The 'why's' of torture

An incredibly thoughtful article by Noemie Emery of the Washington Examiner:

In the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln was offered the use of a bullet that exploded inside the body, doing the victim incredible damage. Lincoln approved it: It would shorten the war. For the same reason - to shorten the war – President Harry S Truman incinerated not one but two Japanese cities. Neither man is considered a war criminal (except by Bill Maher), as they took some lives to save more lives, specifically those entrusted to them, and to preserve a political system less unjust than the ones they were fighting.

 

Their guilt is absolved by their intent, which was to save lives, and a more benign social order. Yet liberals, who apply the motive defense in trying to exonerate perpetrators of criminal violence - the accused was stressed out, he ate Twinkies, he was deprived as a child, etc. - seem strangely unwilling to extend this to those who made use of ‘harsh’ tactics to forestall further attacks after thousands had perished in the most torturous manner on Sept. 11, 2001.

A model prison

All detainees have space in their cell for a Koran and personal prayer items. A Belgian prison official, Alain Grignard, deputy head of Brussels's federal police antiterrorism unit, said, "At the level of the detention facilities, it is a model prison." At Guantanamo, "prisoners' rights to practice their religion, food, clothes and medical care were better than in Belgian prisons. 'I know of no Belgian prison where each prisoner receives its [sic] Muslim kit.' Grignard said." He had "noticed dramatic improvements each time he visited the facility over the past two years." He was roundly castigated by certain European activist groups after making that statement. ~ Inside Gitmo Pg 123

Inside Gitmo was written by retired Lieutenant Colonel Gordon Cucullu

Getting into GITMO

This quote from Lt Colonel Gordon Cucullu's "Inside GITMO" helps temper the rhetoric and explain the conditions which set an individual up for confinement to Guantanamo Bay:

"...evacuation for a terrorist is not automatically assumed by American field force commanders; just the opposite. Evacuation is a needs-driven process.

"It must be strongly demonstrated that a particular individual merits in-depth interrogation, extra-secure confinement, or both. Hard questions are asked: Is there good and sufficient reason to think tha tby his possible position, access, or relationships he has high-value intelligence information? Do we consider him a high-level security threat? Has he confessed to being a bomb-maker, financier, ideologue, or possible martyr? Any of these reasons could be sufficient to get him a ride to Guantanamo." ~ Inside GITMO, pg 54

Not all terrorists, and certainly not all suspected terrorists, make it to Guantanamo Bay. In fact, of the thousands who have been screened, only a small percentage are moved to the isolated facility on the far eastern-edge of Cuba. Righteous, but well-meaning constitutional and human rights activists should bear this in mind, when advocating the release of these hardened radicals.

Ashamed To Be A Democrat

Winning at all cost

People never cease to amaze me. In the same vein as the condescending and pejorative lamentation by Steve Lopez regarding his nephew’s “uninformed” decision to join the military, I had my own run-in with an individual possessing a similar lack of scruples at a going-away party last week.

My friends are all aware of my decision to join the Marines. I leave for OCS in one month. This fact prompted a friend of a friend to approach me about my decision to become a Marine Corps Officer. We had a discussion about the Marines, the war, and politics, for twenty minutes.

The conversation began innocently enough, but this guy quickly proved that he couldn't refrain from making snide comments. I shouldn't have been surprised, since he works for a Democrat State Senator, but one doesn’t often expect to be subtly denigrated in a public place by a stranger for volunteering in the armed forces.

After explaining why I was joining the Marines (the war on terror, patriotism, the experience, the rich history and tradition, the training, the challenge, etc.), he introduced me to his girlfriend by saying:

"This is Nick, he's a Democrat, supposedly, and he's joining the Marines."

I stopped him and said:

"Wait, what did you say?"

He said: "What?" and looked at me quizzically.

I pressed:

"You just said supposedly. You don't believe that I'm a Democrat?"

He replied:

"No, I just said… ‘This is Nick, a Democrat who is joining the Marines.’ What did you hear me say?”

I didn't want it to become childish bickering match, but to be clear I reminded him:

"No, you said ‘supposedly’ a Democrat."

He shrugged it off, seeming to ignore his own dismissive presumption: “Oh, well, I didn’t mean anything by it, if that's what I said.”

Being the magnanimous person that I am, I brushed aside his smarmy comment, and we continued our conversation.

But he couldn't resist temptation a second time.

I had just finished telling him that I was ashamed to call myself a Democrat because of the way in which the Democrats and their netroot supporters deny AQ in Iraq, and use bad news from the front for political gain - e.g. Jack Murtha’s condemnation of the innocent-until-proven-guilty Haditha Marines, Reid’s "War is Lost," Pelosi’s unauthorized trip to Syria, etc. Frankly, the list is too long to delineate.

Then, perhaps in defense of the pusillanimous politicians, he asked me, (somewhat bemused):

“Why didn't you join the military after 9/11, then?”

I guessed he was trying to poke holes in my motives, or somehow impugn my intentions.

I told him that it had crossed my mind after 9/11, but that I was selfish, being a college student at the time. My annoyance only continued to grow, as he pressed on, trying to push my buttons (maybe he wanted me to hit him and vindicate his own preconceptions):

“So then if you believe in this war, why not enlist, instead of going to Officer School?”

I didn’t get mad about this last comment until I really thought about it later on. It’s a good thing, because the conversation would have only degraded into petty name-calling if I let my temper flare.

Instead, I calmly responded that I wanted to volunteer and serve as an Officer because I felt I was qualified to do so, and it was every bit as difficult as enlisting. I had a college degree, and I might as well take advantage of the opportunity to lead.

I began to lose his attention from then on by talking about my conversion from a somewhat apathetic war critic, to a believer in the war on terror, including Iraq. I spoke of Lawrence Wright's pulitzer prize-winning The Looming Tower, which first got me seriously thinking about Islamic fundamentalism. Then I continued on about the roots of Islamic fascism, the Salafist movement, etc. He admitted how little he knew about the subject, and grudgingly conceded that I was well informed and wished me luck. I retained no small degree of satisfaction by silencing his smug mouth.

