And so abuse and torture are entirely dependent, we are told, on the apparent motives of the abusers and torturers. But torture is actually defined in the law as an illegal tool devised not for sadism’s sake but as a means to extract information. And notice the extremely slippery slope. We no longer have torture as an extreme last resort in the face of a ticking time-bomb; we have authorized it simply “to prevent a threatened terrorist attack.” That means any time anywhere by anyone authorized by the government after 9/11, no? And if a foreign government were to use such a standard? What do we say then?

Not only do such practices stand in stark defiance of the values we espouse in this war, but they ultimately prove counterproductive in a war that transcends bullets and bombs.  If we’re to fight a war on ideology–one chock-full of caliphates, Jihads and insurgents–than we need to remember that maintaining our own ideals is part of such a war.  When pressed on closing Guantanamo, or the extreme (if not illegal) tactics being used by Americans there, the Right often responds incredulously.  To them, this unacceptable measure would be like the offering of quarter to those who’d likely deny us the very same.    

And I think that’s precisely the idea.

I’ve addressed this before, and it’s worth revisiting: What we’re seeing is a confusion between tactics and challenges.  If we intend to chase every band of “extremists” lurking in caves and spider holes around the world, we’ll get nowhere.  It would be like treating cancer with aspirin.  If you can’t even say who the enemy is, than how do you target the states and other actors that are bankrolling these people?

This is yet another departure from the Bush Doctrine, if such a thing every truly existed.

However, the collective clamor over the issue from the far Left reveals a lot more about the Arizona senator’s critics than it does of him.  Their childish insistence that Sunni and Shi’a never associate with each other, or that this somehow diminishes McCain’s leadership ability, is absurd (and as an aside, it takes a lot of chutzpa, one would think, for Josh Marshall to get all flustered over Iranian gaffes.  Journalist, heal thyself).  It might be helpful if the Leftists took some deep breaths, calmed themselves down and maybe examined some of the evidence.  As Ed Morrissey pointed out yesterday, there is reason to believe that Iran has divvied out support across religious and ethnic lines in Iraq.  While the republic’s first obligation is to Shi’a Islam, the old saying about “the enemy of my enemy” holds true in their case.  The 9/11 Commission couldn’t dismiss ties between Tehran and Bin Laden in the Khobar Towers bombing; the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) movement–a Sunni offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood–is now heavily funded by Shi’a Hezbollah and Iran.   

Sunnis and Shias aren’t the neat little college syllabus categories that Leftists make them out to be, and it reveals nothing but ignorance and willful naivety when they harp on John McCain’s slip of the tongue.  It says a lot more about their acumen than his.

UPDATE: So the drum beats on today.  As an other aside point, I’m sort of saddened that there is basically no difference between the rhetoric of some random Lefty blogger and the official mouthpiece of the Democratic Party.  I realize that we’re in the midst of a campaign, and that you need to take your shots where you can, but I guess I had hoped for better from the party apparatus.

McCain appears to be sticking with the argument, although rather loosely.  This doesn’t strike me as a very intelligent political maneuver, however the facts remain the same–Iran has financed, and continues to finance, Sunni insurgents all throughout the region.  To act with feigned outrage over such an assertion proves that certain Leftists are more interested in political points than they are in reality.                         

Eteraz believes we have the wrong idea, and the second piece in his series on The Islamic Reformation explains why we should be leery of more fundamentalism couched in the rhetoric of reform. He hints at some alternatives:

While there has been some attempt by the Salafis – such as Tariq Ramadan and Salman al-Audah, Bin Laden’s former (now repentant) mentor – to contain the excesses of this "total" Wahhabism, they have proven unable to do so. Not only that, but the best that even the moderate wing of the Salafi organisations like the Muslim Brotherhood can do is turn a jihadist into an Islamist – ie someone who wants to have the power to veto all legislation under the authority of a certain kind of Sharia.

That simply won’t do. Not when Islamist organisations (except for the anomalous one in Turkey) have exhibited no compatibility with international human rights norms or dominance-free communication or for that matter learning pluralism.

So now that we know how extremists came to dominate Muslim dissent (and Salafism failed to check it) what are we to do about it? Three things.

First, reject all juvenile calls for so-called reformations.

Second, consider the necessity of a Sunni Pope.

Third, consider the possibility of a liberal literalism (a sort of ideological inverse of extremist literalism).

You can read the first part here, and check out Ali’s blog here.

(Cross posted at RCBlogs)

Pope Benedict XVI has no doubt invited more death threats and sanctimonious outrage upon himself following comments made on Thursday about the oppressive nature of political Islam:

Benedict XVI attacked Muslim nations where Christians are either persecuted or given the status of second-class citizens under the Shariah Islamic law.

He also defended the rights of Muslims to convert to Christianity, an act which warrants the death penalty in many Islamic countries.

His comments came almost exactly a year after he provoked a wave of anger among Muslims by quoting a Byzantine emperor who linked Islam to violence.

