Turkey Launches Islamic Reformation

By Cernig

A report from the BBC today should get far more coverage than it has been given so far - the Turkish government is trying to hurry through a radical re-interpretation of some Islamic core texts in an effort to refrom Islam:

The country's powerful Department of Religious Affairs has commissioned a team of theologians at Ankara University to carry out a fundamental revision of the Hadith, the second most sacred text in Islam after the Koran.

The Hadith is a collection of thousands of sayings reputed to come from the Prophet Muhammad. As such, it is the principal guide for Muslims in interpreting the Koran and the source of the vast majority of Islamic law, or Sharia.

But the Turkish state has come to see the Hadith as having an often negative influence on a society it is in a hurry to modernise, and believes it responsible for obscuring the original values of Islam.

The ambitious project, based out of Ankara University's School of Theology, aims to provide an interpretation of the Hadith free of later revisions by mainly conservative groupings - revisions aimed at bolstering their own social control of their populace. The project aims to "sweep away" those accretions.

Prof Mehmet Gormez, a senior official in the Department of Religious Affairs and an expert on the Hadith, gives a telling example.

"There are some messages that ban women from travelling for three days or more without their husband's permission and they are genuine.

"But this isn't a religious ban. It came about because in the Prophet's time it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone like that. But as time has passed, people have made permanent what was only supposed to be a temporary ban for safety reasons."

The project justifies such bold interference in the 1,400-year-old content of the Hadith by rigorous academic research.

Prof Gormez points out that in another speech, the Prophet said "he longed for the day when a woman might travel long distances alone".

So, he argues, it is clear what the Prophet's goal was.

Significantly, one of the main thrusts of Turkey's new project is the empowering of women as theologians. (I've long argued that the Islamic Enlightenment would have breasts - and maybe a burkha or two.)

As part of its aggressive programme of renewal, Turkey has given theological training to 450 women, and appointed them as senior imams called "vaizes".

They have been given the task of explaining the original spirit of Islam to remote communities in Turkey's vast interior.

One of the women, Hulya Koc, looked out over a sea of headscarves at a town meeting in central Turkey and told the women of the equality, justice and human rights guaranteed by an accurate interpretation of the Koran - one guided and confirmed by the revised Hadith.

The end result?

According to Fadi Hakura, an expert on Turkey from Chatham House in London, Turkey is doing nothing less than recreating Islam - changing it from a religion whose rules must be obeyed, to one designed to serve the needs of people in a modern secular democracy.

He says that to achieve it, the state is fashioning a new Islam.

"This is kind of akin to the Christian Reformation," he says.

"Not exactly the same, but if you think, it's changing the theological foundations of [the] religion. "

Fadi Hakura believes that until now secularist Turkey has been intent on creating a new politics for Islam.

Now, he says, "they are trying to fashion a new Islam."

..."You have to see them as a whole," says Fadi Hakura.

"You can't say, for example, that the verses of violence override the verses of peace. This is used a lot in the Middle East, this kind of ideology.

"I cannot impress enough how fundamental [this change] is."

I fully expect that this Turkish project will grow and spread over time. I recall that the Christian reformation wasn't exactly a painless affair and isn't even over as yet - as certain religious Right haters continue to prove - but there's no doubt it had a long-term positive effect and this new Islamic reformation will have too. Reports of a clash of civilisations appear to have been vastly over-rated.

Stand Up Christian Pretend-Terrorists

By Cernig

The New York Times has an article today alleging that three speakers to an Air Force Academy conference on terrorism to tell cadets about how they used to be Islamist terrorists have turned out to be evangelist Christians lying about their pasts.

Nicole Bell at Crooks and Liars writes:

This story just reeks of propaganda and a sneaky agenda. The article mentions that these consultants were paid in part from private donations, and it would be interesting to know just who that is, because I have a feeling that would make clear the agenda working here.

Meanwhile, Steve Emerson, head of The Investigative Project on Terrorism and self-proclaimed expert, has a long and rambling diatribe about the allegations at National Review today, in which he repeatedly calls CAIR out for alleged ties to funders and supporters of terrorism but doesn't say dick about the truth or falsity of the NYT's allegations themselves. Methinks he doth protest too much.

Sharia Fearmongering

By Cernig

There's been a lot of Islamophobic mouthbreathing over the Archbishop of Canterbury's comment yesterday that Sharia Law in the UK is "unavoidable". British politicians and pundits on both sides of the pond have picked up on the bare bones of the story and fallen over each other to demand the Archbishop's resignation or to complain that this would be the "thin edge of the wedge".

But all he actually said (see the BBC's original story) was that Muslims should have the same option to choose a private court (using Sharia Law) for civil disputes as Jewish Brits do. Indeed, Williams said he was fully aware of how draconian full Sharia Law can be:

He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".

...Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.

"The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there," he said.

People may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Muslim Sharia courts and the Jewish Beth Din which already exist in the UK come into this category.

The country's main Beth Din at Finchley in north London oversees a wide range of cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes.

So why the outcry over a reasonable call for parity? Well, mostly it seems to me because Islamophobia is the new anti-Semitism and politicians are appeasing such "Protocols of the Elders of Islam" rightwing conspiracy theorists as long as their Blimpoid bigotry goosesteps to a nationalistic beat.

Meanwhile, over at Pajamas Media, Roger Kimball is using King Henry II's words which were interpreted as a command to assassinate a previous Archbishop of Canterbury as a headline, then with weasel words hidden in the article takes them back - sort off:

I certainly would not wish to have the question “Who will rid us of this troublesome priest?” answered as Henry’s question was answered. But where Becket faithfully served his church and was savagely punished for it, Rowan Williams loses no opportunity to besmirch his Church and is lavishly praised for his perfidy.

There will continue to be more outrage directed at Archbishop Williams for suggesting parity of rights for Jews and Muslims than there will be at the US art critic and ideologue for sailing so close to a call for the assassination of the clerical head of the Church of England. That's your appeasement right there.

Laying Down With Dogs

By Cernig

I've been deriving some quiet amusement from the way in which Islamophobic American rightwing bloggers have been under fire over the last couple of weeks from their kissing-cousins at Europe's neo-nazi groups. Having spent so long telling Europeans that they should beware the Islamic menace - something these groups rightly took as code for "hate the brown people" - people like Little Green Footballs, Jawa report and Jihad Watch are under fire from European Belang-ites and BNPers. After pointing out that the neo-nazis' attendant anti-semitism is too rich even for their Muslim-hating blood, the U.S. wingnuts are now being called "leftists" and worse. The potential irony of the situation is too rich. What's a Zion-supporting white supremacist to do?

I wonder what Islamophobe guru Mark Steyn would say about it all?

Oh, you EuroLeaders, you must choose!

by shamanic

Here's a crazy dude: Scott Ott, who seems to want to mask his lunacy by using a very tiny font, warns the leaders of Europe that after Benazir Bhutto, the caliphate is coming for them!

Interestingly (and for no apparent reason), he reels off a short list of European countries, but fails to mention the one where a leader actually was killed for his views on limiting Muslim immigration: Holland, where in 2002, Pim Fortuyn was assassinated by -- well, here's where the narrative caves a bit -- a Dutchman who didn't want to see the "weak parts" of society demonized for political points.

It probably also doesn't help the TownHall.com narrative that Fortuyn was openly and proudly gay.

And that Holland ended up adopting most of his immigration policy proposals after his death.

Ah, but you EuroLeaders, your democracy will not stand! The rising tide of Muslim bullets to the necks of blah blah blah. Whatever. This guy's way off his rocker.

It's not easy being green

By Libby

I'm rather astounded by the outrage over the Empire State Building using green lights to commerorate the conclusion of Ramadan. I mean get a grip people. This is New York City we're talking about. The locals walk past the place without noticing it. It's a tradition among the natives to ignore the tourist attractions.

The tourists themselves, will likely not get the significance. It's just lit up green, it doesn't spell out Happy Eid or anything, and most will probably assume it's always lit up that way. Beyond that I would think that if any Muslims actually noticed and got the significane, it would only help with that hearts and minds thing I hear is so important in the fight against terrorism. Have the wingers really become so trivial that a few green light bulbs require a call to arms? Just crazy.

Meanwhile, Mona notices an additional complaint that also struck me as almost amusing.

At West Point, where Army officials have followed Quantico's lead and set up their own mosque for Muslim cadets.

So we're fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here, except when we enlist them to fight here. Quick, somebody call Glenn Beck to get to the bottom of this.

First let's ban all the doctors...

By Libby

It's not surprising that one of the Glasgow doctors who was arrested for the basically failed bombing attempt is a Sunni who is upset by the Iraq occupation. It's also no surprise that Protein Wisdom's resident genius fails to make the connection between the unnecessary invasion and toppling of a secular regime there and the incitement to violence in a man who otherwise would have peacefully practiced medicine. We've come to expect Dan to cherry pick his quotes to advance his theme, in this case being the ungrateful heathen who selfishly preferred a stable existence under a domestic tyrant to the chaos and daily carnage of imposed "liberation" under an occupying foreign military force.

It's equally unsurprising that the wingnuts are already calling for banning "Muslim doctors" from entering the US, not to mention renewing their favorite call for racial profiling because “all the terrorists are Muslim.”

Of course, the truth is, not all terrorists are Muslim. The wingers like to forget that the title for the deadliest incident of domestic terrorism in the United States is still held by Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma bombing which claimed 168 lives. McVeigh's "only known affiliations were voter registration with the Republican Party when he lived in New York and a membership in the National Rifle Association while in the military."

So if we expand on Mike Gallagher's logic, we should immediately deport all Republicans with NRA memberships and under no circumstances should we allow white male soldiers who grew up in Roman Catholic homes to re-enter the country after their service abroad, until we sort this "terrorist" thing out.

Come to think of it, that is the White House's position on the military in Iraq right now, although one suspects Republican voters might be given special dispensation to avoid the embargo. After all, if the surge keeps "succeeding" in this manner, the GOP is going to need all the help it can get in 08.

Will This Do?

By Cernig

The xenophobic right, vocal in the UK but far more so in the U.S., would have it that Muslims don't speak out against terrorism and therefore must condone it. The worst of the xenophobes would have it that all Muslims, secretly or up-front, believe the jihadist, extremist linethat their religion is one of violence against unbelievers.

Will this do? to explode those myths?

British Muslims are leading a new campaign condemning the recent attempted car bomb attacks in London and Glasgow.
The campaign, titled "Not in Our Name", will be launched across the UK with adverts in newspapers.

It emphasises "the Muslim community's rejection of any attempts to link any such criminal attacks to the teachings of Islam", organisers said.

Muslims from various professions have backed the campaign, including doctors.

The advert, accredited to "Muslims United", also carries a quotation from Koran reading: "Whoever kills an innocent soul, it is as if he killed the whole of mankind.

"And whoever saves one, it is as if he saved the whole of mankind."

'Calm response'

The emergency services have been praised for "working tirelessly and courageously" while the government has been commended for handling the crisis "calmly and proportionately".

The advert, which will also appear on billboards, buses and underground trains, calls for the community to stand united against terrorism.

The campaign has received support from Conservative Muslim Forum, Islamic Relief, the Islamic Society of Britain and Muslim Doctors and Dentists Association among others.

And the Muslims United website gives the text of the poster:

The Muslim communities across Britain are united in condemning the attempted bombings in London and Glasgow.

We are united with the rest of the country at this critical time and are determined to work together to avert any such attacks targeting our fellow citizens, property and country.

Islam forbids the killing of innocent people. We reject any heinous attempts to link such abhorrent acts to the teachings of Islam.
• British Muslims should not be held responsible for the acts of criminals.
• We commend the government for its efforts to respond to this crisis calmly and proportionately, and welcome both the Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s and the Home Secretary’s emphasis on the need to distinguish between the overwhelming majority of British Muslims who are law-abiding citizens and a few criminals who seek to inflict harm and terror on our country.
• We express support for the emergency services who are working tirelessly and courageously to avert these attacks and ensure the safety of our country.
• We urge the media and all politicians to continue to maintain the values of our open society, free from prejudice and discrimination, sustained by tolerance and mutual respect for all.
• We call on our government to work towards a just and lasting peace in areas of conflict around the world and to take the lead in helping eliminate the injustices and grievances that foment division and nurture violence.

The unity of our society must be maintained and we must not allow divisions to emerge between us. We must remain friends, neighbours and colleagues, and take Britain forward as one nation – towards a Greater Britain.


Muslims United Campaign Supported by

Al Birr Foundation UK Al-Muntada Al-Islami Trust Al-Quran Society Arab Club of Britain Association of Muslim Lawyers Algerian Assembly of Europe Al-Khoei Foundation Algerian League of Britain Bradford Council of Mosques Bristol Muslim Cultural Society British Lebanese Association Confederation of Sunni Mosques- Midlands Conservatives Muslim Forum Council of European Jamaats El- Nour Association Eritrean Muslim Community Association European Academy for Islamic Studies European Trust Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe Federation of Student Islamic Societies FOSIS Glasgow Central Mosque Imams and Mosques Council Imams Forum- UK IMWF Dewsbury Islamic Cultural Centre ICC / Central Mosque Islamic Forum Europe Islamic Foundation Islamic Relief Islamic Sharia Council Islamic Society of Britain Kensington Mosque Trust Lancashire Council of Mosques Lebanese Muslim League Leeds Grand Mosque Leeds Islamic centre Leeds Muslim Forum London Muslim Centre Luton Council of Mosques MAB Youth Markazi Jamiat Ahl e Hadith UK Masjid Al Tawheed-Leyton Mayfair Islamic Centre Moroccan Citizen Advice Bureau Muslim Aid Muslim Association of Britain Muslim College Muslim Council of Wales Muslim Cultural Heritage Centre Muslim Directory Muslim Doctors & Dentist Association Muslim Health Network Muslim News Muslim Parliament Muslim Safety Forum Muslim Scouts Fellowship Muslim Student Society Muslim Welfare House Trust Muslim Women Society Muslimat UK National Association of British Arabs Noorul Islam Mosque- Leyton North East Scottish Muslims North London Central Mosque- Finsbury Park Pakistan Foundation Pakistan Human Development Funds UK Pakistan International Forum UK Q News Shariah Council Somali Association of Britain The Islamic Shariah Council Tower Hamlet Council of Mosques UK Islamic Mission West London Moroccan Wedadiya World Federation of Khodja Shia Ithna Ashariya WF KSIMC World Islamic Mission - Scotland Young Muslims Organisation

I'm kidding of course - for the xenophobes and Blimpoids there can never be enough proof that Muslems as a whole are no more or less enamoured of terrorism to advance their religion than Christians as a whole, or Hindus, or Jews. Which should in itself be sufficient proof that the xenophobes who decry Islam in such generalized terms are as much a part of the moral problem, the problem of fostering hate and misinformation, as the vocal islamist extremists who encourage a mirror-image of their extreme views.

Update Told you so. Dan Riehl writes that this won't do because, he says, "its primary goal is to suggest Islamist terror is not linked to Islam." Dan seems to be basing that on a sentence from the poster saying that "We reject any heinous attempts to link such abhorrent acts to the teachings of Islam", coupled with deliberately ignoring any interpretation of that as meaning such links made by the terrorists themselves, despite the preceeding sentence saying that "Islam forbids the killing of innocent people." It's pretty clear to me that the poster is saying that while the terrorists try to hide behind religion, Muslims should not allow them to do so and call them out. Dan's deliberately misconstruing that as an attempt at dodging the issue.

Or if not, perhaps he'd like to castigate Christians who don't accept that anti-abortion acts of violence such as clinic bombings and doctor shootings have their basis as form of Christianity and who thus try to seperate such nutcases from Christianity as a whole. They're just being denialist, according to Dan. He would surely say "Sorry, it is, whether so-called moderates like it, or not." Wouldn't he?

Science and Religion

by shamanic

For those of us who've followed the ongoing battle in the United States over (I can't even believe I have to write this in 2007) teaching evolution in schools and other war-against-sciencey items, there's a truly fascinating article in the current Discover Magazine on Science and Islam.

