, she argues for a "fair trail" of Christians and yet wants "no trial" at all for any Muslim terrorists. And it it was three Muslims on trial for a massacre in America, Malkin would have them convicted before they set a court date. I don't expect you to get the drift of it because I know you are more worried about when the Bears are coming then any thing else about America.

Glenn, the four posts today are like hitting a trifica, hitting for the cycle, scoring a hat trick and doing a triple double.
jameskarkoski | 09.20.06 - 1:54 am | #

Change the definition of good to match you.

It's not a matter of changing the definition; good is not defined as "legal", and in fact is not defined in any way other than by approval and disapproval. The difference between Glenn and Michelle is what they approve of and disapprove of; Glenn approves of fairness and justice and disapproves of unfairness and injustice, while Michelle approves of whatever meets her self-interest and disapproves of whatever doesn't.
truth machine | 09.20.06 - 1:56 am | #

I think Glenn's point of hypocrisy is well taken, she argues for a "fair trail" of Christians and yet wants "no trial" at all for any Muslim terrorists.

Uh, Muslim "enemy combatants", who may or may not be enemies, may or may not be combatants, and may or may not be terrorists.
truth machine | 09.20.06 - 2:04 am | #

Last week David Gregory asked Bush about whether we would condone it if other countries trashed the Geneva Conventions as Bush wants to do. Bush claimed to be perfectly happy to let them do so.

This is a slightly different situation, but that still ought to make it rather difficult for the Administration to make the noises I assume the religious right wants to hear in this case.
Blue Meme | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 2:06 am | #

I express no opinion on the fairness of the trials of the 3 Christians in Indonesia. I'm completely ignorant about the facts of their case. I'm also ignorant about how the guilt phase and the penalty phase of death penalty trials are conducted in Indonesia. (I'd bet lunch at a good restaurant that Malkin is barely more informed than I about the true facts of the case-- as opposed to a slanted version of the facts prepared specifically for Malkin to hawk her views.)

Malkin's hypocrisy speaks for itself (with some welcome help from Glenn), so I feel no need to comment on that.

My concern is about the example set by the United States when it comes to sending prisoners to their death. I have two areas of concern. First, the United States has already effectively sentenced prisoners to death without any sort of trial and has done so in a very public way. Look at the deaths of prisoners guarded by US Soldiers or interrogated by paid US mercenaries, which sometimes have resulted in the prosecution of the US soldiers/mercenaries but which rarely seem to result in serious punishment. The prisoners who died at the hands of US soldiers and US mercenaries never had a trial. People around the world DO pay attention to these things, and it affects their behavior.

No doubt there are those who think that deaths of prisoners in the hands of US soldiers or US mercenaries don't matter. "After all, you coulda killed 'em on the battlefield. They're just scum. And their families are scum sympathizers that deserve to be punished, too. So what if they die without a trial." This type of thinking should get you the Pol Pot/ Josef Stalin / Idi Amin distinguished service medal. The laws of the United States, and international laws governing prisoners in the hands of US soldiers, contain no clause that allows "scum" to be treated differently than anyone else. (And not everyone held by the military/mercenaries is/was "scum." There is evidence that some people were imprisoned merely because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time or because someone provided false information to the authorities. Before you kill someone away from the battlefield, you need a fair trial to determine whether they deserve the death penalty.) The United States, by mistreating these prisoners to the point of allowing them to die without being tried for any crime, makes it easier for Indonesia to execute those 3 Christians, whether the Christians deserve the death penalty or not.

(continued in following post)
Don de Drain | 09.20.06 - 2:07 am | #

Malkin's Christianization of due process resembles Benedict XVI's bizarre human rights twist at Auschwitz. There he said the Nazis' "ultimate" reason for killing the Jews was to "tear up the taproot of the Christian faith." Like his predecessor, he singled out for mention Edith Stein, a convert to Christianity who died in a concentration camp.

To the extent Christian Germans associated Jews with their taps it was as well-poisoners. The reference to Stein galls because the Nazis' staunchest Christian opponents, the Confessing Church led by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, were themselves antisemitic and spoke out only on behalf of Jewish converts.

As far as Islam goes, the dark trends are not simply religious. Oriana Fallaci and Sam Harris -- ardent atheists -- have both built reputations on Islam-bashing.

Beyond the irony and hypocrisy to bemoan there is the horror of past becoming prologue.
Anonymous | 09.20.06 - 2:10 am | #

the likelihood that a sharp lawyer could not only get them acquitted but that punitive damages are possible.

Oh, it's all down to those 'sharp lawyers', is it? As opposed to principles of admissibility, duress and reasonable doubt? I'm sure that if you were facing the judge and needed to prove your innocence, you'd be sharp-lawyering up lickety-split. Or would you rely on a public defendent who might fall asleep during the trial?

What do you find so flawed about the American criminal justice system, exactly?
pseudonymous in nc | 09.20.06 - 2:20 am | #

I hope you don't need reminding that these detainees are indeed enemy combatants, not Boy Scouts.

Only because I don't think Bush has asserted the executive authority to declare them Boy Scouts, given that it's a private organization. And your point was?
pseudonymous in nc | 09.20.06 - 2:22 am | #

My second concern is the way we administer the death penalty in the US in the regular court system. Again, people around the world pay attention to these things, and how the US administers the death penalty affects the behavior of other authorities around the world. I'm sure the US Supreme Court is not the only court in the world to have cited to court decisions in other countries.

I've seen a death penalty case up close (as habeus counsel, not as trial counsel), a case which the prosecutors eventually "won." The client is now dead. The key argument was ineffective trial counsel, with an emphasis on what the attorney did (and didn't do) at the penalty stage. In a case factually similar to the one we handled, the same trial attorney who represented our client was declared incompetent, by the same court of appeals that declared the attorney competent in defending our client. Only real difference was the identity of the judges. The Supremes denied review, even though they granted review of a similar case in a later term and overturned the death sentence on a 5-4 vote.

Adminstration of the death penalty should not vary because the identity of the judges changes. I had no problem with a mandatory life sentence that the client would have served had the client lived. In fact, a mandatory life sentence was well deserved. But imposing the death penalty when a similarly situated person was allowed to live was flat out wrong. And allowing that kind of thing to happen encourages similar types of "judging" elsewhere.
Don de Drain | 09.20.06 - 2:24 am | #

Oh, and I'd recommend polite but pointed letters to the Indonesian Embassy.
pseudonymous in nc | 09.20.06 - 2:28 am | #

I hope you don't need reminding that these detainees are indeed enemy combatants, not Boy Scouts.
shooter242 | 09.20.06 - 12:19 am | #

Once again Shitter confirms what Glenn wrote at length on "the central defect in the mindset of Bush followers". Despite the fact that we already know that a number of Gitmo detainees were completely innocent, moral Boy Scouts, he says he doesn't need to remind us that they aren't.

