About five weeks ago My Pet Jawa broke a story about al-Zarquawi's main site getting hacked. It was only down for a while, but Rusty got a screen capture that went into the post: the page was black, with an American Flag across the top and a crossed-out picture of Bin Laden.

A month later a related site was hacked, and this went unfixed for multiple days. Meantime, In the Bullpen was on the case, and he posted the event—with a screen capture of the graphic, a penguin holding a full-auto rifle and the legend, "if you host them, your [sic] next."

Now, the MSM (with MSNBC in the lead) are using screen captures from both postings without giving either gentleman credit for breaking the stories or saving the images for posterity. The attitude appears to be "I found it on the internet fair and square, and I neither need to authenticate it nor give the blogger credit." It's sloppy and amoral, but other than that it's a great approach.

And then there is the current online controversey about whether Americans should be hosting these types of sites in the first place. There have been attempts to shut them down, but at this point various Federal agencies are ordering companies to leave the sites up. So I'm not signing the petitions quite yet (or pressuring the hosting companies), in the hopes that our spooks and special ops guys are mere inches away from bagging Zarquawi.

A girl can hope.

And when we do capture him, I hope it's the Marines who have custody of him first. Because I think they would treat him in a very respectful way at any point wherein there were cameras nearby. That's all I really ask.

Posted by: Attila at 01:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

When I heard about the Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam thing, I was pretty appalled by the Feds' actions. This is really hard, because I really like that man's music, and because he appears, on the surface, to be a "moderate" voice in Islam: something we want, presumably, to encourage. After all, he condemned 9/ll and the actions in Beslan in no uncertain terms.

But if he's given a lot of money to Hamas, he is funding terrorism, and we need to change the mind-set that makes a little killing of innocents here, a few suicide bombings there, okay as long as you mean well.

I love this guy; I can't help it. And I can't help but agree with James:

Truly bizarre. Surely, this guy isn't a sufficient threat to national security that they couldn't have waited until the plan got to Dulles to detain him.

But we need to stop the funding of groups like Hamas, and stop conferring respectability on those who transfer funds to them. I didn't buy Teaser and the Firecat on CD with the notion of killing innocent people.

And what we cannot have is a system in which celebrity confers a sort of immunity upon people, who can do whatever they like as long as they are famous.

I love some of what Islam does: starting schools and the like. But we just cannot welcome rich guys who fund terrorists coming and going as they please.

The whole thing is painful to me, though.

Now I've been cryin' lately, thinking about the world as it is,
Why must we go on hating; why can't we live in bliss?

Posted by: Attila at 01:53 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

Protein Wisdom gives us "9 French government excuses for forging Niger yellow-cake documents," including:

1. The US hyperpower needed to be taught a lesson, and France—well, France brings the lesson hammer!

2. Those were simply practice forgeries. Our real forgeries totally incriminate the Jews.

And so on. Scoot, now.

Posted by: Attila at 02:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

The time has come to write about Annie Jacobsen, "Terror in the Skies," and Flight 327 from Detroit to Los Angeles. As most of you know, Jacobsen wrote a harrowing account of a flight in late June that appeared to reveal serious lapses in our airline security and in-flight protocols.

The original article is here; Jacobsen's follow-up is here. No, Women's Wall Street is not associated with The Wall Street Journal, and if you presumed it was I want you off my site. Now. Go. Away.

The main contenders here are Michelle Malkin (ably assisted by Spoons) and Donald Sensing (aided and abetted by The Commissar). Malkin feels that this was a sobering account of serious security breaches. Reverend Sensing feels it was a non-story (or, as he puts it later, a "shaggy dog story").

And they both have points. But they each get off the rails at various times, and:

1) Full disclosure: my sister is a half-Syrian musician. My father gave her blonde hair, but still—if you mess with her, I will mess with you, and I won't give it a second thought. Know that.

2) Annie J. is on a hair-trigger from the beginning of the flight (and the article). But the way she got there is interesting, and I think a lot of her fear can be laid at the feet of the airlines, airport security, and the Air Marshals. More on this later.

3) I believe the 14 Syrians on this flight were real musicians—not terrorists—but I still think "Terror in the Skies" is instructive. Sensing (post #3):

Do I think Islamofacsist terrorists would like to hijack an American airliner and either blow it up or use it as a terror weapon? Of course I think so. But that's a generality to which anyone can agree. The hard case is whether Annie's flight specifically was either a near-hijacking or was being cased for terrorist's future purposes. And on that question no certain answer can be given . . .

No. The Jacobsen article was a first-person account about the fears experienced on a flight by a woman who had reasons for grave concern (no second screening of passengers at the gate in Detroit, even after they had been to the airline restaurants; flight attendents failing to keep passengers from congregating by the cockpit door; an apparent lack of monitoring of the situation in the restrooms [later proved to be unfounded, as the restrooms were apparently checked by Air Marshalls throughout the flight for any bomb-making materials]).

