Human Rights Watch: Torture Deliberate US Policy

From Kenneth Roth's introduction to Human Rights Watch's 2005 Annual Report:

President Bush continued to offer deceptive reassurance that the United States does not “torture” suspects, but that reassurance rang hollow. To begin with, the administration’s understanding of the term “torture” remained unclear. The United Nations’ widely ratified Convention against Torture defines the term as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person.” Yet as of August 2002, the administration had defined torture as nothing short of pain “equivalent…to that…associated with serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure, or permanent damage resulting in a loss of significant body function will likely result.” In December 2004, the administration repudiated this absurdly narrow definition, but it offered no alternative definition.

The classic forms of torture that the administration continued to defend suggested that its definition remained inadequate. In March 2005, Porter Goss, the CIA director, justified water-boarding, a sanitized term for an age-old, terrifying torture technique in which the victim is made to believe that he is about to drown. The CIA reportedly instituted water-boarding beginning in March 2002 as one of six “enhanced interrogation techniques” for selected terrorist suspects. In testimony before the U.S. Senate in August 2005, the former deputy White House counsel, Timothy Flanigan, would not even rule out using mock executions.

Moreover, President Bush’s pronouncements on torture continued to studiously avoid mention of the parallel prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. That is because, in a policy first pronounced publicly by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in January 2005 Senate testimony, the Bush administration began claiming the power, as noted above, to use cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment so long as the victim was a non-American held outside the United States. Other governments obviously subject detainees to such treatment or worse, but they do so clandestinely. The Bush administration is the only government in the world known to claim this power openly, as a matter of official policy, and to pretend that it is lawful.

Here's the introduction's topic links:

Introduction

Torture and Inhumane Treatment: A Deliberate U.S. Policy

A Compromised U.S. Defense of Human Rights

British Complicity with Torture

Canada’s Ambivalent Position

Detention

Counterterrorism as an Excuse for Silence

The European Union

The Nefarious Role of Russia and China

Darfur and the African Union

International Justice

The United Nations

Conclusion

Notice anything missing?

I'll clue you in: There is no chapter heading devoted to threats to human rights from Arab or Islamic countries, organizations, or terrorist groups. While I agree the US should stop torturing prisoners, it is clear from the emphasis of this Human Rights Watch report that the authors believe human rights are under greater threat from the US, UK, Canada, the EU, Russia, and China than from Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

HRW's manifest priorities undercut the historic struggle for progress in human rights, just as George Bush's defense of torture does, by missing the real threat to human rights today--the organizations, religious leaders, and countries that don't even pay lip service to Enlightenment principles underlying the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

What Roth is doing rhetorically in his introduction, it seems to me, is a bit like criticizing President Lincoln for abolishing Habeus Corpus during the Civil War--and not mentioning a threat from Southern Slavery or the firing on Ft. Sumter. After all, John Wilkes' Booth shouted 'Sic Semper Tyrannis!' after shooting Lincoln. Was Booth a 'terrorist,' or a 'freedom fighter,' driven to rebellion by Lincoln's repressive rule?

Think carefully...

More on London's Abu Hamza Trial

Here's the latest story from London's Telegraph, about incitement to suicide bombings directed at tourists:

Abu Hamza, the Muslim preacher, promised his followers "72 beautiful women in paradise" if they became suicide bombers and called on them to target tourists.

The Old Bailey heard Hamza, preaching in a video tape made at Finsbury Park Mosque in north London. He said the aim of jihad (holy war) was to humiliate non-believers and convert them to Islam.

He added: "Now look at the suicide bombs. Does it fulfil all these purposes? Yes, all of them."

Hamza, 47, is accused of nine counts of soliciting to murder, four counts of using threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour and two further counts of possessing abusive recordings with a view to distribution and possession of a document useful to preparing terrorism.

He praised the mujahideen (holy warriors) and added: "You tell me by Allah, what other obligation in Islam, when the person dies have these kind of things that he will be shahid [martyr], he will have the mercy of Allah, no fear upon him, 72 beautiful women in paradise. These given to him as the first gift."

He was asked by a member of his audience: "I was wondering whether suicide bombing is allowed?"

Hamza replied: "It's not called suicide, it's called Shahid operation. Suicide, this is what people call it to put people off it.

"Because if the only way to hurt the enemies of Islam is by taking your life, then it is allowed."

Hamza added: "When these things happening to the disbelievers, Allah shake them, shake their hearts. Why?