Glenn: They aren't guilty just because Bush says so.

Shitter: I don't have to remind you that they're guilty.

me: Shitter is fucking insane and dumber than dirt.
truth machine | 09.20.06 - 2:38 am | #

snif snif,

I smell a hypocrite and it's mighty fowl.
FreedomOfSpeech | 09.20.06 - 2:38 am | #

The rat thinks that if he navigates the maze and finds the cheese, he will win, perhaps even his release; meanwhile, the folks in the white coats cackle and fill in the syringe.

The rat plays by a set of rules he has created; his mistake is that he is the only one who does so.

What is your point here? That Michelle Malkin is a liar, a hypocrite, a putative war criminal and potential concentration camp administrator that would only need a good army at her back to herd and ultimately get rid of human scum like you and I who, in her eyes, don't deserve to live?

I think we knew that already, didn't we?
Lupin | 09.20.06 - 2:53 am | #

Balkinization says:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/specter-sees- light-on-great-habeas.html

Specter sees the light on the great habeas swindle

I've got news for you. If the McCain-Graham-Warner bill is passed in its present form, it will also undermine America's values. Because it will leave the innocent and the harmless, and those illegally abused but never brought to trial without a remedy.

It will perpetrate a mockery of justice.

Senator Specter has figured this out. And he should be commended for it.

Yes, what Balkin said: I commend Specter, and here's exactly what Specter said: http://www.fednews.com/transcript.htm? id=20060917t2176

BOB SCHIEFFER: Are you with Lindsey Graham on this or are you with the president?
ARLEN SPECTER: Bob, I agree with Senator Graham, Warner and McCain that you cannot have classified information which is not shown to the defendant. I agree with them that you cannot use coerced confessions, because they're unfair and unreliable. I disagree with Senator McCain, Graham and Warner and the president trying to eliminate habeas corpus, that is, judicial review.

And it's urgent to put pressure on DEMOCRATS to join Specter in opposing the current form of the McCain-Graham-Warner bill. Hey, maybe we can get Malkin to join us, now that she's in favor of due process.
sysprog | 09.20.06 - 2:55 am | #

Islam in Indonesia?

>While we would probably do better without either concept, we would not do better to "get rid of" them, as that entails massive coercion and murder.
truth machine | 09.19.06 - 9:28 pm | #

That's "how" Islam got on the islands.

Any reason why the same method can't be used again?

It's their method.

I'll repeat. What the heck is Islam doing in Indonesia?

Say. Isn't that a western religion?
James | 09.20.06 - 2:58 am | #

That's "how" Islam got on the islands.

Whether it is or not wouldn't justify it.

I'll repeat. What the heck is Islam doing in Indonesia?

Repeating it doesn't make it any less moronic.
truth machine | 09.20.06 - 3:18 am | #

P.S. You're probably too stupid to be able to read it, James, but here's a short history of the arrival of Islam in Indonesia from the U.S. Library of Congress:

http://countrystudies.us/indonesia/5.htm
truth machine | 09.20.06 - 3:24 am | #

Even ignoring for the moment the hypocrisy inherent in the "poor Christians" vs. "evil Muslims" argument, the experience of having staunch law-and-order rightwingers throw in my face the very arguments I've been watching bounce right off their impervious hides for years is like to make the head asplode.

3 people who may or may not have been legally convicted right now could possibly lose their lives, for fuck's sake.

Where the fuck have you rightwingers been?
Auguste | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 4:31 am | #

The ICC is in the Hague
It has no jurisdiction over this case
Maybe she means the UN Human Rights Commission - the one the Bush crew don't like?
r | 09.20.06 - 7:35 am | #

pseudonymous in nc | 09.20.06 - 2:20 am
What do you find so flawed about the American criminal justice system, exactly?

In a word, OJ.
shooter242 | 09.20.06 - 7:55 am | #

Ah, as I suspected there is more to the story.....

The Washington-DC based human rights group, International Christian Concern (ICC) www.persecution.org has just become informed of a second attack on young Christian girls in Poso, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Ivon (last name unknown) (17 yrs.) and (Yuli) Siti Nuraini (17 yrs.) were shot in the head in the Gatot Subroto st area (Christian Area) of Poso near a Pentecostal church at 7:45 pm local time (11:45 GMT am).

It is reported that two armed men shot the girls point blank in the head with pistols. Ivon was shot through the left cheek and Siti was shot in the right cheek. Both are in coma and in critical condition.

These attacks follow the gruesome beheadings of 3 Christian High school students at the end of October. It is reported that 10 national-level police officials are in Central Sulawesi heading up the investigation into the beheadings. This latest attack coming right under their noses comes as a complete embarrassment to the central government.

There have been reports that the perpetrators of the beheadings are in custody but have not been formally charged. This latest attack also underscores the level of danger to Christians in the Poso area. This attack comes on the heels of 40 or more attacks against the Christian community, including shootings, killings, and major bombings. There have not been any convictions or arrests in any of these attacks.

How convient.
shooter242 | 09.20.06 - 8:21 am | #

IT'S NOT FASCISM WHEN WE DO IT
WE ARE GUIDED BY THE RIGHT AND ONLY GOD

i really wish fightin' jesus would come and kick these m-f-r's @sses, because they need.

i really hope there is a heaven and hell, so that these fisks can burn

too bad there isn't...
IamClosedMindedToo | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 8:33 am | #

Off topic, the demonizing of Iran is proceeding. This morning on the Today show, Tim Russert, lion of accurate reporting that he is, claimed that Iran started the Iran-Iraq war. A quick check of Wikipedia shows otherwise. Propaganda, anyone?
katman | 09.20.06 - 9:21 am | #

In a word, OJ.

Just when I thought I'd lost the ability to laugh thanks to this administration, shooter comes through for me.
AJ | 09.20.06 - 9:45 am | #

Doing justice over there so we don't have to at home.

Which would you prefer?
horatius | 09.20.06 - 9:56 am | #

OJ

Isn't that the maxim that better 10 innocent black men go to jail than one guilty black man be freed?
edwin | 09.20.06 - 10:03 am | #

This is satire, isn't it ?

I mean, just what kind of "civil liberties" lawyer would do a posting that seems so insensitive to justice.
Neo | 09.20.06 - 10:11 am | #

Daleyrocks:
Nothing like scrambling for the moral -- bog.
Limelite | 09.20.06 - 10:26 am | #

Shooter writes that there is more to the story....

Actually, that isn't the point of the post. But of course you knew that. Glenn is not evaluating whether the trials of the Christians were or were not unjust. They quite likely were riddled with errors. The point is that someone who advocates locking up suspected terrorists for good with nothing more than the word of the President doesn't get to criticize another country for doing something substantially similar. Malkin lacks the moral authority to make such comments.
Mike Lamb | 09.20.06 - 10:59 am | #

With his sarcasm and typical liberal effete snobbery, Glenn clearly doesn't understand the compelling logic of Malkin's position: These men are Christians, ergo they cannot be terrorists.

