Eichmanns. Meet the Eichmanns. They’re the Modern Stone-Age Family.

Anyone who thinks that there is a “big book of international law” somewhere before which they can kneel is naively craving an international autocracy. Not only is it the furthest thing one could have from even permitting any sort of “diversity” and removes whatever control individuals have over their lives, the same adolescent minds invoking these imaginary controls of people and societies usually also get worked up because they think that there is a “hate crime” law somewhere in that mythical legal tome where the personalities and proponents of opinions or lifestyles that THEY hate can be prosecuted. Trying to reach so deep as to control people’s souls, they even want to make crimes of emotions and thoughts that they can’t abide. Nonetheless you have to complement them on their diaphanous (fair trade) scarves and admire them for being ‘progressives’.

Please, Monsieur Obama: It's one thing to visit France, and it's a whole other thing to actually live there

(Merci à Véronique de Rugy et à… Hervé)

May Day, it's a wrap

Well, another May Day has come and gone. We await to see if this is the year in which the oppressed masses threw off the manacles of their feudal bosses:



Probably not....

Beating our plowshares into bankshares

The mindless left never misses a beat when it comes to cutting (real not rate of growth) the profligate spending habits of our governmentalist betters. The well-worn bromides of "kicking the elderly out of hospitals" and "punishing children" never seem to be balanced with the actual outcomes of the policies venerated by the evermore statist tax-gobblers.

"Where would you cut then?" is the wild-eyed bleat du jour coming from our reality-deprived brothers and sisters on the statist left. Expenses for officials, public-sector salaries, etc are a mere trifle. How about we start with this over-flowing goody-bag:

Royal landowners and multinational companies were among the biggest beneficiaries of the EU's €55 billion farm aid budget in 2008, a new EU transparency law has shown.

In France, which alone scooped €10.4 billion of the pot, the Doux Group, which sells chicken products to over 130 countries worldwide, was the biggest single recipient on €62 million.

Major food companies Nestle and Tate & Lyle were the largest UK winners on around €1 million each.

British aristocrats, who command significant personal fortunes, also pocketed sizeable amounts of EU cash. The Queen received around €530,000. The Duke of Westminster got €540,000. Prince Charles took €180,000.

In Ireland, frozen food giant Greencore Group received the largest subsidy on €83 million. The Irish Dairy Board Co-op came second on €6.5 million. Kerry Ingredients Ireland was third on €5 million.

Come to think of it, if that oh so idyll of returning to a pastoral existence pays so well, this porky may be worth keeping. Who says incentives do not matter?

One-way street continues

Tim Worstall befouls the May Day punchbowl with this find:

Businesses’ ability to recover overpaid tax would be curtailed by measures in yesterday’s finance bill, experts warned.

They said Revenue & Customs was trying to draw a line under an era that saw it hit with a series of multibillion refund claims.

The little-noticed proposals – originally tucked away in a note to the Budget – mean that from April 2010, taxpayers would no longer be able to sue Revenue & Customs in the High Court to reclaim overpaid corporation, income and capital gains tax.

Despite those who feel that taxation does not change the behaviour of the individual, the first thought is of course ...... how to get around this. The initial thought which comes to mind is to pay the absolute minimum possible due. Far easier (yet still painful) to write a cheque covering the difference than it is to try and claw back what is rightfully yours from government.

NYT celebrates May Day by sticking it to the common man

Unfortunately the storyline is not quite as tidy as some would like. L'antagoniste is not the selfish, greedy, money-grubbing, capitalistic, Hobbesian swine which we all know and love. No, our story revolves around the lucid, prosaic, nuanced, all-knowing, all-caring, pious merchants of wisdom who strive for a world free of outcomes and responsibility, as long as they get theirs first:

The New York Times Co (NYT.N), which bought the Globe for $1.1 billion in 1993, threatened at the start of April to shut the money-losing, award-winning broadsheet unless the paper's 13 unions agree by Friday to $20 million in concessions.

As the deadline approaches, the future of one of America's most acclaimed regional newspapers looks unclear, illustrating deepening problems for an industry that has few answers for an accelerating, long-term shift of advertising to the Internet.