His jaw truly dropped after he asked me which politician I thought had my best interests in mind as a soldier. With the disclaimer that I didn't trust any politician all that much, I said George Bush and Dick Cheney. What I realize now is that his view of a politician with his best interests in mind is the one who will keep him out of harm's way. My view is more nuanced; it is the politician that has the best interests of myself, my family, my values, and my country in mind, the politician who makes the difficult and politically unpopular decisions to defend that which we hold sacred has my best interests in mind.

His last question was essentially the end of it the conversation, he undoubtedly wrote me off as a hopeless and hapless.

But it’s gotten me thinking.

What is it about this war that brings out the worst in people? Why does a person’s absolute, irrational hatred of Bush and Cheney blind them to reality, encourage the utmost fringe paranoia, and justify borderline seditious rhetoric, down to the depths of assaulting someone's integrity for even suggesting a war could ever be justly fought?

I am in the minority among supporters of the war on terror in my family, but I'm accustomed to arguing my way to victory or stalemate, especially when outnumbered. It is interesting to witness the altered frame of mind a person enters when confronted with cold hard facts, or at least when getting licked in a debate. A close friend of mine, feeling so cornered by the strength of my logic, even had the stones to compare the treatment of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib with the torture tactics and head removal theatrics fancied by al Qaeda militants.

This same person, a good friend and a good person, also decries what he calls the “illegal” detainment of terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, criticizing the way in which their “rights” are being violated. Yet, when sent links of the numerous released detainees who return to martyr themselves, he is silent. When it is pointed out to him that some detainees in fact do not want to be returned to their country of origin for fear of certain torture and death, he is silent. When told that GITMO detainees receive fresh copies of Harry Potter books, he is silent. When it is brought to his attention that holding detainees as enemy combatants has established legal precedent behind it in codified law, he is silent.

It's Bush's fault. Always.

A strange phenomenon, indeed - how an issue stirs such powerful emotions, to the point of hyperbolic hysteria.

And that is the crux of it all.

Emotion.

The common thread among friends and family on the receiving end of my logic when it comes to this war has been the penchant for emotional outburst, or the reliance on emotion for their views. Their feelings, instincts, stream of consciousness, opinion. Dr. Sanity has written about the denial, the hysterics quite often on display among the theatrical anti-war left.

I suppose, like the Vietnam war, like abortion, like civil rights, the war in Iraq is a lightning rod for criticism that brings many to the brink of losing their sanity. How else can someone call every single American soldier "a bunch of idiots," and "morally retarded?"

Ironically, while we fight to win a war at all cost, while standing up for what we believe in, others are willing to compromise societal norms and courtesies, reasoned logic, fact and reality, by throwing stones in an attempt to win an argument at all cost.

That is the essence of the "debate" going on in America right now over the war. My run-in with a mildly cynical Democrat was a microcosm of the situation. It's a shame that when Americans should be closest, and working together for victory and self-preservation, we are mired in defeatist rhetoric and political casuistry of the lowest order.

Standing in front of the lectern, hearing the oleaginous platitudes from Congressmen about their "good friend" across the aisle of whom they have the "greatest respect" for has gotten us nowhere, barely masking the deep rifts among the two parties. Because those same Congressman walk from the chamber to the waiting press corps and then rehash their lame talking points, which show anything but the "greatest respect" for their peers.

While I believe Republicans are largely correct in their recognition of the threat of al Qaeda and fundamentalist Islam, neither party is guilt-free with respect to the bottomless pit of political capriciousness on display.

Unfortunately, the vitriol has spilled over to the Blogosphere, and among friends and family.

More examples of irrational emotion:

Roger L. Simon: Jon Soltz and the Politics of Rage

Michelle Malkin's Winter Soldier Syndrome

Dr. Sanity's CLARIFICATION

Dr. Sanity's The Consequences Of Denial

My Varying Degrees of Denial

GITMO or death?

They choose death, via jihad.

And Guantanamo isn't even so bad. Ask Morris D. Davis. Courtesy, the tank.

This Kind of News is Never the Lede

If 136 Iraqi civilians were killed in explosions today, the grisly news would be ubiquitous; every single media outlet would cover it, and it would saturate the airwaves. An estimated monthly casualty count of Iraqi civilian deaths for the month would be mentioned in the report, and U.S. military deaths for the day/week/month would be thrown in for good measure. The lame mainstream media has the formula down well.

Here's the rebuttal:

Operation Silicon launched in South: 136 militants killed in Afghanistan: NATO

SANGIN VALLEY: British troops swept into a Taliban stronghold lush with opium poppy fields on Monday, launching a new NATO operation in southern Afghanistan just as US-led forces reported killing 136 militants in the west.

But that was just the warm-up. Here is round two:

News You Won't Hear: Terrorism Is Down Almost Everywhere

On Monday evening, the State Department released its annual Country Reports on Terrorism showing a number of interesting findings, including steep declines in terrorist attacks and murders in many regions of the globe.

Shockingly, that was still just the warm up. How do you know when there really is progress on the ground in Iraq? When the New York Times finally reports it (albeit, a month after NPR and other major media outlets):

Uneasy Alliance Is Taming One Insurgent Bastion

RAMADI, Iraq — Anbar Province, long the lawless heartland of the tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat.

Ramadi, you say? Yes, Ramadi, once the most violent province in Iraq, as Bill Roggio pointed out. Bill Roggio continued to elaborate on events in the region:

General Petraeus outlined Iranian Qods Force's involvement with the February 20 attack on the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in Karbala, which led to the aborted kidnapping and subsequent murder of five U.S. soldiers. Qods Force armed, trained, and advised the Qazili network, which carried out the attack. U.S. forces detained several senior leaders of the Qazili network, and captured a "22-page memorandum on a computer that detailed the planning, preparation, approval process and conduct of the operation that resulted in five of our soldiers being killed in Karbala," said Gen. Petraeus.

Yet, these are only the highlights of the positive news from Iraq & Afghanistan in recent days. There have been many other encouraging developments, though. For example, as the TimesOnline reported, the 7/7 ‘mastermind’ is seized in Iraq. He is already safe and sound in Guantanamo Bay. (This is where the noble civil liberty lawyer types renew their calls for the prison to close. But as many have noted, as far back as a year ago, when we release the Guantanamo detainees, they head right back to the front).