It's a simple matter of the categorical imperative.
billmon | 09.20.06 - 11:15 am | #

You know what will really be ironic? When we all have to grit our teeth and repeat these very same arguments to prevent torture, sham trials and execution of several prominent war criminals *cough* *Bush* *cough* *Cheney*.
e_five | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 11:16 am | #

I'll repeat. What the heck is Islam doing in Indonesia?

Say. Isn't that a western religion?
James | 09.20.06 - 2:58 am | #

How about Christianity? Judaism? Why should they there? If we're going to be narrow-minded about the whole thing, they should all be Hindus with some Buddists thrown in if you're going for the relgious purity angle.

Though maybe we should argue against Hinduism and go to some more local, gone-by-the-wayside, belief.

And while we're at it, time to boot Christianity, Islam and Judaism out of Europe. Those are middle-east religions and have no place along Thor, Odin, Lir, The Dagda, etc...

OTOH, who died and made it your, or my, business on who or what to worship?
Anonymous | 09.20.06 - 11:22 am | #

If I may. Who has America executed without due process? Who is America planning on executing without due process?

I find it interesting that the Left refuses to stand by their convictions when Christians are the ones facing, not just imprisonment, but execution just to erroneously accuse those who don't agree with you of hypocrisy. Next you'll be waving their bloody heads in people's faces. How tolerant.

I also find it amusing that the Indonesian courts are (according to the Left) gross abusers of human rights when it comes to things like drug trafficking or drug use, but when a Muslim court (who released the Muslim terrorist who mastermind behind the Bali hotel bombings) wants to sentence Christians accused of terrorism to death, and suddenly Indonesian courts are legitimate bastions of due process.

Make up your idiotic minds.

Here's how the Indonesian courts treat Muslim terrorists.

http://www.theaustralian.news.co...062- 601,00.html

Surely as a Leftist you can see the discrepancy.

I don't have a problem putting all terrorists to death whether they are Muslim or Christian. But Indonesia only seems to want Christians put to death or to cynically use them as bargaining chips to reduce the sentences of Muslim terrorists (isn't that what courts do?).

Surely instead of attemting (and failing) to compare the U.S. to Indonesia, you could be a good little liberal and stand with Malkin on this one.
Zelda | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 11:22 am | #

Muslim justice in Indonesia

http:// atlasshrugs2000.typepad.c...2_indonesia.jpg

http:// atlasshrugs2000.typepad.c...n_beheading.jpg
Zelda | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 11:30 am | #

I hope you don't need reminding that these detainees are indeed enemy combatants, not Boy Scouts.
shooter242 | 09.20.06 - 12:19 am | #

Then I needent remind you that they've already released hundreds that were NOT enemy combatants and according to UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT RECORDS:

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably.
Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a
large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the
Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist
group is unidentified.

4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United Statescustody.

This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.

5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants – mostly Uighers – are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to
be enemy combatants.

Additionally, in APRIL of this year, the DoD quietly announced that they were releasing an ADDITIONAL 141 prisoners because they were wrongly detained. They later released 146 prisoners, upping the intial press release amount by 5.

And, to make it more ironic, the US reports that at least 7 of the released detainees have turned to terrorism! Plus, many of the other former detainees have stated that they wish to join the fight against the United State in Afghanistan.

Congratulations! It looks like Bush made new terrorists to be afraid of! Bunch of freaking wankers, the lot of you! You understand NOTHING!
Anonymous | 09.20.06 - 11:40 am | #

Whatever Malkin's for, I'm against it.
Oliver | 09.20.06 - 11:46 am | #

RAC:

Can they be any more hypocritical?

IOW, no.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 12:10 pm | #

If I may. Who has America executed without due process?

"At least 108 people have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of them violently, according to government data provided to The Associated Press. Roughly a quarter of those deaths have been investigated as possible abuse by U.S. personnel."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/ 2...ain680658.shtml
e_five | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 12:12 pm | #

e_five:

Maybe there is a some new kind of virus running rampant in places where Republicans gather that destroys the ability to detect irony. We'll call it Irony Dissipation In Organ Tissue Syndrome.

It's also destroyed their midbrain SDn (the "sarcasm detector nucleus"). HWSNBN got nailed by Glenn (of all people!) in a post a couple days back, completely missing Glenn's sarcasm.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 12:13 pm | #

Malkin has post less than 24 hours later called Miranda Rights for Terrorists?. So within the space of 24 hours she can switch from being against terrorist rights to for them and then against again. It's impressive.
Tom Hilton | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 12:24 pm | #

the USA executed a Christian terrorist.... Timothy MacVeigh
Susan | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 12:39 pm | #

"Roughly a quarter of those deaths have been investigated as possible abuse by U.S. personnel."

amazingly enough, even when people are beaten to death, if it was done by Americans or Brits, it is still just "abuse"

We don't torture..... even when we murder.
Susan | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 12:41 pm | #

Christopher R. Grantham

You're not from round here, are ya? Your little, "see if this is posted" crap shows you just showed up, for what is probably the first time, to defend your beloved malignant malkin.

Also, I excerpted the real gem from your post. I do have to point out that you started your "sentence" (attempt at a sentence) with "but" and ended by telling us to remember "this." All you have to do is remember "this."

"But if you are disturbed that this case poses supposed simularites to what is going on here please remember this."
rerun | 09.20.06 - 12:44 pm | #

When we see the attention paid to Malkin we gain understanding of how the ancient Egyptians could worship an insect.

That said, I attribute her resembing a scarab beetle to mere coincidence.
chefrad | 09.20.06 - 12:57 pm | #

Died is not the same as executed. And it's a war, not a tea party. The Indonesian courts are either just or they are unjust. But if they can give the one of the Muslim Bali bombers 8 years for blowing up innocent civilians, surely they can reduce the sentences of three Christians who were very possibly defending themselves and others as 13 witnesses have stated.

But by all means, give Indonesian Muslim law the benefit of the doubt. Just remember that it applies to drug users too, so no complaints when they hand down the death penalty to them. M'kay?
Zelda | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 12:57 pm | #

Muslim justice in Indonesia

http:// atlasshrugs2000.typepad.c...2_indonesia.jpg

http:// atlasshrugs2000.typepad.c...n_beheading.jpg
Zelda | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 11:30 am | #

You used Pam as an authoritative source? Mwahahahaha! Now, that's comical. Thanks for playing
Anonymous | 09.20.06 - 1:00 pm | #

Oops, that anonymous@ 1:00 was me.