Negotiations for a buyer, some suggest, could begin if the Times Co wins union concessions, which could include pay cuts of as much as 20 percent, removal of seniority rules and lifetime job guarantees, and millions of dollars in cuts to company contributions for retirement and health plans.

No doubt the story will appear in the NYT under some version of the "Workers feel anxiety as corporate fat cats close up shop" headline. Never fret, our May Day story of class struggle does indeed have a happy ending, for some:

According to the New York Times proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, corporate president and CEO Janet L. Robinson received a total compensation package valued at $5.58 million in 2008, up well over a million from the $4.14 million she received in 2007, and the $4.4 million she received in 2006.

Robinson's $1 million base salary has remained the same for three years. In 2008, Robinson's total compensation included, in addition to her base salary: $1.6 million in stock awards, $1.5 million in options, a $35,000 bonus, $562,500 from the non-equity incentive plan, $898,171 from the "Change in Pension Value and Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Earnings," and "other compensation" of $46,368.

A number of NYT staffers contacted said that there was considerably more resentment voiced on the newsroom floor, and in newspaper guild meetings, about Robinson's pay than about compensation awarded to Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the NYT board chairman and publisher.

Staffers noted that even though Sulzberger received bonuses and other compensation more than doubling to $2.4 million his base salary of $1,087,000, his total compensation package has declined substantially over the past three years from $3.4 million in 2007 and $4.4 million in 2006. In addition to his 2008 base salary, Sulzberger's total compensation included a bonus of $38,045, stock awards of $54,443, option awards of $29,832, a non-equity compensation plan distribution of $597,850, a change in pension plan valuation and non-qualified deferred compensation worth $559,826, and $48,878 in "other compensation," according to the proxy.

And they all lived happily everafter.

Oh, THAT New Media!!!

Maybe it isn’t news because it isn’t a pretzel.

From our bulging “imagine if this happened to Bush” file: Obama bumps his head in public. It is NOT considered a news item by aggregators, even when it’s on the wires.

Bush chokes on a pretzel in private six years ago: 110,000 hits from frothing loons wanking off about it in the hateful glee of those raised in a barn.

How Were Afghanistan's Taliban Overthrown in 2001? By the U.S. Army? Not at all! By the Mujaheddin (!)

Thanks to Le Monde (and to Rémy Ourdan's full-page article in the organ of official opinion and of the ruling class under a mocking title), the truth is now out: in late 2001, the Taliban were not vanquished by the Americans, but by… the Mujaheddin.

Déception [en Afghanistan] envers l'armée américaine et ses alliés, qui se sont déployés dans le pays sans que personne en comprenne vraiment la raison, les talibans ayant été vaincus dès fin 2001 par les Moudjahidins.

In order to denigrate America (at least under Bush) as well as its armed forces, anything is allowed — including the rewriting of history.

In that perspective, we also learn that the year 2008 was a "nightmare for the American army." Now, I understood that — if anything — the year 1944 was a "nightmare for the American army." And the year 1917 was a "nightmare for the American army." And the year 1862. And the year 1775.

But thank God: we have — and the French population has — Le Monde!

Variable Morality

Or as much of Europe thinks when it isn’t telling itself it knows better, the value of an innocent life is based entirely on which political tribe you are perceived to belong to. From the Deutsche Welle story on the trial of the gang that kidnapped, brutally tortured, and then murdered Ilan Halimi because he was a Jew, we find a kind of racial defense hiding inside a racial defense:

Some claim they didn't know what they were doing

For the rest of the gang, hostility towards Jews is not believed to be a factor in them taking part in the horrendous crime.
"My client had no idea who had been kidnapped," said Didier Seban, the lawyer for one of Halimi's abductors. "It had no bearing on him. His involvement was stupid, he's very easy to influence, Fofana called him the 'little one'."

In other words, not only is was his murder founded entirely on his heritage, so must go the argument of the defense. Is the gang and its’ ringleader to be less guilty because they didn’t account for Hilami’s Jewishness? In the simplistic world of European public morality, that’s often the case, and it has a purpose: to resent that imagined protected category at the same time.