Because of the way the Jacobsen article was written, it's easy to come away feeling that if this one instance was not some sort of probe by terrorists (and I don't believe it was), there is nothing to be learned from it. But there is. Jacobsen was simply being a good journalist, telling us what details she noticed in her hyper-alert state, and which details the FBI asked her about the most later (e.g., the McDonald's bag, which was in fact taken into one of the lavatories). She is being honest about her fears and state of mind, but also trying to give us as much detail as possible, so that we might evaluate her subjective experience as objectively as we can. She's been unjustly vilified for this.

4) My understanding of the ritual prayers required of Muslims is that they wash their hands before praying, and that the prayers must be done at certain times of day. This is shit we should know; it would ease our minds a bit, reduce the "terror" we feel. (See some of the commenters on the snarky Slate entry, especially the ones who aren't slinging around silly charges of "racism.")

5) It is apparently the norm for Middle Easterners (and some Mediterranean people) to congregate in the aisles and otherwise "misbehave" while they are flying, so there are certainly cultural differences at play ("par-taaaay," remarks one commenter at Little Green Footballs; she is married to a Syrian). Another woman, an Israeli, writes:

everyone here seems to find standing in the aisles, and hanging out in the aisles on the plane weird behaviour... well, you need to see my fellow Israelis flying ... especially on holiday flights form tel Aviv To Istanbul. or Cyprus... in a word .. pandemonium.
i love my country men, and I'm proud of my country , but, darn, we Israelis are ppains in the assess in the sky.we have mega shplikas on planes.. the minute the plane is up in the air, everyone gets up, goes and blabs in the aisles, invades the food and drinks, sit on the doors, blocks the aisles, flirts , compares travel itineraries, find out your buddy from the army is 5 rows back and so you stand together in front of the sweradessess galley blabbing for 3 hours...and basically act as if its party time.
el al stewardess can handle it... but i flew on an english charter last year from tel Aviv to London, when the steward almost started crying.. we were that bad.

She also explains that excellent airport security is a "great equalizer," and that once you've been through that security, "you are kosher." Which brings us back to one of Annie Jacobsen's main points—that she cannot quite bring herself to trust the way we handle pre-boarding security in the USA, given the magnitude of the 9/11 failure and the failure to check people once more at the gate before they get on the plane. (Would it be that hard to get a metal knife from a restaurant by the gate and sharpen it discreetly before bringing it aboard? No.)

But,

6) The flight attendents should have told everyone on Flight 327 to sit down. When in Rome . . . one commenter has remarked that the flight crew was lax because they knew Federal Marshalls were on board. This is a scary idea.

7) Some commenters on Slate actually suggested that for Annie to go up to one of these "suspicious" Syrians and smile, recalling their earlier cordial moment, was culturally insensitive on her part, and would have been perceived as a come-on by the guy in the goatee. I'm having trouble understanding how returning a smile from someone when you are a guest in their country is a big thing to ask. The PC crowd from Slate helpfully suggests that Jacobsen should have had her husband do this, which ignores two pertinent facts: a) Annie herself was the person who had the earlier exchange with Mr. Goatee; and b) it shouldn't be that hard for someone—even a dirty, ignorant, can't-help-it Middle Easterner to pretend women are people, too. Think to yourself, "this is a person. Only without a penis." (Had Ms. Jacobsen been in the Middle East, it's fine to flop the logic and expect her to conform to cultural norms. As it was, all parties were in the West, where women are people.)

Am I still not getting through to you? What if a Jim Crow-era Southerner were in a Northern city in the 1950s, and he needed information from a black clerk at a store. Would it be the responsibility of the clerk to swap places with a white clerk, so as to make the Southerner feel more comfortable, or would the onus be on the immigrant from Jim Crow land to get over his prejudices and relate to the black person as a human being? Some things are not just culturally relative, and the humanity of all persons is one of them.

One of Jacobsen's pivotal points was that airport security here in the U.S. of A ain't quite what it is in Europe, and that fact hardly reassures us when we try to give our own authorities the benefit of a doubt. That is, if Detroit had required that everyone pass through security again before boarding the plane, the article "Terror in the Skies" probably wouldn't have been written.

9) Another of Jacobsen's major points was that no one seemed to be minding the store once the plane was in the sky. Of course, we now know that flight attendents have been instructed to tell passengers to stay in their seats and not form lines for the loo. Again—had this policy gone into effect one day earlier, no "Terror in the Skies." And no blogstorm, either.

At no point does "Sensible" Donald Sensing discuss the fact that both the airlines and the Air Marshalls aboard the plane allowed groups of Syrians to congregate outside the cockpit door. Nor does he seriously address the issue of there being no second screening of passengers at the gate, preferring to assume that once passengers are screened, that's it—anything they have with them is assumed to be okay (even the McDonald's bag, where it's a silly claim for him to make: the McDonald's bag was clearly acquired after the passengers were screened).