Still, Zelda, miss the point much?
Gratis | 09.20.06 - 1:05 pm | #

"daleyrocks":

It make no difference what the hell the U.S. does with respect to the Geneva Conventions, because other countries who are also signatories only selectively follow its provisions.

WTF do the Geneva Conventions have to do with domestic criminal trials?

"daleyrocks" is an eedjit.

We agree that fair trials and due process are a human right, and that international treaties and law should prohibit such deprivations of basic human rights, but the Geneva Conventions don't cover this particular circumstance.

But this is a prime example of the hypocrisy of those on the right, such as Malkin, who's in favour of the internment if the Japanese-ancestry Americans in WWII, and fully in favour of the preznit's "terrorism" policies, but who gets her panties in a snit about this.

We're consistent. We oppose all such human rights abuses (and many of us the death penalty). Malkin and company are not.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 1:09 pm | #

Zelda also misses the point. This thread and Glenn's post are not extolling the virtues of Indonesian courts. Rather, it is commentary on how someone like Malkin can support indefinite detainment of alleged terrorists, enemy combatants, illegal enemy combatants, or whatever without due process can then comment on the due process, or lack thereof, from other countries courts/legal system.

Is that really so difficult to understand? Now please, no more straw man arguments...
Mike Lamb | 09.20.06 - 1:11 pm | #

Someone needs to get good old W to give an opinion on this. He already doged a hypothetical question posed to him in regards of US citizens being treated in the same fashion he proposes. Detaining them and sending them off to be tortured in some foreign country and then being tried using secret evidence they have no way to defend themselves from.
Brian | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 1:25 pm | #

Christopher R. Grantham:

What the hell is wrong with you people?

PS We'll see how open minded and devoted to free speech you are by whether you allow this to be posted.

Christopher: IC you're new here. Why don't you take a moment, look around, and get the lay of the land before you start firing? IOW, siddown and STFU for a while, 'kay? That way, you might not embarrass youself, and people may actually take you seriously if you have something constructive to say....

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 1:50 pm | #

I cannot believe all you liberal leftist moonbats are such moral relativists that you equate what our good, Judeo-[sorry, I have to put that bit in, it's the rules ... we wanna make sure the Jewish neo-cons continued to be suckered into thinking we're on their side]-Christian government does to evil terrorists to what an evil Muslim government in one of those more "tropical" parts of the world is doing to Christian folk who might just be a little over-enthusiastic about spreading the word.

Don't you liberal moral relativists see the difference between us and them? We're good people who follow God, so even if we have to resort to secret tribunals and such to keep us safe, we're only doing it because we are good people who have to defend ourselves from bad people. OTOH, they are bad people who worship some sky-fairy named "Allah", and therefore their actions must be bad. As Jebus himself said "you shall know their fruits by prejudging them".
< / wingnut "logic" >
Hagen | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 2:37 pm | #

Repeating pseudonymous in nc' s call to politely contact the Indonesian embassy:

(202)775-5200
http://www.embassyofindonesia.org/

Malkin is quite vile; how sad for our country that she has so many followers.
In Vino Veritas | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 2:54 pm | #

This post writes itself. For instance, I thought (from having read Michelle's blog) that people who were concerned about due process for Terrorists are themselves pro-terrorists.

To follow up on my "from the wingnut point of view" comment as Hagen (get the joke with the names?): that's the point, as far as the likes of Ms. Malkin are concerned, "concern for due process rights of terrorists" does make you "pro-terrorist" ... it's just that people like Malkin may very well be pro-terrorist when it comes to, er, Christian terrorists. Look at the lack of pants-wetting from that ilk when it comes to right-wing terrorists in this country ...
DAS | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 3:14 pm | #

Zelda also misses the point.

You're nicer than me. I call it lying. There is no evidence for any of her claims (e.g., liberals have claimed that Indonesia is a "bastion of due process") anywhere. Her entire argument is based on a false set of facts.

It's disengenuous and intellectually bankrupt. Just like Michelle Malkin.
Anonymous | 09.20.06 - 3:22 pm | #

Gratis - So she staged the photos? Those were published in the Australian press. But strangely, no one links to those pictures anymore. Why are we supposed to forget how heinous Muslims can be? Surely it isn't because they're such good liberals?

And liberals (particularly the drug legalization crusaders) have vehemently protested the Indonesian governments harsh drug policies.

And if the argument were over detaining the Christian "terrorists" indefinitely, you and Greenwald would have a point. But we are talking about their execution.

EXECUTION.
Zelda | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 3:54 pm | #

Zelda | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 3:54 pm | #

Hilarious.

Why are we supposed to forget how heinous Muslims can be?

Because Timothy McVeigh was a white Christian Republican male who set a bomb to blow up 167 American men, women and children. Are you suggesting that we treat all white people, all Christians, all Republicans, or all males as mass murderers?

And liberals (particularly the drug legalization crusaders) have vehemently protested the Indonesian governments harsh drug policies.

Still, you're missing the point. We're not talking about Indonesia, we're talking about Michelle Malkin and the rest of the crackpot wingnuts like you that have radically different standards for actions that depend not on the ACTION, but the INDIVIDUAL committing the action.

And if the argument were over detaining the Christian "terrorists" indefinitely, you and Greenwald would have a point. But we are talking about their execution.

Again. Blind. Another radical wingnut freak that gets off (mentally, maybe sexually?) on torture and executions when it's US doing the torture and executions, but the big, bad tough talk turns to maudlin whimpering pathetic tears when someone else does it to individuals in your camp. You're a bunch of cowardly frauds that think you can prove courage by talking tough when it's easy to talk tough-- only to shit in your pants and cry like a three year old when you get a taste of your own medicine.
e_five | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 4:42 pm | #

Greenwald doesn't have the straight-shot contradiction he claims. Malkin talks against legal rights for terrorists captured on the field of battle. Prisoners of unconventional war, neither POW's nor criminals. The 3 Christians are Indonesians accused of crimes in Indonesia.

The better comparison would be the 3 Christians compared to Jose Padilla or Zacaraias Moussaoui, both of whom got US trials.

Greenwald also skips over the security complications of prosecuting one part of a group in domestic court and hunting down their comrades out on the battlefield out in Afghanistan or somewhere. Malkin has an approach -- if Greenwald has a better approach, let us hear it.

There is a genuine set of issues raised by the boundary-crossing of enemy saboteurs and terrorists that Greenwald makes light of.

Still, there are serious questions for Malkin, and it's fine for Greenwald to ask her to show why one standard should apply in one case and another in the other case. But he doesn't ask, he just dumps, calling it "Beyond Satire".

In the one case that is closest, the case of Jose Padilla, an American agent of al-Queda, Malkin has a principled position:

"Yes, the Bush Administration should have to prove it, but in a military tribunal not in a civilan court.