So the press reports like so many other features of public though is little more than a cultural covering action to allay the obvious observations that people would otherwise have to make of themselves.

But let’s not forget the society we’re talking about. A news search engine lists 422 stories following the trial in France, where the crime took place, not even twice as much outside of France where it has little cultural meaning. It’s a strong indication that in France people really don’t want to be reminded of the affair. The “progressive” Rue89, the stated protectors of the human race, has run 9 hits, all but 3 wire pieces and one an irrelevant reader comment about homophobia which read like light entertainment gossip columns for neo-fascists. The other two only cite his name, but rattle on about LePen and Dieudonné. On the other hand, the front page of their portal seems obsessed with another “cultural covering action” – trying to diminish the sympathy anyone would have for the center-right government’s Rashida Dati – implying that the high-tech lynching she’s been going through, (that it isn’t), a piece on the year old Cadaver Exhibit that we were supposed to assumed scandalized everyone but them, and an interview with Jacque Tati.

Truly biting and up to the minute stuff for the socially aware and politically active political novacane for lefties .



Living La Vida Tribu’Ka

Climb any Mountain, Abuse any Euphemism

The declaration of the Latin-American Idiots: “Capitalism 'threatens life on the planet'”

Of course, they still have to “pay they bills” too:

The legitimate struggle against drug trafficking and organized crime, and any other form of the so-called “new threats” must not be used as an excuse to undertake actions of interference and intervention against our countries.

I think we can call the new phenomenon Narco-communistic-charismatic-totalitarianism, something that is meant by every measure intended to benefit no-one but that equality loving totalitarian himself and his equality loving cronies. Because it’s all about equality, ‘n stuff.

Obama Teleprompter Guy

(Dziękuje to Janina)

Does this work both ways?

For discussional purposes, all well and good:

Banks should be allowed to claw back staff bonuses when performance claims prove to be bogus, the European Commission said on Wednesday, pledging legislation on pay oversight.

Bankers' bonuses should not encourage risky behaviour and severance packages must not reward failure, the executive Commission said in non-binding guidelines for European Union states.

One question, will these same standards apply to elected/appointed politicians as well?

It doesn't take much

As noted previously as it relates to the very small number of individuals who actually tote the note via taxation in New York City, it does not take an unusually large number of these productive individuals fleeing a tax jurisdiction to really put a crimp in a government's high-spending lifestyle. "Fleeing" of course takes form in many ways: physically leaving, retiring early, not working as many hours, being sacked, various use of still available deductions, etc.

So what might be the toll to the UK of even higher rates of taxation on those very very rich individuals? A Times article points to some generally interesting admissions:

Treasury officials admitted last night that the Government would lose out on billions of pounds of revenue as they expected high earners to sidestep the 50 per cent tax rate.

Speaking to the Treasury Select Committee, Mike Williams, the director of personal tax at the Treasury, said that the Government expected to receive only 31 per cent of the possible total income from the tax increase announced in the Budget.

The Chancellor said last week that the 50p income tax rate for those earning more than £150,000 would raise £1.1 billion, but figures revealed yesterday suggest that he expects to lose £2.5 billion as many of the 350,000 higher earners take action to avoid, through legal means, paying the rate by working fewer hours or moving abroad.

A look at the numbers show that, just like NYC, a relatively tiny number of individuals in the UK are actually toting the governmental note in terms of income tax. Those individuals making over £100,000 make up 1.8 percent of all tax-payers yet pay 29.4 percent of all income taxes. Some may see this ratio as fair (the modern definition of "fair" being "the other guy paying more than me = fair"). But what happens if a small number of the already small number toting the governmental note were to "flee" that tax jurisdiction known as the UK:

- If only 1 percent of those individuals making over £100,000 chose to flee, the "cost" to the Treasury would be £195,000,000 per year.
- If only 5 percent of those individuals making over £100,000 chose to flee, the "cost" to the Treasury would be £975,000,000 per year.
- If only 10 percent of those individuals making over £100,000 chose to flee, the "cost" to the Treasury would be £1,950,000,000 per year.
- If only 25 percent of those individuals making over £100,000 chose to flee, the "cost" to the Treasury would be £4,875,000,000 per year.

