As it happens, I agree with the Corner-ites’ opposition to Graham’s proposal, if not their hysteria about the ongoing Islamization of the West. But it’s worth looking a little more closely at the logic of Graham’s proposal. Graham and his close ally John McCain have frequently tried to cast themselves as a “vital center” on issues of torture and civil liberties, but in fact they have proved themselves to be reliably right-wing on these issues; in particular, Graham has been a vocal opponent of civilian trials for terror suspects and of accountability for Bush-era officials involved in the torture of detainees. His belief that the First Amendment might have to be sacrificed in the name of the war on terror is not some out-of-character lapse of cultural confidence; rather, it’s of a piece with his generally stated view that fighting terror should take precedence over civil liberties at home.
Steyn and McCarthy profess to be shocked — shocked! — that the Bill of Rights might be abridged for American citizens as a result of what’s going on “over there.” But in fact, Graham’s proposal is rather mild compared to the views of, say, John Yoo, who suggested in a notorious October 2001 memo [PDF] that the President during wartime can override the Fourth Amendment — and by implication, the entirety of the Bill of Rights — at will, provided he deems it necessary for the war effort. (Graham at least seemed to be proposing that the First Amendment should be restricted through legislation rather than presidential fiat.) Of course, Yoo’s analysis has since been repudiated by the Justice Department, and he was later reprimanded by an internal Justice Department report investigating his conduct during the Bush years. But since leaving the Bush administration he’s been welcomed with open arms by the American right — not least, National Review, which has brought him on board as a contributor along with Steyn, McCarthy, and Stuttaford. If Steyn and McCarthy, at least, have expressed any misgivings about Yoo’s analysis, I haven’t seen them. (Stuttaford is more reliably libertarian.)
Like much of the American right, Steyn and McCarthy seem to have no objection to rescinding the constitutional rights of American citizens provided it only happens to “them” (brown people with funny names) and not to “us” (nice, patriotic white people). They might want to consider, however, whether this is really a tenable line — or whether, as Graham’s proposal suggests, the slope is more slippery than they would allow.
]]>But the National [...]]]>
But the National Review Online took the ‘blame Iran’ theme a bit farther than it usually does.
In a one sentence post on NRO‘s ‘the Corner’ blog called “Violence in Kashmir, Inspired by…”, Jonathon Foreman writes:
Indian-controlled Kashmir has exploded into violence, Indian security forces losing control of the streets — all because Press TV, the Iranian-run satellite channel, announced that a Koran was burned in Florida.
Of course, the announcement of such a burning would be much more difficult to do if there wasn’t an American behind it all — Pastor Terry Jones — who was actually trying to burn Korans. Or, for that matter, a U.S. press eager for sensational stories that pushed the issue to the front pages. (Tony Karon takes on both themes in his comparison, published at the National, of Terry Jones to Osama Bin Laden — i.e. threats over-hyped by the media.) And remember that the story was helped along by warnings about burning Korans from neocon darling Gen. David Petraeus.
But NRO proclaims that Iran is to blame for spreading the story to Kashmir, where riots broke out, because a semi-official (state-run, with some autonomy) news channel from the Islamic Republic picked up on one of the hottest news items from the U.S. and ran with it.
]]>Last March, his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee clearly [...]]]>
Last March, his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee clearly laid out a military perspective on the linkage between the unresolved Israeli/ Palestinian conflict and the dangers facing US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, thereby establishing his position on the negative sentiments facing the US in the Middle East as a result of perceived US “favoritism” towards Israel.
His comments yesterday broadened the scope of issues which Petraeus directly links to America’s unpopularity in the Middle East and the difficulties of winning “hearts and minds” in Afghanistan.
The Wall Street Journal reported Petraeus as saying:
[The Quran burning] could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort.
and
It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here [in Afghanistan], but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community.
In an email to the Associated Press Petraeus stated:
Images of the burning of a Quran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan – and around the world – to inflame public opinion and incite violence.
Dove World Ministry and its Pastor Terry Jones, who are organizing the Quran burning, are not listening to Petraus’ warning. On Tuesday, their blog posted “5 more reasons to burn the Koran.” They conclude that even if violence does happen in retaliation, they are not responsible.
]]>