Much of the evidence against Padilla--his own statements, the statements of other captured al Qaeda operatives, information provided by intelligence agents--either would not be admissable in a civilian court or could not be presented without compromising intelligence assets. A military tribunal, by contrast, could admit such evidence and would not be obligated to share it with Padilla or his lawyer."

Greenwald should at least do us the favor of arguing why this is wrong rather than dumping the issue into "Satire".

Here's the link to the Malkin quote above.
Warren | 09.20.06 - 5:03 pm | #

Where is Timothy McVeigh? Is he teaching in a Christian school now? No. Let me guess. He's addressing the United Nations. In our country, secular but predominantly Christian, we do not tolerate anyone who would target and kill innocent people for whatever reason. Indonesia, on the other hand, slaps the wrist of Muslim terrorists, yet sentences the Christians to death. Surely all you phony liberals would find that odd. No? Yes?

But please again, tell me how fair and just the Indonesian court system is when one of the Bali bombing planners is sentenced to 8 years and supposed Christian terrorists are sentenced to death.

And please also, inform me of one Muslim terrorist the U.S. has executed, not killed on the battlefield, but executed by the authority of the state since 9/11? Name one person. Better yet, name one person who has even been sentenced to death.

You rail against the Christian establishment only because it does not deny your freedom to do so at will. But state your opinions boldly in the Arab world and then we'll see whose shitting their pants.

If those Christians are terrorists, they must be dealt with according to the laws of Indonesia, which for Muslims is apparantly 8 years with time off for good behavior. But there is strong evidence to suggest that not only did they not get a fair trial (at the hands of the Islamic court), but that they were acting in self-defense against an onslaught of Islamic terrorism.

Oh and here's something from the World Socialist Web Site on Indonesian justice for drug traffickers.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/200.../corb- a06.shtml
Zelda | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 5:09 pm | #

Malkin talks against legal rights for terrorists captured on the field of battle.

Ummm ... I thought this was a "global war on terror" in which every single place was a (potential) field of battle ... therefore this is a distinction without any real meaning, eh?

At the very least, unless we've magically returned to the 18th century, you cannot fully expect everyone on a "field of battle" to be a combatant of some sort: if a battle is fought in a village, for example, the villagers might not have time to leave, in which case they'd be, um, on the field of battle.

Prisoners of unconventional war, neither POW's nor criminals.

So then they get bubkis rights, eh? If someone is a captured as a criminal they get due process; if someone is a POW, they're covered under the Geneva conventions; but if someone is a random person who cannot escape his village by the time the battle starts, since he's neither a POW nor criminal suspect, he has no rights?

I hope this isn't a Godwin's law violation, but it does remind me suspiciously of the Nazi supporting minister who when asked how he could, as a Christian who presumably is supposed to be loving and charitable, support eliminationist anti-Semitism, responded: "as a Christian, I have to love my neighbors and my enemies: the Jews are not my neighbors nor are they my enemies, so I don't have to love them".
DAS | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 5:15 pm | #

Oh, and there is Constitutional precedent for the use of Military Tribunals in time of war.

Great! Who are we at war with?
Baron | 09.20.06 - 5:19 pm | #

Oh, and there is Constitutional precedent for the use of Military Tribunals in time of war. If Greenwald thinks they aren't the right venue he should argue that, instead of calling it "Beyond Satire".

Read this.

Greenwald fatuously pretends there is no legal issue here, just "Hypocrisy".
Warren | 09.20.06 - 5:13 pm | #

So we don't need to abide by the Geneva Conventions because these people are enemy combatants, not prisoners of war. But we can have militariy tribunals because these people are prisoners of war.
Trent | 09.20.06 - 5:22 pm | #

I thought Malkin was a Coulter wanna-be. If so, why doesn't she just come out and say it like Coulter: "We should invade their countries, execute their leaders and convert them to Christianity"

or words to that effect.
morte | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 5:24 pm | #

Great! Who are we at war with? Baron

We're at war with Eurasia ... oops, strike that, we're at war with Eastasia.
DAS | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 5:29 pm | #

What next---will Malkin be sporting a
"Free Mumia" button?
marky | 09.20.06 - 5:43 pm | #

Am I mistaken or are there oil reserves in Indonesia somewhere?

Maybe we can do a good deed and get paid at the same time, kinda like we did in Iraq and are planning to do to Iran before the election.
matt | 09.20.06 - 5:58 pm | #

Oh, and slinger242, your argument is that because Bush hasn't specifically said these detainee's are liable to be killed it isn't implicit in statements like "Some of those people are no longer a threat?"

In 2001 Bush signed an Executive Order authorizing the CIA to kill people in furtherance of the War on Terror, as in kill them without trial, any kind of trial.

It's the beginning of the slippery slope when we give someone who uses Der Fuhrer's hand salute to greet people the power to define what is and what is not a war crime retroactively to cover his own crazy ass.
matt | 09.20.06 - 6:02 pm | #

But please again, tell me how fair and just the Indonesian court system is when one of the Bali bombing planners is sentenced to 8 years and supposed Christian terrorists are sentenced to death.

You can keep repeating this over and over again, but it doesn't make it true that liberals ever said that the Indonesian court system is fair and just. Either you're stupid or dishonest, but if you have to manufacture facts to make an argument, it probably wasn't that good of an argument to start with.

People have corrected you several times, yet you persist in announcing mis-truths as if they are the gospel. You are wrong. You have no evidence for your claims. Get a better argument, one that is based on actual facts, or STFU. You're making a fool out of yourself.
Anonymous | 09.20.06 - 6:38 pm | #

Has Malkin ever given any subject enough thought to have form a consistent, coherent position? She's about the most hypocritical pundit out there, and a real lightweight. This is par for the course. Right and wrong are not based on deeper underlying principles for Malkin; they're determined by one's partisan standing and the degree of one's zealotry.
Batocchio | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 7:12 pm | #

Why is it that the moonbats are completely oblivious to irony?

You wrote:
>>>>
Of course, if Indonesia would only do what the Bush administration does -- which is imprison people without giving them any trial or process at all, as Michelle gleefully celebrates -- then they wouldn't have to worry about all this hand-wringing from the terrorist rights crowd over "trial irregularities."
Anonymous | 09.20.06 - 7:13 pm | #

stogie | Homepage | 09.19.06 - 8:01 pm | #

Thanks for the link, cringe-inducing though it is…

Robert1014 | 09.19.06 - 8:15 pm | #

Eloquently stated. I wish that McCain line had silenced more torture advocates – but of course, it didn't.

