Losing their heads over Gitmo
By Ann Coulter

I guess Bush should have backed Katherine Harris, after all. Sen. Mel Martinez, the Senate candidate Bush backed instead of Harris, has become the first Republican to call for shutting down Guantanamo. Martinez hasn't said where the 500 or so suspected al-Qaida operatives currently at Gitmo should be transferred to, but I understand the Neverland Ranch might soon be available.

Maybe Sen. Arlen Specter – the liberal Republican Bush backed instead of conservative Pat Toomey, which still didn't help Bush in Pennsylvania – will step forward to defend the Bush administration. That Karl Rove is a genius.

Martinez explained his nonsensical call for the closing of Guantanamo by asking: "Is it serving all the purposes you thought it would serve when initially you began it, or can this be done some other way a little better?"

There are Arabs locked up at Guantanamo, no? Admittedly, not enough. (And not under what any frequent flier would describe as "harsh conditions.") Still and all, Arabs are locked up there. That is what we call a "purpose."

By becoming a focus of evil for human-rights groups, Martinez suggested, Guantanamo has become a recruiting tool for al-Qaida: "It's become an icon for bad stories," Martinez said, "and at some point you wonder the cost-benefit ratio." (I've been wondering the same thing about Mel Martinez.)

This is preposterous. NBC's "The West Wing" is an icon for bad stories; Gitmo is a place where we keep an eye on evil, dangerous people who want to kill us.

Martinez was borrowing a point from Sen. Joe Biden – which is always a dangerous gambit because you never know who said it originally. The "Biden" version was: "I think more Americans are in jeopardy as a consequence of the perception that exists worldwide with its existence than if there were no Gitmo."

So if people around the world believe that if they try to kill Americans they might go to a bad, scary place called Guantanamo, that will make them more likely to kill Americans? How about doing a cost-benefit ratio on that analysis?

Let's also pause to ponder the image of the middle-of-the-road, "centrist" jihadist who could be "recruited" to jihad by reports about abuse at Guantanamo. You know – the kind of guy who just watches al-Jazeera for the sports and hits the "mute" button whenever they start in about the Jews again, already.

Liberals want us to believe such a person exists and that he is perusing newspaper articles about Guantanamo trying to decide whether to finish his coffee and head off to work or to place a backpack filled with dynamite near a preschool.

Note to liberals: That doesn't happen.

What happens is this: There are thousands of Muslim extremists literally dying to slaughter Americans, and only three proven ways to stop them: (1) Kill them (the recommended method), (2) capture them and keep them locked up, or (3) convince them that their cause is lost. Guantanamo is useless for No. 1, but really pulls ahead on No. 2 and No. 3 (i.e., a "purpose").

Let's just hope aspiring jihadists are not reading past the headlines and discovering that what Amnesty International means by "the gulag of our time" is: No Twinkie rewards for detainees!

That's not a joke. As described in infuriating detail by Heather MacDonald in the Winter, 2005, City Journal, interrogators at Guantanamo are not allowed to:


* yell at the detainees, except in extreme circumstances and only after alerting Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld – and never in the ears;
* serve the detainees cold meals, except in extreme circumstances;
* poke the detainees in the chest or engage in "light pushing" without careful monitoring and approval from the commander of the U.S. Southern Central Command in Miami;
* reward detainees (for example, for not throwing feces at the guards that day) with a Twinkie or a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwich in the absence of express approval from the secretary of defense. (I suppose it goes without saying, "supersizing" their order is strictly forbidden under any circumstances.)

Without careful monitoring, interrogators aren't even allowed to subject the detainees to temperature changes, unpleasant odors or sleep cycle disruptions. But on the bright side, they are allowed to play Christina Aguilera music and feed the savages the same food our soldiers eat rather than their usual orange-glazed chicken. That isn't sarcasm; these are the rules.

No cold meals, sleep deprivation or uncomfortable positions? Obviously, what we need to do is get the U.S. Army to serve drinks on commercial airlines and get the airlines to start supervising the detainees in Guantanamo.

American soldiers make do with C-rations. Dinner on an America West flight from New York to Las Vegas consists of one small bag of peanuts. Meanwhile, one recent menu for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo consisted of orange-glazed chicken, fresh fruit crepe, steamed peas and mushrooms, and rice pilaf. Sounds like the sort of thing you'd get at Windows on the World – if it still existed.

It's about time some Republicans started calling Bush to account for his incoherent policies.