"Because they become terrified. 'These people, what can we do? They're crazy, they're crazy, what can we do?'"

He said tourism was haram (forbidden) and tourists were the shaitan (satan) of all countries.

Sabbah's Blog has another view of the trial.

John LeBoutillier on America's Coming Political Revolution

I hope this John LeBoutillier article is about New York's Rudy Giuliani running for President:

The ‘playing field’ is being ‘prepped’ as if according to a pre-determined script:

A) An increasingly unpopular war with no seeming end - based on questionable evidence of WMD - and supported by both political parties’ establishment;

B) Rising gas prices - (which rise at the drop of a hat) - and home heating fuel - all of which inject worry and cynicism into the body politic;

C) A series of scandals sweeping Washington DC - and which are infecting both political parties;

D) A burgeoning mess for senior citizens who suddenly cannot get their life-saving prescriptions filled - owing to the new Medicare Prescription Drug Program - a product of both political parties;

E) A so-called Mainstream Media which is increasingly shown to be full of fraud and bias and mis-reporting;

F) A corrupt business environment symbolized by Enron, World Com and so many others;

G) The Pentagon’s inability to get life-saving body armor for our troops in Iraq - until someone leaks the internal results of a Pentagon study and then, with 5 days, a shamed Pentagon announces a new shipment of the armor to Iraq;

H) The increased national debt and tragic trade deficit;

I) And the biggest scandal of all: the flood of illegal immigrants across our borders - a scandal which both parties happily turn their cheek to.


This list could go on and on.

It symbolizes the decay of our political leadership - and of character in America.

Today, our celebrity-driven culture idolizes the wrong traits: excessive pride, bragging, rudeness, greed and disgustingly brazen behavior.

And our leaders - in both parties - have shown themselves for what they are: more interested in being somebody instead of doing something.


Yes, all of this decay is ‘prepping the battlefield’ for something long predicted in this space: the inevitable successful run for the White House by an Independent Third Candidate who runs against both political parties for being corrupt co-conspirators in the internal decay of our once-great nation.

Ross Perot in 1992 was leading in all polls going into June of an election year - over an incumbent President Bush and Democrat nominee Bill Clinton. But Perot was strange, didn’t really want to win (he just wanted payback on Bush for a slight in the 1980's) and when he saw that he might indeed win he dropped out of the race. Then, a few months later and starved for attention, he re-entered the race, performed well in the presidential debates and won a respectable 19% of the popular vote.

Now, 16 years later, American has changed. All of the problems listed above have driven up the cynicism level. More and more voters express dismay over the political establishment. And we still have 3 long years to go!

Who will this Independent Third Candidate be?

Will he be some celebrity kookball like Donald Trump? If so, he will be lucky to garner 5 % of the vote.

But if this candidate has legitimate political credentials, is good on TV and can ‘connect’ with the voters, then he can win.

And his victory will be the beginning of something we desperately need in our country: a new political revolution.

Taliban Comes Back in Afghanistan

The BBC is reporting a resurgence of the Taliban:

The US envoy to Nato has said that a British-led military force due to move into southern Afghanistan must be ready to fight resurgent Taleban militants.

The American Thinker on The New York Times

Roger L. Simon tipped us off to this item about phony anti-American propaganda published on the NY Times's website:

So the formerly authoritative New York Times has published a picture distributed around the world on the home page of its website, using a prop which must have been artfully placed to create a false dramatic impression of cruel incompetence on the part of US forces. Not only did the editors lack the basic knowledge necessary to detect the fake, they didn’t bother to run the photo past anyone with such knowledge before exposing the world to it.

There is an old saying in journalism about stories which editors really want to run: “too good to check.” It is plainly clear that the New York Times thought this story was too good to check. Their standard of “good” is painfully obvious to all.

Without the internet and blogosphere, probably they would have gotten away with it.

Daniel Pipes Corrects the Pope

Daniel Pipes obviously has chutzpah. He doesn't accept the doctrine of infallibility. Today he argues that Pope Benedict is mistaken about the nature of Islam:

I must register my respectful disagreement. The Koran indeed can be interpreted. Indeed, Muslims interpret the Koran no less than Jews and Christians interpret the Bible, and those interpretations have changed no less over time. The Koran, like the Bible, has a history.