Now there's that tiny, insignificant matter of the attempt to abolish habeus corpus to clear up… :o(
Batocchio | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 7:20 pm | #

I see we've been invaded by a number of Malkin cultists who can't seem to grasp the point of the post and seem to think that it has something to do with Indonesian justice or with the fact that no "enemy combatant" has been executed yet by a military tribunal whereas the Indonesians are planning to execute 3 persons based on what may be less than due process. The fact that no "enemy combatants" have been executed is simply fortuitous because the military tribunals envisioned by the Bush administration certainly could have imposed the death penalty. The fact that these tribunals have been derailed by SCOTUS is also fortuitous. The threat remains. Indeed, some countries have refused to extradite al-Qaeda suspects to the US because of the threat of trail by military tribunals. The issue is whether or not everyone, whether Indonesian Christian or the worst al-Qaeda terrorist, is entitled to a fair trial. One simply cannot say that one is and one isn't; either they both are or neither is.

In considering this I provide two quotations that all should reflect on:

"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

-- Thomas Paine, Dissertation on First Principles of Government, July, 1795

"The Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process of law applies to "any person" who is accused of a crime by the Federal Government or any of its agencies. No exception is made as to those who are accused of war crimes or as to those who possess the status of an enemy belligerent. Indeed, such an exception would be contrary to the whole philosophy of human rights which makes the Constitution the great living document that it is. The immutable rights of the individual, including those secured by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, belong not alone to the members of those nations that excel on the battlefield or that subscribe to the democratic ideology. They belong to every person in the world, victor or vanquished, whatever may be his race, color or beliefs. They rise above any status of belligerency or outlawry. They survive any popular passion or frenzy of the moment. No court or legislature or executive, not even the mightiest army in the world, can ever destroy them. Such is the universal and indestructible nature of the rights which the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment recognizes and protects when life or liberty is threatened by virtue of the authority of the United States."

-- Justice Frank Murphy, dissenting opinion, Yamashita v. Styer, 327 U.S. 1 (1946)
Frankly, my dear, ... | 09.20.06 - 8:04 pm | #

This is absurd. To qualify as a terrorist you need to be Islamo-Fascist, which is not the case here.
anonymous | 09.20.06 - 9:02 pm | #

Das wrote:

...since he's neither a POW nor criminal suspect, he has no rights?

There are rights to the accused in a Military Tribunal. But the point you make is more thoughtful than Greenwald's original post.

The situation in the case of prisoners in Guantanamo is not one of Clausewitzian war covered by the Geneva conventions, nor of domestic crime covered by the Constitution. So new law and a new approach is needed. In order to trash Malkin, Greenwald simply pretends he doesn't know this.

The case of the 3 Christians is much more like domestic crime covered by the Indonesian legal system.

Baron:
We are at war with those who blew down the World Trade Center, bombed the Cole, crashed into the Pentagon, blew up the US embassies in east Africa, bombed the trains in Spain and Great Britain, and bombed Bali. It's a serious war but not a conventional war. It's a small war that can get very big very quickly as soon as the enemy gets its hands on some good WMD's.

Trent wrote:

..So we don't need to abide by the Geneva Conventions?

The Geneva Conventions are treaties between nations. Not laws that bind a nation in all circumstances. The Taliban was a national government and the Conventions can apply if they signed the Conventions. But al-Queda, Hamas, and Hezbollah are not nations and cannot sign the treaty, so other rules must apply.

Malkins blog reviews all of these issues, but Greenwalds post on Malkin just breezes over them.
Warren | 09.21.06 - 2:06 am | #

You're nicer than me. I call it lying.

You're still way too nice. She's so fucking stupid that she doesn't even comprehend that she has completely failed to understand Glenn's point. To understand it would require the ability to grasp the concept of applying the same standards to the U.S. as she and Malkin apply to Indonesia, something quite beyond her.
truth machine | 09.21.06 - 3:01 am | #

Still, there are serious questions for Malkin, and it's fine for Greenwald to ask her to show why one standard should apply in one case and another in the other case. But he doesn't ask, he just dumps, calling it "Beyond Satire".

Warren, you fucking moron, Malkin et. al. have a long history of applying standards inconsistently, so long that it's beyond the point of asking, and beyond satire.
truth machine | 09.21.06 - 3:05 am | #

The Geneva Conventions are treaties between nations. Not laws that bind a nation in all circumstances.

Treaties to which we are signatories legally bind us; the U.S. Constitution, something you apparently haven't read, says they are "the supreme Law of the Land".
truth machine | 09.21.06 - 3:09 am | #

The Taliban was a national government and the Conventions can apply if they signed the Conventions. But al-Queda, Hamas, and Hezbollah are not nations and cannot sign the treaty, so other rules must apply.

Warren, you fucking moron, as signatories we are bound in how we treat detainees, not just detainees of other signatories. In particular,

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
truth machine | 09.21.06 - 3:18 am | #

We are at war with those who blew down the World Trade Center, bombed the Cole, crashed into the Pentagon, blew up the US embassies in east Africa, bombed the trains in Spain and Great Britain, and bombed Bali.

So we're at war with brown people? A number of the people you mention are dead, so we aren't at war with them. So what is the set of people, precisely, that we are at war with? Brown people? Or perhaps moronic psychopaths -- people like Warren.
truth machine | 09.21.06 - 3:22 am | #

The Geneva Conventions are treaties between nations. Not laws that bind a nation in all circumstances.

But wars take place in nations, even if participants may not be states and/or signatory Parties. The Conventions, curiously enough, address this, even if Dick Cheney's duck-hunting buddy thinks otherwise.

Try again.
pseudonymous in nc | 09.21.06 - 8:23 am | #

And: what do you call a man who's full of rabbit shit?

Warren.
pseudonymous in nc | 09.21.06 - 8:23 am | #

We need not decide the merits of this argument because there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not one between signatories. Article 3, often referred to as Common Article 3 because, like Article 2, it appears in all four Geneva Conventions, provides that in a “conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum,” certain provisions protecting “[p]ersons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by … detention.” Id., at 3318. One such provision prohibits “the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” Ibid.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Stevens, J., writing for the Court
pseudonymous in nc | 09.21.06 - 8:26 am | #

Following the Malkin link at the end of your post yields no hint of "gleeful celebration" regarding lack of due process for terrorists.

I have no doubt that she HAS gleefully celebrated this somewhere, but I'm not seeing it in what your link sends me to.

Maybe she changed something in her post in the wake of your post, but I wanted to point it out in the spirit of keeping evidentiary links "clean," so to speak.

jim
jim | Homepage | 09.21.06 - 9:49 am | #

Malkins blog reviews all of these issues, but Greenwalds post on Malkin just breezes over them.
Warren | 09.21.06 - 2:06 am | #

You mean her thorough, thoughtful, measured and well-reasoned post entitled "Muslims will execute Christians?"

I thought so.
e_five | Homepage | 09.21.06 - 11:26 am | #

I guess we are no longer a city on a hill, are we?
marbotty | 09.21.06 - 11:42 am | #

...since he's neither a POW nor criminal suspect, he has no rights?