A brief history, for those who (like me) haven't seen the inside of a history classroom in a while: While Europe languished through the Dark Ages, the Islamic world was a beacon of knowledge and progress. Technology, astronomy, optics, and mathematics all thrived for centuries in the Islamic world, due in part to the conquest of territory and subsequent fusion of ideas stretching from East Africa and Europe to India, until around the 15th century. Wikipedia has more.

I'm going to pull two quotes from Todd Pitock's article. I'll also note that Pitock told me in e-mail that he "led with that [the fundamentalist approach to practicing science] precisely because it was interesting, and certainly to some extent representative, but it's still just one piece of the story." The first quote is from an Egyptian political scientist, lamenting what he sees as bad science from fundamentalists:

“This tendency to use their knowledge of science to ‘prove’ that the religious interpretations of life are correct is really corrupting,” he tells me. [Gamal] Soltan, who got his doctorate at the University of Northern Illinois, works in a small office that’s pungent with tobacco smoke; journals and newspapers lie stacked on his desk and floor. “Their methodology is bad,” he says. Soltan explains that Islamic scientists start with a conclusion (the Koran says the body has 360 joints) and then work toward proving that conclusion. To reach the necessary answer they will, in this instance, count things that some orthopedists might not call a joint. “They’re sure about everything, about how the universe was created, who created it, and they just need to control nature rather than interpret it,” Soltan adds. “But the driving force behind any scientific pursuit is that the truth is still out there.”

The second is from a professor of chemistry at Cairo University who "does not consider himself an 'Islamic scientist'... He is a scientist who happens to be devout, one who sees science and religion as discrete pursuits."

What about, say, evolutionary biology or Darwinism? I ask. (Evolution is taught in Egyptian schools, although it is banned in Saudi Arabia and Sudan.) "If you are asking if Adam came from a monkey, no," [Waheed] Badawy responds. “Man did not come from a monkey. If I am religious, if I agree with Islam, then I have to respect all of the ideas of Islam. And one of these ideas is the creation of the human from Adam and Eve. If I am a scientist, I have to believe that."

But from the point of view of a scientist, is it not just a story? I ask. He tells me that if I were writing an article saying that Adam and Eve is a big lie, it will not be accepted until I can prove it.

"Nobody can just write what he thinks without proof. But we have real proof that the story of Adam as the first man is true.”

“What proof?”

He looks at me with disbelief: “It’s written in the Koran.”

In e-mail, Pitock warns against drawing conclusions about America's path because the circumstances that led to this state of affairs are so complicated and include so many moving parts. He notes that the governments in much of the Islamic world are so inept that it naturally fell to religious institutions to provide basic services like education, which is where science begins.

But I think this piece of the puzzle is actually what concerns me. With voucher proposals, home schooling, and privatization schemes, along with the eternal libertarian longing to abolish public education, our democracy has the option of picking a path not unlike the one that grew organically in a region once known for its intellectual excellence.

Of the second passage quoted above, Pitock tells me, "I have little doubt I could find a crank like that here -- just not one with millions of readers and viewers." At present, that may be true, but the Intelligent Design fight in Dover, Pa., and the anti-evolution stickers that were eventually thrown out in, for example, Cobb County, Ga., suggest an America that could tilt with relative ease in the direction that many scholars and scientists in Islamic nations are working desperately to move away from.

Case in point: The Discovery Institute, the think tank devoted to advancing Intelligent Design (or "God Did It! Biology") in America's classrooms and legislatures, is hailing the release of a new textbook called Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism. The book's Web site proclaims "Explore Evolution is part of the continuing debate over Neo-Darwinism." The only problem here is that there really is no debate within science about the concept of evolution. Let me repeat that: among scientists, Darwin's theory of evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is absolutely overwhelming.

Pitock's article is a great exploration of the challenges that scientists face in Muslim nations and the ways that some have pushed the boundaries to advance scientific research there. But it's also a timely story for this generation of Americans, who have to choose once again whether to side with progress or with Biblical literalism. In a world increasingly defined by the speed of innovation, choosing even to stand still is to choose to move backward.

Malkin, The Human Rights Concern Troll

By Cernig

Let's get something straight first. The picture above, of masked Iranian police beating a yound man for the crime of non-Islamic clothing and behaviour (he's wearing a soccer shirt) is of a reprehensible and horrid act of mindless repression. I'm with Michelle Malkin 100% on that.

Malkin has a bunch more pics today and you should go look at them. Especially if you are, like me, opposed to the neocon narrative for yet another U.S. war of aggression against a despicable regime that is, even so, no threat to the U.S. It's worth reminding ourselves that our purpose in opposing that narrative is not to defend a brutally repressive regime but to prevent a senseless destruction of lives that would be utterly ineffective.

Such a war would only harden that regime's determination to repress and earn it a new mandate for its existence from the very people being brutalized in Malkin's picture. It would only serve to turn their more moderate members away from any possibility of compromise. It would not end any nuclear threat nor would the people rise up to attack their own homeland while it was being attacked by a foreign superpower.

Michelle tries to deny, in advance, that she's shilling for war with Iran today:

This is not about calling for war. It’s about confronting reality, exposing the threat of sharia, and calling out libs who pay lip service to human rights only when America is accused of violating them.

But if she was really interested in human rights rather than pushing her own xenophobic and pro-war agenda, that paragraph would have mentioned the threat of extremism of any kind and calling out all those who only pay lip service to human rights when it serves their own preconceptions.

For Michelle, too, is guilty of looking the other way when it suits her. Human Rights Watch has a whole page of documents about rights violations worldwide, with scores of nations included. If Malkin wasn't being a concern troll in pursuit of the neocon agenda - an attack on Iran and general bigotry about Islam - she might have been expected to mention human rights abuses in a few of those nations over the years, whether or not they were Islamic states.

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and their neighbours - the neocon's favorite little dictatorships in the former Soviet Union, where dissidents are boiled alive and minority groups massacred but where the U.S. has basing rights? Nope.

Taiwan, another neocon favorite, where children as young as 15 serve in the armed forces? Nope. (Of 10 nations which are implicated in the use of child soldiers, 9 receive U.S. military aid.)

Pakistan, ally in the "war on terror" while terrorizing its own population and banning the media from reporting on many abuses? Well yes, but it's a prominently Moslem nation...and Malkin believes the U.S. should support Pakistan's dictator in his efforts to repress his own populace's search for freedom, democracy and human rights.

Indeed, Malkin's stance on human rights is, to say the least, ambivalent. In fact, she's not above distorting the facts in pursuit of her own xenophobia or simply ignoring them when they don't conform to her narrative.

The point of her post today, supposedly, is to ask why many call attention to U.S. or British human rights abuses like torture, rendition for torture and other more domestic abuse, while ignoring Iran's crimes. The answer's pretty simple. We know Iran is guilty of massive human rights abuses, just as we know other nations are likewise guilty. But we as citizens of those nations expect the U.S. and U.K. to cleave to a higher standard and when they do not we make a noise about it.

What's Malkin's point, then, in making a noise about Iran's abuses while ignoring other nations, in particular America's? The strawman that "libs" ignore such abuses is fragile indeed given her own ommissions of righteous outrage in other cases.

The only possible answer is that she wants to continue paving the way for war with Iran by demonizing that nation above all others. I submit that where these crimes occur in other nations towards which she doesn't harbor an agenda, she doesn't care one whit. She's a concern troll and a hypocrite, pure and simple.

And while we're on the subject of Iran's annual crackdown, an astute observer might wonder why this year the crackdown seems to be more ferocious than in previous years. The NY Times has part of the answer.

For the Iranian government, the democracy fund is just one more element in an elaborate Bush administration regime-change stratagem. (“Is there even a perception that the American government has democracy in mind?” Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Javad Zarif, asked me recently in New York. “Except among a few dreamers in Eastern Europe?”) In recent months, Tehran has upped the pressure on any citizens who might conceivably be linked to the democracy fund and, by extension, on civil society at large, making the mere prospect of American support counterproductive, even reckless.

...Many Iranians have grown paranoid about anything vaguely linked to the West. Conference and workshop attendance, travel and even e-mail and phone contact with foreign entities is suspect. In the last three months, at least three prominent NGOs have been shut down indefinitely. Kayhan, the semiofficial newspaper, editorializes almost daily about an elaborate network conspiring to topple the regime. Called “khaneh ankaboot,” or “the spider nest,” the network is reportedly bankrolled by the $75 million and includes everyone from George Soros to George W. Bush to Francis Fukuyama to dissident Iranians of all shades. In this vision, the network gets its “orders” from the Americans.