10) So far the mainstream media isn't covering it, but there have been reports of "probing" by jihadists, and—for anyone who hasn't read it—there is this report by James Woods of a possible pre-9/11 trial run. And:

11) I personally don't believe bin Laden—or any of his colleagues—have given up on the idea of making airplanes go boom. Operation Bojinka was foiled in '95, and the 9/11 plot was half-foiled (in that only two of the intended targets got hit). Keep in mind that certain targets can capture the terrorist imagination: the World Trade Center apparently did, to the point that after one set of jihadists tried to bring it down in '93 another went ahead and did it in '01. Logic suggests that AQ will concentrate on a ground attack, but I don't think they work entirely on logic. They will hit us again in the skies, probably by making planes blow up in midair, Operatioin Bojinka-style.

12) I haven't been able to independently corroborate the claim that there is a Federal "only two of any given ethnicity per airplane" rule on questioning passengers. (But the Norman Mineta memos were clearly designed to intimidate the airlines. Also, see Patterico's thoughts on the effects of the lawsuits brought by the ACLU, and this Front Page article on how the ACLU is undermining security.)

13) Neither have I been able to verify Clinton Taylor's theory in this NRO article that the band might well have been Nour Mehana, "the Syrian Wayne Newton," and a handful of backup musicians.

14) To try to get news from KFI Los Angeles is just crazy, and this account of the Flight 327 incident is ludicrous; the supposed Federal Marshalls involved will neither identify themselves, nor describe what Annie was doing that was supposedly so dangerous. I would discount this entirely unless these "sources" are willing to go on-record, and explain the discrepancies between their account and Jacobsen's. Or at least be specific in their criticisms of her actions. So far as we know, all she did was sit in her seat, fret about the safety of her family, and attempt to exchange a smile with a Syrian. (The link I've given for the KFI story is a Google cache, since they apparently don't have permalinks for KFI news items. Totally bogus.)

15) Annie Jacobsen's biggest blind spot is her apparent assumption that if you don't see the government doing something in a big, obvious way, it isn't being done. That can, of course, be a dangerous attitude. But it's not hard to see where she got it. And the opposite attitude, "it's fine, we're safe. The Feds have it under control" is more dangerous.

16) I don't think Annie is a racist. Hell, I don't think Arabs are a race.

Now be safe. And don't try to take those knitting needles on the plane.

UPDATE: Some fact-checker I am. It's "Jacobsen," not "Jacobson." But for your Googling pleasure, here it is—wrong: Annie Jacobson, Annie Jacobson, Annie Jacobson, Annie Jacobson, Annie Jacobson, Annie Jacobson.

Annie Jacobson. Hey—I was digging the traffic.

Posted by: Attila at 01:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1991 words, total size 13 kb.

Reuters discusses a story that Newsweek will be running in this coming week's issue: the possibility that a terrorist attack will utterly disrupt the upcoming election, and what needs to be done to make sure it can be re-scheduled as a last resort. The Reuters piece in its entirety:

U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda, Newsweek reported on Sunday.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network may attack within the United States to try to disrupt the election.

The magazine cited unnamed sources who told it that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department last week to review what legal steps would be needed to delay the election if an attack occurred on the day before or the day of the election.

The department was asked to review a letter to Ridge from DeForest Soaries, who is the chairman of the new U.S. Election Assistance Commission, the magazine said.

The commission was created in 2002 to provide funds to the states to the replace punch card voting systems and provide other assistance in conducting federal elections.

In his letter, Soaries pointed out that while New York's Board of Elections suspended primary elections in New York on the day of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election."

Soaries wants Ridge to ask Congress to pass legislation giving the government such power, Newsweek reported in its latest issue that hits the newsstands on Monday.

Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Rochrkasse told the magazine the agency is reviewing the matter "to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election.

Via James.

Posted by: Attila at 04:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer runs a story about an Israeli Arab who has changed his mind about the wall:

The images from the explosion kept running through Sammi Masrawa's mind as he lay in his hospital bed - a young female soldier with the back of her head missing, a heavily pregnant woman lying on the sidewalk, legs mangled legs, screaming "my baby, my baby.'

Sunday's blast at a Tel Aviv bus stop had changed his world view.

The 29-year-old Arab Israeli from Tel Aviv was the head of a local committee calling for coexistence between Israelis and the Palestinians.

Now he wants them kept apart.

"A month ago I went to protest the fence," he said, referring to the barrier Israel is building in the West Bank. "Now I believe it can only strengthen us."

To which Lair replies:

Kofi Annan should be caught, hog-tied, and dragged to this man's hospital bed to learn the truth. If he needs any organs, take 'em out of Secretary General Dumbass.

Posted by: Attila at 04:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

The Command Post has the latest. It's starting to look like this young man might be alive, though there were pictures of him being physically threatened, so the situation is uncertain.

What is particularly interesting is the fact that all these different groups are each releasing statements to the effect that they know where he is (he's been released, he's been moved to a safe place, etc.). They don't seem to be uniting to fight the Judean People's Front . . . for which I'm glad.

Posted by: Attila at 01:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

On September 11, 2001 al Qaeda awakened the United States of America, and life hasn't been the same for them since then.

Yesterday their brothers in Islamic extremism awakened the United State Marine Corps, and their own lives will likewise be taking a dramatic turn for the worse.

There are some entities you just don't want to fuck with.

Happy Fourth of July.

