"As I recollect (from reading John O'Malley, S.J., The First Jesuits, a book well worth reading), the Jesuit ban on Jews was because to begin with, unlike other religious orders (and, indeed, all Christian society) they did not ban conversos, and therefore included a rather high percentage of them in the first generation or two of the Jesuits' existence. (Note, for example, St. Teresa of Avila, in the loosely-Jesuit-affiliated Carmelite order, herself of converso descent.) The ban was in some ways forced on them: their rival orders (Dominicans, etc.) were making hay about "the Jesuits are all a bunch of Jews," so the Jesuits conformed with the rest of Christian society. It's also specifically in line with the Spanish limpieza de sangre laws, barring conversos from a variety of occupations--with which the Church in general at first fought and then generally compromised. Of course, by the time the compromises were done, and the Jesuits had forbidden conversos from the order, a rather large number of conversos and part-conversos in the middle and upper classes had forged sufficient genealogies to get into any order they wanted. The limpieza de sangre laws were in some ways more a tool in intra-Castilian factional fights--your great-grandmother was a Jew, so you can't get this lucrative job, Don Miguel--than an expression of simple bigotry. But the point being that to identify the Jesuits as particularly guilty of anti-Semitism avant la lettre is 1) counterfactual; and 2) buying into the old tropes of anti-Catholicism, where it's always the Jesuits, the Jesuits, the Jesuits who are evil, evil, evil. At the time they're disliked from being too philosemitic; now they're accused of the reverse."

[T]he document will reject a solution that some seminaries, religious communities and bishops have tended to adopt in recent years - that it doesn't matter if a candidate is gay, as long as he's capable of remaining celibate. "I suspect some people, in good will, have gravitated to this idea," one bishop said. "But that's not what the church is saying, and this document will make that clear." To date, there's been no indication of what the pope intends to do.

who had to cease using medical marijuana after a 2002 arrest, suffered from chronic pain and was likely facing prison time after being charged by federal prosecutors three years ago with possessing 25 marijuana plants. A Supreme Court ruling handed down last month said that federal law prohibiting medicinal use of marijuana trumps California's voter-approved Compassionate Use Act.

For now, though, it looks as if this scandal is about a spy who was not endangered, a whistle-blower who did not blow the whistle and was not smeared, and a White House official who has not been fired for a felony that he did not commit. And so far the only victim is a reporter who did not write a story about it.

So, after 12 months of living in New York is it any surprise that Israel starts to look a little less evil? And that Europe starts to look a little more parochial? That the US starts to look a little more like it is trying to solve some of the world’s problems, and that it is doing so despite the sometimes unfair criticism of its allies? If in England it always looked like the US was the playground bully. Then from the US it looks a lot more like an embattled headteacher in a problem school.

Al-Qaida is also a revival of the radical currents that surfaced in Islamic history from time to time only to be defeated by moderate mainstream Islam led by the Ulama (scholars). In particular, they appear to be a continuation of Kharijite thought with its dualistic puritanical conception of the world and the community of Muslims and of Gnostic underground organisations like the Assassins and Qaramita, who sought to disrupt the stability of Muslim societies through acts of terrorism.

Al-Qaida would be best seen as a mixture of these political and ideological strands. Apart from the ideological justifications it takes recourse to, one would, indeed, be hard put to find much that distinguishes it from Latin American anarchist groups. Their acts share the same destructive ferocity, the same absurdity. The difference is that where one finds its ideological legitimacy in Marxism, the other seeks it in the Islamic religion.

A law enacted in 1994 bars torture by U.S. military personnel anywhere in the world. But the Pentagon working group's 2003 report, prepared under the supervision of general counsel William J. Haynes II, said that "in order to respect the President's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign ... [the prohibition against torture] must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority." Haynes -- through Daniel J. Dell'Orto, principal deputy general counsel for the Defense Department -- wrote a memo March 17 that rescinded the working group's report, and Dell'Orto confirmed that withdrawal yesterday at the hearing. According to a copy of the memo obtained by The Washington Post, the general counsel's office determined that the report "does not reflect now-settled executive branch views of the relevant law."

"May I be allowed to offer on or two reflections on the British Governments' decision to retaliate against German prisoners, which seems so far to have aroused extraudinarily little protest?

By chaining up German prisoners in response to similar action by the Germans, we descend, at any rate in the eyes of the ordinary observer, to the level of our enemies. It is unquestionable when one thinks of the history of the past ten years that there is a deep moral difference between democracy and Fascism, but if we go on the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth we simply cause that difference to be forgotten. Moreover, in the matter of ruthlessness we are unlikely to compete successfully with our enemies. As the Italian radio has just proclaimed, the Fascist principle is two eyes for an eye and a whole set of teeth for one tooth. At some point or another public opinion in England will flinch from the implications of this statement, and it is not very difficult to foresee what will happen.