It is particularly telling, perhaps, that some of the most outspoken critics of the Iranian government have been among the most outspoken critics of the democracy fund. Activists from the journalist Emadeddin Baghi to the Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi to the former political prisoner Akbar Ganji have all said thanks but no thanks. Ganji has refused three personal invitations to meet with Bush. A member of a U.S.-based institution that has received State Department financing and who works with Iranians told me that the Iranians had expressly asked not to have their cause mentioned in presidential speeches. “The propaganda campaign surrounding the launch of this campaign has meant that many of our partners are simply too afraid to work with us anymore,” she told me on condition of anonymity. “It’s had a chilling effect.”

...Suzanne Maloney was on the policy-planning staff at the State Department for two years before she left last month to take up a post at the Brookings Institution. Her experience with the Iran portfolio demonstrates some of the difficulties inherent in democracy promotion. “In a small room it sounds terrific,” she told me. “You put some money on the table, we support freedom and it gets us some points at home.” Maloney, who was one of a handful of staff members at the State Department who spoke some Farsi and had actually been to Iran, said she found herself doing a lot of damage control during her policy-planning stint: “I was worried about the safety of those on the receiving end of the funds. But I also just wondered if this was feasible. I don’t see how a U.S. government that has been absent from Tehran for 30 years is capable of formulating a program that will have a positive effect.” [All emphasis is mine - C]

Malkin's zeal for regime change in Iran is what drives her writing on the subject, just as the neocon zeal for regime change and revenge for a decades-old insult is what drives Bush administration policy. Because of that, they are inevitably part and parcel of the problem - making matters worse - rather than of the solution.

Update Larissa pwns Michelle and has a photo-challenge of her own for Malkin. Go Read.

And a commenter elsewhere brings up an intersting one - in the pics, the thugs' shirts say "Police" in English, not in Farsi. Is that standard in Iran, anyone know?

Christian Right Zeal For Jewish Annihilation

By Cernig

Wouldn't it be interesting to discover just how many, exactly, of the uber-right's talking heads, think-tankers and Bush administration policymakers - all currently talking up a "clash of civilisations" and advocating the bombing of Iran - subscribe to thinking like this, from rightwing nutjob news-site MichNews today:

Prophecy continues to unfold. The Bible has warned about Middle East turmoil increasing "in the latter times."

In Ezekiel 36-39, God speaks of bringing Jews from around the world to Israel, not because they deserve their own land but to vindicate His holy name. They besmirched deity's holy name by repeatedly sinning over centuries; but God will not tolerate His holiness smeared without vindication, hence Jews gravitating to Israel "in the end times."

So look to the divine miracle: May 14, 1948, when Israel became a nation for the first time in centuries. Jews from all over the globe went to Israel, their homeland.

Ezekiel predicted Israel's flourishing: herds, flocks, fruitage, ruined cities rebuilt.

With Israel having settled in, however, biblical predictions go on to state that the enemies surrounding Israel attack Jews mercilessly. Blood flows like rivers.

Natural calamities come also upon Israel, convincing Jews and Gentiles alike that God is God and that His holiness must be recognized.

At the close of the Church Age — "in the latter days" — Israel will then come under the blessing of the returned Messiah Christ's peace.

...What is particularly interesting is that the Ezekiel Israel-signs are in place — Jews returned to Israel as their own nation, Israeli enemies staged to attack Israel, and threats of global holocaust coming from the chief killing antichrist on the planet — Islam.

Put the more generic signs of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 alongside the specific Israel signs of Ezekiel 36-39 and you have the converging of the "latter day" signs.

It has always amazed me that Israel has willingly allied itself with those who, at base, have nothing but bigotry to offer it and are most keen to secure its bloody destruction.

New Sunni Mufti Is Moderate - and Sufi

By Cernig

Yesterday I noted that the senior Sunni Mufti or religious leader in Iraq had died and wondered about a replacement, thinking that the choice could have major implications for sectarian fighting in Iraq.

Today, the AP reports that a replacement Mufti has been named.

The chairman of the Sunni Endowment, the organization that oversees the sect's mosques and religious schools, said Abdul-Malik al-Saadi will be the new mufti, or chief theologian, for Iraq's Sunni Arab minority.

"The (Sunni) clerics have met and have selected Dr. Abdul-Malik al-Saadi because he is moderate and he avoids extremes and extremism," said Ahmed Abdul-Ghafour al-Samaraie, the head of the endowment.

Al-Saadi would be able to coordinate among the various factions in interpreting Islamic doctrine, he said.

According to an autobiography in one of his published books, "Divorce and its Contemporary Terminology," al-Saadi was born in 1936 in the Anbar province town of Hit, 140 kilometers (85 miles) west of Baghdad.

He belongs to the mystic Islamic Sufi movement, who are regarded as heretics by Sunni militants.

I'm inclined to think this is a positive move. It's going to make a statement about religious inclusion which marginalizes the "militants", by which I assume they mean Al Qaida and their hardline Islamist ilk rather than marginalizing moderates.

But, somewhere in the back of my mind, there's a thought that says there have been widely spread accusations in the Moslem world that the Bush administration has, via funding from neocon groups, attempted to co-opt the Sufi movement to be pro-occupation on Iraq.

Iraqi Parliament Ousts Speaker

By Cernig

The Washington Post reports that the Iraqi parliament has voted to oust its Speaker by a vote of 113 to 55, with 107 members absent, because...well...because he's a bullying nutter who gets his bodyguards to intimidate and beat up other MPs.

Some expected the selection process for his successor would take between one to two weeks. There was speculation Monday that the replacement will not come from Mashhadani's small Dialogue Front party, but rather from the more prominent Iraqi Islamic Party, which also is a member of the Tawafuq coalition of Sunni legislators.

"This behavior that Mashhadani did, he's done it many times before," said the adviser to Attiyah, the interim speaker. "So the parliament members believed they should push him to resign."

The Iraqi Islamic Party is the Iraqi branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and is currently headed by Iraq's Sunni vice- president Tariq al-Hashemi. His party's platform at the last elections included:

"Liberation from occupation" and a timetable for the withdrawal of the Multinational force in Iraq
Enhancing national unity
Considering Saddam a national hero
Opposing federalism in Iraq, except for Iraqi Kurdistan
Promoting Islamic values and principles and Islam as a source of legislation
Opposing de-Baathification
A "fair and objective" view of the Iraqi insurgency
Good relations with Saudi Arabia
Opposition to diplomatic relations with Israel

Al-Hashemi himself had until recently been cozy with the Bush administration faction that wants to replace Maliki with a more secular Prime Minister (Allawi was the favorite until he got too close to Sadr) and wrote an op-ed for the WaPo in January asking the US not to withdraw precipitously from Iraq.

However, just a few days ago al-Hashemi and his party followed Allawi into attempts to form a new national salvation front which would create a cross-sectarian nationalist grouping which could well involve Sadr and the the nationalist Shi'ite party, Al-Fadilah. Having the parliament's speaker belonging to such a coalition would greatly strengthen its hand and further reinforce the separatist vs. nationalist current in Iraqi politics.

Obama On Iraq In The Guardian

By Cernig

The UK's Guardian newspaper has an op-ed tomorrow by Barack Obama which is a preview of a longer article to be published in the next issue of Foreign Affairs magazine by the Council on Foreign Relations.

Here's the bulletpoint version:

- "To renew American leadership in the world, we must first bring the Iraq war to a responsible end and refocus our attention on the broader Middle East. Iraq was a diversion from the fight against the terrorists who struck us on 9/11, and incompetent prosecution of the war by America's civilian leaders compounded the strategic blunder of choosing to wage it in the first place."

- "The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution. And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of US forces, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31 2008."

- "Changing the dynamic in Iraq will allow us to focus our attention and influence on resolving the festering conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians - a task that the Bush administration neglected for years. Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy."