As FYI for the above,

- 1 percent represents: 5,760 individuals
- 5 percent represents: 28,800 individuals
- 10 percent represents: 57,600 individuals
- 25 percent represents: 144,000 individuals

If more than 10 percent of that already small number of individuals who tote the governmental note decide to flee in some form or fashion, it will certainly give new meaning (and in this case actual real meaning) to the term, Missing Billions.

It doesn't take much.

Oink!

Germans have a DIN standard for everything, including humans.

But at least there’s always a bright side to studies like these. Scientists have also determined that German women’s breast volume has increased some 2.3 centimeters since the last measurement (nice work if you can get it, Mr. Scientist Man) so pump up the volume already or something.

Which brings us inevitably to the great intellectuals of that worldy “global” world that feel so shunned by western intellectualism.

Nobody Learned from Communism

It’s not just the European cultural habit of licking the boot that kicks you, the continued condensed stupidity of statism continues.

The statist system remained in place for a mere 45 years. Yet within just a few years, East Germany became a backward, hungry, incompetent, lazy third-world society and remained that way for the entire 45 years. When liberated from the statist shackles, East Germans remained disproportionately lazy, incompetent, third-worlders, sentimental for the old statist disaster.

And it seems for those of a leftist sensibility that they still haven’t learned the lesson. I’m sure it’s obscured by the idea that under socialism, there is “something for nothing” for everyone.

That never-ending story

No doubt there will be those who still call for more government not less:

Prosecutors in Wuppertal said that around 200 police officers and 50 officials searched British army premises in the towns of Moenchengladbach, Elmpt, Paderborn and Herford. Eight local companies were also examined.

German authorities suspect that some 21 civilian British military employees may have taken bribe money in return for contracts for work such as renovating and supplying army buildings.

A statement from the Wuppertal prosecutors' office said that payments may have also been made to non-existent shell companies for fake contracts, "costing the British government millions of euros."

That last sentence should of course read, "costing the British tax-payer millions of euros." Still, the mind wanders. How many countless individuals trudged off to work, day in - day out, only to have their pay packet sponged, day in - day out, only to have their hard-earned income vanish down yet another governmental rat-hole?

Remind again why the British government needs evermore of an individual's hard-earned income? Should one penny more be given over to a government that cannot even manage what they currently take?

Got Flicks?

Another great moment in cinema.

From the "bad idea gets worse" department

Naturally, government is involved:

A House committee chairman said Tuesday that he wants Congress to enact a mileage-based tax on cars and trucks to pay for highway programs now rather than wait years to test the idea.

Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., said he believes the technology exists to implement a mileage tax. He said he sees no point in waiting years for the results of pilot programs since such a tax system is inevitable as federal gasoline tax revenues decline.

Naturally the idea involves more inventive ways for government to take more money from the individual. The idea of course gets worse:

The tax would entail equipping vehicles with GPS technology to determine how many miles a car has been driven and whether on interstate highways or secondary roads. The devices would also calculate the amount of tax owed.

This presents a conundrum for hard-bitten statists: all in favour of the take more money bit, but even the most dense leftist might have a brief (note, brief) mental flicker in terms of the abuse awaiting such GPS tracking information in the hands of government.

Every good story needs a touch of levity though:

"At this point there are a lot of things that are under consideration and there is also a strong need to find revenue," Oberstar spokesman Jim Berard said. "A vehicle miles-traveled tax is a logical complement, and perhaps a future replacement, for fuel taxes."

"perhaps a future replacement"? Perhaps? Hilarious, one of the best bits of comedy to come out of a governmentalist mouth-piece in some time. No doubt delivered deadpan-style with a truly straight face.

"On 9/11, the presidency of George W Bush and the Iraq War took a singular place in the cinema of early 21st century"

What do we learn from the Maison de la musique of Nanterre — Une ville toujours mieux populaire (a town always better popular?!) — which is to show une Soirée Cinéma-Débat on images de guerre/guerre d’images with three post-911 films followed by (sigh) debate?