For one indication of this, note the original thinking of the Sudanese theologian Mahmud Muhammad Taha (1909-85). Taha built his interpretation on the conventional division of the Koran into two. The initial verses came down when Muhammad was a powerless prophet living in Mecca, and tend to be cosmological. Later verses came down when Muhammad was the ruler of Medina, and include many specific rulings. These commands eventually served as the basis for the Shari'a, or Islamic law.

Taha argued that specific Koranic rulings applied only to Medina, not to other times and places. He hoped modern-day Muslims would set these aside and live by the general principles delivered at Mecca. Were Taha's ideas accepted, most of the Shari'a would disappear, including outdated provisions concerning warfare, theft, and women. Muslims could then more readily modernize.

Even without accepting a grand schema such as Taha proposed, Muslims are already making small moves in the same direction. Islamic courts in reactionary Iran, for example, have broken with Islamic tradition and now permit women the right to sue for divorce and grant a murdered Christian equal recompense with that of a murdered Muslim.

As this suggests, Islam is not stuck. But huge efforts are needed to get it moving again.

Killer Bait aka Too Late for Tears

Another Netflix goodie: Killer Bait (1949). Lizabeth Scott is a really bad femme fatale, a true sociopath, so convincing in her lies that I believed every one she told--as she killed again and again. Dan Duryea is bad, but not quite as bad as Scott. The rest of the cast is awfully good in this low-key, slow-paced thriller that builds to a tremendous Tosca-like operatic climax. The cops are fools, and only an angry man with a grudge, a mysterious stranger played by Don DeFore can save the day. Add it to your queue.

The Meaning of the Martin Luther King Holiday

Coretta Scott King explains:

The Holiday commemorates America’s pre-eminent advocate of nonviolence --- the man who taught by his example that nonviolent action is the most powerful, revolutionary force for social change available to oppressed people in their struggles for liberation.

This holiday honors the courage of a man who endured harassment, threats and beatings, and even bombings. We commemorate the man who went to jail 29 times to achieve freedom for others, and who knew he would pay the ultimate price for his leadership, but kept on marching and protesting and organizing anyway.
Every King holiday has been a national "teach-in" on the values of nonviolence, including unconditional love, tolerance, forgiveness and reconciliation, which are so desperately-needed to unify America. It is a day of intensive education and training in Martin’s philosophy and methods of nonviolent social change and conflict-reconciliation. The Holiday provides a unique opportunity to teach young people to fight evil, not people, to get in the habit of asking themselves, "what is the most loving way I can resolve this conflict?"

On the King holiday, young people learn about the power of unconditional love even for one's adversaries as a way to fight injustice and defuse violent disputes. It is a time to show them the power of forgiveness in the healing process at the interpersonal as well as international levels.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is not only for celebration and remembrance, education and tribute, but above all a day of service. All across America on the Holiday, his followers perform service in hospitals and shelters and prisons and wherever people need some help. It is a day of volunteering to feed the hungry, rehabilitate housing, tutoring those who can't read, mentoring at-risk youngsters, consoling the broken-hearted and a thousand other projects for building the beloved community of his dream.

Dr. King once said that we all have to decide whether we "will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. Life's most persistent and nagging question, he said, is `what are you doing for others?'" he would quote Mark 9:35, the scripture in which Jesus of Nazareth tells James and John "...whosoever will be great among you shall be your servant; and whosoever among you will be the first shall be the servant of all." And when Martin talked about the end of his mortal life in one of his last sermons, on February 4, 1968 in the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church, even then he lifted up the value of service as the hallmark of a full life. "I'd like somebody to mention on that day Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to give his life serving others," he said. "I want you to say on that day, that I did try in my life...to love and serve humanity.

We call you to commemorate this Holiday by making your personal commitment to serve humanity with the vibrant spirit of unconditional love that was his greatest strength, and which empowered all of the great victories of his leadership. And with our hearts open to this spirit of unconditional love, we can indeed achieve the Beloved Community of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream.

Anoniblog's Tips for Dissident Bloggers

From the Anoniblog Wiki:

Across the globe, countries that discourage free speech have followed their citizens into the blogosphere. According to one count, in the last two years at least 30 bloggers (and there are no doubt more) have been interrogated, arrested, tortured and sentenced to long prison terms for the "crime" of speaking critically about their governments. Regardless of your culture, your country, your politics or religion, we believe you deserve to speak your mind without falling afoul of state power. Unfortunately, what you deserve and what you get are not always the same thing. So, for those of you who wish to speak out on your blogs, but who do not wish to risk imprisonment or worse for doing so, we have prepared guides that will help you to blog more safely by blogging more anonymously.