Tancredo Says Patriot Act Must Be Tied To Border Security
10 Congressmen Call on President Bush to Secure our Borders

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) called on President Bush to take specific steps to increase border security as part of the USA PATRIOT Act's renewal. In a letter sent today, Tancredo said that he would have "grave reservations" about supporting the reauthorization of the Patriot Act without increased border security. A total of 10 Congressmen signed the letter.

"Up to this point, I have supported extending all provisions of the Patriot Act," said Tancredo. "But I find it difficult to justify increased anti-terrorism powers when the Bush administration hasn't done enough to stop terrorists from getting here in the first place."

Tancredo's letter outlines several steps that President Bush should take. First, the letter calls for the deployment of military technology and manpower to the border. Second, the letter says the President should fully staff Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Border Patrol as provided by Congress' authorization. Congress authorized an increase of 800 ICE and 2000 Border Patrol agents in December, yet the President's budget only included 143 ICE and 210 Border Patrol agents above the current level.
Third, it asks the President to direct the Department of Homeland Security to enter absconders and illegal aliens into the National Crime Information Database so that police can be aware of immigration violations. Fourth, it calls on the President to require ICE to respond to all state and local requests for immigration enforcement assistance. Finally, it urges the President to direct the Justice Department to take action against local governments that have illegal alien sanctuary policies. President Bush can take all steps outlined in the letter without further action by Congress.
The letter notes, "asking for such advanced tools as roving wiretaps while ignoring basic border security is like asking for the installation of a state-of-the-art video surveillance system in a house without door locks - it simply doesn't make sense. At best, it will improve security only nominally, and at worst it may only serve to lull Americans into a false sense of security."

Tancredo said, "The American people elected President Bush to a second term largely because of the War on Terror. If the President disregards border security, he's disregarding part of his mandate."

From The Washington Post:

Jackson's Biggest Hurdle Will Be Bryant's Ego
By Sally Jenkins

The days of swaggering isolationist stars who pull whole NBA franchises out of shape and into ruin with the tractor beams of their egos may finally be over. If San Antonio and Detroit turn this championship series into something viewable, a good taut thriller, then maybe great teams, teams mind you, can become the chief entertainment of the league again, as opposed to the shallow, Paris Hilton-like celebrity of Kobe Bryant.

The NBA is experiencing a market correction. For the last several years, the league has sold itself as a game of one-on-one, on the backs of large or notorious personalities, and it's paying for it. Ever since Michael Jordan's first retirement in 1993, it's looked for one-man solutions, and turned itself over to individuals at the expense of the game, to an extent that no other league has. Now it's a hostage to it: The Spurs and the Pistons are superb teams but they don't have "branding," and the league can only blame itself for that, and for falling TV ratings. If you care about seeing the game played the right way, do yourself a favor: Turn on the TV, and rescue it.

The Lakers have already made a correction of sorts, by rehiring Phil Jackson. It's interesting that they've brought back Jackson at the very moment that teamwork, as exemplified by the Spurs and Pistons, is the new competitive chic. Jackson's return is a major repudiation of Bryant, and his too-large role with the Lakers. Who knows what Bryant was playing these last couple of years, but it wasn't basketball.

Let's say that you cussed your boss, threw a basketball at his feet, and tried to get him fired. And it worked: He was pushed out. Only, a year later, he's been rehired and is the boss again. I'm thinking that Bryant has lost his leverage. I'm thinking the Lakers will be doing things Jackson's way from now on. I'm thinking the Lakers aren't paying Jackson a reported $30 million to $35 million over three years to undermine his authority again. I'm thinking that Bryant can get on board with that and lose his haughty and insubordinate ways, or he can get out of town. I'm thinking the Lakers could get a point guard and a big man for Bryant.

That's right. I'm thinking a Bryant trade could be the healthiest thing to happen to the Lakers -- and to the league as a whole, if it cures NBA management of its addiction to one-man solutions.

Two smart businessmen, owner Jerry Buss and General Manager Mitch Kupchak, allowed themselves to be sucked into the riptide of Bryant's egocentrism, to such an extent that they ran off arguably the best coach in history, and traded the best big man in the game, Shaquille O'Neal. Without them, Bryant was revealed for what he is, and what he is not. And what he is not, is the next Jordan and the savior of the league or even his team. So now the Lakers have turned back to Jackson.

The funny thing is, of the central figures in the Lakers' saga, Bryant is the guy who has yet to prove that he can win something without Jackson or O'Neal. Jackson has nine championships. All Shaq did this season -- hurt -- was get his team, the Miami Heat, to the conference finals. Bryant and the Lakers, meanwhile, had some bad luck with injuries and the deteriorating health of Rudy Tomjanovich. Alone, Bryant was a solitary scorer making gloriously difficult shots on a 34-48 lottery team.