(Hat tip: Joe Gandelman, posting at Dean Esmay's site. Be sure to read Joe's roundup on the young Marine's beheading.)

UPDATE: Well, the supposed execution may or may not have happened after all: the group in question—Army of Ansar Al-Sunna— says the claim of a beheading wasn't true, and didn't come from their Official Terrorist Scum Website. The Lebanon government says "not so fast; the young man is definitely dead according to our sources."

(Via James.)

Stay tuned.

Posted by: Attila at 01:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

Anonymous (the author of Imperial Hubris) gives us this:

In order to make the decisions and allocate the resources needed to ensure U.S. security, Americans must understand the world as it is, not as we want — or worse yet, hope — it will be.

I have long experience analyzing and attacking Bin Laden and Islamists. I believe they are a growing threat to the United States — there is no greater threat — and that we are being defeated not because the evidence of the threat is unavailable but because we refuse to accept it at face value and without Americanizing the data. This must change, or our way of life will be unrecognizably altered.

To which James Joyner replies:

In war—and Anonymous and I agree that we’re in one—there are only two routes to victory: You can defeat the enemy’s hostile ability (by killing enough of his troops and/or destroying his resources) or overcome his hostile will (his desire to keep fighting). It seems to me that, given the asymmetric nature of the struggle, overcoming the enemy’s hostile ability is unachievable. Victory can come, therefore, only by overcoming his hostile will. And the only way that can happen is to wipe Wahhabism from the face of the earth.

After that, I'm perfectly fine with all getting together to sing Kum Ba Ya.

Grab that link to James' pad, and read the entire exchange.

Posted by: Attila at 03:12 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

1 No one has done more to support the status quo, and therefore Wahabism, in Saudi Arabia than George W. Bush and his family.

Posted by: Adam at July 08, 2004 09:45 PM (tfidl)

2 A. This country has been far too supportive of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for too long, and that reaches back across both Democratic and Republican administrations. The reasons: 1) KSA is in a strategically important location; 2) it has lots of oil reserves, upon which our economy depends; 3) we have traditionally pursued a policy of "we don't have friends, we have interests" when it comes to the Middle East [with the exception of Israel, which we support for historical reasons]. B. KSA itself has pursued a weird policy with respect to Muslim extremists: they've fed the beast in order to keep it at bay. Lately, however, the House of Saud is in a position wherein it will have to start taking the extremists more seriously. It'll be interesting to see how they change in the next year or so. In the meantime, I'd like to see us conserve energy a bit more, develop alternative energy sources, and--yes--start drilling in ANWR.

Posted by: Attila Girl at July 09, 2004 11:10 PM (LcVoH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

. . . Not reading Jeff Goldstein. Go. Now.

Posted by: Attila at 12:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

The argument in favor of mowing down Muslims who are not willing to reform their faith so it resembles a "religion of peace." An argument made with some passion—but one we all need to read. Because it states a few uncomfortable truths.

Via Jeff Goldstein.

Posted by: Attila at 02:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

Okay. So they've surpassed the horror of the Nick Berg murder by kidnapping some poor American, announcing they are going to kill him . . . and then killing him days later.

So much more media-savvy. More coverage this way. A PG-rated pre-videotape that acts as a trailer to the killing footage.

Here's the deal, guys: we know you are sub-human. We know you kill your own daughters just because they were seen in the company of males. We saw your work on 9/11 and a dozen other days. We know what you are.

We won against the Nazis. We will win against you. We will not rest until you are all captured or killed.

And to my friends: do you get it now? It's not about oil. It's about eradicating butchers all over the Middle East. We need to do this if we want to stay alive.

I want to live. I really do.

Re-elect President Bush.

Thank you.

Posted by: Attila at 01:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's a list of the seven people we're supposed to be looking for, with pictures. (I'm still seeking out the alternate pictures for each of these people that show the different ways they look sometimes; I'll post it when I find it.)

Know your neighbors.

Posted by: Attila at 12:31 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Hey Little Miss Spelling Police, The link is dead, its "href" not "hreaf" I like the new site BTW.

Posted by: Anton at May 28, 2004 02:22 PM (qN/So)

2 Thanks; and thanks! ( keep making resolutions not to blog late at night, as the Ambien is kicking in. I break them, though, every time.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 28, 2004 02:42 PM (LcVoH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Xrlq discusses the Berg murder, and responds to a few of Venomous Kate's theories regarding same. (Also, see the comments thread on Kate's own post for more input.) A few Xrlq's commenters (including the Angry Clam, whose own website seems to have disappeared from the blogosphere for the time being) have some comments on the blood issue that concerns Kate so much.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media are nowhere to be found, and are still obsessed with Abu Ghraib. "Out out, damned spot!"

Posted by: Attila at 11:34 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

Just pop over here and tell me what you think of the "two camera" theory. It does appear to solve a few problems rather tidily.

Do you dare me to send the link for that post to friends in the entertainment industry, who know about film editing? Double-dog dare me?

Posted by: Attila at 03:02 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

Venomous Kate is back, and badder than ever. This is her take on the Nick Berg murder, and it's a fresh perspective I haven't seen elsewhere. While I'm unconvinced about the "time lapse" issue as her post has it, she may have a point about the blood pooling: I'd like to see larger versions of the video stills than I have so far before I venture an opinion on whether Berg for sure and for real dies at the exact moment suggested.

As for the rivalries among the various jihadist groups, I think those are very real, and I'm hoping we've got a lot of very smart people putting a lot of time into figuring out how best to exploit them.

Posted by: Attila at 02:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

The Berg-est blog at this point seems to be Wizbang!, which is giving us nearly up-to-the-moment news on the Nick Berg Mysteries, and features a lot of links, both to the beheading video and to the best articles/blog entries. There are links to roundups as well, so this is truly a good place to start.

But the deeper you get into the water, the muddier it looks.

The conspiracy theorists are jumping in, pointing out that it's a little odd for Berg's kidnappers to have dressed him in an orange jumpsuit, as if he were a prisoner in an American institution. I wrote that off as part of the "theater"--that they were attempting to pass this off as revenge for the Abu Ghraib abuses. But I wonder what the answer really is.

No written confirmation yet, but one report a friend passed along suggests that video enhancement shows a gold wedding band on the finger of one of the captors. This same friend points out that this is against Muslim law.

And then there is that 11-hour gap in the videotape itself. Curiouser and curiouser.

I wonder if we'll ever have answers, or whether this is going to be one of those things like the Kennedy Assasination or the Oklahoma City bombing that drops question marks onto the pages of history and leaves people wondering and speculating forever.

And I'm pretty irritated that the news accounts can't seem to agree on whether or not Berg spoke any Arabic: my impression is that he knew a little--but not much.

Personally, I think the kid was a right-of-center version of Rachel Corrie--idealistic, a bit of an idiot--and I'm willing to live with a couple of coincidences/ironies in his life. But that's me.

Posted by: Attila at 01:20 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.

It is a dark and stormy night. That is, it's sixty-five degrees outside and there's no wind. Beyond the lights of the nearby houses I can see stars. This isn't, you'll note, the kind of storm that requires one to move the balcony furniture inside and grab a flashlight. It's a subtler variety.

It's stormy in my soul as I grapple with the murder of Nick Berg. I go up and down the scale of grief, from horror to anger and back again. I honestly half-believe I could go to Iraq right now, find these guys, and kill them with my bare hands. "Look, Ma--no gun!" My reason seems to have fled; I hope it'll come back soon.

Here's what I do know:

First of all, there's no real reason to think this had anything to do with the prison abuses at Abu Ghraib. This truly appears to be a crime of opportunity: I suspect the AQ operatives got the bright idea of mentioning the prisoner abuse issue before they shot the video. They suddenly realized they could paint this as vengeance for the excesses at the prison. You'll recall that this is only one in a long string of attacks on Americans and other Westerners, including 9/11, the murder of Daniel Pearl, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole . . . I could go on and on. None of the previous attacks were related to the actions of Americans in any way. These guys managed to capture an American, and there was a media circus going on, so they felt bringing that issue up would muddy the waters a little.

I believe the very same thing about their contention that they had been in touch with the U.S. authorities and offered to save Berg in exchange for Abu Ghraib prisoners: that truly appears to be another red herring. I don't believe the U.S. should bargain with people like this, but I don't think in this particular instance the attempt was even made by our friends in AQ. That line appears to be a way of trying to create a stress-fracture between men and women in the U.S. Or between those who support this war and those who think there are other, better ways to fight terror.

I also think that our friends in AQ are idiots. In those moments when my grief and anger ebb, I can almost laugh at how strategically stupid it is, with a group of photos circulating that embarrass the U.S., to release a video that makes your own cause apppear much, much worse than the Americans ever did their own.

The Arab street, much-maligned and written about in such patronizing tones by our friends in journalism, is not going to be turned on to jihad by this video: AQ will lose a lot of potential converts as the images get wider and wider circulation. No one is going to be fooled by people chanting about God as they murder an innocent man.

There is something that was said a lot about the jihadists after 9/11 that I kept remembering today as the awful news leaked in: these guys underestimate us because they have, fundamentally, no idea what we are about as a nation and--speaking of the Western World that still wants to survive (including England and Australia)--as a force of fucking nature. There seems to be this idea that an atrocity will make us flee. Wrong, Buck-O.

We are not the rich spoiled people you see on television. We are not the people of the obesity epidemic, who gorge on McDonald's food and never exercise. We are not the sex addicts, the beer men who go to strip clubs for a cheap thrill on a Saturday night. We're much, much more than that, and each time the jihadists try to prove how weak we are they will be dealt another crippling blow until they have trouble finding a goddamned Western kitten to kidnap and torment.

We are halfway done. Keep the faith.

The BBC story is here.
The Command Post piece, which supposedly has pictures (I can't get them to load properly).
The New York Times gets in on the action. And another NYT article discusses the Berg family's concerns.

And one more thing: if I hear one more comparison between the actual Abu Ghraib incidents and this murder--with us coming out ahead--I'm going to puke. You might as well say you live a moral life because you don't kill as many men (or fuck as many women) as Tony Soprano or his real-life counterparts: no one convinces anyone of their morality by comparing themselves with society's reprobates. Stop it.

Posted by: Attila at 12:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 780 words, total size 5 kb.

Via The Command Post, an Iraqi blogger gives us a view of Abu Ghraib from the inside. (Americans reading this should note that I believe "hall" means "room"--I believe the usage here is like that in "dormitory hall" or "study hall." More European than American in that sense.)

ABU GHRAIB, OTHER PARTS OF THE PICTURE

Yesterday a friend of mine, whoÂ’s also a doctor, visited us. After chatting about old memories, I asked him about his opinions on the current situations in Iraq. IÂ’ve always known this friend to be apathetic when it comes to politics, even if it means whatÂ’s happening in Iraq. It was obvious that he hadnÂ’t change and didnÂ’t show any interest in going deep into this conversation. However when I asked him about his opinion on GWB response to the prisonersÂ’ abuse issue, I was surprised to see him show anger and disgust as he said:

- This whole thing makes me sick.

- Why is that?! I asked.
- These thugs are treated much better than what they really deserve!

- What are you saying!? You canÂ’t possibly think that this didnÂ’t happen! And theyÂ’re still human beings, and there could be some innocents among them.
- Of course it happened, and IÂ’m not talking about all the prisoners nor do I support these actions, and there could be some innocents among them, but I doubt it.

- Then why do you say such a thing?
- Because these events have taken more attention than they should.

- I agree but there should be an investigation on this. There are other pictures that were shown lately, and there are talks about others that will be shown in the near future.
- Yes, but what happened cannot represent more than 1% of the truth.

- Oh I really hope there would be no more than that.
- No, thatÂ’s not what I meant. What IÂ’m saying is that these events are the exception and not the rule.

- How do you know that!? I must say I agree with your presumption, but I donÂ’t have a proof, and I never thought youÂ’d be interested in such [an] issue!
- I was there for a whole month!

- In Abu-Gharib!? What were you doing there!?
- It was part of my training! Did you forget that!? I know you skipped that at SaddamÂ’s time, but how could you forget that?

- Yes, but I thought that with the American troops there, the system must have been changed.
-No itÂ’s still the same. We still have to do a month there.

-So tell me what did you see there? HowÂ’s the situation of the prisoners? Did you see any abuse? Do they get proper medical care? (I was excited to see someone who was actually there, and he was a friend!)
- Hey, slow down! IÂ’ll tell you what I know. First of all, the prisoners are divided into two groups; the ordinary criminals and the political ones. I used to visit the ordinary criminals during every shift, and after that, the guards would bring anyone who has a complaint to me at the prisonÂ’s hospital.

- What about the 'political' ones?
- IÂ’m not allowed to go to their camps, but when one of them feels ill, the guards bring him to me.

- Are the guards all Americans?
- No, the American soldiers with the IP watch over and take care of the ordinary criminals, but no one except the Americans is allowed to get near the political ones.

- How are the medical supplies in the prison?
- Not very great, but certainly better from what it was on SaddamÂ’s times. However my work is mainly at night, but in the morning the supplies are usually better.

- How many doctors, beside you, were there?
- There was an American doctor, whoÂ’s always their (His name is Eric, a very nice guy, he and I became friends very fast), and other Iraqi doctors with whom I shared the work, and in the morning, there are always some Iraqi senior doctors; surgeons, physiciansÂ…etc.

-Why do you say they are very well treated?
- They are fed much better than they get at their homes. I mean they eat the same stuff we eat, and itÂ’s pretty good; eggs, cheese, milk and tea, meat, bread and vegetables, everything! And that happened every day, and a good quality too.

-Are they allowed to smoke? (I asked this because at SaddamÂ’s times, it was a crime to smoke in prison and anyone caught while doing this would be punished severely).
- Yes, but they are given only two cigarettes every day.

- What else? How often are they allowed to take a bath? (This may sound strange to some people, but my friend understood my question. We knew from those who spent sometime in SaddamÂ’s prisons, and survived, that they were allowed to take a shower only once every 2-3 weeks.)
- Anytime they want! There are bathrooms next to each hall.

- Is it the same with the 'political' prisoners?
- I never went there, but I suppose itÂ’s the same because they were always clean when they came to the hospital, and their clothes were always clean too.

-How often do they shave? (I remember a friend who spent 45 days in prison at SaddamÂ’s times had told me that the guards would inspect their beards every day to see if they were shaved properly, and those who were not, would be punished according to the guardsÂ’ mood. He also told me that they were of course not allowed to have any shaving razors or machines and would face an even worse punishment in case they found some of these on one of the prisoners. So basically all the prisoners had to smuggle razors, which cost a lot, shave in secrecy and then get rid of the razor immediately! That friend wasnÂ’t even a political prisoner; he was arrested for having a satellite receiver dish in his house!)
- IÂ’m not sure, from what I saw, it seemed that there was a barber visiting them frequently, because they had different hair cuts, some of them shaved their beards others kept them or left what was on their chins only. I mean it seemed that they had the haircut they desired!