But please note: Blogging can never be completely anonymous. With enough time, resources and political will, a group or government can discover who you are. We cannot guarantee that even if you follow the instructions on these guides to the letter that you will run no risk. You always take a chance when you speak your mind to people who cannot tolerate dissent. But we hope that these guides will enable you to minimize those risks, or at least be more aware of them.

Please think of what we've done here as a starting point. We encourage you to expand, update and edit the existing guides. If your country, area or language is not represented, we hope you will take advantage of the resources we have provided and build your own anonymous blogging guides. Above all, as you help to develop this resource, we wish you to stay safe and free and speaking to the world as your conscience dictates.

(ht The Religious Policeman)

John R. Bradley on Saudi Arabia

From an inteview with the author of Saudi Arabia Exposed:

Q. What are the key themes and central messages of your book? What is your underlying thesis?

My thesis is that Saudi Arabia is an empire, and to understand what Saudi Arabia is you have to go back to the 1920s and early 1930s, the formative years just before the kingdom was established in 1932. What you find is the country that would become Saudi Arabia was then made up of very distinct regions: the Hijaz in the West, which was liberal and diverse; the Eastern Province, which is majority Shiite; the Asir region, where the people worshipped the local ruler as a saint; and the northern regions like Al Jouf, where the locals had historic tribal ties to Iraq and Syria.

All these regions were conquered by the Al Saud dynasty and the Wahabi zealots they employed as foot soldiers. Al Saud hegemony was imposed, often with the sword. There were no fewer than 26 major rebellions. Hundreds of thousands were slaughtered. What I discovered when I travelled to these regions was that resistance to Wahabism especially has remained very strong — that Hijazis have a pluralistic and liberal tradition which they are very much aware of, that Asiris have not accepted the Al-Saud-Wahabi hegemony; and that in fact there are still men and boys who still wear flowers in their hair in the mountains down there: hardly Wahabi behaviour.

The Eastern Province is still majority Shiite, and they are persecuted. In the north there has been a minor rebellion in Al Jouf, which represents tribal and other groups trying to take advantage of a perhaps fatally weakened Saudi regime in the wake of 9/11 and the ensuing domestic violence to reassert territorial claims.

I see the Saudi people as not wanting to overthrow the Al Saud regime, but very much aware of their diverse history, which is denied them in the name of an alien ideology. They want to reclaim that history, just as people who lived under the Soviet Empire — in Poland, East Germany, or even Russia itself — were waiting for the moment to cast off the ideology that oppressed them: Communism.

The Religious Policeman on the Hajj Tragedy

Here.

Anne Althouse on the Alito Hearings

I'll defer to the professional expertise of the law professor and blogger:

Ah, thank God, it's finally over! I waited so long for Supreme Court appointments, and I was so excited about finally getting to some hearings. But, wow, the drudgery of following these things!

To Russia, With Love...

Earlier this week, I had a chance to hear Dr. Margaret Paxson present a book talk at Washington's Woodrow Wilson Center about her study of life in a Russian village, entitled Solovyovo. I had met Dr. Paxson in Moscow, where she was selecting Russian academics to come to America. We had an interesting lunch discussion, where she expressed some skepticism of the prevalent view in the West that the 1990s reign of the oligarchs had been a necessary stage in the transition from Communism to Capitalism. It was a perspective that I had heard from Russians, but not often from Americans. So, when the invitation to her book talk arrived in my email box, I made sure to attend.

The event was quite interesting, because Dr. Paxson's talk was illustrated with photos of the village taken by a Washington Post photographer that looked like something from the 19th Century--men sharpening hand-scythes, women harvesting hay with wooden rakes, horses, wooden houses, piles of potatoes. The snapshots reminded me of descriptions found in Gogol's Dead Souls or Wallace's Russia on the Eve of Revolution: 1905. And also of Sholom Aleichem's Anatevka, but without his Russian Jews.

Dr. Paxson read a chapter from the book, and her intonation and style seemed very Russian--poetic, elegaic, romantic, emotional. The many Russians in the room loved every word. It was a poem to village life, the heart and soul of Russia. Although there was a little bit of academic stuff in the presentation and discussion, what Paxson has obviously done is document her love for the Russian peasantry--an eternal theme of the Russian Slavophil movement. Paxson even said she found cosmopolitan and internationalist Moscow "depressing".