As a result of our action the Germans will chain up more British prisoners, we shall have to follow suit by chaining up more Axis prisoners, and so it will continue till logically all the prisoners on either side will be in chains. In practice, of course, we shall become disgusted with the process first, and we shall announce that the chaining up will now cease, leaving, almost certainly, more British than Axis prisoners in fetters. We shall have thus acted both barbarously and weakly, damaging our own good name without succeeding in terrorising the enemy.

It seems to me that the civilised answer to the German action would be something like this: "You proclaim that you are putting thousands of British prisoners in chains because some half-dozen Germans or thereabouts were temporarily tied up during the Dieppe raid. This is disgusting hypocrisy, in the first place because of your own record during the past ten years, in the second place because troops who have taken prisoners have got to secure them somehow until they can get them to a place of safety, and to tie men's hands in such circumstances is totally different from chaining up a helpless prisoner who is already in an internment camp. At this moment, we cannot stop you maltreating our prisoners, though we shall probably remember it at the peace settlement, but don't fear that we shall retaliate in kind. You are Nazis, we are civilised men. This latest act of yours simply demonstrates the difference."

At this moment this may not seem a very satisfying reply, but I suggest that to anyone who looks back in three months' time, it will seem better than what we are doing at present and it is the duty of those who can keep their heads to protest before the inherently silly process of retaliation against the helpless is carried any further."

Under Labour the first Muslims were elected to the House of Commons and appointed to the Lords. Muslim organisations lobbied for and won state funds for Muslim schools, a question in the census on religious faith, and criminalisation of religious hate crimes. The huge rise in public spending and focus on improving delivery in the poorest areas will have particularly benefited Muslims alongside other disadvantaged groups. And since 9/11 the government has sought out bright young Muslims for senior civil-service jobs and introduced innovations such as the hajj information unit for those making the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Rove was making a late week heads up call to the White House news magazine reporter and, believe me, that is not the time or place to dish major strategy. A two-minute call such as the one now reported is basically to get the signals straight -- green, yellow, red. Rove seems to have been telling Cooper that the yellowcake story was a flashing yellow and he needed to be cautious.

"At the beginning of WWII, Roosevelt and Churchill were outraged and disgusted at the way the Nazis bombed civilian populations. Bomber Command made a few attempts at low-level daytime raids but the cost in men and planes was horrific, and so they too soon switched to "area bombing," at night and from high altitude. By 1943 we were launching "Operation Gomorrah" which killed perhaps 50,000 in Hamburg, almost entirely civilians. Nearly 100,000 would die similarly in Tokyo, and then of course there were Fat Man and Little Boy, which were in a practical sense "terror" weapons designed to frighten the Japanese out of fighting to the bitter end.
The use of these weapons did not turn us into the Soviet Union which would in coming years use tanks to crush democratic revolutions, or for that matter the Russia which in the last decade used a WWI-style artillery barrage to suppress the Chechens in Grozny. Indeed, our bombs are now the most discriminating in the world. There is no morality or ethics within the casing of an artillery shell, but only within the hand that directs its course."

Is your correspondent suggesting that "aggressive interrogation techniques" deter terrorism? Has he missed reports of the dramatic increase in the number of incidents of terrorism since Abu Ghraib went public? Or, does he believe that the insurgents in Iraq, the suicide bombers in Great Britain and the regrouping Taliban in Afghanistan are all so ignorant or so disconnected from the world that they have no idea how we have behaved, in Guantanamo, in Iraq and elsewhere? Does any criminal ever think he's going to be caught? Do suicide bombers consider deterrence when strapping on explosives? Hey, if I were a suicide bomber, I might just think that the only thing better than dying for my beliefs would be getting caught and interrogated by the US government. Unpleasant, sure - but damned fine publicity for the cause!

Sorry to hear that emails are running in favor of torture. Count me on the opposing side. I am in favor of the war in Iraq. I can reluctantly concede the necessity to risk our young people’s lives in our defense. But I cannot think that it is right for us to ask that they sacrifice their souls. Forget about what the torture does to the detainees. I cannot accept what it does to us. These incidents will be the things that haunt these soldiers forever.

Would even one person who currently defends such treatment continue defending it, if it were being inflicted on Americans?