- "Although we must not rule out military force, we should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran. Our diplomacy should aim to raise the cost for Iran of continuing its nuclear programme by applying tougher sanctions and increasing pressure from its key trading partners. The world must work to stop Iran's uranium-enrichment programme and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

- "Diplomacy combined with pressure could also reorient Syria from its radical agenda to a more moderate stance - which could, in turn, help stabilise Iraq, isolate Iran, free Lebanon from the grip of Damascus, and better secure Israel."

- "A crucial debate is occurring within Islam. Some believe in a future of peace, tolerance, development and democratisation. Others embrace a rigid and violent intolerance of personal liberty and the world at large. To empower forces of moderation, America must make every effort to export opportunity - access to education and healthcare, trade and investment - and provide the steady support for political reformers and civil society that enabled our victory in the cold war."

I'm singularly unimpressed, to be honest. It seems to me to be a copperplate hawkish-progressive overview which could have been cut'n'pasted from any number of online sources. There's no indication that Obama really has anything new or refreshing to say or that he's willing to take tough and realistic stances - like saying any idea of attacking Iran is insane so we might as well take the "force" option off the table, that there's considerable doubt over whether Iran in fact has a nuclear weapons program in the first place, or that Israeli intransigence and arrogance is at least half of the problem in the Middle East. He doesn't even have the guts to mention the Saudis as he talks about supporting reform of hardline Islamic regimes.

Let's hope there is more substance and less regurgitation to the full article, eh?

Too Scary To Be The World's Most Powerful Man

By Cernig

Mitt Romney is obviously trying to get to the right of even John McCain in the Islamophobia stakes. McCain wants to sing as he bombs. Romney just doesn't care who he bombs as long as they are Moslem.

I don’t want to buy into the Democratic pitch, that this is all about one person, Osama bin Laden. Because after we get him, there’s going to be another and another. This is about Shi’a and Sunni. This is about Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the worldwide jihadist effort to try and cause the collapse of all moderate Islamic governments and replace them with a caliphate.

Since when has it been the Democratic pitch that it's all about Osama? The Democratic pitch is that it might be a good idea to actually make some attempt to catch or kill him as well as the slew of Number Threes that have been caught over the years.

But that aside, Romney's all wrong about the "Islamic Caliphate" he's foaming at the mouth about. Spencer Ackerman:

Mitt Romney's War: the total conflation of all Islamist movements. Not only is the Muslim Brotherhood not a jihadist organization, but its very lack of jihadiness is what spawned Ayman Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Suffice it to say that there is no caliphate on heaven or earth that will simultaneously satisfy Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, which goes a long way toward explaining why there is no concerted "worldwide jihadist effort" by these groups to establish one.

Mitt Romney doubtless has advisors who could explain things to him. His ignorance is thus deliberate. Romney thus shows himself as too scary and too bigoted to be the most powerful man in the world.

But if you think that's bad wait until Fred Thompson tries to top them both.

Of Ostriches And Islam

By Cernig

My post yesterday on the latest Europol report on terrorism in Europe seems to have aroused some ire over on the Right of blogtopia.

Michael van der Galien, a European conservative, wrote in response to my post:

Cernig makes one major mistake: his reasoning is that as long as Muslims do not commit a lot of terrorist attacks there is no problem. This is - of course - not true. The problem with radical Islam specifically, and Muslim immigrants generally, is not just terrorism, there is much more to it.

He then cites a Telegraph account of a report by the rightwing think tank Policy Exchange as proof of his belief that there is an inherent problem with Islam and that "young British Muslims are getting more and more radical..In fact, they are adopting more fundamentalist beliefs on key social and political issues than their parents or grandparents." Since when haven't young people been inclined to radicalism? They mellow as they grow older.

Not to mention that, for anything about immigration quoted by the Telegraph's Colonel Blimps, it's always good to check they are quoting accurately. Or maybe look at alternative reports.

One of the authors of the Policy Exchange report, Munira Mirza, writing in the Guardian, took the UK media to task for it's spin on the report.

Inevitably, media coverage of the report Living Apart Together: British Muslims and the Paradox of Multiculturalism, which I co-authored, focused on its more alarming poll statistics. The Guardian correctly reported that "support for sharia law, Islamic schools and wearing the veil in public is significantly stronger among young Muslims than their parents" (More young Muslims back sharia, says poll, January 29).
However, the research revealed a broad diversity of opinions and experiences within the most intensely scrutinised group in Britain. One of our aims was to get past the sensationalist portrayal of Muslims as "the problem" - either as terrorists or as victims of Islamophobia.
Most Muslims are well integrated, want to live under British law and prefer to send their children to mixed schools. They do not live in bleak ghettoes cut off from society. Their religion is not a barrier to integration and is very often perfectly reconciled with being - and feeling - British. While some younger Muslims are turning to religion, others have secular habits such as drinking and pre-marital relationships. Although there is some support for sharia, we should be wary of seeing this as automatic qualification for the label "extremist".
The central concern of the report was not Muslims per se, but a particular type of politicised religious identity. British-born Muslims are more likely than their parents to assert their identity in the public sphere, express anti-western feelings, and feel a strong sense of victimisation. Although most Muslims - even devout ones - will not become active Islamists or "fundamentalists" who seek to reform the state along religious lines, this type of thinking is becoming noticeable at the periphery.
The problem is not immigration, which benefits Britain. In fact, Muslims have arrived in large numbers since the 1950s, yet radicalisation is a relatively recent phenomenon. Rather, the weakening of collective political and national identities over the past 20 years has meant that younger people generally are searching for meaning. A similar impulse lies behind the resurgence of Scottishness, and even Englishness.

The report itself makes fascinating reading - all 100 pages - and is far more nuanced than the Telegraph article Michael cites suggested. It's central thesis is that, far from being a "Clash of Civilizations" menace, Islam in the UK is fractured and mostly moderate. So fractured, in fact, that it makes no sense whatsoever to speak about or treat Muslims in the UK as if they are all part of one homogenous group. In response to those who, like Michael, fear that Muslims will want all "women be oppressed, be forced to wear scarves and even burkas," the report itself notes:

Therefore, the majority of Muslims does not want sharia law and is opposed to its implementation in Britain. Among those who would like to live by sharia, more would prefer to see it reinterpreted than not. This is important to stress, because statistics about sharia can wrongly give the impression that Muslims who want to live by it are in favour of the most brutal punishments and strict regulations, which many non-Muslims feel alienated by. At the same time, there is a significant strand of young Muslims who say they wish to live by sharia and who do not wish to see it reformed. What is the appeal of sharia law to these younger Muslims, who have had the benefits of living under a more liberal system? During the interviews, the respondents who favoured sharia law explained it was superior because it expressed stronger moral codes and was harsher on criminals, although there was little appetite to impose it on the wider British population.

As to support for terrorism, only 7% of those surveyed (72 people) said they admired organisations like Al-Qaeda. The report notes:

Despite the shock headlines, it is important to put these statistics into perspective. The vast majority of Muslims condemn terrorism, and even those who express sympathy will probably not become violent. The 1990 Trust has pointed out that the questions asked in some surveys can be misleading, and that expressing sympathy for the bombers’ motives should not necessarily be taken as endorsement of the action itself. In its own survey of 1213 Muslims, it found a rather small proportion - 1.9% - of Muslims felt it is actually justified to commit terrorist attacks on civilians in the UK101. This does not eliminate concern, but may put things in better perspective. Nor were those who expressed admiration of Al-Qaeda necessarily very religious. Of the 72 people who said they agreed with the statement, (38%) either never prayed or only occasionally. 32% of them do not want to live under sharia law. 52% believe sharia law should be reformed. These are clearly not people who follow Wahabist doctrine.

Clearly, this report is a far different beast than that which the Telegraph - and Michael - would like it to be.

Michael's a nice guy, if gullible on this issue, but he's (unintentionally) setting up a strawman here by suggesting I'm ignoring such issues. It was a blog post, not a book - I'm not going to stray too far into related topics.

But if he wanted he could have searched Newshogger's archives. He would have found treatments of how a reformation of Islam might come about and be encouraged as well as well as posts on how the islamist extremists and Europe's undoubted islamobigots must each shoulder their part of the blame for the state of Muslim opinion and action in Europe today.

Other commenters have essentially focussed on the same strawmen, attacking me for what I didn't say in the post rather than what I did. They could all do with some time in my old logic Prof's classes.

