More worthwhile Afghanistan links

Tom Friedman on the need to wind down our engagement, on the simple grounds that every time something wonderful happens in the Islamic world, it happens in spite of our assistance, not because of it. I find this interesting,, because Friedman's one of the biggest Iraq hawks around - but he even says the '06 surge was only successful because of a pre-existing internal desire to stamp out al Qaeda in Iraq.

Nick Kristof making the point that for the cost of 40,000 additional troops, you could instead build thousands of schools. After all, the Islamic extremists are building schools...

Glenn Greenwald pointing out an Op-Ed from 2006, written by a former Russian soldier who was stationed in Afghanistan. I won't summarize - this one you've got to read for yourself.

The case of Binyamin Mohamed - the truth will out

Of all the verifiable cases of abuse and cover-up coming out of the fight against Islamic terrorism, this is the one that has continued to chap my tookus the most - and that is saying something. This is the one where in response to a released, i.e. innocent, Guantanamo detainee's attempts to sue the British government for their complicity in his torture and rendition, the United States government has threatened our closest historic ally with a "reassessed intelligence relationship" should the British High Court release to the public the relevant facts of what we did.

Recent reports have confirmed that the US "threat" may actually have been solicited by the Brits themselves - David Milband, the foreign secretary, is now accused of requesting that the Americans say exactly what we said, so as to apply pressure to the High Court to keep the facts of Mohammed's torture under wraps and protect the British officials involved. I'm encouraged to think that we weren't actually serious about letting citizens of the U.K. die just to cover up government crimes, but it's still an abhorrent, reckless game to play with the rule of law. In any event, the British High Court, having read the evidence Binyamin Mohammed intends to introduce and finding no threat to the national security of either nation, appears prepared to call the bluff. In a 38-page ruling released last week, they condemned the foreign secretary's actions in this regard as being contrary to the rule of law, and overruled his request to suppress the evidence. Pending one final appeal, the details of what the United States and other governments did to Binyamin Mohammed will be laid plain.

I've written about this before, of course, but it's important to note once again that those of us who feel passionately that a reckoning is due on these matters are not choosing transparency and the rule of law over security. Binyamin Mohammed was innocent. And he was tortured. By Americans. How can anyone believe that having done things like this systemically for seven years, on three continents, made us safer, when it's obvious how many of the victims were simply not guilty of anything? I reject categorically the notion that we had no choice here, because this is exactly what bin Laden wanted. He wanted to turn us into something we are not, and thus create a sustained mindset of all-out war. Enough is enough.

In the British High Court ruling, it is stated that the risk of an actual deterioration in intelligence sharing, based on releasing the Mohammed info, must be assessed in light of the strong historic relationship between the U.K. and the U.S. In short, the Brits are saying that Americans would never do this, would never put an ally's citizens at risk just to deny an innocent man his day in court. That language is directed at us, the American people. They're putting their faith in America's ultimate goodness. In light of this, Congress ought to put the Obama administration on notice, saying that our alliance with the UK is sacrosanct, and no actions of retribution are to be taken. If we can find the time to investigate Muslim groups for spying, on the basis of their desire to participate in democratic governance, maybe we can find the time for that too.

Interesting take on the Constitutionality of the President's Nobel

Obama's Prize was premature, at best; we're still embroiled in two foreign wars, and the President is actively maintaining the security and war footing of his predecessor while at the same time frustrating the efforts of others to create a more secure, accountable, and sustainable footing. But really, his speech after the announcement was made was pitch perfect, and I'm guessing is anyone saying he should have refused the thing would almost certainly not have given him any political credit for doing so. All in all, as far as I'm concerned this is theater - not really any big deal one way or the other. This, however, I found very interesting; legally speaking, these guys say that the President accepting the Nobel Peace Prize will require Congressional approval, and for good reason. Check it out.

The case of Fouad al-Rabiah - this absolutely tears it.

From Andrew Sullivan, on a recent torture case:

An astonishing, and largely ignored, judicial ruling issued on September 17 in the case of one Fouad al-Rabiah told us that the US government knowingly tortured an innocent man to procure a false confession.

A false confession. Gone, ripped to pieces by the perpetrators' own words entered into evidence, is the sordid myth that torture was only done to the worst of the worst, and only to keep us safe from imminent attack, and only by rogue CIA agents flouting the official rules. This was Guantanamo. It was to save prosecutorial face. How many of these cases do we need to see before we recognize the pattern, and DEMAND to bring the whole putrid mess out into the light of day?

One more quote from the article, for anyone still swooning over the Nobel and imagining that the election brought us into different times:

Shockingly, although Barack Obama’s justice department knew the details of this case, it persisted with the Bush administration’s attempt to prosecute him.

This is repellent, and it is NOT going away. Obama and the Democratic party will be held to account for this, by history if by nothing else.

Weinberger on Iran

I was struggling to find the time to write up a perspective on recent Iran developments this weekend, when I discovered that my friend Seth Weinberger, professor of international relations at the University of Puget Sound, has already done so here and here, in a manner far more learned and articulate than I could. While I take a slightly more charitable position on the Obama administration's recent successes than Seth and his sources do, this is an excellent primer. Add Seth's blog to your daily news feed, and also buy his book. :)

Appalling sentiments from Archbishop Tomasi

I take enormous pride in the Catholic intellectual and moral tradition, from Augustine and Anselm to John Courtney Murray. And that, at least in part, is why this leaves me fairly well disgusted. Archbishop Silvio Tomasi, in response to criticisms over the Church's lackluster reactions to the sex abuse scandal, evidently had the following things to say:

- less than 5% of Catholic clergy were involved in abuse of children (hey, only one out of every 20)

- all kinds of religious institutions, to say nothing of babysitters and family members, also suffer from this systemic abomination (see, everyone's doing it)

- what we're talking about isn't really pedophilia; it's better described as ephebophilia, a particularly corrosive strain of homosexuality that involves an irresistible attraction to adolescent young men (don't even get me started).

I'm obliged to note here that I can't seem to find text from Tomasi's original statement, and all articles on this subject I can find ultimate source back to the Guardian article linked above. But under the presumption that it's an accurate representation, it's that last gem on the list that really makes it plain how Competence invariably becomes Depravity's bitch, and how necessary a willful stupidity is to a dilapidated moral compass. Not pedophilia, indeed.

The Archbishop may have a point that in the grand scheme of things, the Church is being held to a higher standard than other religious denominations and secular institutions. My response to that, as a Catholic, would be, damn right you are. Get it together, and next time, consider suffering your indignation in silence.