It was a very Russian event, and clearly Dr. Paxson loves rural Russia very deeply. Which in these days of Russia-bashing, was a delightful and surprising thing to hear in a Washington think-tank.

Still More on Abu Hamza

Channel 4 News reports:

Abu Hamza preached that killing non-Muslims was justified even if there was no reason for it, the Old Bailey has heard.

"Killing an adulterer, even if he is a Muslin is OK. Killing a Kaffir (unbeliever) who is fighting you is OK.

"Killing a Kaffir for any reason you can say it is OK even if there is no reason for it," he told an audience.

A video of Hamza's talk given in September 1999 and entitled "Adherence to Islam in the Western World" was played to jurors trying him on race-hate allegations.

In it he says Islamic beliefs should be spread with the help of the sword.

ICG's Kid-Glove Coddling of Saudi Arabia

The International Crisis Group has been one of the most outspoken advocates of tough sanctions, boycotts, and international investigations of the government of Uzbekistan. So I took a look at their website to see what they are up to in Saudi Arabia. Not too much, it seems. But I did find this recent report on the oppression of Shiites. Curiously, ICG is not advocating the same approach as they have put forward for dealing with Uzbekistan. Don't challenge on the Saudi family head-on, ICG advises. Instead, they say: "But foreign pressure directly targeting the issue, especially in light of growing suspicions that the U.S. is hostile to Islam and championing Shiites regionally, could backfire."

In fact, the direct confrontation with Uzbekistan recommended by ICG did backfire, leading to the closing of the US air base in Karshi-Khanabad. And failure to confront the Saudis directly, as I was convinced by Dr. Alyami yesterday, will achieve precisely nothing.

Perhaps that's what ICG really wants?

AEI Hosts Arab Dissidents and Reformers

This morning I attended a fascinating series of panels at the American Enterprise Institute, called
Dissent and Reform in the Arab World: Dissidents and Reformers from the Arab World Speak Out. It was hosted by AEI's Danielle Pletka and Michael Rubin, and featured Egyptian Saad Eddin Ibrahim, Tunisian Neila Charchour Hachicha, Libyan Mohamel Eljahmi, Yemenites Ali Saif Hassan and Hafez Al-Bukari (a famous Uzbek name, I wondered about his family origins, perhaps Uzbeks in Saudi Arabia?), Kuwaiti Rola Dashti, and Iraqi Kanan Makiya.

Strangely, there was no representative from Saudi Arabia on the panel--though my new acquaitance, Dr. Ali Alyami was in the audience, and asked a question.

If I had to characterize the speakers, I'd say Pletka and Rubin gave good introductions, and Kanan Makiya some excellent closing remarks about the difference between dissidents and reformers. Most outstanding speakers were Rola Dashti, who declared:

Yes, with our will, determination, perseverance and support of friends like you we won our first battle against the ideology of radical Islamists, our dream came true and things started to change...But winning the battle is not enough, we need to win the war against these radical Islamists who not only oppress women, but also embrace extremism as a mode of thinking, enclosure as a mode of life, and terrorism as a mode to conflict resolution...

And Nelia Charchour Hachicha, who pointed out:

Therefore, under long-lasting autorcarcies free elections do not offer a 'democratic' solution since the electoral tool becomes a demagogical tool...Now, pacifying first the Moslem societies to allow free elections seems to me the right way to obtain real democratic elections. But! Under the imperative condition that we first get an open political context to build a free independent civil society.

The most disturbing presentation came from Saad Eddin Ibrahim, who had been jailed by Hosni Mubarak and freed only due to American pressure. He basically appeared as an advocate for the Muslim Brotherhood, arguing that the Muslim Brothers could become the Arab world's equivalent of European Christian Democrats during the Cold War. Neither of the Arab women panelists were convinced, and neither was I. He seemed to be, at best, a sincerely misguided liberal, or at worst a liar and a con man.

For during the Cold War, Christian Democrats shared an anti-Communist ideological agenda with Western liberals. But today, the Muslim Brotherhood shares an anti-Western ideological agenda with Islamist terrorists. The correct analogy would be to European Communist parties during the Cold War. American strategy--correctly, IMHO--sought to exclude them from governments, not to empower them, because they were on the side of America's adversaries. The same policy would be wise to follow with the Muslim Brothers. To answer President Bush's famous question, they are "against us." Helping them to win elections--as some member of the audience from the National Endowment for Democracy stated the US government has been doing--is suicidal as well as dumb.