Should I perhaps make it clearer exactly what I was saying in my previous post?

The dangers of Islamist terrorism are real and present, however they are not so prevalent and so overwhelming - as the analysis of incidents shows - as they have been hyped to be, mostly by the Right. That it is hyping is shown by the fact that there have been far more arrests than is justified by the number of convictions. It is also shown by the way in which those who declare themselves simply concerned with the effects of immigration regardless of religious or ethnic background - i.e. not bigots - aren't making any noise at all about the alleged threat to normal life posed by other immigrants - from Eastern European nations, for instance. In the UK, for instance, 40 or so gangs from Bulgaria in particular are currently engaged in a violent takeover of the UK's crime. That, according to one Home Office source, is the current "biggest thing" disrupting civil society. Yet nary a word from those concerned about immigration. Could it be because these criminals are at least ostensibly Christian and...well...white?

When a minority is unfairly or overly targeted for arrests based on a hyped up perception of the threat presented by a minority of that minority, you call it bigotry - for that is what it is.

Thankfully, not everyone in Europe is so inclined. I'm pleased to note a European initiative has brought Jewish and Islamic groups together "to create a dialogue over global concerns, opposition to racism, and their common future in a diverse Europe."


Postscript - Michael, to accuse me of ad hominem attacks by using the word "Islamophobe" to describe Mark Steyn and then turn around and use an ad hominem attack by comparing me to the "useful idiots" who "talked about the Soviet Union and Stalin back in the day - you know “Communists aren’t a real threat, the business owners are the real threat,” that kind of thing." is either the gravest error of consistency or rank hypocrisy.

Goading Iran Into War

For weeks now, it's been an article of faith over on the extreme right that five Iranians captured in US raids in the Kurdish town of Irbil in January numbered at least two very high ranking members of the revolutionary guard among their number. The raids were part of Bush's stated intention to "seek out and destroy the networks" of Iranians his administration say are aiding Iraqi insurgent groups.

The problem is, they snatched the wrong people.

"It (the house) was not a secret Iranian office. It is impossible for us to accept that an Iranian office in Irbil was doing things against coalition forces or against us. That office was doing its work in a normal way and had they been doing anything hostile we would have known that," Barzani said.

"They (the Americans) did not come to detain the people (the five Iranians) in that office. There was an Iranian delegation, including Revolutionary Guards commanders, and they came as guests of the president. He was in Sulaimaniyah. They came to Sulaimaniyah and then I received a call from the president's office telling me that they wanted to meet me as well."

..."They (the commanders) came here and they came openly. Their meetings with the president and myself were reported on television. The Americans came to detain this delegation, not the people in the office," he said. "They (Americans) came to the wrong place at the wrong time."

Other Iranians arrested by the US as being suspected of involvement in arming groups to attack US troops have been in Iraq at the explicit invite of Iraqi senior leaders too. And this points up the logic gap in the Bush administration's narrative.

These arrested Iranians have been in Iraq by Iraqi invite to openly visit such figures as the Iraqi President, Prime Minister, National Secuity Advisor, Chair of the Iraqi national security committee, a leader of the largest Sunni political party and the President of the Kurdish region. In some cases, they've been arrested in these peoples' homes.

If that's the size of the conspiracy to help Iran kill US and British troops, it's time to acknowledge that Iraq is a sovereign state and get the f**k out of Dodge. The Iraqi government obviously prefer Iran to the US and we should happily go along with that decision.

It's either that, or the whole thing is a scam, in flagrant violation of Iraq's sovereignty and express intentions, to kidnap Iranian delegates with the express purpose of goading Iran into over-reacting and thus create a pretext for war.

Who, other than the White House, would be involved in such a scam?

Well, here's a big hint from noted neocon and Iranian regime-change proponent Kenneth R. Timmerman in a February op-ed for noted rightwing webzine NewsMax:

The U.S. government, aided by an intelligence specialist from an Iranian opposition group, continues to interrogate Iranian Revolutionary Guards officers arrested in Irbil in northern Iraq on Jan. 10.

NewsMax learned about the interrogations from Iranian exiles in Europe and the United States.

Six Iranians were arrested at an office in Irbil that the Iranians have described as a "consulate." One of them has since been released. The United States has not released the names of the individuals being detained, but Iranian exiles believe one of them is Hassan Abbasi, a well-known strategist who is close to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Abbasi is known by his friends as "the Dr. Kissinger of Islam," according to Iran Press News, which has offices in Europe and the United States.

He is also reputed to be "the guru of the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guard Corps," IPN added.

Iranian sources have identified three senior Revolutionary Guards officers among the captives and said they have described Iranian terrorist networks in Iraq during interrogations led by an intelligence expert from the opposition Mujahedin-e Khalq group.

The Mujahedin-e Khalq, of course, are the neocons favorite terror group - involved in just about every Iranian scare story you've ever seen - and a group Iran has accused the US of using for proxy terror attacks on targets in Iran. They are about to be prosecuted by Iraq for human rights violations back when they were Saddam's lapdogs.

In the lexicon of neocon story plants, "exiles in Europe and the United States" usually means the MeK's political wing based in Paris and it's spokesman in the US. So this really means that the MeK told Timmerman that the MeK were involved in the seizure and interrogation of these Iranian diplomats. If true (and the MeK are masters of telling self-aggrandising lies) then it looks very like the MeK are who fingered them to the US as Quds leaders in the first place.

Timmerman himself is a figure of questionable integrity who nevertheless is still afforded considerable opportunity to proseletyze for Iranian regime change by the rightwing media in the US. Back in March of 2006, for instance, I posted on his "creative misinterpretation" of a Jane's article as saying that Iran had bought nuclear warheads from North Korea. Jane's swiftly confirmed that the article had said no such thing but as far as I know Timmerman has never either apologised for or retracted his false claim. In February again, he wrote an op-ed for the New York Post which began:

THERE'S a new myth being pumped by the anti-Bush crowd, that somehow the president is once again "hyping" intelligence to make the case for war.

If it's a myth, then that's only because the Bush administration - and the MeK - have people like Timmerman to do their hyping for them.

Moles In The White House?

Is it possible to imagine an administration that could do more harm to America's ideals and America's national interests than the current incumbents?

At every stage, in every way, they have managed to demolish what the world believed America stood for and have shamelessly violated their own promises in doing so.

Take Pakistan, for instance, and what it says about US support for regimes which back terrorists, proliferate nuclear technology and trample on democracy. The LA Times editorial today gets it:

President Bush...argues that radical Islam showed that where freedom and opportunity were squelched — as in much of the Middle East — extremism would flourish. "We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people," Bush declared in his second inaugural address. "America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed."

Yet Bush is failing to live up to his own standard, acting instead very much under Cold War rules...President Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in a coup more than seven years ago, continues to squelch his democratic domestic opposition and appears determined to engineer his reelection as president while retaining his post as army chief, in violation of the constitution. Yet so long as he mouths anti-terrorism bromides, Washington seems loath to mention his anti-democratic behavior — even as it shells out billions in aid to Pakistan each year. This flawed notion that there is no alternative to the friendly dictator, even when he is behaving like, well, a dictator, is the same logic that led the U.S. to cozy up to such anti-communist leaders as Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua and the shah of Iran .

The Bush administration's unwillingness to distance itself from Musharraf, or to at least express disapproval of his behavior, is shortsighted in the extreme. To sacrifice U.S. values to fight terrorism is to lose the broader struggle.

At home too, the Bush years have been characterized by a totalitarian push that is more reminiscent of Soviet Russia than anything Americans would recognise as being the "heart and soul" of their national experiment in freedom. Today, Glenn Greenwald has yet another example of the Gulag Mentality:

The documents disclosed by the DOJ shed very interesting light not only on the process by which the U.S. attorneys were fired, but also on the related conduct of federal law enforcement agencies. One of the claims made by the DOJ as to why it fired Arizona U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton is that Charlton wanted to institute a policy of requiring law enforcement agents to tape record or videotape interrogations and confessions of criminal suspects -- a request which the DOJ refused and, shortly thereafter, fired him.