Lest we forget, the Pistons are coached by a guy, Larry Brown, who had the guts to walk away from another great but ungovernable young player, Allen Iverson. Brown's reward was the 2004 NBA title at the expense of the Lakers, followed by a repeat appearance in this championship series. His team must be a pleasure to coach, between Ben Wallace's selfless dirty work, and the willingness of Chauncey Billups and Rip Hamilton to share.

And then there are the Spurs, so complete, with seemingly indispensable players at all five positions. And whose reserves include Robert Horry, a player who serves as a reminder that the Lakers at their best were never all about Bryant in the first place.

Think back on those three titles the Lakers won in five years, and the funny thing is, you remember the performances of Horry, as well as Derek Fisher and Brian Shaw and Rick Fox, as much as you do those of Bryant. Of course Bryant had some huge games, made some huge shots. But in 2001-2002, Horry was the hero of the playoffs, when he hit that magnificent three-pointer with 2.1 seconds left, to give the Lakers a 92-91 victory at Portland. And who then knocked down another huge three with 0.6 on the clock to give the Lakers a 100-99 win over the Sacramento Kings in Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals. And who got a playoff-career-high 20 rebounds against Sacramento, too.

Horry has five championship rings and is seeking a sixth. And on Tuesday night, Horry surpassed Jordan for first place in career three-pointers in the NBA Finals, with 43. Horry trails only Reggie Miller for the most three-pointers in postseason history.

The Lakers need a few more players like that, the Horrys, the Shaws, the Fishers and Foxes. Jackson himself has said that the Lakers' roster, so lopsided and tilted toward Bryant, "is not appealing." They have too many players at some positions and not enough at others. You think Jackson doesn't remember the value of the Horrys and Fishers? You think he doesn't have the guts or sang-froid to shuck Bryant, if he thinks it's in the interests of better collaboration on the floor?

In all the puzzling over Jackson's motive for returning as head coach, what's forgotten is the competitiveness of the man -- he hates losing and he hasn't done much of it and he can't have liked losing his job. There is iron in him, beneath the juju and the guru stuff. The richness of his contract is surely a factor in his decision to return, but surely another factor is gut satisfaction. You have to wonder if Jackson just couldn't live with the way things ended in L.A. a year ago.

Last year, Bryant was good for ratings -- but he was bad for the Lakers and bad for the game. This year, the Spurs and the Pistons are bad for ratings. But they're good for game. So do the game a favor: Turn on the TV, and rescue it from Kobe Bryant.

From World Net Daily:

Mexico's blind eye
to al-Qaida activity

Intel sources see porous border
posing major terror threat to U.S.

Posted: June 13, 2005

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Al-Qaida "communities," like the one busted in Lodi, Calif., have direct ties to other networks in Mexico and Central America, where jihadi terrorists are not viewed as a local threat, reports Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

"South of the Rio Grande Valley there exists a dire situation," said an intelligence researcher who took part in an academic meeting in west Canada.

Intelligence sources and researchers agree there is hardly any effective cooperation between the Department of Homeland Security and the intelligence establishment of Mexico's President Vicente Fox.

Mexican agencies charged with intelligence and counter-terrorism, such as the Office of Coordination of the Presidency and the Center for Research on National Security, CISEN, do little more than offer half-hearted monitoring of militant Islamic activity, say G2 Bulletin sources.

Mexico is facing a national crisis in dealing with drug lords who are killing elected officials, police chiefs and innocent civilians. Officials there have little interest and fewer resources to devote to law enforcement and intelligence activities that threaten the U.S., not Mexico.

As WND reported last week, Islam is on the move in Mexico and throughout Latin America, making dramatic gains in converting the native population, increasing immigration, establishing businesses and charities and attracting attention from U.S. government officials who have asked their neighbors to the south to keep an eye on foreign Muslim groups.

While Mexico has pledged to monitor these activities on behalf of the U.S., those familiar with the recruitment practices and the Mexican government's oversight say the U.S. has reasons for concern.

For instance, Gen. Jorge Serrano, the head of the Attorney General Office's special terrorism investigation unit, says no Muslim terrorists have been found living in Mexico.

Yet intelligence sources in the U.S. and Canada say Islamic jihadists have been working with zealots in Mexico for more than 20 years. Early activities were sponsored by Iran. Later, the recruitment activities got support from the Egyptian, Pakistani and Saudi embassies. It is known the Egyptians paid the rent for a prayer hall and allocated funds for students who wanted to study at the Islamic al-Azhar University in Cairo. The Pakistanis organized Muslim converts and others to visit madrassas in Pakistan, a golden opportunity offered to the Taliban and al-Qaida to reach a larger pool of recruitment candidates. Saudi funds created a range of activities linked to Hajj or studies in Saudi Arabia where young zealots established contacts with Sufi and Wahabi activists one way or another connected to master terrorist Osama bin Laden.