• The word "terrorism" is never mentioned (la chute des tours jumelles du World Trade center), nor — of course — is the number of victims thereof;
  
• History and successive events as well as cause/effect seem to occupy an entirely surreal and bizarre corner in the minds of the organizers (Le 11 septembre, la présidence de George W. Bush et la guerre d’Irak ont pris une place singulière dans le cinéma du début du XXIe siècle);
• The Maison de la musique will be filled with debating leftists…

Game: Who can find the best (i.e., the most ridiculous) approximation — any historical period will do — of "On 9/11, the presidency of George W Bush and the Iraq War took a singular place in the cinema of early 21st century"?

Frustrating: Berlin's Mauermuseum dissolves into platitudes about “universal peace” with cursory celebrations of the world’s human-rights activists

These displays are so powerful, it is frustrating that the Mauermuseum eventually dissolves into platitudes about “universal peace” with cursory celebrations of the world’s human-rights activists and heroes

writes Edward Rothstein in a NYT article with surprising common sense (then again, it is two decades since the wall — and the Soviet Empire — fell, and liberal outlets are always ready to condemn leftist dictatorships of the past — especially if they can add themselves amongst the strongmen's most dedicated foes).

This will be the great temptation of the coming Wall events: to turn the Wall into a generalized symbol, harnessed to score a wide variety of political points. Next month, for example, David Hare’s double bill “Berlin/Wall” will open at the Public Theater in New York, a pairing of a meditation about Berlin and its Wall with a monologue about the wall Israel has been erecting separating itself from West Bank Palestinians. The pairing, which Mr. Hare has said “seemed a cute idea,” creates an association of condemnation, suggesting a resemblance of oppression, even though one wall was meant to keep a country’s citizens in and the other is meant to keep a country’s attackers out.

If the anniversary of the Wall’s fall becomes such an all-purpose symbol, its significance will be missed. Look to the particulars instead, to the way it divided this once great and terrible city, to the way in which it demanded obeisance in the name of virtue, and to the way, finally, though saturated with terror and blood, it fell to forces both more subtle and more powerful. And the greatest triumph over the Wall? It is now just a souvenir.

How Credible Are Medical Statistics From Europe?

Guess what? Whether private or governmental, medical statistics from countries such as France — lionized by America leftists — cannot be trusted…

Life begins at 40?

More from those OECD governments which take more than 40 percent out of an economy in the form of taxes:

Collectively, those governments which take 40% or more of GDP in the form of taxes, the average annual rate of GDP growth from 2000 to 2007 = 3.48%

Collectively, those governments which take less than 40% of GDP in the form of taxes, the average annual rate of GDP growth from 2000 to 2007 = 5.35%

All weighted for size of a country's economy in its grouping. As FYI, those governments engaged in 40+% seizure of GDP: Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, France, Norway, Italy, Finland, Austria and Iceland. This grouping unfortunately subject to increase shortly.

As always, feel free to do your own fiddling with the data here, here and here. Any/all corrections welcome in the comments.

France's Communist Daily Refers to Wajda's "Katyn" as a "Fictional" Film

Wajda intègre des documents d’archives soviétiques pour nous montrer que l’image peut mentir. Belle idée de cinéaste. Mais si l’image peut mentir, pourquoi alors ne pas douter de la version des faits rapportés par Wajda ?

Following Le Monde's criticism of Andrzej Wajda's Katyn (for the back-to-back justaposition of the Nazis and the Soviets as predators of the national territory), France's communists insist on reiterating the description of the Katyn Forest Massacre as that symbol of Nazi [!] barbarism, with L'Humanité — in a review replete with psychological pseudo-analysis, sophomoric philosophy (dialectics, ontology, how can we know what is right and what is not), and Godard quotes — referring to the movie as the latest fiction (une nouvelle fiction) of Andrzej Wajda.