...the Justice Department denied Charlton's request, concluding that it did not want mandatory recording of interrogations and confessions. The DOJ solicited the views of all federal law enforcement agencies -- the FBI, ATF, DEA, U.S. Marshall's Service -- and each of them vigorously opposed mandatory recording. In doing so, one of the principal arguments was that they wanted to conceal from jurors the conduct of law enforcement agents in interrogating defendants and obtaining confessions, because that conduct would appear coercive and improper to jurors.

And we're all familiar by now with the underbelly of corruption which has led to so many cases of coverups and obsessive secrecy. Far from being a transparent and free experiment in democracy, the Bush administration has turned American government into KrelminWatch D.C.

Then there's Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. Nicholas Kristoff writes for the New York Times today that if Dick Cheney were an Iranian mole, the Bush administration could hardly have done a better job than their incompetence has managed at making Iran the regional victor of American misadventures. It's Times Select material, but luckily Ron at Middle Earth Journal has the meat of Kristoff's article. Kristoff concludes:

Mr. Cheney isn’t an Iranian mole. Nor is he a North Korean mole, though his we-don’t-negotiate-with-evil policy toward North Korea has resulted in that country’s quadrupling its nuclear arsenal. It’s also unlikely that he is an Al Qaeda mole, even though Al Qaeda now has an important new base of support in Iraq.

...Our national interests are as vulnerable to incompetence as to malicious damage. So we must identify and abandon the policies that backfired so catastrophically. The common threads of those damaging policies are clear: a refusal to negotiate with “evil”; an aggressive willingness to use military force to solve problems; contempt for our allies; and the bending of legal and moral principles to allow indefinite detention and even torture, particularly for anyone with olive skin and a Muslim name.

Whenever we’ve suspected a mole in our midst, we’ve gone to extreme lengths to find the traitor. This time, betrayed not by a mole but by failed policies, let’s be just as resolute. It’s time to uproot policies that in the last half-dozen years have damaged American interests incomparably more than any mole or foreign spy ever has in the last 200 years.

I believe Kristoff is correct in this. But in idle moments I remember that all of the prominent original leaders of the neoconservative movement were originally communist Trotskyites - a fact they've been at pains to cover up. Disillusioned by the Soviet failure to bring about a Trotskyite victory and hegemony over the world, they jumped from the extreme Left to the extreme Right, where their Soviet thinking and habits of totalitarian thinking found a fertile ground...and thus to the Bush White House and the current situation.

So yes, there's little doubt that Cheney at al are just out to line their own pockets and those of their cronies, and in so doing have had a short-sighted incompetence in preserving the national interest. The asset-strippers don't care about the people who work for USA Inc.

But maybe, just maybe, there are some old-style Soviet moles among the neoconservative Wormtongues whispering in White House ears - still pursuing their mission of destabilizing and wrecking America long after their spymasters in the Kremlin have passed on. If so, they must be laughing up their sleeves.

Regime Change In Pakistan

According to The Australian newspaper today, the Bush administration are finally thinking about helping to depose President Musharaff of Pakistan.

THE US has indicated for the first time that it might be willing to back plans by elite echelons of the military in Islamabad to oust Pervez Musharraf from power, as the Pakistani President was beset by major new difficulties over his attempts to sack the country's chief justice.

Reports yesterday quoting highly placed US diplomatic and intelligence officials - previously rusted on to the view that General Musharraf was an indispensable Western ally in the battle against terrorism - outlined a succession plan to replace him.
US officials told The New York Times the plan would see the Vice-Chief of the Army, Ahsan Saleem Hyat, take over from General Musharraf as head of the military and former banker Mohammedmian Soomro installed as president, with General Hyat wielding most of the power.

The report adds another dimension to the range of challenges bearing down on the embattled military ruler following his weekend sacking of chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, whom he appointed just over a year ago.

Which led several of my colleagues on the left side of Blogtopia (Yes, Skippy, YDKTP) to suggest that such a move would be afflicted by the administration's reverse Midas touch in regime change efforts and would doubtless lead to a new Islamist-run nation - this time armed with nukes.

But wait. Have a look at the New York Times article which is cited as a source for these claims that the US is contemplating changing generals in Pakistan. It says no such thing. What it says is that Musharaff has set out a line of sucession should something happen to him involving General Hyat and Mr. Soomro as head of the army and president, respectively. It mentions nothing about a Bush administration plan to enable that succession.

So is this simply a case of bad journalism and inefficient editing?

The Australian is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News, and he is said to have more personal editorial involvement in it than in any other of the newspapers in his stable. There's always the chance it's a trial balloon being leaked by Murdoch's friends in the Cheney camp. It's been done before.

If so, they will be very pleased at the response from liberal bloggers who wrote about the story - they've swallowed whole the spin that Musharaff is all that stands between the world and an Islamist run and nuclear armed country. They therefore accept the wholely false premise that the Bush administration should help to prop-up the dictator as an "ally in the war on terror".

At that point, they then accept a necessary conclusion - that if Musharaff falls then a new military strongman should replace him. Their only worry is that the Bush administration not foul up such a transition. The framing is nicely in place and accepted even by those who should be least likely to. Liberals find themselves accepting and supporting the Bush narrative on Musharaff and his intended successors.

Yet there's plenty to question. I've posted before (more than a few times) about the nature of our so-called ally Musharaff and his assistance in the "war on terror". Musharaff, far from being a bulwark against Islamist groups actively courts them at home and relies upon them for the political support that keeps him in power. His intelligence agency, the ISI, is clearly the directing and funding entity behind the Taliban, and through them Al Qaeda. He not only shields and pardons the Khan network of nuclear proliferators but many analysts say that his knowledge and persission would have been essential to their operation. The Khan network, indeed, seems still to be operating and is under the wing of Pakistan's military. Musharaff isn't a solution to the problem, he is part and parcel of the problem. Replacing him with another general would simply allow the current situation to continue unchecked.

Then there's the idea that only a strongman dictator could be an effective bulwark for the West against Islamic extremists in Pakistan. I've linked the New York Times article above once already, in a post on Pakistan's catch-and-release policy for Islamist terror leaders it captures. Yet another area where the Bush administration's spin doesn't meet up with the real story. I also linked there to this op-ed by Pakistan's last democratically elected leader, Benazir Bhutto, who is now in exile in London. Bhutto writes:

For too long, the international perception has been that Musharraf's regime is the only thing standing between the West and nuclear-armed fundamentalists.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Islamic parties have never garnered more than 13 percent in any free parliamentary elections in Pakistan. The notion of Musharraf's regime as the only non-Islamist option is disingenuous and the worst type of fear-mongering.

Much has been said about Pakistan being a key Western ally in the war against terrorism. It is the fifth-largest recipient of U.S. aid -- the Bush administration proposed $785 million in its latest budget. Yet terrorism around the world has increased. Why is it that all terrorist plots -- from the Sept. 11 attacks, to Madrid, to London, to Mumbai -- seem to have roots in Islamabad?

Pakistan's military and intelligence services have, for decades, used religious parties for recruits. Political madrassas -- religious schools that preach terrorism by perverting the faith of Islam -- have spread by the tens of thousands.

The West has been shortsighted in dealing with Pakistan. When the United States aligns with dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, it compromises the basic democratic principles of its foundation -- namely, life, liberty and justice for all. Dictatorships such as Musharraf's suppress individual rights and freedoms and empower the most extreme elements of society. Oppressed citizens, unable to represent themselves through other means, often turn to extremism and religious fundamentalism.

Restoring democracy through free, fair, transparent and internationally supervised elections is the only way to return Pakistan to civilization and marginalize the extremists. A democratic Pakistan, free from the yoke of military dictatorship, would cease to be a breeding ground for international terrorism.

and the NY Times article backs her up:

While the Islamists would surely take power in any way possible, an examination of polling data and recent election results — however suspect in a less than democratic country — provides little evidence that Islamists have enough support to take over the country. If anything, they would likely control only select areas.

The last time Pakistan went to the polls in 2002, religious political parties received just 11 percent of the vote, compared with more than 28 percent won by the secular party led by Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister.

And that election may have even been a high-water mark for the Islamists, who were capitalizing on surging anti-American sentiment after the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Even though the Iraq war has also inflamed anti-Western attitudes, these sentiments do not seem to have translated into electoral gains for Islamist parties.

