Where do we stand when it’s them against them?

Our choice: Do nothing about the vicious dictator Assad or lend support to rebels who may turn against us in very short time. 

This report by ABC is horrifying. It’s harrowing. 

A teenager selling coffee in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo was arrested by Islamist rebel fighters for insulting the Prophet Mohammed, beaten and then executed in front of his family, a watchdog group claims.

The boy, Mohammed Qatta, 14, reportedly refused to give a customer coffee, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported Sunday.

“Even if [Prophet] Mohammed comes back to life, I won’t,” the boy said, who was known by his nickname “Salmo.”

Extremist rebels driving past in a black car overheard the comment, the opposition Aleppo Media Center said. Qatta was taken away by the fighters and later brought back, his head wrapped with his shirt and his body covered with marks from whipping.

The rebels then read out the boy’s sentence – not in a Syrian accent, but in classical Arabic. They accused the boy of blasphemy and told the crowd – which included the boy’s parents – that anyone who insulted the Prophet would suffer a similar fate.

Qatta was then shot in the mouth and neck. A graphic photo was released late Sunday of the dead boy clearly showing wounds that matched the reports.

We’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. Some world we’re living in.

Pick your poison

Image

I’m not happy that every phone call I make — and every phone call that gets made to me — is being logged and reviewed by my government. I’m not happy that the Patriot Act, passed into law in a time of great crisis, has resulted in my sacrificing so many of my constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

I’m also not happy that a high school dropout named Edward Snowden (above) who hasn’t reached the age of 30 and is working for a government contractor is in a position to know so much about so many people, and to reveal so many secrets about American data mining to the media. I’m also trying to decide whether he is Daniel Ellsberg or Benedict Arnold.

But I know this much: I was in New York on 9/11, and I remember the sound of the fighter jets flying overhead, and the look of terror on the people in the streets. And I remember walking from work to Grand Central Terminal a couple of days later, and seeing a million people in the street, because the terminal and the skyscraper above it were evacuated due to a bomb scare. And I remember the firetruck screaming down Madison Avenue, and the tears that came to my eyes when I saw all the people breaking into cheers for the heroes on the truck.

And I never want to see or experience anything like that again. Once a lifetime is enough for me, thank you.

So it’s difficult to weigh my demand for privacy against my desire to be kept safe from maniacs who want me dead due to the circumstances of my birth and nationality.

More than a week into all this, the best piece I’ve read was written by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times:

Yes, I worry about potential government abuse of privacy from a program designed to prevent another 9/11 — abuse that, so far, does not appear to have happened. But I worry even more about another 9/11. That is, I worry about something that’s already happened once — that was staggeringly costly — and that terrorists aspire to repeat.

 I worry about that even more, not because I don’t care about civil liberties, but because what I cherish most about America is our open society, and I believe that if there is one more 9/11 — or worse, an attack involving nuclear material — it could lead to the end of the open society as we know it. If there were another 9/11, I fear that 99 percent of Americans would tell their members of Congress: “Do whatever you need to do to, privacy be damned, just make sure this does not happen again.” That is what I fear most.

That is why I’ll reluctantly, very reluctantly, trade off the government using data mining to look for suspicious patterns in phone numbers called and e-mail addresses — and then have to go to a judge to get a warrant to actually look at the content under guidelines set by Congress — to prevent a day where, out of fear, we give government a license to look at anyone, any e-mail, any phone call, anywhere, anytime.

That pretty much sums it up for me. If it comes down to siding with the NSA or Al Qaeda, I’m going with the NSA. Pick your poison.

Not a hero

Image

This is making the rounds now. Kid at Liberty High School in South Carolina rips up his valedictorian speech and recites the Lord’s Prayer.

They’re calling him a hero, of course. But, as my friend Marty Levine points out, “The quote in the article saying the kid showed courage missed it completely. It takes very little courage to publicly espouse a Christian view in the Bible Belt. Had he stood up for separation of church and state and used his address to explain the need to protect the standing of religious minorities? That would have been an act of courage.”