Incidentally, Adam Michnik has written a strong rebuttal to Le Monde, accusing the daily of being a prisoner to the dogma that forbid comparing Hitler's crimes with those of Stalin… (Needless to say, Le Monde's ombuds(wo)man, Véronique Maurus, dismisses the controversy as a detail — as nothing more important than other readers' complaints about other film reviews that are too negative, too positive, or that give the ending away…)

The anti-capitalist vituperation, says Glucksman, is what led to the communist and fascist political strategies which “dragged humanity into hell”

…“anti-capitalism has the wind in its sails”,

John Vinocur quotes André Glucksmann as writing as Nicolas Sarkozy named the "insistent voice in defense of human rights and … Western values" an officer of the French Legion of Honor. Glucksmann

likened this [anti-capitalism with wind in its sails] to a new attack on temple merchants, Babylon, the golden calf, profit and usury. In the just completed century, he said, this kind of vituperation led to the communist and fascist political strategies which “dragged humanity into hell.”

Read that as I did, and the messenger was chiding the president for making calls — not much heeded, it turns out — for the “re-creation of capitalism.”

…Mr. Glucksmann did turn his back on Ségolène Royal in the 2007 presidential election as an inadequate Socialist candidate, and endorsed Mr. Sarkozy. In recognition, his opinions won unique tolerance and a unique audience at the Élysée Palace.

The deal has this particularity: a not infrequent visitor, Mr. Glucksmann tells Mr. Sarkozy where he has gotten it wrong. The current list is long: his potshots at capitalism, a lack of awareness of how the current Russian-German relationship suggests serious grief, or his overdrawn hopes of Europe’s achieving a slice of world leadership.

…you could find an admonition to Mr. Sarkozy. Mr. Glucksmann appeared to urge: deal with reality rather than hopes for a unified European political and economic force ready to move in with the big guys in a not-so-imminent multipolar world.

“The European Union,” according to Mr. Glucksmann, “remains tied up at quayside, its main players refusing stimulus packages out of fear of helping their neighbors more than themselves, with an every-man-for-himself attitude dominating a facade of smiles.”

…Mr. Glucksmann went on: “There won’t be a European ‘community’ either for gas, oil, or nuclear energy. To hell with European energy autonomy! The Berlin-Moscow alliance is growing closer, and a long-term preference for Russia is operating in industry as well as in public opinion.

“The exit-from-crisis-plan across the Rhine is the economic modernization of Great Russia by Grand Germany. A remake of efforts to rationalize the czarist empire in the 19th century under German direction?”

The answer, he wrote, is that the Kremlin’s leaders are manipulating the Germans’ “nostalgic or neo-colonial aspirations.”

And he concluded: “Adenauer-de Gaulle, Mitterrand-Kohl, that’s over. Behind Angela Merkel’s likability, reality is the discovery of a Germany that’s furiously ambivalent. Meanwhile, Europe is crumbling.”

That’s a sharp message to a French president whose seeming comfort with the Putin/Medvedev team has led the left-wing newsmagazine Le Nouvel Observateur to redub him “Sarko le Russe,” replacing the “Sarko l’Americain” tagline of his 2007 election victory.

Defrocked German ramblers frocked

Following up from our initial discussion in January, all good things come to an end it seems:

Voters in the heart of the Swiss Alps have passed legislation banning naked hiking after dozens of mostly German nudists started rambling through their picturesque region.

The cantonal government recommended the ban after citizens objected to encountering walkers wearing nothing but hiking boots and socks.

"The reactions of the population have shown that such appearances over a large area are perceived as thoroughly disturbing and irritating," the government.

For those still needing their fix of disturbing and irritating naked Germans, a majority of the NP staff recommends the spa facilities at the Crowne Plaza in Heidelberg.

Why not start the week off by feeling good about yourself?

Be creative....

Sometimes manning the barricades can mean kicking a few old people in the teeth

Direct action is what we hear from our brothers and sisters on the hard-bitten left:

At an electricity substation on a bleak industrial estate north of Paris a masked union militant is preparing to deprive a neighbourhood of power.

His colleague is outside, dragging nervously on a roll-up cigarette while keeping a lookout for police or security guards. "Get a move on," he says. "And then let's get out of here."