Incredibly, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary; mobilized troops, gun battles, deaths, fighting, fatwas, and more, John Edwards is somehow under the illusion that there is no war on "terror," as Ben Smith's Politico Blog reported. One can hardly be taken seriously as a Presidential candidate when one is in deep denial. Perhaps it is simply a case of inane casuistry, perhaps he is truly delusional, or perhaps he is pandering to his base. Likely the latter.

But his pandering should be no surprise, especially when those of his base utter the following:

The obvious reasons for the invasion of Iraq are the drive to ensure unfettered access to the oil of the region, and the strategic priority to protect Israel against any deterrence to its hegemony over the region. But secondary reasons for the war also include the determination to dissuade allies and competitors from aspiring to global leadership roles, to prevent the re-emergence of Russia as a rival superpower, and to discourage other powers from aspiring to challenge US domination. These are US strategic priorities spelled out in official documents prepared shortly after the end of the Cold War. The invasion and occupation of Iraq were supposed to demonstrate to friends and foes alike the awesome military might of the only superpower left in the world, as well as Washington’s readiness to use that power to impose its will.

Perhaps we should ask the Iraqi's how they feel?

Iraq anger as Senate votes for US troop withdrawal

IRAQ'S government yesterday criticised the US Senate vote to begin withdrawing American troops by October, saying it would mean their "sacrifices" would have been in vain.

It appears my fellow Democrats are all too willing to take the easy route; withdrawal. Despite their acrobatic efforts to appear at pains over the decision which they believe must be made, do not be fooled. This is cold, hard politicking - not principled decision-making. If Democrats were acting on principle, they would not willfully overlook any sign of progress in Iraq, they would not refuse to meet with General Petraeus, and they would not declare the war "lost" while our troops are still fighting and dying on the ground - not to mention the inaccurate hyperbole of the statement in and of itself.

I don't believe in the easy way out. I don't believe that we can walk away from this fight. I don't believe that al Qaeda has won. I don't believe the war is lost. I don't believe that Iraq is not a part of the war on terror. I don't believe Harry Reid has a clue about what he is talking about. I don't believe the Democrats want to deal with Iraq if one of them should be lucky enough to get elected. I don't believe it would serve the United States' interest to lose in Iraq and withdraw.

I believe Iraq must be reclaimed. I believe victory can be achieved. I believe the war in Iraq is a proxy war between the United States and al Qaeda, much like Vietnam was between the U.S. and Communist China & Russia. I believe a defeat (or withdrawal, according to Democrats), will embolden terrorists to step up their attacks and continue their fight throughout the region and spread their violent, hateful agenda west.

I believe Frank Miller is correct, and I agree with him:

"I'm ready," he said, "for my fatwa."

The Argument for The War In Iraq

The debate over whether to stay in Iraq is raging on Capitol Hill. Most Democrats are in favor of either an immediate pullout, a measured pullout, steady de-funding of the war, or total de-funding, depending on which politician you are talking about. Besides, their stance changes every day.

Republicans have fallen from the Hagel "the president can sign a war-funding bill that gives our troops the resources they need and places responsible conditions on that funding that will press the Iraqi government to perform and make the tough choices," to the Mitch McConnell "A war spending bill that includes such a date is no war spending bill at all — it’s a prolonged and costly notice of surrender" variety.

To illustrate the debate, the following is an imaginary conversation between the 'surrender monkeys,' and the 'hawkish (realist) eagles':

Surrender Monkeys: We have to pull out of Iraq now, because we are losing, the surge isn't working! Harry Reid just told us that "The Iraq war... is lost." Not to mention Barack Obama: "I don't think there are any good options left in Iraq. There are bad options and worse options.''

Hawkish Eagles: Actually, Iraqi civilian deaths are down 45% since the surge began, so I'm not sure what you mean by "we are losing." Where are you even getting your facts from?

Surrender Monkeys: Fine, you can have your numbers! But the Iraqi people don't want us there! Why should we help them if they don't want our help?

Hawkish Eagles: You're right, they don't want us there. If by they, you mean the terrorists. Actually, the Iraqi people do want us there. Ask the Kurds. Ask the Sunni's in al-anbar province. Ask the average Iraqi.

Surrender Monkeys: But the Iraqi government is not doing its job! If they're not going to do their job, why should we help them? Maliki is in bed with Sadr, he only cares about his fellow Shi'ites. If he doesn't meet these benchmarks, and he hasn't, then we should pull out.

Hawkish Eagles: Actually, Maliki has taken significant steps to curtail militants. Furthermore, U.S. and Iraqi troops have recently moved into Sadr city in force. Also, if the Iraqis aren't meeting these "benchmarks" you propose, wouldn't that mean they need more help rather than less help? Would that not mean we should logically stick with them until they fix their broken country? In any case, Secretary of Defense Gates has told the Iraqi government that the 'clock is ticking.'

Surrender Monkeys: But Iraq is just a civil war! Why are we involved in another country's civil war? We never should have invaded in the first place. It has nothing to do with the war on terrorism!

Hawkish Eagles: You are confusing the issues. Whether or not we should have invaded is one issue, and for now, we have bigger problems, so let it go. Second, Iraq is not simply a civil war. That description would be to grossly under-estimate what is happening on the ground. In Iraq, you have Sunn's attacking Shi'ites, but you also have Sunni's attacking each other. Al Qaeda is warring with Sunni Shieks, but they are also split amongst themselves. Shi'ite factions are also split, and subject to internal quarrels within their own neighborhoods. Add to that various other foreign fighters, not to mention Iranian meddling, and the picture begins to look much more complicated, does it not? With all these insurgents and terrorists running around in Iraq from all over the region, doesn't that sound like part of the war on terror to you?

Surrender Monkeys: Our presence in Iraq is causing the terrorists to attack us and to foment civil war. If we leave, the violence might well just decrease.

Hawkish Eagles: Might? There is no evidence to support that. In fact, it is almost certain that the violence would intensify, given the fact that American soldiers would not be present to serve as a buffer between not only insurgent factions, but the Iraqi Army and Police, who are often at odds with each other. Besides, how long did we stay in Germany after the Second World War? We're still there! I don't hear you arguing or protesting about our presence in Germany. And how about South Korea? Japan? Those are all stable countries now, aren't they? In fact, each country has blossomed under American protected democracy.

Surrender Monkeys: Come on! The Iraq war is different from all those wars. How can you even compare one war with another! Besides, Iraq is definitely worse than Vietnam!

Hawkish Eagles: Didn't you just say I shouldn't compare wars? Worse than Vietnam? Please. A cursory glance at the number of U.S. fatalities within the same time-period alone proves your theory wrong. In Vietnam, over 58,000 American lives were lost, and as many as 4 million Vietnamese civilians. Still worse than Vietnam? You shouldn't utter such hollow platitudes without any further evidence or introspection.

Surrender Monkeys: The U.S. isn't even in Iraq to help the Iraqi's. This was an war for oil and money to feed our massive Military-Industrial Complex!

Hawkish Eagles: I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, even though there is virtually no way to prove what you are saying. Speaking of money, who profited from Saddam staying in power? Consider all the Iraq war opponents overseas. Besides, many reconstruction contracts have been awarded to foreign companies.

Surrender Monkeys: But we didn't even get approval from the U.N. to invade Iraq! This was not a multilateral effort. We can't behave like a bunch of drunken cowboys. We're not alone in the world, and the opinion of our allies affects our soft power.

Hawkish Eagles: No U.N. approval? Not a multilateral effort? Did Bill Clinton obtain U.N. approval for Kosovo? Did we not go to war with Britain, Italy, Australia and a host of other allies? Wouldn't two or more allies constitute a 'multilateral' effort? Speaking of the U.N., didn't they make out like bandits, profiting from the Iraqi Oil for Food scandal?

Surrender Monkeys: Bottom line, we shouldn't be getting involved in another country's problems!

Hawkish Eagles: That view failed in 1914 [WW I], 1941 [WW II], 1950 [Korean War], 1991 [First Gulf War], and 1999 [Kosovo War] (to name a few), and it fails today.

Surrender Monkeys: What gives us the right to enter other countries, anyway? The Iraqis did not attack us, it was the terrorists. We're acting like an imperialist empire!

Hawkish Eagles: If other nations are harboring terrorists and providing safe haven, are they not accomplices? Besides, I have already said that this is not a debate about the justification for the Iraq War, this is about pulling out of Iraq now. But to your point, how many attacks were perpetrated upon us by terrorists and their terrorist-sponsored states before the United States took action? The first World Trade Center attack? The Khobar Towers? The U.S. African embassy attacks? The attack on the USS Cole? 9/11? The Madrid Bombings? The London Bombings? How many attacks do we have to suffer before we can fight back? And did you say imperialist? Allow me to let Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett reply, from page 119 of his book, "The Pentagon's New Map,":

"Countries seem to switch sides these days at the drop of a hat - or perhaps just a hint. Think about our secretaries of state jetting around the world trying to get all sorts of small powers to subscribe to our latest public offering, promising this or that aid package in return. What kind of "imperialist power" has to go around begging every little country sitting on the UN Security Council to let it - pretty please - invade some country and topple its horrible leader that nobody likes? Does that seem a dignified way to run a world empire?"

Surrender Monkeys: We can't win this guerrilla war in Iraq! It's not possible!

Hawkish Eagles: Oh no? What about the French in Algeria? The Colombians? (With U.S. support), The British over the IRA? Spain and ETA? Russia and Chechnya? The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?

Surrender Monkeys: Look at the terrorist attacks of this week! Almost 200 dead in one day! It's getting worse! Basically, we and the Iraqi people are suffering due to our involvement there.

Hawkish Eagles: You can either look at one day, one snapshot in time, OR you can take in the full spectrum of events from the past four year, look at them inside and out, combine that with the global jihadist movement, security policy, etc. and then make a decision. I see that you're taking the former approach.

Surrender Monkeys: We're fighting in Iraq, but look at all the suffering around the world, like in Sudan!

Hawkish Eagles: Didn't you say we shouldn't get involved in other country's problems? Besides, what make the Sudanese more deserving than the Iraqi's? If you ask Barack Obama, Senator Joseph Biden, and Hollywood, then the answer is yes, we should help go help Sudan. But those same people want us out of Iraq. Should we trade one Civil War for another?

Surrender Monkeys: Just as bad as the Iraq war, we're illegally holding combatants in Guantanamo Bay! Their Geneva Convention rights are being stripped away from them!

Hawkish Eagles: Oh, really? Are you aware that a number of those GITMO prisoners that we have released have been killed or captured after joining with terrorist groups again after they were released from Guantanamo Bay? Do you know that the wealthy families of many of these "prisoners" have hired an American law firm to defend their sons AND to launch a PR campaign to help obfuscate their crimes, and hyper-inflate the "crimes" being perpetrated upon them? They are supplied with "Harry Potter" books, how bad do you think it really is for them?

Surrender Monkeys: But what do we even have to show for the war in Iraq, or the war on terrorsim, for that matter? We're clearly losing!

Hawkish Eagles: What do we have to show? We're losing? We've caught or captured 90% of al Qaeda's leadership, Zarqawi, Hussein, his sons, his secondaries, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and countless others. We kill 20 of them for every one of our troops, especially in Afghanistan. Those aren't accomplishments? Not to mention we have not been attacked again at home since 9/11. Let's go one step further - Internet subscribers in Iraq have gone from 4,500 prewar, to 197,000 today. What does that tell you? Independent newspapers went from 0 to 268 today. Freedom of speech is on the march. Not only are Iraqi civilian deaths down, but the number of Iraqi civilians killed by U.S. troops is also down 25% from January 2006. We like to call This progress:

The movement of thousands of terrorist personnel from Baghdad resulted in many of them being caught or killed. In the last two months, three senior al Qaeda leaders have been caught, and over 500 terrorists killed or captured. Lots of documents and other evidence was also scooped up, and many of the captured terrorists are in a talkative mood. Sunni Arabs are showing the effects of four years on-the-run. While many of the captured terrorists express despair, and believe they have no choice but to fight to the end, they do seek a less dismal outcome. But Sunni Arabs in general know that the majority of Iraqis hate them, mainly for what Saddam and his crew did. While Saddam was in power, the Sunni Arabs prospered, and everyone else suffered. Now it's time for payback.

What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Unknown

We sleep peacably in our beds at night only because rough men stand read to do violence on our behalf." ~ George Orwell

For Victor [and Bill]

British Sailor Media Circus

The Daily Telegraph has reported on the media frenzy accompanying the return of the 15 British sailors:

Soon after news broke that the 15 hostages were coming home, a media bidding war began.Reporters who had been camped outside Leading Seaman Faye Turney's terraced home in Plymouth scribbled out offers and dropped them through the letter box.

Every media organisation wanted the scoop about life at the hands of the Iranians from the only woman hostage - or any of the other 14 Navy personnel - and if it took a six-figure sum to get it, then so be it. At the Ministry of Defence, calls poured in from desperate tabloid and television editors ready to open their cheque books and press their cases with officialdom. Major sums were bandied around. All yearned for their own "exclusive".

It's hard to imagine Faye Turney was only concerned that "she wanted everyone to know her side of the story and what she went through, when she defended herself on Tonight with Trevor McDonald" with all those offers for thousands and thousands of pounds pouring in.

However, the misjudgement to allow the publication of the sailors' stories only furthered the media disaster:

At Fleet HQ it was agreed that some of the hostages would appear at a press conference to tell their stories. But this was not all. Navy chiefs were to recommend to Sir Jock, to Mr Browne and to No 10 that this was an "exceptional" case in which one or two of the hostages could cash in on their ordeal.

Tony Blair was informed while Mr Browne formally "signed off" on the deal. Ldg Seaman Turney would receive a sum estimated at £100,000 for talking to The Sun - 10 per cent of which would go to the Cornwall, the ship on which she and the others were serving. The youngest hostage, 20-year-old Arthur Batchelor, would receive an unknown sum from the Daily Mirror.

When the MoD's decision became public, criticism rained down on the Government from the Opposition, Labour MPs, and the families of soldiers who have died in Iraq. Even one of the 15 hostages described the deals as "unsavoury".

Furthermore, the Telegraph also makes some great objections to the publication of the sailors' stories:

The Armed Forces are meant to promote heroism and sacrifice, not greed and celebrity.

Hundreds of military personnel have been killed doing their duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why should their families receive nothing when the Iran 15, who have arguably suffered considerably less, get rich?

The payments appear to reward failure. The 15 endured a horrible ordeal, but did not distinguish themselves with any acts of heroism.

The MoD, like the Iranians, is using the captives as propaganda tools.

Jack Kelly made a number of damning critiques regarding the defense of Iran by many liberals, notably their reluctance to confront the regime:

Some liken liberal appeasers to those Britons who wanted to make a deal with Hitler after the fall of France in 1940. That's unfair to those appeasers. Their attitude was not honorable, but it was reasonable. The Nazis then possessed a substantial advantage in military power. Today's liberal appeasers embrace dhimmitude even though it's the West that has a huge military and economic advantage.

And finally, for some perspective, let us recall what Strategy Page has written about detainees of a different stripe; Islamic terrorists captured on the battlefield and sent to Guantanamo Bay:

Some techniques have been used to get information out of terrorists. Among them have been using variations in temperature (the room will be very hot or very cold), or playing a lot of music that they do not care for (the Barney theme has been very useful in this respect). It seems that human rights groups get the notion that listening to Britney Spears and Metallica is torture, but doesn't seem to object to terrorists beheading people.

The other issue the media ignores is what the detainees have been doing, and what has happened when some have been released. At least a dozen people, who have been released from Guantanamo Bay, are known to have returned to fighting against Coalition forces. Another person, Rasul Kudayev, was released in Russia, then planned a terrorist attack in the Kabardino-Balkariya region in the Northern Caucasus that killed 45 people. Another detainee (from Iraq) was part of a planned chemical mortar attack on the American and British embassies in Pakistan, and traveled to Pakistan with an Iraqi intelligence agent for purposes of carrying out that attack. Another detainee killed an U.S. Army medic.

Let's remember that none of the British sailors were subjected to any of the above "torture," which has been alleged by the Guantanamo detainees. The infliction of loud music and temperature changes in fact do not seem terribly harsh. After all, they are supplied with Harry Potter books to read, which they simply adore.

It's telling that the Guantanamo detainees complain of "torture" (which in fact should be classified as mild psychological warfare), while the British sailors have complained about their stolen iPods.

Western soldiers are concerned with saving their lives and recovering their possessions at any cost, even if that means disrespecting their country, waving like fools at Iranian TV cameras, and shaking the hand of a madman. The enemy is surely laughing. This undoubtedly gives them some form of encouragement. If they can toy with the British in such a way, while barely laying a finger on them, why should they compromise on their nuclear program?

A scene from Braveheart comes to mind. King Longshanks sits in thought, musing over his next move against William Wallace:

Whom do I send? Not my gentle son. The mere sight of him would only encourage an enemy to take over the whole country.

Terrorist Psychological Warfare

LGF reports on a post found at a Jihadi website which instructs the aspiring Jihadi on how to influence the views of "weak-minded" Americans.

Here’s an eye-opener.

We all know they’re doing it, but this post on a jihadi web site explicitly instructs the Islamic warriors on how to manipulate “weak-minded Americans” and foster anti-war sentiment, by using popular web forums (I’m looking at you, Daily Kos) and video sharing sites like YouTube and LiveLeak to spread propaganda and disinformation.

Suggestions include: Make Americans feel frustrated with the government, make up stories about soldiers, claim to be an American, and raid website forums.

Reading about our enemies' insidious psychological tactics makes me angry, but it is to be expected. Yet, it is far more upsetting to read stories such as Did the detainees’ lawyers lie?, which detail how American lawyers representing Guantanamo Bay detainees (terrorists caught in the act, who have killed Americans), have shamelessly represented these individuals, alleged their victimhood, and organized massive "PR" campaigns to help sanitize the average Americans' perception of these prisoners - whose rights have allegedly been trampled upon. It would seem the ACLU has such an enormous glut of free time, spare energy can be devoted to foreign terrorists.

I have already written about a Wall Street Journal opinion piece entitled Gitmo's Gorilla Lawyers in a post here, which further exposes the disdainful sophistry and greed that has been investigated and uncovered (largely by citizen journalists, blogs and 9/11 families, not "real" journalists).

The WSJ on GITMO

Before you rush to the aid of enemy combatants being held in Guantanamo Bay, read this:

Gitmo's Guerrilla Lawyers

How an unscrupulous legal and PR campaign changed the way the world looks at Guantanamo.

BY DEBRA BURLINGAME Thursday, March 8, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

He was the first American to die in what some have called "the real war." Johnny "Mike" Spann, the 32-year-old CIA paramilitary commando, was interrogating prisoners in an open courtyard at the Qala-I-Jangi fortress in Afghanistan when the uprising of 538 hard-core Taliban and al Qaeda fighters began. Spann emptied his rifle, then his sidearm, then fought hand-to-hand as he was swarmed by raging prisoners screaming "Allahu akbar!"

The bloody siege by Northern Alliance and U.S. forces went on for several days, only ending when 86 of the remaining jihadi fighters were smoked out of a basement where they had retreated and where they murdered a Red Cross worker who had gone in to check on their condition. Spann, a former Marine, is credited with saving the lives of countless Alliance fighters and Afghan civilians by standing and firing as they ran for cover. His beaten and booby-trapped body was recovered with two bullet wounds in his head, the angle of trajectory suggesting he had been shot execution style.

One of the committed jihadis who came out of that basement, wounded and unrepentant, was "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, now serving a 20-year sentence in a federal prison. Another who was shot during the uprising and pulled out of the basement along with Lindh was Nasser Nijer Naser al-Mutairi. Today, the 29-year-old is living somewhere in Kuwait, a free man.

The true story of Mr. Mutairi's journey, from the uprising in Qala-I-Jangi to Guantanamo Bay's military detention camp to the privileged life of an affluent Kuwaiti citizen, is one that his team of high-priced lawyers and the government of Kuwait doesn't want you to know. His case reveals a disturbing counterpoint to the false narrative advanced by Gitmo lawyers and human-rights groups--which holds that the Guantanamo Bay detainees are innocent victims of circumstance, swept up in the angry, anti-Muslim fervor that followed the attacks of September 11, then abused and brutally tortured at the hands of the U.S. military.

Mr. Mutairi was among 12 Kuwaitis picked up in Afghanistan and detained at Guantanamo Bay in 2002. Their families retained Tom Wilner and the prestigious law firm of Shearman & Sterling early that same year. Arguably, it is Mr. Wilner's aggressive representation, along with the determined efforts of the Kuwait government, that has had the greatest influence in the outcome of all the enemy combatant cases, in the court of law and in the court of public opinion. The lawsuit filed on their behalf, renamed Rasul v. Bush when three cases were joined, is credited with opening the door for the blizzard of litigation that followed.

According to Michael Ratner, the radical lawyer and head of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the center received 300 pieces of hate mail when the organization filed the very first Guantanamo detainee case in February of 2002. The shocking images of 9/11 were still fresh; it would be three more months until most human remains and rubble would be cleared from ground zero. There was no interest in Guantanamo from the lawyers at premium law firms.

But by 2004, when the first of three detainee cases was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, the national climate had changed. The country was politically divided, the presidential election was in full swing, and John Kerry was talking about treating terrorism like a criminal nuisance. The Guantanamo cases gave lawyers a chance to take a swipe at the president's policies, give heroic speeches about protecting the rights of indigents, and be a part of the kind of landmark legal cases that come along once in a lifetime. The Guantanamo Bay Bar increased from a lonely band of activist lawyers operating out of a run down office in Greenwich Village to an association of 500 lawyers. Said Mr. Ratner about the blue chip firms that initially shunned these cases, "You had to beat the lawyers off with a stick."

Mr. Wilner and his colleagues at Shearman & Sterling were the exception, although he has been exceedingly coy about the true nature of his firm's role. Unlike the many lawyers who later joined in the litigation on a pro bono basis, Shearman & Sterling was handsomely paid. Mr. Wilner has repeatedly stated that the detainees' families insisted on paying Shearman & Sterling for its services and that the fees it earned have been donated to an unspecified 9/11-related charity. According to one news report, the families had spent $2 million in legal fees by mid-2004. In truth, Kuwaiti officials confirmed that the government was footing the bills.

How did Shearman & Sterling get tapped for this historic assignment? Speaking at Seton Hall Law School in fall of 2006, Mr. Wilner recounted that he visited the facility at Guantanamo Bay in 2002, months before he met the Kuwaiti 12's families. What was Mr. Wilner doing at Gitmo more than two years before Rasul established the legal basis for lawyers getting access to detainees inside the camp? One of his Gitmo legal colleagues has said that Mr. Wilner was brought into the case by an oil industry client.

It turns out that Shearman & Sterling, a 1,000-lawyer firm with offices in 19 cities all over the world, has substantial business dealings on six continents. Indeed, Shearman's client care for Middle Eastern matters has established a new industry standard: The firm's Abu Dhabi office states that it has pioneered the concept of "Shariah-compliant" financing. In Kuwait, the firm has represented the government on a wide variety of matters involving billions of dollars worth of assets. So the party underwriting the litigation on behalf of the Kuwaiti 12--from which all of the detainees have benefited--is one of Shearman & Sterling's most lucrative OPEC accounts.

Shearman & Sterling did far more than just write legal briefs and shuttle down to Gitmo to conduct interviews about alleged torture for the BBC. In addition to its legal services, the firm registered as an agent of a foreign principal under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) as well as the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA) to press the Kuwaiti detainees' cause on Capitol Hill. Shearman reported $749,980 in lobbying fees under FARA for one six-month period in 2005 and another $200,000 under the LDA over a one-year period between 2005 and 2006. Those are the precise time periods when Congress was engaged in intense debates over the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act, legislation which Shearman & Sterling and its Kuwaiti paymasters hoped would pave the way for shutting down Guantanamo permanently and setting their clients free.