There are rights to the accused in a Military Tribunal. But the point you make is more thoughtful than Greenwald's original post. - Warren

OK, so I'll rephrase it:

"since he's neither a POW nor a criminal suspect, he has fewer rights than either?" ... it's still a ridiculous position.

And a key right that is missing is the right to fully challenge, review, expose to the light of day, etc., evidence as well as to have a full right of non-self-incrimination.

This is actually very important, not just for the accused, but for society which wants, needs and demands justice. Have ya ever heard of the Dreyfuss case?

One thing about that case was not just that an innocent person was locked away because he was a convenient scapegoat of the wrong faith (Jewish rather than Islam, though) and ethnicity (Alsatian rather than Arab/South Asian, though), but also that, since the gummint thought they had their man (which public scrutiny of the evidence or even the threat of said scrutiny would have indicated they didn't), they didn't bother to pursue further leads that would have led to the real guilty parties. I.e., for every innocent person railroaded through the system, a guilty person or persons goes free.

Having full due process actually is not so much a problem if you have the guilty person already in custody: the person often remains in custody through the trial (or at least out only on bond), but if you think you have the guilty person and you don't ... so it's really in the interest of national security to afford terrorist suspects appropriate due process.
DAS | Homepage | 09.21.06 - 12:02 pm | #

Has anyone ever noticed that right-wing websites (Malkin's for instance) don't allow viewers to blog responses. The left-leaning sites always offer this option. This might explain why so many trolls have to come to our sites to get their hate on.

But, talking about Malkin at all is pointless. The woman is so intellectually stunted that any point she makes can be refuted by a third grader.
Yogsoggoth | 09.21.06 - 12:03 pm | #

I think we're all overlooking the important part...

Michelle Mangalangadingdangdong's parents were illegal immagrants and that makes her (by her own words) an anchor-baby.

When will Michelle denounce her parents for being brown-skinned terrorists?
Karl Rove II | 09.21.06 - 12:48 pm | #

Beyond Satire? Not Beyond T.Rex!
http://firedoglake.com/2006/09/20/late-nite-fdl- my-brunch-with-michelle-malkkkin
sysprog | 09.21.06 - 1:01 pm | #

Matt asked:
"So, why are we in Iraq then?

While it is true that Saddam Hussein was (and is) a very bad man with a fixation on WMD's of all sorts, and lacked all moral restraint in using what few WMD's he had, and further, it is also true that Saddams fixation would have been funded by a large stream of oil money, it cannot be proved that these were the reasons for George W Bush's for invading Iraq. None of this is relevant to Greenwalds critique of Malkin.

DAS
wants to give legal rights to enemies in combat. This is very noble but not practical. Note that enemy soldiers are routinely killed without benefit of due process, other than perhaps a declaration of war. Note that if the enemy soldiers are also US citizens, that has no bearing. Consider the US Civil War, for example.

POW's have rights by treaty, ensuring mutual rights for US soldiers held prisoner. Domestic criminals have rights under the US Constitution. The armed members of NGO's come under neither category and so get neither set of rights. This is unfair rather than ridiculous. I do not forsee a time when warfare will be fair.

I really don't see the relevance of the Dreyfuss case. People aren't being held for Military Tribunal because of their religion, but because of their acts (or suspected acts). GW Bush has many flaws, Malkin has flaws too, but they cannot be blamed for the fact that all the members of the Taliban and al-Queda are Muslim.

If foreign Buddhists or Methodists start blowing up office buildings or US naval vessels they will get the same treatment, except that free Korans will not be provided.
Warren | 09.21.06 - 1:48 pm | #

The armed members of NGO's come under neither category and so get neither set of rights. This is unfair rather than ridiculous. I do not forsee a time when warfare will be fair.

It would be merely unfair (and only arguably so), if the people in question where known armed members of particular NGOs, but when this is not known for sure (and our government has been wrong, and even GWB does not claim to be infallable), it is ridiculous to argue "well the people involved are neither citizens nor soldiers, so they have no rights".

I really don't see the relevance of the Dreyfuss case. People aren't being held for Military Tribunal because of their religion, but because of their acts (or suspected acts). - Warren

Dreyfess was also punished for his acts (or, more correctly, it turned out) for his suspected acts -- it wasn't as if the French government said "let's imprison some 'uppity' Jew", but rather he was framed. True, he was the prime suspect (and an easy scapegoat) simply because he was Jewish and Alsatian (and hence considered more likely, due to his ethnicity, to be a German spy or some such ... and due to his religion, less likely to be loyal to France), but that's no different than putting people in front of a military tribunal who were captured for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and fitting a particular (perhaps accurate) religious and ethnic profile.

Anyway, my point in bringing up the Dreyfuss case was what happens when someone, against whom society would be prejudiced, is accused of a crime and allowed to be convicted on the basis of evidence that doesn't see the light of day: not only is an innocent person put in jail, but guilty parties are free for that much longer. How much resources are being used to hold people at Gitmo, that would be better spent elsewhere in pursuing real terrorists, simply because we don't allow for a due process which would show that they might be innocent?
DAS | Homepage | 09.21.06 - 2:37 pm | #

My opinion is that Mr. Greenwald is comparing apples to oranges. He conveniently leaves out any background on the history of Islamic Radicalism and Christian-Bashing in Indonesia as Michelle attempts to point out.

The fact is that you can’t compare our battle against terrorism and prosecution of enemy combatants to those of Indonesia for the simple fact that we, America, do have a better judicial system then Indonesia. I know that’s hard for Liberals to admit seeing as you place us on equal to below-equal ground with the rest of the world. It doesn’t mean that we as individuals are better humans then others but I can clearly state that we have a better governmental and judicial system then most countries in the world.

If Christian individuals murdered innocent people in cold blood, then they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The difference that you don’t see is that there is not a world-wide Christian terrorist/ideological effort to kill infidels. Islamic scumbag terrorists on the other hand have declared war on us in case you haven’t noticed. We are detaining them so that they don’t attack us or any other countries of the world.

By and large, Christian groups travel the world helping people through charitable efforts and yes, they preach the gospel and try to convert but they don’t generally kill the unbelievers. That simple fact alone would make me take a second look as to whether these events are being accurately played out. That’s what Michelle is apparently trying to do.
BigKAD | 09.21.06 - 5:10 pm | #

Attempt to rationalize it any way you like 'Big'KAD.

The fact is, Malkin is for fair trials for Christians, and does'nt care if they are Muslims.