Mexican authorities revealed in 2002 they knew Spanish Muslim converts of Basque origin were present in Chiapas state preaching the ideas of Islam and jihad as they mingled with local aboriginals. At least in two cases Mexican authorities, unable to determine the whereabouts of Basque Muslims, sent letters to their last known address informing them their stay in the country was illegal. According to a CISEN official, most Basque and Spanish Muslims were linked to the North African-based al-Murabitun World Tzotzil Movement, known for its blend of socialism and Islam. Information on Basque activity in Mexico is regularly collected by the Spanish government, but is not shared with the U.S. by the Mexicans.

Small, sometimes clandestine Islamic clubs in Mexico, usually disguised as cultural groupings, are on the increase. Information on ways to cross the U.S. and Mexican border and where to go, including recommended U.S. states and so-called asylum cities has actually already reached all corners of the jihadi Khalifat world. Some documents found in Pakistan, and more information from Iraq and Lebanon, proves jihadists are aware they are in danger of being detected when they use legitimate ports of entry to the U.S. Therefore they prefer to reach their sympathizers in Mexico and then penetrate the U.S. together with hundreds of thousands of Mexicans, drug lords and gang members.

As one Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer familiar with the situation in Mexico said: "What’s the point of having old ladies remove their shoes at airport security checks, when all it takes to carry a small package of the potent ricin poison into the U.S. is a friendly Mexican jihadist escorting you on a dark moonless night across the porous U.S.-Mexican border."

From The Washington Post:

'It's a Hard Feeling, Not to Be a Violent Man Anymore'
By Michael Wilbon

Midnight came and went, so did 1 o'clock Sunday morning. And Mike Tyson sat in the underbelly of MCI Center almost casually unburdening himself at the end of an extraordinarily bizarre night, even by his standards, one during which we got to see the extended range of Tyson's emotions.

After twice trying to break the arm of Kevin McBride, intentionally swinging his head like a ram in an attempt to crack open his opponent's skull, then quitting on his stool at the end of six rugged and bloody rounds, Tyson was more defeated than he had ever been in 20 years of boxing. And afterward, for 2 1/2 hours beginning at about 10:45 Saturday night, he seemed to rampage through the various states of being that have made Tyson probably the most complex and compelling figure in sports over the last 20 years. Beginning with the opening bell, Tyson went from determined to desperately bloodthirsty to beaten to resigned to remorseful to introspective to philosophical.

He quit on the night, pronounced repeatedly he is quitting boxing for good, then talked about his life with such stunning candor that he convinced a few of us he truly feels he is done forever, such is his disdain for the game that made him the world's first and longest-running reality show.

"I just don't have it in me anymore. . . . My career's over," Tyson said. "It's been over since 1990. "

Asked why it took him so long to get off the canvas and to his corner after a shove from McBride sent him through the ropes at the end of the sixth round, Tyson said: "I didn't want to get up. I was tired. I looked like I was 120 years old. . . . I was like Rip Van Winkle."

When Rock Newman, the promoter for the event, told Tyson at the post-fight news conference that he was going to applaud the former champion for his career achievements and would encourage others to do so as well, the standing ovation was quickly stopped by Tyson himself, who screamed: "No, no, no, no. . . . Sit down. Sit down, please. People have given me enough applause in my life. When I hear B.S., I've got to call it. I'm as hard and as cold as they get."

As always with Tyson, his sycophants were in denial about what had happened. Women at ringside cried as Tyson was being pummeled during the fifth and sixth rounds. Tyson knew he needed to address them, too, to ask in effect that they let go of the long-playing drama and the excuse-making that follows everything from a critical review to a criminal conviction.

"My fans are so sensitive," he said. "Save your tears. You embarrass me when you cry because I don't know what to do or say. Don't cry. . . . When I was younger, I felt life was about acquiring things. But as I get older, I know life is totally about losing everything."

Tyson flashed back to his childhood, when he got a visit from Muhammad Ali, who was attempting to make some kind of positive impression on Tyson, already as troubled as he was talented.

"Smart too late and old too soon," Tyson said of himself. "This is just my ending."