Mr. Wilner, a media-savvy lawyer who immediately realized that the detainee cases posed a tremendous PR challenge in the wake of September 11, hired high-stakes media guru Richard Levick to change public perception about the Kuwaiti 12. Mr. Levick, a former attorney whose Washington, D.C.-based "crisis PR" firm has carved out a niche in litigation-related issues, has represented clients as varied as Rosie O'Donnell, Napster, and the Roman Catholic Church. Mr. Levick's firm is also registered under FARA as an agent of a foreign principal for the "Kuwaiti Detainees Committee," reporting $774,000 in fees in a one year period. After the U.S. Supreme Court heard the first consolidated case, the PR campaign went into high gear, Mr. Levick wrote, to "turn the Guantanamo tide."

In numerous published articles and interviews, Mr. Levick has laid out the essence of the entire Kuwaiti PR campaign. The strategy sought to accomplish two things: put a sympathetic "human face" on the detainees and convince the public that it had a stake in their plight. In other words, the militant Islamists who traveled to Afghanistan to become a part of al Qaeda's jihad on America had to be reinvented as innocent charity workers swept up in the war after 9/11. The committed Islamist who admitted firing an AK-47 in a Taliban training camp became a "teacher on vacation" who went to Afghanistan in 2001 "to help refugees." The member of an Islamist street gang who opened three al-Wafa offices with Suliman Abu Ghaith (Osama Bin Laden's chief spokesman) to raise al Qaeda funds became a charity worker whose eight children were left destitute in his absence. All 12 Kuwaitis became the innocent victims of "bounty hunters."

A Montreal-based marketing firm was hired to create the families' full-service Web site which fed propaganda--unsourced, unrebutted and uninvestigated by the media--aimed at the media all over the world. Creating what Mr. Levick calls a "war of pictures," the site is replete with images meant to appeal to Americans: smiling Kuwaiti families wearing T-shirts and baseball caps, cute children passing out yellow ribbons.

After the Rasul decision, the PR momentum picked up speed and the Supreme Court became, in Mr. Levick's words, their "main weapon," a "cudgel" that forced more attention in what he calls the traditional "liberal" press. Dozens of op-eds by Mr. Wilner and the family group leader (described as a U.S.-trained former Kuwaiti Air Force pilot who cherishes the memory of drinking Coca Cola) were aimed at the public and Congress.

Mr. Levick maintains that a year and a half after they began the campaign, their PR outreach produced literally thousands of news placements and that, eventually, a majority of the top 100 newspapers were editorializing on the detainees' behalf. Convinced that judges can be influenced by aggressive PR campaigns, Mr. Levick points to rulings in the detainee cases which openly cite news stories that resulted from his team's media outreach.

The Kuwaiti 12 case is a primer on the anatomy of a guerilla PR offensive, packaged and sold to the public as a fight for the "rule of law" and "America's core principles." Begin with flimsy information, generate stories that are spun from uncorroborated double or triple hearsay uttered by interested parties that are hard to confirm from halfway around the world. Feed the phonied-up stories to friendly media who write credulous reports and emotional human interest features, post them on a Web site where they will then be read and used as sources by other lazy (or busy) media from all over the world. In short, create one giant echo chamber.

Mr. Mutairi's profile is the most brazen example of Mr. Levick's confidence that th emedia can be easily manipulated. The Web site describes him as a member of an apolitical and peaceful sect of missionaries, and that he went to Afghanistan in October of 2000 to "minister in the small mosques and schools" in the country's poorer regions.

It is one thing to take these cases in order to achieve the proper balance between due process concerns and unprecedented national security issues. It is another to hire PR and marketing consultants to create image makeovers for suspected al Qaeda financiers, foot soldiers, weapons trainers and bomb makers, all of which is financed by millions of dollars from a foreign country enmeshed in the anti-American, anti-Israel elements of Middle East politics.

Although a few mistakes were made when some of the Guantanamo detainees were taken into custody in the fog of war, others were indisputably captured with AK-47s still smoking in their hands. Any one of those who have been properly classified in Combat Status Review Tribunals as an unlawful enemy combatant could be the next Mohamed Atta or Hani Hanjour, who, if captured in the summer of 2001, would have been described by these lawyers as a quiet engineering student from Hamburg and a nice Saudi kid who dreams of learning to fly.

How we deal with alien enemy combatants goes to the essence of the debate between those who see terrorism as a series of criminal acts that should be litigated in the justice system, one attack at a time, and those who see it as a global war where the "criminal paradigm" is no more effective against militant Islamists whose chief tactic is mass murder than indictments would have been in stopping Hitler's march across Europe. Michael Ratner and the lawyers in the Gitmo bar have expressly stated that the habeas corpus lawsuits are a tactic to prevent the U.S. military from doing its job. He has bragged that "The litigation is brutal [for the United States] . . . You can't run an interrogation . . . with attorneys." No, you can't. Lawyers can literally get us killed.

We may never know how many of the hundreds of repatriated detainees are back in action, fighting the U.S. or our allies thanks to the efforts of the Guantanamo Bay Bar. Approximately 20 former detainees have been confirmed as having returned to the battlefield, 12 of them killed by U.S. forces. Of the eight detainees who were rendered back to Kuwait for review of their cases, all were acquitted in criminal proceedings, including Mr. Mutairi, who has given press interviews admitting that he was shot in the November 2001 uprising at Qala-I-Jangi.

Only one Kuwaiti, Adel al-Zamel, has been sent to prison for crimes committed before his work with al-Wafa in Afghanistan. A member of an Islamist gang that stalked, videotaped and savagely beat "adulterers," he was sentenced to a year in prison in 2000 for attacking a coed sitting in her car. These are some of the men Tom Wilner was talking about when he went on national television and said with a straight face, "My guys . . . loved the United States."

The guy who really loved the United States stood and fought to protect us from radical Islamists, rather than enable them. In his job application for the CIA, Mike Spann wrote, "I am an action person that feels personally responsible for making any changes in this world that are in my power because if I don't no one else will." We owe our unqualified support and steadfastness to the warriors who take personal responsibility when no one else will.

Allowing lawyers to subvert the truth and transform the Constitution into a lethal weapon in the hands of our enemies--while casting themselves as patriots--makes a mockery of the sacrifices made by true patriots like Mike Spann. If Sens. Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter, chairman and ranking members, respectively, of the Senate Judiciary Committee succeed in their plan to turn enemy combatant cases over to the federal courts, we will sorely rue the day that we eliminated "lawyer-free zones."