Yesterday, near Rome, the 80-year-old pontiff made a speech in “defence of religious liberty”, which, he said “is a fundamental, irrepressible, inalienable and inviolable right”.

In a clear reference to Islam, he said: “The exercise of this freedom also includes the right to change religion, which should be guaranteed not only legally, but also in daily practice.”

His Holiness went on to condemn acts of terrorism as a means of religious compulsion in Islamic countries, and specifically cited the persecution of Christians in Iraq as a point of concern.  I applaud Benedict for these comments, although Christians living under the oppressive wardship of these Islamic states will likely receive the ire and outrage as a result of them.  Furthermore, while it’s nice that he stood up for Christian minorities living in Muslim countries, his case would’ve been stronger had he spoken on behalf of all religious minorities in these places.  One example is the Bahai’s of Iran, whose state codified persecution is a constant cause for concern in the Islamic Republic.

Recently, I had a disagreement with Jeb Koogler of Foreign Policy Watch over whether or not we in the West should be concerned about handing the reigns of democracy over to Islamic extremists.  Point being, at least as it applies to the Pope’s comments, is that any country that claims to be a democracy while officially persecuting religious minorities is built on a poor legal foundation.  If I read the Pope correctly, he is acknowledging what has become an obvious fact–the best system of government for any person of faith is secular.  Go to Dearborn, MI, or perhaps Kiryas Joel, NY, and you’ll learn that liberal societies with a distinct, constitutional separation of church and state allows for all its citizens to practice their faith freely and proudly.

The problem we face however is the ambiguity between state and religion throughout the Muslim world.  Such a separation does not truly exist in Islam, and the application of state power over the faithful has almost always been a facet of the religion.  If there is any hope for Islamic democracy, it must be premised on government that is free from Islam.

Others blogging on this:       

Charles Johnson, LGF: “Our 10-day forecast: extended seething, with a 70% chance of rioting and murder by next Friday.”

Gateway Pundit, Captain Ed and Atlas Shrugs are also covering this.

(Cross posted at The Van Der Galien Gazette)

When put in positions of power, most Islamist parties have pursued an agenda of expanding political freedoms, increasing judicial power, and establishing stronger human rights laws. Put simply, they’ve worked to strengthen democracy, not undermine it. The two most clear examples of this are in Egypt and Turkey. In Egypt, when the Brotherhood won around 20% of the seats in parliament in 2005, they began a major push that, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, centered around achieving “genuine political reform in Egypt.” Indeed, rather than trying to establish themselves permanently in positions of power, or attempting to create a hard-line authoritarian state, Brotherhood parliamentarians have in the past few years worked to build up democratic institutions and establish human rights norms in Egypt. In Turkey, when the AKP party won big in 2002, they didn’t overthrow democracy either. On the contrary, they have generally worked to strengthen democratic institutions, and have actually made major inroads on expanding civil rights for women and Kurds.

To some extent, I agree here with Jeb.  I think it’s true that you’ll see Islamists move to use democratic institutions in order to gain power; however I must take issue with his three examples of ideal, Islamic democracy.

Jordan is in fact a constitutional monarchy, wherein the king can veto laws and dissolve the courts as he sees fit.  The legislature can overturn his veto with a 2/3 vote, however the executive maintains stewardship over the constitutional foundation of the country.  Same goes for Egypt, where Mubarak has “governed” for over twenty-five years.  The elections of 2005 were marred by controversy, and human rights groups like Amnesty International and HRW have repeatedly condemned Mubarak’s regime for stifling unrest and demonstration, which often stems from the Islamists.

Michael is far more qualified than I to speak on Turkey, but to my knowledge, Turkey has a longstanding legal foundation based on a mostly secular style of law and government.  This is why the recent elections have caused some unease throughout the country, fearing a reversion to a pre-Ataturk society.

In all three cases, you have a state apparatus protecting the foundation of a predominantly secular government, vis-a-vis coercion or law.  In other words, the Islamists are allowed to participate, while kept at an arm’s length.  Perhaps with good reason–a better example of truly Islamic “democracy” is probably the Gaza Strip, where spoon fed elections created an anarchic scenario in which the majority party’s armed wing imposed total control over its own government.

Peter Viereck once said, while writing on the conservatism of Count Joseph de Maistre, that constitutional institutions were ”rooted in hearts, not handwriting.”  The three examples provided by Jeb have in fact relied on the state in some capacity to keep the Islamists at bay, lest they be allowed to blur the lines between Qur’an and state.

(Cross posted at The Van Der Galien Gazette)

I meant to reply earlier to Michael’s post from this morning on the perils of Islamic reformation.  In response to this WaPo piece by Diana Muir, Michael had the following to add:

Those who say that the reformation brought science and progress are, thus argues Mrs. Muir mistaken: as Ed Morrissey explains – it was the Enlightenment which accomplished that, not the reformation.

When we look at the above quotes, and read Muir’s article, one thing becomes clear: the reformation is already going on in the Islamic world. In fact, it is one of the main causes for the present Islamic violence.