-Yes but what about the way they are treated? And how did you find American soldiers in general?
- IÂ’ll tell you about that; first let me tell you that I was surprised with their politeness. Whenever they come to the hospital, they would take of their helmets and show great respect and they either call me Sir or doctor. As for the way they treat the prisoners, they never handcuff anyone of those, political or else, when they bring them for examination and treatment unless I ask them to do so if I know that a particular prisoner is aggressive, and I never saw them beat a prisoner and rarely did one of them use an offensive language with a prisoner.

One of those times, a member of the American MP brought one of the prisoners, who was complaining from a headache, but when I tried to take history from him he said to me “doctor, I had a problem with my partner (he was a homosexual) I’m not Ok and I need a morphine or at least a valium injection” when I told him I can’t do that, he was outraged, swore at me and at the Americans and threatened me. I told the soldier about that, and he said “Ok Sir, just please translate to him what I’m going to say”. I agreed and he said to him “I want you to apologize to the doctor and I want your word as a man that you’ll behave and will never say such things again” and the convict told him he has his word!!

Another incidence I remember was when one of the soldiers brought a young prisoner to the hospital. The boy needed admission but the soldier said he’s not comfortable with leaving the young boy (he was about 1 with those old criminals and wanted to keep him in the isolation room to protect him. I told him that this is not allowed according to the Red Cross regulations. He turned around and saw the paramedics’ room and asked me if he can keep him there, and I told him I couldn’t. The soldier turned to a locked door and asked me about it. I said to him “It’s an extra ward that is almost deserted but I don’t have the keys, as the director of the hospital keeps them with him”. The soldier grew restless, and then he brought some tools, broke that door, fixed it, put a new lock, put the boy inside and then locked the door and gave me the key!

- Did you witness any aggressiveness from American soldiers?
- Only once. There was a guy who is a troublemaker. He was abnormally aggressive and hated Americans so much. One of those days the soldiers were delivering lunch and he took the soup pot that was still hot and threw it at one of the guards. The guard avoided it and the other guards caught the convict and one of them used an irritant spray that causes severe itching, and then they brought the prisoner to me to treat him.

- So you think that these events are isolated?
-As far as I know and from what IÂ’ve seen, IÂ’m sure that they are isolated.

-But couldnÂ’t it be true that there were abusive actions at those times that the prisoners were afraid to tell you about?
-Are you serious!? These criminals, and I mean both types tell me all about there 'adventures and bravery'. Some of them told me how they killed an American soldier or burned a humvee, and in their circumstances this equals a confession! Do you think they wouldÂ’ve been abused and remained silent and not tell me at least!? No, I donÂ’t think any of this happened during the time I was there. It seemed that this happened to a very small group of whom I met no one during that month.

- Can you tell me anything about those 'political' prisoners? Are they Islamists, BaÂ’athists or what?
- Islamists?? I don't care what they call themselves, but they are thugs, they swear all the time, and most of them are addicts or homosexuals or both. Still very few of them looked educated.

- Ah, that makes them close to BaÂ’athists. Do you think there are innocents among them?
- There could be. Some of them say they are and others boast in front of me, as I said, telling the crimes they committed in details. Of course IÂ’m not naive enough to blindly believe either.

- Are they allowed to get outside, and how often? Do they have fans or air coolers inside their halls?
- Of course they are! Even you still compare this to what it used to be at SaddamÂ’s times and thereÂ’s absolutely no comparison. They play volleyball or basketball everyday, and they have fans in their halls.

- Do they have sport suits?
- No, itÂ’s much better than SaddamÂ’s days but itÂ’s still a prison and not the Sheraton. They use the same clothes but IÂ’ve seen them wearing train[ing] shoes when they play.

-Are they allowed to read?
- Yes, IÂ’ve seen the ordinary criminals read, and I believe the political are allowed too, because I remember one of them asking me to tell one of the American soldiers that he wanted his book that one of the soldiers had borrowed from him.

- So, you believe thereÂ’s a lot of clamor here?
-As you said these things are unaccepted but IÂ’m sure that they are isolated and they are just very few exceptions that need to be dealt with, but definitely not the rule. The rule is kindness, care and respect that most of these thugs donÂ’t deserve, and that I have seen by my own eyes. However I still don't understand why did this happen.

-I agree with you, only itÂ’s not about the criminals, itÂ’s about the few innocents who could suffer without any guilt and itÂ’s about us; those who try to build a new Iraq. We canÂ’t allow ourselves to be like them and we canÂ’t go back to those dark times.

As for "why"; I must say that these few exceptions happen everywhere, only in good society they can be exposed and dealt with fast, while in corrupted regimes, it may take decades for such atrocities to be exposed which encourage the evil people to go on, and exceptions become the rule.

What happened in Abu-Gharib should be a lesson for us, Iraqis, above all. It showed how justice functions in a democratic society. We should study this lesson carefully, since sooner or later we'll be left alone and it will be our responsibility to deal with such atrocities, as these will never cease to happen.

