A religious enemy

Where would we be without an enemy? Certainly not willing to throw away our wealth, creative energy, and historic appreciation of the rule of law for a mess of "homeland security" and military boondoggles.

U.S. Republicans are working hard to create a properly dangerous foe out of the 1.5 billion adherents of Islam. Obviously there are terrorists in the world who trumpet that they are Muslims -- just as there are terrorists who claim to be Christians and terrorists who claim to be patriots. (Remember Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh?)

Interestingly, people in the United States have proved somewhat resistant to taking up a crusade against the people of one of the world's largest religions. We require manipulation.

Pollsters and communications advisers to congressional Republicans are urging lawmakers not to follow President Bush's lead when it comes to talking about terrorists and the threat they pose to the nation.

While Bush has lightened up on using the word "Islamic" in front of terrorists, the advisers said on background that the word should always be used because Americans believe that "Islamics" are those who act on terrorist threats. Words to avoid are "Muslim," "extremist," and "radicals."

One adviser, who was part of two closed-door briefings by the consultants to GOP congressional members and aides over the past two weeks, said most Americans polled are not threatened by "Muslims" and that the words "extremist" and "radical" conjure up an image of people who make threats but don't follow through with them. "People believe terrorists act, so we should be using that instead of extremist or radicals. Calling the threat 'an Islamic terrorist' or 'al Qaeda' works better than 'Muslim radical,' " said the consultant.

Looks like this effort is making headway in some pretty scary places.

Jamil Dakwar of the ACLU has been observing the recent proceedings in Guantanamo at which one of the administration's newfangled "military commissions" found that Omar Ahmed Khadr is indeed an "unlawful military combatant." Despite numerous obstacles thrown up by the government, defense lawyers did have a chance to question the military judge, Army Col. Peter Brownback, about his impartiality.

Col. Brownback also gave an unusual answer when he was asked what he knows about al-Qaeda. He said: "al-Qaeda is an organization or a group dedicated to the spread of Islam."

Sure sounds like Col. Brownback has been slugging the koolaid -- apparently al-Qaeda = Islam; Islam = terrorism. I sure wouldn't want someone so confused and credulous as my judge. But our rulers think a guy this ignorant is highly qualified.