But, of course, it wasn't the end of the evening. He needed to purge, and this was the time and the place. Handlers asked him if he wanted the questions to stop, and Tyson said, no, he wanted to talk until there were no more questions, until all the good anecdotes were exhausted. There were boxing writers present, from the United States and Europe, he has known for years. And like the opponents he often tries to kill one minute and hug the next, Tyson wanted to talk to the people who had been there chronicling his life for 20 years, the ones he had come to despise one month and seek out for conversation the next. The next hour-plus was part confession, part purge. Tyson should have been on his back, on a couch. It must have been cathartic, though who can be entirely certain of anything with Tyson.

He talked about going to Bosnia and Rwanda to help with aid and food for people in need because he wants to do something good with his life but carries too much baggage to ever be truly productive in the United States.

"I may be bizarre sometimes," Tyson said, "but I'm very rational. I know my situation."

While Tyson will be remembered for being a ferocious fighter of great skill when he was young, he never defeated anybody who wasn't afraid of him, who stood up to him and kept fighting back. He couldn't beat Buster Douglas, couldn't beat Evander Holyfield, couldn't beat Lennox Lewis. Now, at 38, his skill and desire have eroded to the point that he can't beat anybody, not even club fighters -- as long as they stand their ground and fight back. Nobody is afraid of him anymore, not even a journeyman such as McBride, whom Tyson said he was going to "gut like a fish."

So the question now is obvious: Will Tyson fight again? The easy answer is, yes, especially because he owes millions in taxes. Even fighters who hang on to their money, such as Sugar Ray Leonard, almost always come back. Of the great ones still bankable, only Marvin Hagler in recent memory has walked away and stayed away. Tyson admitted after the fight that, while his children are wealthy, he is broke.

Tyson said he hasn't been able to adopt the killer frame of mind since he left jail following his rape conviction in 1992, and that he hates the smell of the gym now, whereas he used to love training and sparring. "I just don't have it in me any more," he said. "I can't even kill the bugs in my house. It's a hard feeling, not to be a violent man anymore. . . . I don't know that guy anymore."

But he does have six children, expenses that won't stop, IRS bills piled high. In a few months, after the swelling over his left eye is long gone and the pain and embarrassment from this latest defeat have faded, somebody is going to try to convince Tyson not only that he can fight again, but do so successfully and for a decent payday. And while Tyson, 39 years old soon, is now officially done as a marquee attraction, there is always another pug, another payday, and another round of a brutal, vicious cycle. Yes, he's done, but perhaps not gone

How Liberty Dies: The Patriot Reauthorization Act
by John W. Whitehead

Do our representatives understand how we feel? Or don’t they care? The recent approval by the Senate Intelligence Committee to reauthorize and expand the Patriot Act’s powers leaves one wondering if Congress listens to the American people anymore. Equally worrisome is the fact that the critical discussions and decisions surrounding expansion of the Act are taking place in secret, behind closed doors. What do our government representatives have to hide?

Since the passage of the Patriot Act six weeks after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 378 local and county governments and seven state legislatures representing millions of Americans have passed resolutions or ordinances opposing aspects of the Patriot Act that they believe to be at odds with the United States Constitution. One City Council member from Arcata, Calif., described his town’s ordinance as “a nonviolent preemptive attack” on the federal government’s revision of the Bill of Rights. Yet our government continues to ignore these concerns and push through its own agenda.

At a massive 342 pages, the Patriot Act violates at least six of the ten original amendments known as the Bill of Rights—the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments—and possibly the Thirteenth and Fourteenth as well.

The Patriot Act was rushed through Congress, even though the majority of our representatives admitted to not reading it, reassured perhaps by the inclusion of a five-year sunset provision. But that sun does not seem to be setting on this chilling piece of legislation. Instead, the Senate Intelligence Committee is not only working to make the Patriot Act permanent, but also to expand its reach.

Among some of the widely cited concerns about the Patriot Act are that it redefines terrorism so broadly that many non-terrorist political activities such as protest marches or demonstrations and civil disobedience can be considered a terrorist act; grants the FBI the right to come to your place of employment, demand your personal records and question your supervisors and fellow employees, all without notifying you; allows the government access to your medical records, school records and practically every personal record about you; allows the government to secretly demand to see records of books or magazines you’ve checked out in any public library and Internet sites you’ve visited (at least 545 libraries received such demands in the first year following passage of the Patriot Act); and most egregious of all, it allows the FBI to enter your home through the use of a special warrant, search your personal effects and confiscate your personal property without informing you that they have done so.

Yet despite the many objections to these disturbing provisions within the Patriot Act, the Senate Intelligence Committee has wholeheartedly embraced the Patriot Reauthorization Act (PAREA), which takes government intrusion into the lives of average Americans to a whole new level.