In the end, the event well and truly produced a great deal of both heat and light, and the AEI is to be commended for actually hosting a vigorous and exciting debate. A good next step, if AEI is serious about reform and dissidence in the Arab world, might be to add a panel on the question of democracy and human rights in Saudi Arabia, and invite Dr. Alyami to participate...

More on the Abu Hamza Trial

From The London Time's Sean O'Neill:

TWO very different Abu Hamzas appeared at the Old Bailey yesterday as the trial of the former imam of Finsbury Park mosque was shown video recordings of the radical cleric preaching.

Abu Hamza al-Masri sat in silence in the dock watching a much more animated and younger version of himself. The on-screen Abu Hamza was passionate, gesticulating with the stumps of his amputated arms as he emphasised the plight of Muslims around the world, the duty to fight the unbeliever and the evils of democracy.

This Abu Hamza emphasised the need for young Muslim men to train for jihad and to identify targets including the law courts, banks and brothels — all of them symbols of corrupt “kuffar countries” like Britain.

Living in such a country was, the angry figure in the flickering video said, little better than visiting a lavatory. Clearly visible on the screen was Abu Hamza’s hook. He does not wear the hook in court and this was the first time the jurors had seen it.

Abu Hamza, 47, denies all the charges on a 15-count indictment made up of nine offences of soliciting to murder, four of inciting racial hatred, one of possessing offensive recordings and one of possessing a terrorist manual, the Encyclopedia of the Afghani Jihad. The key evidence in the prosecution case against him is contained in video and audio tapes of sermons and lectures delivered by Abu Hamza between 1997 and 2000. The first of these to be aired was recorded seven years ago at a public meeting in Whitechapel, East London.

Abu Hamza’s lecture began slowly, condemning Muslims for enjoying the comforts of life in Britain — cookers, fridges, television and takeaway chicken — while their brothers and sisters suffered around the world. But as he warmed to his theme — the establishment of the Khilafah, or Islamic state — his voice reverberated in the wood-panelled courtroom.

Abu Hamza spoke in rapid-fire broken English. It was stream of consciousness, delivered over a period of more than two hours. He rambled and ranted, dictated and demanded, issued orders and captivated his listeners. Occasionally, there were flashes of humour; he mocked the former UN Secretary-General with a joke from The Fast Show, calling him “Boutros, Boutros, Boutros Ghali ”. The sound quality was poor but the judge, jurors and lawyers had a typed transcript. The prosecution alleges that the meaning of Abu Hamza’s words is unambiguous and amounts to encouraging his followers to commit murder.

Human Rights Watch Reports on Saudi Arabia

I was struck by how feeble current Human Rights Watch reports on Saudi Arabia seem, when compared to their extensive campaign against Uzbekistan. No calls for international investigations, no calls to ban Saudi officials from entry to the EU or USA, no calls for boycotts, no demands to break military alliances, and so on.

Yet Saudi Arabia is the main funder of Islamist terror, in addition to being home to a terrorist regime that oppresses non-Wahabi Muslims (I learned yesterday that even Sufi Muslims in the Hejaz must practice their traditional faith in secrecy), allows slavery, oppresses women, and so on.

By any reasonable standard Uzbekistan is freer than Saudi Arabia. So why the double standard at Human Rights Watch? How exactly does the organization select its campaign targets? Is there any transparency to the process? Why not more pressure on Saudi Arabia, right now?

The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia

Lunched today with Saudi dissident Dr. Ali Alyami, who asked tough questions of Condoleeza Rice at the Heritage Foundation a little while ago. He was passionate and impressive (reminded me a little of my anti-Castro filmmaker friend Agustin Blazquez). Dr. Alyami referred me to the website of his organization The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia. He had so much to say, I encouraged him to write a book about how to bring democracy and human rights to Saudi Arabia. If he ever does, for what its worth, I'd plug it on this blog...

Abu Hamza Trial Continues

The New York Times ran this dull Alan Cowell story, haven't seen the paper yet to find out what page. My guess is that it's not page one, even though Hamza's followers were part of the plot to destroy the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11--and the US is seeking extradition to try him for crimes here in America. I do know the Washington Post buried Kevin Sullivan's account of the trial on the bottom of page A 18.

The British press corps is on top of the story, though. Here's a link to the BBC account of today's events, Channel 4 News , Reuters , the Daily Telegraph , the Guardian , the Times of London , the Financial Times, the Sun and the Daily Mail.