-By Ali.

Posted by: Attila at 03:51 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 2207 words, total size 13 kb.

I'm going to wade in, here. I may not have any friends left after this--online or off--but . . . easy come, easy go. I'd been meaning to catch up on my reading anyway.

Let's start with the primary links:
The Abuse Pictures
The CBS Story

Full disclosure: my husband is a late-Vietnam-era MP, and a former Marine. His cousin was a spy throughout most of that conflict.

I've experienced the same shocked outrage most of you have. And I would love to see the grinning idiots in these images prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law--something that will certainly happen. But let's get a few things straight.

1. There are two different locations being discussed, with different parties involved. Most incidents under discussion occurred at Abu Ghraib, one of Saddam's most notorious prisons. We are now using it for detainees. The alleged beating incident--thrown in the middle of the Memory Hole photo essay--took place (or didn't) at Camp White Horse, and the accused men in that case are Marines. (Please note that the Marines are [sort of] part of the Navy, and any investigation into this White Horse incident is therefore going to be under that branch of the Armed Forces.)

UPDATE: There is one allegation of a beating death at Abu Ghraib, so that photo may indeed be in the right place. The story is developing.

2. The descriptive information under the photos varies a lot according to what web site you view them on. The one of the man standing on a box sometimes bears the explanation that the man is holding wires, and was told he'd be shocked if he stepped off the box. Sometimes we're told he has wires running to his testicles. Sometimes it's suggested that the electricity was actually going to be turned on. Let's remember that we don't know yet, and cannot rely on most explanatory material that appears with these pix.

And the ones showing detainees fellating each other are blocked out so that we aren't sure whether the sex act is truly being performed or not. There is, obviously, a huge difference between posing these people suggestively and making them have sex.

3. Some critical information we--the public--don't yet have has to do with the affiliation of the "interrogators" who were on-site, and allegedly encouraging these servicemen and -women to "soften up" the detainees for questioning. Some sites or articles--even from mainstream sources--claim that there is no way to try or punish these "third parties." This is untrue: civilians who are in an installation under military control can be tried by the FBI, who should--I feel--be brought in. But more on this later.

4. The term "prisoners" used in a lot of the articles and essays being written on Abu Ghraib is probably inaccurate. These are not Iraqi soldiers who fell into the hands of irresponsible servicemen/-women. These are people who have been brought in for interrogation. They have information we need, presumably in order to save our boys and girls from being blown to bits in another ambush.

5. Intelligence-gathering is probably like laws and sausages, to some degree. Of course, we regulate the making of the second two, and need to set clear limits on the first.

6. Snapping a photo as a trophy is not the same for the young war-hardened soldiers of today that it was for their fathers in Vietnam. In the old days you could put a cigarette in the mouth of a deceased Viet Cong, put your arm around him and get a photo. No need to be revulsed by this until years later, when you come across the snapshot in a drawer and recoil in horror. Now every time a picture is taken you have to assume that, in the digital age, it can and will end up on Al-Jazeera.

7. Studies have shown that people find it easier to do cruel and inhuman things when they are part of a group than alone, and often surprise themselves at how cruel they can be when ordered to. I am attempting to explain, rather than offering excuses.

8. Torture is not simply humiliating people. A lot of the pictures show juvenile pranks that are unacceptable conduct, but don't warrant the word "torture." I'd prefer that we not use that word untiil some of the more serious charges are proven (e.g., sodomy).

9. The investigation has been going on for months, and so far at least 17 people have been relieved of their command, including a Brigadier General.

10. There are spooks in the shadows, and not just army intelligence people. Probably CIA, though there are other US agencies that could be involved, and British intel is another possibility. Come on, people: there's a lot of hand-wringing out there to the effect that we're shocked, shocked to find out that "private contractors" are questioning "prisoners." Whatever companies are supposedly involved, we are obviously not giving the guys who maintain the trucks control over interrogations. These are not security guards doing this.

11. I must say that I keep hearing how "humiliating" it is for Arab men to be nude. Most of their prudery, however, seems to be reserved for the female of the species. I certainly don't want to paint all Muslims--or all Arabs--with the same brush, but if I were involved in an interrogation and I found out that the subject had been involved in an "honor killing" of his sister or daughter because she had been raped, I would have a hard time forgetting that fact.

12. All of the above notwithstanding, what happened is not okay. The pictures are not okay, and there are failures within the command structure. I want to see courts-martial that go significantly up the chain of command.

But I also hope we don't overreact to the point that no aggressive questioning is ever permissible--because that is a sure way to lose more lives.

Here's a little Feedback on the CBS story.

A piece on the Camp White Horse story helps keep that inquiry distinct from Abu Ghraib.

Brain Shavings discusses the beast in all of us.

James Joyner has written five or six posts on the subject so far (I'm sure there will be more--keep scrolling).

John of Argghh! shares his own thoughts and a mini-roundup of reaction from warbloggers.

Michele calls the actions of the army reservists "treason."

Smash has a thing or two to say.

Posted by: Attila at 01:59 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 1076 words, total size 7 kb.