Ms. Burlingame, a former attorney and a director of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, is the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

Gitmo... this makes it clear how little homework the majority of the mainstream media has done on this issue. It takes an outsider, a non-journalist, to expose this subversion of the law.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: You Decide

abc NEWS: How Much Did He Really Do? Some Experts Doubt the Claims That Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Makes in His Confessions

Several counterterrorism experts and former intelligence officials believe that Mohammed, who made the mass confession during a military hearing atGuantanamo Bay, is a fabulist. Their reasons: the lack of evidence to implicate him in many of these plots and his reputation as a self-aggrandizing egotist.

New York Times: Terror Suspect Said to Confess to Other Acts.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who took responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks, said he decapitated the American journalist Daniel Pearl, according to a revised transcript released today of his remarks at a military hearing held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, on Saturday.

Rosie O'Donnell: "He confessed without reporters being present," "Government-sponsored torture prison," "He is not the be all, end all of terrorism in America."

Daily Kos: Bush Admin Snowjob on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed!

This will then allow them to claim that hard interrogations (read torture) are justified. As always, reality is shifted to suit administration ends.

Daily Kos: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Games The System

Mohammed's statement demonstrates why the CSRT kangaroo courts are embarrassingly flawed. His statement demonstrates why due process is important, especially when the crimes being alleged are so heinous. Due process does not only protect the defendent's rights, it also is a path to an objective finding of the facts. Without it we are left with dueling stories, nothing more. Mohammed asked for witnesses, he was denied. The government called no witnesses, but instead simply read off a litany of charges. Mohammed then launched into an unchallenged and lengthy statement - one that would have benefited from cross examination.

Instead, Mohammed's statement, unchallenged, has redefined the case against him. His statement is given further weight by the inherent unfairness of the "process" at Guantanamo Bay.

Mohammed achieved three goals. First, he declared himself a resistance soldier fighting an invader. He framed the war as one between the oppressor and the oppressed. He declared himself a revolutionary and compared bin Laden to George Washington. He pointedly did not say that he is fighting to impose Islamic law on the West. Instead, he railed against American foreign policy against his land and suggested that his goal was to cause an "awakening" about the ills of this policy. This argument does, and will have, broad appeal across the entire Muslim world and much of the Third World. Mr. Bush's hollow argument about defending against an Islamist takeover of western civilization may rally his base here, but Mohammed knows exactly what rallies the base over there. If Mr. Bush wants to combat the spread of extremism, he needs to understand the power of the argument Mohammed put forward.

Second, Mohammed argued that he was using the "language of war". According to the "language of war", during war civilians suffer. He cited Mr. Bush's arguments about the Iraq war as an example of civilians dying in the cause of a greater goal. He justified the attack on the World Trade Center by claiming it as an economic target, and therefore within the "language of war". He likened his alleged torture and the killing of Iraqi civilians to the terrorist attacks on 9/11 by claiming an exception to the rules of war, allowed as part of the "language of war". The argument is hauntingly similar to George W Bush's justifications for "bending" the rules in the service of justice. It is an argument that Zbigniew Brzezinski called "Manichean delusions" in his recent testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Third, Mohammed drew a distinction between those who are fighting a defensive war to protect their land, like the Afghanis and the Taliban (and the Iraqis), and those who are taking the fight to the invader, al Qaeda. He then appealed to the Americans to spare the non-al Qaeda held at Guantanamo. By arguing that he was a real soldier and most Afghanis are merely caught up in a conflict in their backyard, he both gains sympathy from the population, and at the same time is able to portray himself as fighting for their interests. Any attack on America, viewed through this lens, is seen now as a means of fighting the invader or oppressor. This is al Qaeda's version of the Doctrine of Pre-emption and of force projection. It has some appeal in the Muslim world just as Bush's doctrine has some appeal in the United States.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, given his opportunity, made his points well.

Daily Kos: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Confesses: Too Bad It's Tainted by Torture

Today the MSM will make a big dramatic show over the fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) "confessed" to all sorts of dasterdely deeds. (This is being used to distract from the public from the Administrations' commission and cover-up of the U.S. Attorney Massacre.

Daily Kos: How long till Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Executed?

What has really died here? What little justice we had in this country was waterboarded into submission by Alberto Gonzales and replaced with John Yoo'stwisted vision which is now institutionalized, a vibrant, dynamic block of our criminal justice system to extract "evidence" for use in secret tribunals.

LGF: The Kos Kid-al Qaeda Convergence

Killing is killing, and we need to stop defining our actions as noble and holy and the terrorists’ as evil and inhuman. KSM seems as saddened by the seeming inevitability of war as any pacifist.

He just wants us to admit that there are victims on both sides - that, to some suffering communities who have been on the wrong end of American bombs, Americans are the inhuman ‘enemy combatants.’

UPDATE at 3/15/07 2:29:41 pm:

The diary has now been deleted, and the Kidz are working themselves up into a lather: Daily Kos: LGF false flag op on dKos.

“False flag op.” Heh. As if it’s unusual to find posts like that at Daily Kos.

Hot Air: Video: Matt Lauer, terrorism expert

LAUER: How credible is this laundry list of targets? If you’re being subjected to waterboarding or torture, won’t you just spew out all kinds of locations to make it stop?

I don't know what I need to say. This man planned 9/11. He declared war on America.

What other rights does he have? What else is there to say? They are excusing and apologizing for terrorism; for the worst terrorist act in American history.

Why we should worry

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confesses to planning 9/11...

9/11 Mastermind Confesses in Guantanamo

WASHINGTON (AP) - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, confessed to that attack and a string of others during a military hearing at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to a transcript released Wednesday by the Pentagon.

Mohammed claimed responsibility for planning, financing, and training others for bombings ranging from the 1993 attack at the World Trade Center to the attempt by would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight with explosives hidden in his shoes.

In all, Mohammed said he was responsible for planning 29 individual attacks, including many that were never executed. The comments were included in a 26-page transcript released by the Pentagon, which also blacked out some of his remarks.

Because of psychos like this, Liberals should worry, Conservatives should worry... Americans should worry.