For example, one “administrative authority” provision within PAREA, which would allow the FBI to write and approve its own search orders, represents a direct assault on the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. Yet if Congress acts to approve what critics have termed “carte blanche for a fishing expedition,” the FBI will be in a position to conduct warrantless searches on people without having to show any evidence that they may be involved in criminal activities. This provision would also lift one of the last restrictions on special warrants for the FBI—namely, that the information be related to international terrorism or foreign intelligence.

Yet while government officials insist that the FBI needs additional tools to fight terrorism, a recent report suggests that all the FBI really needs to do is its job. A Justice Department report reveals that the same FBI that wants to do an end-run around our Constitution passed up on at least five chances in the months before 9/11 to locate two terrorist hijackers as they prepared for attacks on our country. The oversights were attributed to communication breakdowns, lack of urgency and bureaucratic obstacles, among other things. “What we found were sufficient deficiencies in the way the FBI handled these issues,” said Inspector General Glenn Fine. In other words, if the FBI and other intelligence agencies had simply done their jobs and followed up on leads, then there wouldn’t have been a need for the Patriot Act—and there certainly wouldn’t be a need for warrantless searches.

While it remains questionable whether the Patriot Act has really succeeded in protecting Americans against future acts of terrorism, these highly controversial additions to the Act will unquestionably succeed in gutting the Fourth Amendment. Of all the protections found in the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment stands as the final barrier between the privacy rights of Americans and the potential for government abuse of power. But if law enforcement officials can search your home and your records without having to go through a judge, then the concept of a man’s home being his castle will become as antiquated as the Model T.

Despite the fact that an increasing number of Americans are voicing their concerns about intrusions on their privacy, President Bush continues to express his support for extending the Patriot Act. One day after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Bush declared, “We will not allow this enemy to win the war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms.” Yet if Congress succeeds in continuing to pass legislation that is at odds with our Constitution, we will have handed a definitive victory to our enemies by allowing unchecked police power to triumph over individual rights and the rule of law in this country. At that point, our government will be no better than the dictatorships we have for so long opposed on principled grounds.

In a Jan. 2003 interview with the Los Angeles Times, constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley remarked, “Since 9/11, the Constitution has gone from an objective to be satisfied to an obstacle to national defense. . . As these changes mount, at what point do we become something other than a free and democratic nation?” Americans would do well to heed the warning behind Turley’s words: with every piece of Patriot Act-type legislation that Congress passes, our basic constitutional protections are being undermined and we are, indeed, moving further away from being a free and democratic nation.

To quote a recent editorial, “Is this how liberty dies?” For the sake of this great nation, I hope not.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute and author of the award-winning Grasping for the Wind. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.

A blast from National Review past. Especially appropriate with all the news lately about Tom Cruise.

Scientology Chic
The bizarro force behind Tom and Nicole’s split.

By Andrew Stuttaford
 
So, was the kooky cult to blame? We will likely never know what went wrong between Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, but a recent article in the New York Post suggests that Tom Cruise's Scientology was a big part of the problem. Apparently, Ms. Kidman is disenchanted with the controversial religion, and does not want her children to be reared in it.

All this has subsequently been denied, but if it is true, who would blame her? Even if one ignores the number of fairly sinister stories told about Scientology, some of its precepts reflect the sort of ideas that put it squarely in the lunatic fringe. Founded half a century ago by pulp writer L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology's roots lie in a mixture of junkyard sci-fi and bargain-basement psychoanalysis. Not too bargain basement, mind you. Unlike most faiths, Scientology charges admission. To progress ever closer to enlightenment, devotees pay to go through a series of sessions that are part confessional, part therapy. These encounters are designed to reveal (and remove) past traumas called "engrams" (don't ask) and are helped along by the use of an electro-psychometer ("E-Meter" to the cognoscenti), a specially designed instrument which can supposedly locate areas of spiritual distress or travail. This is part of a process known as "auditing," the real reason, perhaps, that the IRS chose in 1993 to recognize Scientology as a religion.

It is difficult not to laugh. Scientology, after all, is an easy target — with its oddball technology, goofy jargon, and, reportedly, a secret creation myth that revolves around the activities of the wicked intergalactic ruler, Xenu. Now, many religions include a bizarre legend or two, and we probably should not worry too much about the Xenu saga. After all, it has, apparently, been 75 million years since the old boy was last seen, and he does not seem to figure prominently in the lives of most Scientologists. Nevertheless, if there really is such a tale, it is yet another reminder that the intellectual origins of this creed appear to be, well, a little flaky.

Scientologists, of course, should be free to believe whatever they want, but it does not say a lot for the state of this nation's critical faculties that their philosophy has won as much acceptance as it has. Given some of Hubbard's teachings, you would expect his followers to be a little embarrassed, a little low key, content, perhaps, to twiddle their E-meters in some tumble-down Appalachian shack.

But the reverse is true. Scientology is rich, increasingly prominent, and unashamedly proselytizing. Check out its websites and you will see all the good things that Scientology claims it can do both for society, and for you. It is a message of enlightened self-interest, typical of our age, and it uses the jazzy marketing techniques of the PowerPoint era, statistics, graphs, and charts. Scientologists, they reveal, are prone to marriage, but not to auto accidents. Half do not drink, more than two-thirds read more than five books a year, and 39 percent work out every day. Scientology can even boast celebrity support. Travolta! Cruise! Kirstie Alley! The voice of Bart Simpson!

In part, this success reflects the group's indubitable organizational skills, and its willingness to defend itself through aggressive litigation. It is also the case, however, that the growth of Scientology, and many other such philosophies, is an almost inevitable byproduct of a society that, over the years, has lost the art of religious argument, reasoning, and debate — and the ability or the inclination to resist the blandishments of our zanier sects.

Ask most Americans, and they will tell you about their respect for the spiritual, but it is a sloppy and uninformed devotion, a pastiche piety with no intellectual force behind it, more Hallmark than holy, the perfect background for a new cult recruit. Ironically, Nicole Kidman herself provided an example of this mindset in a 1998 interview with Newsweek. Asked about her religious beliefs, the actress replied, "there is a little Buddhism, a little Scientology. I was raised Catholic, and a big part of me is still a Catholic girl."

Hand in hand with such an attitude is an unwillingness to debate the religious beliefs of others. Such debate is now believed to be insensitive at best, bigoted and hateful at worst. These days everyone is meant to be a little bit Buddhist, Catholic, Scientologist , whatever. A sappy ecumenicism is now America's civic religion, and it appears to include just about everyone (other, interestingly, than atheists and agnostics). We are taught that such supposedly inclusive tolerance is the hallmark of a tolerant society, when, in fact, it is precisely the opposite. True religious tolerance is the acceptance of the right of others to follow a different creed. In our ersatz, contemporary version, however, it is denied that there are any different creeds. Instead, we are encouraged to think that all religions are basically the same, just different routes to the same transcendental Truth.

In the name of "diversity," we try to erase difference. When it comes to religious belief, this is a country chary of controversy and anxious about argument. In the interest of fraudulent civility and soi-disant "respect" we have removed the right of the religious to disagree with each other. On the face of it, traditional religious distinctions remain, but all too often they have been trivialized and shrunk down to the superficial, reduced to a matter of folklore or ethnic heritage, nothing more consequential, say, than a choice of headgear: Yarmulke, or turban?

This is a mistake. Old-style rigorous religious debate was bruising, tough, and frequently impolite, but it served a function. Homo Sapiens is a credulous creature, ready to believe just about anything, but, fortunately, he has an innate love of argument. Controversy sharpened our great faiths and pushed them, however painfully, towards some form of intellectual coherence. More than that, it acted as a filter for the worst of the nonsense that people would otherwise be tempted to accept. Now that filter has disappeared. The more established religions are gutted, sunk into PC blandness, or, ironically, introspective fundamentalism. In their intellectual retreat they have left behind a spiritual landscape in which anything goes.

The Scientologists are not the only ones to have seized this opportunity. We are becoming a nation of nitwit necromancers, idiot Astrologers, and suburban shamans. Others prefer to fool around with crystals, commune with UFOs, or worship the Earth.

And that is their right, but we should not be afraid to say that it is also their mistake. Somehow I suspect that, these days, Nicole Kidman might just agree.

Quran desecration crock a win for Jihad spin docs
By Mark Steyn

Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's kleptocrat strongman, destroyed a mosque the other day. It was in Hatcliffe Extension, a shantytown on the edge of Harare razed by the "police." Mugabe is an equal-opportunity razer: He also bulldozed a Catholic-run AIDS center. The government destroyed the town in order to drive the locals out into the countryside to live on the land stolen from white farmers. Quite how that's meant to benefit any of the parties involved or the broader needs of Zimbabwe is beyond me, but then I'm no expert in Afro-Marxist economic theory.


The point is the world's Muslims seem entirely cool with Infidel Bob razing a mosque. Unlike the fallout over Newsweek's fraudulent story about the Quran being flushed down a toilet, no excitable young men went bananas in Pakistan; no western progressives berated Mugabe for his "cultural insensitivity." And sadly most of the big shot Muslim spokespersons were still too busy flaying the Bush administration to whip their subjects into a frenzy over Hatcliffe Extension's pile of Islamic rubble.