My take . . . Marty nailed it. The kid had a legal right to do what he did and definitely should not be disciplined by the school system. Fact is, they’d be making him a martyr for the religious right if they tried to discipline him. But I also think the kid has no regard whatsoever for his fellow students and the people in the crowd who don’t share his religious views.

This was nothing to be proud of.

Such an innocent

Image

Jeffrey Chiesa, named by Chris Christie today to be the interim senator from New Jersey until a replacement for Frank Lautenberg is elected in October, had this to say at the announcement when asked about his position on specific policy issues (per the New York Times):

“I need to learn about the issues before I can make any meaningful judgments.”

Now we know why this guy isn’t running. What kind of senator needs to learn about the issues before he can make meaningful judgments?

Doesn’t this guy know how politics work?

Finding the humor in it all

Image

Everyone’s up in arms about the NSA collecting records of every Verizon phone call, revealed by The Guardian and nicely summed up by The New York Times.

And rightfully so.

But it’s good to see the humor in things.

First, there’s Matt Drudge’s wonderful hed (above).

My friend Jelisa Castrodale writes on Facebook . . .

If the NSA does scan my phone records, they’ll realize that, for the past eleven months, I’ve been on hold with Time Warner Cable.

And then there’s this, by the incomparable Andy Borowitz:

A Letter to Verizon Customers From President Obama

All in all, not a fine day for this administration.

UPDATE, per Politico:

The top two leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee said today that the widespread monitoring of phone records revealed by Wednesday’s Guardian report has been going on for years and that Congress is regularly briefed about it.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Saxby Chambliss also defended the National Security Agency’s request to Verizon for all the metadata about phone calls made within the U.S. and from the U.S. to other countries.

“As far as I know, this is the exact three-month renewal of what has been in place for the past seven years,” Feinstein asid. “This renewal is carried out by the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] under the business records section of the Patriot Act. Therefore it is lawful. It has been briefed to Congress.”

Added Chambliss: “This is nothing new. This has been going on for seven years … every member of the United States Senate has been advised of this. To my knowledge there has not been any citizen who has registered a complaint. It has proved meritorious because we have collected significant information on bad guys, but only on bad guys, over the years.”

SECOND UPDATE, per Politico:

Rep. Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said today that phone records obtained by the National Security Agency “thwarted” a domestic terrorism plot “in the last few years.” His committee is working to declassify information on the plot, he said.

“Within the last few years, this program was used to stop a terrorist attack in the United States,” Rogers said. “We know that. It’s important. It fills in a little seam that we have, and it’s used to make sure that there’s not an international nexus to any terrorism event that they may believe is ongoing in the United States.”

He added: “In that regard, it is a very valuable thing. It is legal.”

THIRD UPDATE

Drudge has updated his front:

Screen Shot 2013-06-06 at 2.05.32 PM

Air Force (finally) gets one right

Image

Per Todd Starnes at Fox News:

“An inspirational painting that referenced a Bible verse has been removed from a dining hall at Mountain Home Air Force Base after an anti-religion group filed a complaint.”

The painting featured a medieval crusader and referenced Matthew 5:9, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.”

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation called the painting “repugnant” and an “overt display of Christian nationalism.”

Well, yeah, that pretty much sums it up. But I don’t think it’s right to call the group “anti-religion.” I’d say it’s pretty much pro-Constitution. You know, that whole First Amendment thing.

Read it here. You decide.

Take me out . . .

Just read a very good piece in the Washington Post, written by a man who refuses to stand when they play God Bless America at the ballpark. Did I mention he’s a Methodist minister?

And it brings to mind a day a long time ago, when my son, Josh, was around 3 years old. We were at some sort of function where they played the Star Spangled Banner. Josh looked up and said . . .

“DAD!!!! They’re playing the baseball song!!!”

And I knew the kid was gonna be all right.