What the Islamic world needs, both convincingly explain, is not a reformation, but an enlightenment.

This is, by the way, what most European experts such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali say as well. They talk about the need for an Enlightenment: Ayaan often said “give us our own Voltaire!” She did not say “give us our own Luther!”

And for a good reason.

Maybe this is all semantical, but I think this argument is backwards.  Yes, the Protestant Reformation was bloody, but as Michael notes above, we’re already seeing the results of sectarian disdain and religious division in the Muslim world.

Also, I think some are missing the point when people talk about the concept of “reformation.”  It wasn’t necessarily Luther’s literalism that changed the world, but rather, the use of the printing press and the “Gutenberg Revolution” that changed the face of Christianity.  For the first time, Christians could actually read the Bible in their native language, and not have their faith dictated to them by a monolithic Church.  This conflict, which led to blood and violence for many reasons, was mainly about access and the democratization of the faith.  Protestantism promoted the literal word, because it had been assumed that Christianity had lost its way at the hands of Rome.

The dissemination of print led to the devolution of control over time.  The reason this parallel doesn’t have a nice fit is that the notion of a distinct “Church and State” is a very Judeo-Christian one.  The “Church” is the product of a movement once outside of government.  This distinction has never truly been made in Islam, which can be seen even today throughout much of the Middle East.

So, I think reform is the right idea.  There are already plenty of moderate and “enlightened” Muslims around the world, and the Qur’an already promotes concepts of independence and enlightenment, such as Ijtihad.  There are mystical sects of Islam, such as Sufism, that buck much of the conventional orthodoxy.

The problem is that the extremists control the state power, in addition to the means to disseminate the teachings of the religion (see Saudi Arabia).  Wahhabism is a fairly recent and modern bastardization of a faith that has already produced science, art and culture.  We’ve seen enlightenment and silent moderatism, but what Islam needs today is reform.  Or as Irshad Manji puts it:

“Moderate Muslims denounce terror that’s committed in the name of Islam but they deny that religion has anything to do with it.  Reform-minded Muslims denounce terror that’s committed in the name of Islam and acknowledge that our religion is used to inspire it.”

The danger for all of us is believing that just because we are who we are, we cannot be vulnerable to the same temptations and the same evil as those of another faith or culture. We can be. Christianism is nowhere near as dangerous a force in the world as Islamism – nowhere near. But Christianity, history teaches us, is not immune to the totalist logic, political extremism, murderous violence and fundamentalist certainty that fuels the Islamist enemy. Vigilance is the key. There is no inherent virtue in either being a Christian or an American. We are all human and subject to the same pathologies. When we see them emerge here, we should not balk at pointing them out, and highlighting the dangers of complacency.

Well, sure.  But I think Andrew is missing an important point here, one that distinguishes Islamic extremism from this example he cites.  While Christianity certainly isn’t immune from totalitarian logic, history has shown a Christian propensity to distinguish the responsibility of the state and the role of the Christian citizen.  Separation of Church and State, as Middle Eastern historians like Bernard Lewis have argued, is an inherently Christian concept. 

This distinction doesn’t truly exist in Islam.  Whether it be the social services of Hamas (which are consistent with the Waqf of older Islamic societies), or the Mullah-monitored democracy in Iran, the lines between state and faith are actually rather gray. 

So while we should take note of this blatant act of lunacy, we should be careful not to compare it to the state sponsorship of such lunacy (a distinction even Andrew acknowledges in his post).  Radical Muslims will always hate Western culture and Liberal society.  We can’t necessarily change that.  But we can focus on their enablers and financiers, which makes this tragic example of Christian terror less relevant. 

But Ellison’s latest comments, carefully crafted so not to sound entirely unhinged, have sort of ruined the honeymoon for me.  Comparing the attacks on 9/11 to the 1933 burning of the German Reichstag not only implies nefarious coercion behind the terrible attacks on that day, but it also plays up the same old Bush=Hitler nonsense that even the worst equivocator would hesitate to conjure.

Ellison was of course careful enough to qualify his statement, not by recanting such a silly argument, but instead seemingly lamenting the strategic folly in it.  According to Keith, you can’t draw these parallels, because "you know, that’s how they put you in the nut-ball box – dismiss you".

That’s right, rather than marginalizing yourself via stupidity, blame the people who would rightly call you out on it.  This is a daffy argument, and it’s terribly disappointing.  The other irony is the audience–a gathering of 300 Minnesota atheists.  Ellison sanctimoniously declared that the audience would "always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists all you want."  As if the lone Muslim in Congress, serving a very Liberal district, had any other choice. 

AJ is all over this, and wonders whether or not Ellison will get the David Dukes treatment from the Democratic Party.  While I don’t think Ellison deserves that kind of ostracizing just yet, I think it’s up to Democrats to call a moratorium on stupid analogies.  Can we get a House Whip to reign in on this guy, please?