How do you need to have it explained to you so you will understand? This is hypocrisy on a massive scale, as only Michelle 'my boyfriend writes for me' Malkin can do it.
Machinator | Homepage | 09.21.06 - 6:27 pm | #

I don't need it explained to me Machinator. It's clear that you can not see that when discussing the differences between Christians and a state heavily influenced by Islamic Radicals, we should ere in taking the side of Christians. It's not hypocrisy because I (and Malkin) have correctly taken sides in this battle and you have not. I don't condone illegal actions by Christians but I think that this situation warrants examination in more detail due to the recent history of Islamic-Radicals (who have declared war on us in case you haven't noticed)

All things are not equal. Our system is better then Indonesia's and therefore our treatment of enemy combatants is not relevant here. Open your eyes please.
BigKAD | 09.21.06 - 7:45 pm | #

No, our system was better, until this usurper king started chipping away at it piece by piece.
Anonymous | 09.21.06 - 8:18 pm | #

Creating new, lessened standards to persue these terrorists.. it brings us closer to these countries you say we are above. It seems very much like this current administration is tearing apart everything that makes this country great to persue these terrorists. If we didn't do it to fight the USSR, why are we now? This seems an awful lot like the terrorists are winning due to our overreactions to me.

Oh, and Anonymous | 09.21.06 - 8:18 pm was my comment.
Zeromus | 09.21.06 - 8:23 pm | #

While it is true that Saddam Hussein was (and is) a very bad man with a fixation on WMD's of all sorts

Been there, refuted that, fuckface. Do try to remember that this is 2006.

None of this is relevant to Greenwalds critique of Malkin.

It's relevant to the question you were asked, asshole.
truth machine | 09.22.06 - 3:16 am | #

I find this whole thread fascinating. In the first place, Glenn is more than justified in pointing out the absurdity of Malkin's hypocrisy. Like the other of the "Three Witches of Slandor" her comments make you want to throw up your hands or your breakfast.

On the other hand, it would have been better if some of you had investigated the situation and the case before posting. (Incredibly, the only one who seemed to have was the usually idiotic Shooter.)

It's true that no one quite matched James' comment about being surprised to find Muslims in Indonesia -- only the country with the largest population of Muslims in the World -- though Marky's instantaneous use of the word "Christofascist" comes close.

But the situation in Sulawesi Province in general, and Poso in particular does cause concern about this verdict -- totally irrespective of the Bush administration's inanities, and criminal actions.

Sulawesi has been the scene of what is perhaps the worst -- at least the worst non-Iraqi -- inter-communal violence in the last six years. This was the site of the school-girl beheadings, the most stomach-turning event I know of, one which bothered me even more than 9/11.

The violence has many sources, but primarily is the result of the actions of Muslim extremist groups Laskar Jihad and Jemaah Islamiah.

(For background on this, check out the following article from the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-...fic/ 4387604.stm
and particularly the 'see also's.)

Jemaah Islamiah seems to be of the opinion that starting a true war between Christians and Muslims will bring about a return of the Caliphate, centered on Indonesia.

Yet, as the IHT article referred to earlier states, it has been only Christians that have been sentenced to death for their actions. (And, from my reading of the articles, while there has been a Christian organization formed, most of the deaths have been of Christians -- and I am an atheist who 'has no dog in this hunt.')

So condemn the hypocrisy, but don't automatically assume, as many of the commentators have done, that the Christians are, in fact, terrorists.
Prup (aka Jim Benton) | Homepage | 09.22.06 - 11:13 am | #

Other BBC articles that are of relevance, though it really would be useful to follow the whole thread of them, are this on the Laskar Jihad
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-...ific/ 770263.stm

This on the leader -- which does point out that the trouble may have begun with a Christian attack on a mosque
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-...ific/ 822369.stm

and this on the roots of the conflict
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-...fic/ 1719964.stm

(Note that these articles, except the last, pre-date 9/11.)
Prup (aka Jim Benton) | Homepage | 09.22.06 - 11:19 am | #

BigKAD said: It's clear that you can not see that when discussing the differences between Christians and a state heavily influenced by Islamic Radicals, we should ere in taking the side of Christians.

Gosh, why can't everyone here see that Christians are inherently Better People than Muslims? Duh! It's soooo obvious ... but only to a bigot-with-a-bible like you.

BigKAD, you're just another christian bigot who thinks God is on your side and that this somehow makes Christians superior.

No doubt this innate moral superiority explains how Bush can order the torture of Lesser People, like muslims he decides are guilty of terrorism, and still call himself "a man of faith". Morally superior people, such as the Bush kind of christians, inherently can't torture -- because they're Better People. That's why it's called "harsh interrogation" and not torture. Because when christians do it, it can't be torture.

Well, BigotKAD, I can see just fine, and what I see here is just another smug christianist asshole, talking about how "We're better 'cause we're Christian."
gac | 09.22.06 - 11:22 am | #

On the other hand, it would have been better if some of you had investigated the situation and the case before posting.

It would have been better if you had used your brain before posting. No one is defending Indonesia or denying "concern about this verdict"; that simply isn't the issue.

So condemn the hypocrisy, but don't automatically assume, as many of the commentators have done, that the Christians are, in fact, terrorists.

No one has done any such thing, you stupid fucking moron.
truth machine | 09.22.06 - 7:01 pm | #

Amnesty International says:
http://amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp? NewsID=17110

Amnesty International today (21 September) condemned the executions of Fabianus Tibo, Dominggus da Silva and Marinus Riwu after what might have been an unfair trial. [...] The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and should never be inflicted on anyone. As the world continues to turn away from the use of the death penalty, the executions of these three men are a backwards step. Such state sanctioned killing is all the more unacceptable where, as in this case, there have been serious doubts about the fairness of the trial. [...] Indonesia's neighbour, the Philippines, abolished the death penalty for all crimes in June this year. President Arroyo declared that the death penalty had been shown to be unsuccessful in "effectively deterring the commission of heinous crimes." The Philippines joined more than 125 countries in the world who have already abolished the death penalty in law or practice. [...] Amnesty International calls on the Indonesian government to take immediate steps towards the abolition of the death penalty by halting all executions and commuting all death sentences.
Amnesty International | Homepage | 09.23.06 - 8:17 pm | #

If Michelle could just reach up and take that huge plank out of her eye she'd clearly see how foolish she, and others like her, have been acting.
Anonymous | 09.28.06 - 1:21 pm | #

http://www.onlinedating.net.in/
online dating | Homepage | 12.31.06 - 9:55 pm | #

http://www.moviespoint.org/
movies point | Homepage | 12.31.06 - 9:55 pm | #

best site
http://www.moviespoint.org/
movies point | Homepage | 12.31.06 - 9:56 pm | #

best site

http://www.healthinsurance.net.in/
healthinsurance | Homepage | 12.31.06 - 9:57 pm | #

Peopleare quite aggressive here..
Thai TV | Homepage | 01.05.07 - 2:05 pm | #

..
Interesting post, it's in, thanks, so not only the left supports some terrorists then...hmmm

absurd thought -
God of the Universe hates
firecracker journalists...

demonize minorities
who don't tow liberal line
..
Hard To Swallow | Homepage | 01.08.07 - 7:44 pm | #

Commenting by HaloScan