British Troops Killed by Gun Control?

Jun 27, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses

Within two hours, Sergeant Tim and the five other members of the Royal Military Police would be dead...

...attempts by troops to seize weapons in house searches in the two months since the dictator was toppled had started to incur the wrath of locals, many of whom see the possession of weapons as a fundamental right, particularly amid the insecurity that has plagued Iraq since the war ended.

Which makes sense given the instability in post-war Iraq, at a bare mininmum Iraqis need weapons of sufficient power to fend off those who would attack them. To be weaponless in Iraq is equivalent to being a surgeon with your hands chopped off.

The army's use of sniffer dogs, an animal regarded by the Shia as unclean and therefore offensive, is thought to have exacerbated the tensions, as is the fact that troops would have seen unveiled wives and daughters as they carried out their raids - breaking a taboo among the Islamic faithful....

Observe that if Saddam did this they would not have reacted in the same manner--this is not because they liked Saddam, but they "respected" or rather feared him. If sniffer dogs are necessary to keeping the peace, then silly religious dogma has no say in the matter.

...When British troops initially entered this town, a Shia stronghold which had suffered greatly under the rule of Saddam Hussein, they were treated as liberators.

Apparently a mob of stone throwers had confronted a British patrol, which led to shots being fired and four people being killed. The British patrol "extricated" themselves from the mob, but left "six colleagues were training Iraqi police nearby" whom they apparently forgot about; unfortunately the mob did not:

According to the 25-year-old Mr Bairphy, who spoke to several British newspapers, two of the British policemen went up on to the roof to try to fend off the attackers, while the others took up positions on the ground floor. He said that after he told Sergeant Tim that there was no radio, he begged the British men to flee with them through the back of the building.

But they refused him. Sergeant Tim, he said, told him it was the duty of the British policeman to hold their ground.

It appears they did just that for two hours but by 1pm, all six were dead, "executed", according to one army spokesman. The exact nature of their deaths may never be clarified, but the burnt, bullet-ridden and bloody shell of the building where they died is testimony to the post-war carnage which could be unleashed in a town which did not see a single bullet fired during the conflict.

The proper response to this is that until law is established the British must use enormous and "overwhelming" force and martial law until a stable Iraq society can be created. The idea that Iraqis can gather together as a mob and attack the British troops should not be considered even a remote possibility in the minds of Iraqis. However, British leaders must not try to disarm Iraqi citizens leaving them without the proper means of defending themselves.

The Democrats’ Emotional Ghetto

Jun 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses

It's not just that members of the two parties disagree. It's that the disagreements have recently grown so deep that liberals and conservatives don't seem to perceive the same reality. Whether it is across the ocean or across the aisle, powerlessness corrupts just as certainly as power does. Those on top become overly self-assured, emotionally calloused, dishonest with themselves, and complacent. Those on the bottom become vicious. Sensing that their dignity is perpetually insulted, they begin to see their plight in lurid terms. They exaggerate the power of their foes. They invent malevolent conspiracy theories to explain their unfortunate position. They develop a gloomy and panicked view of the world. Republicans are suffering from many of the maladies that afflict the powerful, but they have not been driven into their own emotional ghetto because in their hearts Republicans don't feel that powerful. Democrats, on the other hand, do feel powerless. And that is why so many Democratic statements about Republicans resemble European and Middle Eastern statements about America. [Weekly Standard]

Bernstein on Privatizing Education

Jun 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses

CM writer takes on DOJ

Jun 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses

"Last Thursday, a U.S. district judge in Cleveland approved an antitrust settlement in the case of United States v. Village Voice Media, LLC and NT Media, LLC.  In this settlement, the defendant companies--successful newspaper publishers--were forced to divest assets of two newspapers previously closed by the companies for financial reasons. The United States acted to override the business judgment of both companies because Justice Department lawyers believe there is a market for ‘alternative newsweekly' publications which was being monopolized in Cleveland and Los Angeles by the companies actions.

 "Despite the fact the government presented no evidence which demonstrated the existence of an independent market for ‘alternative newsweeklies," the district judge presiding over this case approved the settlement without comment. In doing so, the judge abused his discretion by ignoring the comments offered by CVT and two amicus briefs filed by me outlining numerous objections to the settlement on constitutional and statutory grounds.

"As a result of the judge's decision, today I have filed a motion for leave to intervene in this case for the sole purpose of appealing last Thursday's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over district courts in Ohio. My intent is to seek appellate review of both the government's conduct in this case as well as the unprecedented legal theory they've sought to advance here--namely that the government can violate the First Amendment rights of Americans in order to ensure ‘competition' and ‘diversity' in the so-called ‘alternative newsweekly' market.

 "The government's misconduct in this case is also an issue for appeal. Under the law governing antitrust settlements, the United States must wait at least 60 days from the date the public is officially notified of a settlement before a final judgment is entered.  Congress designed this requirement to ensure the public would have a meaningful opportunity to review and analyze a settlement as part of the court's function of ensuring all settlements were in the ‘public interest.'  In this case, the Justice Department ignored the 60 day rule, and proceeded to complete the divestiture of assets more than one month before the comment period expired.  This violated the statutory requirements of the Tunney Act, and to date the government has offered no justification for its actions.

 "I look forward to presenting my case to the Sixth Circuit, and I fully expect the district court to grant me the opportunity to do so."

Way to go Skip!

Somewhere in Baghdad

Jun 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses

Tracinski on The O’Reilly Factor Discussing Martha Stewart

Jun 26, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses