Torture

There's been a lot of talk about torture this past week. As the Democrats interrogate attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey, Democrats are once again obsessed with waterboarding.

It's as if waterboarding as an interrogation method for enemies of the U.S. is one of the worst practices ever conceived.

A relatively infrequently used practice has them utterly bent out of shape.

Of course, advice about wife-beating and the proper way to do it doesn't get their attention. Concern about women being subjected to that sort of torture is not a human rights matter that they care to highlight.

Did you know that there is a right way and a wrong way when it comes to beating wives?

"Dr." Muhammad Al-'Arifi has some advice for husbands.

He's Saudi author and cleric, "Dr." Muhammad Al-'Arifi, who in a remarkable segment broadcast on Saudi and Kuwaiti television in September, counseled young Muslim men on how to treat their wives.

"Admonish them – once, twice, three times, four times, ten times," he advised. "If this doesn't help, refuse to share their beds."

And if that doesn't work?

"Beat them," one of his three young advisees responded.

"That's right," Al-'Arifi said.

He goes on to calmly explain to the young men that hitting their future wives in the face is a no-no.

"Beating in the face is forbidden, even when it comes to animals," he explained. "Even if you want your camel or donkey to start walking, you are not allowed to beat it in the face. If this is true for animals, it is all the more true when it comes to humans. So beatings should be light and not in the face."

..."Woman, it has gone too far. I can't bear it anymore," he tells the men to tell their wives. "If he beats her, the beatings must be light and must not make her face ugly.

"He must beat her where it will not leave marks. He should not beat her on the hand... He should beat her in some places where it will not cause any damage. He should not beat her like he would beat an animal or a child -- slapping them right and left.

"Unfortunately, many husbands beat their wives only when they get mad, and when they start beating, it as if they are punching a wall – they beat with their hands, right and left, and sometimes use their feet. Brother, it is a human being you are beating. This is forbidden. He must not do this."

Can you imagine crap like this being broadcast on American TV?

Picture a segment on the Today Show with Matt Lauer talking to an expert on how to beat one's wife.

It's impossible to do.

Muhammad Al-'Arifi is a cleric! He's a holy man.

How twisted is that?

Nonetheless, the guy is on TV, telling men in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait the proper way to beat their wives.

Watch the face. Don't leave marks. Beat in places "where it will not cause any damage."

A few simple rules on how to abuse and control women.

I would like to know how the wise Al-'Arifi expects women to react to the beatings. What are the rules for that?

I assume one would be, "Don't fight back."

Here you have a cleric telling a television audience in two countries how to abuse women. And the outrage from the Left is reserved for the Bush administration and nominee Mukasey and the subject of waterboarding.

In the one case, we're talking about the physical and emotional abuse of women. In the other, we're talking about an option for getting information from terrorists, information that might save the lives of hundreds or thousands of American troops or perhaps the lives of hundreds, thousands, or millions of American civilians.

The past few days we've been subjected to the drumbeat of the Dems screaming about the evil Bush administration and the President's torturer attorney general nominee Mukasey.

TIME has a holier-than-thou piece on Mukasey and the scourge that plagues the world -- waterboarding as a possible technique in the interrogation of enemies of the United States.

George W. Bush has always wielded moral clarity as a weapon. Now Democrats are struggling to turn that weapon against him. Bush's nominee to be Attorney General, Judge Michael Mukasey, was a shoo-in until veteran Illinois Senator Dick Durbin asked him a deceptively simple question: Is waterboarding torture?

The conclusion:

If Democrats approve Mukasey, though, they will have handed Bush a double victory: they would confirm his candidate and compromise their own moral clarity in the process.

The Democrats don't have moral clarity on torture at all.

They have no problem with looking the other way or excusing torture if it doesn't hurt the Bush administration. If it isn't politically expedient for them to make torture an issue, they aren't troubled by it.

The Dems frame torture as a problem when they see it as an opportunity to score political points.

That's not moral clarity. It's sleazy posturing.

Under no circumstances should waterboarding be used as a method of interrogation -- zero tolerance for waterboarding. Get rid of Mukasey.

Is Dick Durbin speaking out against Al-'Arifi's message?

Of course not.

The fact is the Dems just want to inflict damage on the Bush administration, giving Mukasey a virtual beating.

Apparently, they believe that the beating has been adequate enough to satisfy their bloodthirsty base because it appears that the Dems have decided it's time to let Mukasey's nomination out of committee.

Michael Mukasey drew closer to becoming attorney general Friday after two key Senate Democrats said they would vote for him despite his refusal to say whether waterboarding is torture.

The decision by Sens. Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein to back President Bush's nominee came shortly after the chairman of the committee, Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., announced he would vote against Mukasey, a former federal judge.

"This is an extremely difficult decision," Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement, adding that Mukasey "is not my ideal choice."

In announcing her support for Mukasey, Feinstein, D-Calif., said "first and foremost, Michael Mukasey is not Alberto Gonzales," referring to the former attorney general who resigned in September after months of questions about his honesty.

Including Leahy, five of the Judiciary Committee's 10 Democrats had said they would vote against Mukasey's confirmation after the nominee earlier this week refused to say that waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning, is torture and therefore illegal.

But with nine Republicans on the panel, Schumer and Feinstein's support for Mukasey virtually guarantees that a majority of the committee will recommend his confirmation when it votes on it next Tuesday.

Leaders in both parties have said they expect Mukasey to get at least 70 votes when the full, 100-member Senate votes on his confirmation. But Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had said he would not bring it up for a vote without Judiciary Committee action first.

......Human Rights Watch called Schumer and Feinstein's support for Mukasey "extremely disappointing."

What disgusting political theater!

Does Human Rights Watch consider the way women are treated in the Arab world to be "extremely disappointing," too?
______________________

Read the transcript of Al-'Arifi's comments.