A switch is pulled down, the door of the sabotaged transformer is locked and the two activists — employees of EDF, the French state electricity supplier — drive off.

In their wake hundreds of houses and a handful of businesses in Montigny-lès-Cormeilles are left without electricity for much of the morning.

Direct action is what we get:

Last Thursday 66,500 EDF customers lost their electricity supply, some for several hours. In Douai, northern France, two patients in intensive care had to be moved when a hospital lost power for 40 minutes.

In the Paris region the Grand-Val shopping centre suffered the same fate. "We had to turn away customers from all 48 shops," Félix Crespo, a technical manager at the centre, said.

....

The power cuts have continued. In Montigny-lès-Cormeilles the saboteurs took action against EDF offices and several hundred homes were affected. A home-help assistant said: "I look after a 92-year-old woman and this sort of thing means she hasn't got a proper meal because there was nothing to cook it with."

Remind me about the left's "respecting, nurturing, tolerant, non-violent, struggling to make sure all points of view are debated in an open, inviting and oh so much more caring environment than you selfish, greedy, capitalistic bastards" routine again?

Europe's ECHR Cited “Massively Extenuating Circumstances” in the German Police's Violation of a "Mere" Kidnapping Suspect's Civil Rights

Duncan reminds us of John Rosenthal's report about the American MSM's ignoring of Europe's nod to torture if and when deemed necessary, along with what Rosenthal calls the MSM's (and the Democrats') absurd — and suicidal — logic…

One may well wonder whether the accusers of Donald Rumsfeld and other Pentagon officials would be prepared to acknowledge “massively extenuating circumstances” in their cases [the wording of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the Frankfurt police's response to a suspect in the kidnapping of a German child]. But if the desire to save the life of an eleven-year-old boy is an extenuating circumstance [for the German police force and for the European authorities], how can the desire to prevent a follow-on attack to 9/11 and to save potentially thousands of innocent lives not be one? And if the difficulty involved in questioning a wily and arrogant 27-year-old student who has been “trained in law” [Magnus Gäfgen] is an extenuating circumstance, how can the difficulty involved in questioning an evasive and potentially dangerous al Qaeda operative who has been trained in operational security measures not be one?

To deny the same degree of forbearance to American officials and personnel involved in the war on terror is to imply that irregular combatants forming part of terrorist organizations deserve greater legal protections not only than ordinary prisoners of war, but indeed than ordinary citizens. Such an absurd — and for the United States suicidal — logic could only be embraced by persons who are fundamentally committed to seeing American counter-terrorism efforts fail.

Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is; America's president is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens

Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people

opines Gerald Warner (fist bump to Harrison Colter)

— not even Jimmy Carter.

Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.

That is why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley, Virginia to try to reassure a demoralised CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.

…next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers.

…Talk about playing party politics with national security. … President Pantywaist's recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America's enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans.

Duncan reminds us of John Rosenthal's report about the American MSM's ignoring of Europe's nod to torture if and when deemed necessary, along with what Rosenthal calls the MSM's (and the Democrats') absurd — and suicidal — logic…

One may well wonder whether the accusers of Donald Rumsfeld and other Pentagon officials would be prepared to acknowledge “massively extenuating circumstances” in their cases [the wording of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the Frankfurt police's response to a suspect in the kidnapping of a German child]. But if the desire to save the life of an eleven-year-old boy is an extenuating circumstance [for the German police force and for the European authorities], how can the desire to prevent a follow-on attack to 9/11 and to save potentially thousands of innocent lives not be one? And if the difficulty involved in questioning a wily and arrogant 27-year-old student who has been “trained in law” [Magnus Gäfgen] is an extenuating circumstance, how can the difficulty involved in questioning an evasive and potentially dangerous al Qaeda operative who has been trained in operational security measures not be one?

To deny the same degree of forbearance to American officials and personnel involved in the war on terror is to imply that irregular combatants forming part of terrorist organizations deserve greater legal protections not only than ordinary prisoners of war, but indeed than ordinary citizens. Such an absurd — and for the United States suicidal — logic could only be embraced by persons who are fundamentally committed to seeing American counter-terrorism efforts fail.