Islamist politicians received a drubbing in local elections in 2005, gaining less support than expected in their power base in the tribal areas. In September, a poll by the International Republican Institute, a respected organization affiliated with the Republican Party that helps build democratic institutions in foreign countries, found that just 5.2 percent of respondents would vote for the main religious party, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, in national parliamentary elections.

Although the poll found that this party was the most popular in Baluchistan, the southwestern province where Taliban support is strong, Islamist leaders lagged far behind both Mr. Musharraf and Ms. Bhutto, as well as another former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif. It is also thought to be unlikely that a successful attempt on Mr. Musharraf’s life would mean wholesale changes to the power structure of Pakistani politics.

For decades, the military has been the most dominant institution in Pakistan. If Mr. Musharraf were to fall to an assassin’s bullet, American diplomatic and intelligence officials say, it is unlikely that there would be mass uprisings in Lahore and Karachi, or that a religious leader in the Taliban mold would rise to power.

Far from ushering in a Taliban-run Pakistan, Musharaff's fall and replacement by a democratically elected leader would actually be the worst thing that could happen for Islamist extremists. But the US should not be involved in that regime change - it should simply remove support for Musharaff's two-faced regime and make it clear no succeeding military regime will be supported either, then let the Pakistanis do the rest. The "revolt of the lawyers" should give us hope and be taken as evidence of a Pakistani wish for democracy. (You can get more on that "revolt" from the Pak Law blog.)

...So why the careful framing, that seems to have been so willingly accepted by my liberal colleagues? Always follow the money, isn't that the rule?

It probably has something to do with the fact that, over the next couple of years, if a dictator remains in power in Pakistan then Republican corporate sponsors Lockheed Martin will make $5.1 billion from the sale and refurbishment deals. Much of that money is being spent directly by the US Defense Dept. or is coming from the billions of US aid money already given to Pakistan. In other words, it's your tax dollars at work as the Bush administration use Pakistan as an intermediary to transfer some more money from your pocket into those of your corporate friends.

Pakistan Catch-And-Release Of Taliban Bigwig

Remember the fuss and glee with which conservatives hailed Pakistan's capture of Taliban bigwig Mullah Obaidullah Akhund hours after Dick Cheney's visit?

Well, according to Swiss newspaper SonntagsBlick, the former Taliban defense minister was freed by his Pakistani captors two days afterwards.

How do they know? Their reporter was drinking coffee with him as the right were penning their praises of Cheney's tough-talk.

The AP/International Herald Tribune:

The Swiss weekly SonntagsBlick said one of its reporters spoke to Mullah Obaidullah Akhund on Feb. 28 unhindered in an Islamic school in the southwestern city of Quetta.

Akhund, considered a key ally of fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Omar, was the most senior leader from the hard-line militia to be reported arrested since U.S.-led troops ousted it from power in 2001.

Several Pakistani intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said earlier this month that he was among five Taliban suspects arrested on Feb. 26 in a raid on a Quetta home. However, Pakistani government officials at that time did not confirm any arrest publicly, and one senior Interior Ministry official who handles counterterrorism issues denied a top Taliban figure was captured.

Pakistani officials could not be reached for comment late Sunday on the Swiss newspaper's claim.

The arrest purportedly took place the same day U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney visited Pakistan, which has been under growing international pressure to crack down on Taliban militants believed to seek sanctuary on its soil.

Pakistan has repeatedly denied claims from Afghan and Western officials that insurgent leaders shelter in Quetta.

"The news is not true," SonntagsBlick wrote. "The world press reported: top-Taliban imprisoned. At the same time he was sitting with a SonntagsBlick reporter having coffee."

It said Akhund was one of 300 people present at the Islamic school. He then met with the reporter and explained his future strategy in Afghanistan, the Zurich-based paper said.

"Six thousand martyrs are ready to die in battle for Allah," SonntagsBlick quoted Akhund as saying. "No member of the occupying forces will be spared. We will kill all of them. We thirst for their blood."

The paper said Akhund promised a series of suicide attacks and that he had "commando units" of 12 to 30 militants already in Afghanistan.

In other highly related news, the Bush administration is contesting Dem attempts to link military aid to Pakistan's actual accomplishments in the War On (Some) Terror.

Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher told a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee Wednesday the arms package should not be held out as a reward to Pakistan. Boucher said Pakistan is fighting Taliban militia for its own good and that the United States and other nations benefit as a result.

At stake is the long-delayed sale of 18 new jet fighters, an opportunity to buy 18 more and refurbishing 34 used aircraft already in Pakistan's air force arsenal.

The Bush administration objects to the House version of the legislation because it conditions sale of the aircraft to a certification by President Bush that Pakistan's anti-terror efforts were sufficient, Boucher said.

Let's be clear what the administration's reluctance is really about - Republican corporate sponsors Lockheed Martin will make $5.1 billion from the sale and refurbishment deals. Much of that money is being spent directly by the US Defense Dept. or is coming from the billions of US aid money already given to Pakistan. In other words, it's your tax dollars at work.

Update The last democratically elected president of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, has an op-ed in the Washington Post today (H/t Kevin Drum) in which she argues against the Bush adminsitration's continued insistence that Musharaff is the only bulwark against an Islamist takeover in Pakistan:

For too long, the international perception has been that Musharraf's regime is the only thing standing between the West and nuclear-armed fundamentalists.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Islamic parties have never garnered more than 13 percent in any free parliamentary elections in Pakistan. The notion of Musharraf's regime as the only non-Islamist option is disingenuous and the worst type of fear-mongering.

Much has been said about Pakistan being a key Western ally in the war against terrorism. It is the fifth-largest recipient of U.S. aid -- the Bush administration proposed $785 million in its latest budget. Yet terrorism around the world has increased. Why is it that all terrorist plots -- from the Sept. 11 attacks, to Madrid, to London, to Mumbai -- seem to have roots in Islamabad?

Pakistan's military and intelligence services have, for decades, used religious parties for recruits. Political madrassas -- religious schools that preach terrorism by perverting the faith of Islam -- have spread by the tens of thousands.

The West has been shortsighted in dealing with Pakistan. When the United States aligns with dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, it compromises the basic democratic principles of its foundation -- namely, life, liberty and justice for all. Dictatorships such as Musharraf's suppress individual rights and freedoms and empower the most extreme elements of society. Oppressed citizens, unable to represent themselves through other means, often turn to extremism and religious fundamentalism.

Restoring democracy through free, fair, transparent and internationally supervised elections is the only way to return Pakistan to civilization and marginalize the extremists. A democratic Pakistan, free from the yoke of military dictatorship, would cease to be a breeding ground for international terrorism.

That pretty much accords with my own limited experience. I've known hundreds of pakistanis over the years, mostly businessmen and their families, and found them overwhelming hard-working hard-bargainers who were, well, un-radical.

Today the New York Times has a report that has been prominently repeated in the Pakistani press which strongly suggests that support exists within the US intelligence community:

“I am not particularly worried about an extremist government coming to power and getting hold of nuclear weapons,” said Robert Richer, who was associate director of operations in 2004 and 2005 for the Central Intelligence Agency. “If something happened to Musharraf tomorrow, another general would step in.”

Based on the succession plan, the vice chief of the army, Gen. Ahsan Saleem Hyat, would take over as the leader of the army and Mohammedmian Soomro, an ex-banker, would become president.

General Hyat, who is secular like Mr. Musharraf, would hold the real power. But it is unclear whether General Hyat would be as adept as Mr. Musharraf at keeping various interest groups within the military in line. American officials say that Pakistan’s intelligence service, the I.S.I., continues to play a direct role in arming and financing the Taliban’s re-emergence in western Pakistan, and there are worries about the relationships between some senior military leaders and Islamist groups.

The ties between Islamic militants and Pakistan’s security services are decades old, with the two sides working together most closely during the mujahadeen battles against the Soviet Army in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Analysts generally agree, however, that the military remains a largely secular institution that takes seriously its role as protector of Pakistan’s identity and would not allow Islamists to become the dominant force in Pakistan.

So why on earth would Bush support a dictator if his intelligence people think a non-Islamist democratic government could be brought about with a little pressure and withdrawal of that support?