In the Wall Street Journal, William McGurn takes a look at the way the media has covered David Addington and Omar Khadr.
Khadr, a Canadaian who went through weapons training at an al Qaeda training camp, was captured in 2002 after a battle in which he is alleged to have killed a Special Forces medic (Army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer) and is currently awaiting trial before a military commission, is portrayed as a victim in the media on both sides of the US-Canada border. One card being played is that Khadr was a minor at the time, though Canada itself permits adult sentencing for minors accused of murder. The other major point is that Khadr was subjected to sleep deprivation, though Canadian investigators found that Khadr did not appear to have been affected by it.ÂÂ
In contrast, Addington, a chief of staff to Vice Pres. Cheney is treated as a villain. On this point, I recall that Andrew Sullivan publicly predicted Addington will be indicted for war crimes — and that was before Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) joked during a recent Congressional hearing that he was sure al Qaeda was watching — and was “glad they finally have the chance to see you.”
McGurn notes:
In his own book, Jack Goldsmith — former head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and perhaps David’s greatest critic — put it this way: “Our sharp disagreement over the requirements of national security law and the meaning of the imponderable phrases of the U.S. Constitution was not a fight between one who loves the Constitution and one who wants to shred it.” Mr. Goldsmith went on to say that “whether and how aggressively to check the terrorist threat, and whether and how far to push the law in so doing, are rarely obvious” — and that for all their fights, David is a man is who acted “in good faith” to serve his country.
Would Goldsmith say that the Sullivans, Delahunts and Khadr apologists are acting “in good faith”? Maybe, but YMMV.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
Yeah. Speer on the other hand was subjected to life deprivation, which seems to have affected him.
Joked?
Perhaps none of those among us will ever be able to give a high confidence rating as pertains to the probabilities of our being able to ascertain Rep. Delahunt and his intending, or not intending, to “joke,” when calling attention to the flesh and blood images of Addington.
Contrary to what some intentionalists might think, but probably not I hope, I think there is a seperate issue here.
Should Karl assume the Rep. was “joking?”
Oh, I think he was joking, precisely because he is of a certain mindset that does not take certain things seriously.
I bet a post by Jeff would get some action, Karl. *sigh*
“war crimes”
I fart on your leg. WAR CRIMES is the black man in Rhodesia!!!!
Karl,
I assume you think Rep. Delahunt was joking.
That assumption (yours, not mine) is questionable, and it’s politically expedient for those who can to espouse why that assumption is questionable.
I can’t espouse for many reasons, and nevertheless anything I might think that is damaging to Rep. Delahunt wouldn’t be pragmatic.
I’m impotent.
Yet some aren’t.
For the record, if I’m not mistakin’, I could have used the phrase “as it were” in my previous comments (therefore giving me instagravitasmaximus), and in defference to those who pay the bills and spell thw words Wright, I acceede that instatoss to your bandwidth.
The irony is that not all of the Khadr clan, are beyond redemption, Abdullah of the Omar’s brothers, did cooperate with the authorities at Gitmo, and even helped infiltrate foreign elements
in Bosnia. Of course, that probably makes him a ‘traitor’ in the eyes of some of the most right-thinking Canadians. But the points still stands;
the member of Canadian nationals of Egyptian origin have cultivated jihad as a family pass time.
Of course, Jane Mayer’s profile of Addington, which was curiouslypublished
within a week or so, of one of these insane S.C. decisions on military tribunals, paints him as the younger brother of Albert Finney’s Mad CIA bureacrat in the Bourne films. She follows the Kuwaiti/Quatari public relations campaign ‘talking points’
almost as if she wrote them themselves
EasyLiving1,
In truth, I claim no psychic ability. But I think it likely that Delahunt lacks the moral sense to have comprehended the actual meaning of what he said until there was an uproar, mostly because I suspect he really does not take the war seriously beyond whatever partisan points he thinks he can score with it. I think he originally thought he was being “clever,” then went to “joke” when he found out few thought it clever at all. It’s really what I’m getting at the end of the original post.
SO the left wants to have an American tortured, most likely beheaded, but does NOT want ANY form of hard interrogation used whatsoever with known insane terrorists.
As Hitch has said, they aren’t anti-war, but pro-war for the other side.
Fantastic Karl.
It’s so rare to engage.
I would think it important for those who can to attack the wanton blood lust of congressman.
Until there is a way for intelligent people to discern the diference between a “joke” and “wanton blood lust,” it appears we might be at a crossroads.
Excuse me.
Seemingly.
Thank you.
Khadr is a victim? A frightened boy?? Arab,please.
He’s running for office in Canada, using a picture of himself holding a pair of severed hands in his election poster:
http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2008-07-17-0000/
NO! Khadr isn’t running for office up here!! That poster is S-A-T-I-R-E. (For now…)
Here’s a great column by Michael Coren about the Khadr mess:
http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/:entry:fivefeet-2008-07-20-0002/
I would have popped his little jihadi ass after he killed my sergeant, but that’s just me.
[…] I probably notice it coming more from the liberal end, but it really is getting out of control. Karl at Protein Wisdom made the same point earlier this week. Another example, in the top 10 of Digg this morning, the […]