Last week, Ambassador Atta el-Manan Bakhit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference called on Washington to show "no leniency" to the "perpetrators" of "this despicable crime." "This disgraceful conduct of those soldiers reveal their blatant hatred and disdain for the religion of millions of Muslims all over the world," said His Excellency. The Egyptian foreign minister was also in a tizzy. "We denounce in the strongest possible terms what the Pentagon confirmed about the desecration of the Qu'ran," said Ahmed Aboul Gheit, calling for strong measures, heads to roll, etc.

And what was it the Pentagon "confirmed"? That since Gitmo became the global center of U.S. Quran Desecration operations, there have been five verifiable instances of official minor "disrespect" for the holy book, three of which may have been intentional, which averages out at one incident per year. The same report also turned up 15 documented instances of "disrespect" by Muslim detainees. "These included using a Quran as a pillow, ripping pages out of the Quran, attempting to flush a Quran down the toilet and urinating on the Quran."

When three times as many detainees "desecrate" the Koran as U.S. guards do, it seems clear that the whole Operation Desecration ballyhoo is yet another media crock and the Organization of the Islamic Conference and all the rest are complaining about nothing. Or is Quran desecration one of those things like Jews telling Jewish jokes or gangsta rappers recording numbers like "Strictly 4 My Niggaz"? Are only devout Muslims allowed to desecrate the Quran? No doubt that's why the Egyptian foreign minister and company had no comment on the recent suicide bombing at a mosque in Kandahar, which killed 20, wounded more than 50 and presumably desecrated every Quran in the building.

Yet, as is often the way, the Muslim world's whiny spokespersons have been effortlessly topped by the old hands of the anti-American left. Thus, according to Amnesty International, Gitmo is the "gulag of our time."

Well then, these are diminished times for gulags. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, some 15 million to 30 million prisoners died in the Soviet gulags. By comparison, Guantanamo at its peak held 750 prisoners; currently, there are 520; none have died in captivity, and, as I wrote 3-1/2 years ago, it has the distinction of being "a camp where the medical staff outnumber the prisoners." You'll get swifter, cleaner and more efficient treatment than most Canadians do under socialized health care. It's the only gulag in history where the detainees leave in better health and weighing more than when they arrive. This means they're in much better shape when they get back to their hectic schedule of killing infidels: Of the more than 200 who've been released, around 5 percent -- that's to say, 12 -- have since been recaptured on the battlefield.

Why would an organization in the human rights business want to trivialize the murder of millions in totalitarian death camps by comparing them with a non-death camp that flatters every aspect of the inmates' culture? If Gitmo's a gulag, what words are left for the systemic rape being practiced by the butchers of Darfur? Or is it because they've so exhausted the extremes of their vocabulary on Guantanamo that the world's progressives have so little to say about real horrors like Sudan?

No serious allegation of torture at the camp has been substantiated, and in the al-Qaida training manual found in Manchester, England, a couple of years back Rule 18 couldn't be more explicit: When held captive by the infidel, members must "complain to the court of mistreatment while in prison" and say that "torture was inflicted on them." A healthy skepticism would thus seem to be advisable. Instead, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times runs around shrieking like a hysterical ninny that Washington needs to shut down Guantanamo right now -- not because of anything that actually occurred there -- but because of negative "perceptions" of the camp in the overseas press.

And would caving in to those negative perceptions lead to any better press? Nobody got killed in Gitmo, so instead America's being flayed as the planet's No. 1 torturer for being insufficiently respectful to the holy book of its prisoners, even though the Americans themselves supplied their prisoners with the holy book, even though Americans who fall into the hands of the other side get their heads hacked off, even though the prisoners' co-religionists themselves blow up more mosques and Qurans than the Pentagon ever does, even though the preferred holy book of most Americans is banned in the home country of many of the prisoners, where respect for other faiths is summed up in the headline, "Seven Christians Released In Saudi Arabia On Condition They Renounce Private Religious Practice."

That was in the British Catholic newspaper, the Universe, last week, by the way. Sadly, no U.S. newspaper found room for the story due to pressures of space caused by all the "Al-Qaida Press Secretary Denounces Insufficient Respect For Koran By Rumsfeld" front page splashes. But sure, go ahead, close Gitmo and wait for the rave reviews from the media -- right after the complaints that it's culturally insensitive to rebuild the World Trade Center when it's the burial site of 10 revered Muslim martyrs.

Guantanamo will be remembered not as a byword for torture but for self-torture, a Western fetish the jihad's spin doctors understand all too well.