"McCain is right -- it's our reputation that matters here.
And, if you're fighting fanatical terrorists, it's good to have a reputation for aggressive interrogation techniques. As long as it's within the law, JUST DO IT. That's what the Administration has done, and more power to them. Degrading treatment and aggressive interrogation techniques designed to open hearts and minds are all admissible under the law, as long as it's not torture, and that's as it should be.
Welcome to America, Andrew. I think you'll find that a vast majority of the American people want our lawyers to tell us the limits of the law. Americans don't want the French or the Swedes or the Germans to define the limits for our interrogation techniques during GWOT. Nor do they want those limits to be defined by the liberal salons in NYC and San Francisco, or their silly liberal op-ed writers. And torture has a legal definition which should not be allowed to be dumbed down by the sensitivities of talking heads, bloggers, literati, and glitterati. That's American, and it's good.
Short of torture, I'm glad that they're doing what they can and should to break these awful men. That's a good reputation to have in the Arab world -- screw the cultural sensitivities of the European softies. They're not with us in this war, so bother them all.
Soon, I think the Paki-bashers in merry old England will blow up a mosque or two. And they will do that because they don't have any faith in their authorities taking a hard line on English terrorists. I don't think that will happen in America, but it may if we get attacked too.

More disturbing still is the Report's repeated assertions that the techniques in question ... are not only "humane," but also are authorized by Army Field Manual 34-52. Field Manual 34-52 has, since the 1960's, defined the interrogation techniques that are acceptable within the military even for POWs who are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
Until now, the debate over the Bush Administration's interrogation policies has been about whether and why it was permissible for the Administration to go far beyond Manual 34-52 in its coercive treatment of detainees. But if, as the Schmidt Report concludes, the techniques used at GTMO are authorized by the Army Field Manual itself, it then follows that the military may use those techniques on any detainees, including POWs, anywhere in the world, in any conflict. Accordingly, by virtue of the Schmidt Report itself, this is not simply about al-Qahtani and other high-level detainees, nor about what is permissible at Guantanamo. Rather, it presages a radical transformation of what is deemed acceptable, lawful treatment of U.S. military detainees across the board — an erosion of the Geneva-based standards that have been the basis for the military's training and practices for the last few decades.

* interrogators "brought a military working dog into the interrogation room and directed it to growl, bark and show teeth"
* some prisoners were restrained with "hand restraints connected directly to an eyebolt in the floor"
* one interrogator "tied a leash to hand chains, led [the detainee] around the room through a series of dog tricks."
* a prisoner was pinned down while a female interrogator straddled him
* a prisoner was told he was gay and forced to dance with another male
* one prisoner had his entire head duct-taped because he refused to stop "chanting passages from the Koran;" one had his Koran removed; another had an interrogator squat over his Koran on a table, while interrogating him.

He was kept awake for 18 - 20 hours a day for 48 of 54 consecutive days, he was forced to wear bras and thongs on his head, he was prevented from praying, he was forced to crawl around on a dog leash to perform dog tricks, he was told his mother and sister were whores, he was subjected to extensive "cavity searches" (after 160 days in solitary confinement) and then "on seventeen ocasions, between 13 Dec 02 and 14 Jan 03, interrogators, during interrogations, poured water over the subject."

He told [detainee B] that he had a dream about [detainee B] dying. Specifically he told [detainee B] that in the dream he 'saw four detainees that were chained together at the feet. They dug a hole that was six feet long, six-feet deep, and four foot wide. Then he observed the detainees throw a plain, pine casket with the detainee's identification number painted in orange lowered into the ground.' The masked interrogator told the detainee that his dream meant that he was never going to leave Gitmo unless he started to talk, that he would inded die here from old age and be buried on 'Christian ... sovereign American soil.' On 20 Jul 03 the masked interrogator, "Mr. X" told [detainee B] that his family was 'incarcerated.'

"That message was simple: Interrogator's colleagues are sick of hearing the same lies over and over and are seriously considering washing their hands of him. Once they do so, he will disappear and never be heard from again. Interrogator assured detainee again to use his imagination to think of the worst possible scenario he could end up in. He told detainee that beatings and physical pain are not the worst things in the world. After all, after being beaten for a while, humans tend to disconnect the mind from the body and make it through. However, there are worse things than physical pain. Interrogators assured detainee that, eventually, he will talk, because everyone does. But until then he will very soon disappear down a very dark hole. His very existence will become erased. His electronic files will be deleted from the computer, his paper files will be packed up and filed away, and his existence will be forgotten by all. No one will know what happened to him and, eventually, no one will care."

People need to stop hiding behind Clintonian semantics here and understand that even if no actual technical violation of the law is found in the Rove/Plame case it will still be true, based on what we know now from the Time emails, that White House actions compromised a CIA asset during a time of war. What would Hannity, Limbaugh, Scarborough and all the cable loudmouths be saying if it had been Sidney Blumenthal?

As a matter of fact, a Clinton aide - not a top aide, but a political appointee - did release personal information about one of Clinton's accusers, highly embarrassing information at that: I am referring of course to former Assistant Secretary of Defense Kenneth Bacon's decision to release Linda Tripp's 3-decade old arrest record to New Yorker writer Jane Mayer.

Then there has been a controversy about our use of language - particularly the question of whether the BBC banned the word "terrorist". There is no ban. It's true the word is contentious in some contexts on our international services, hence the recommendation that it be employed with care. But we have used and will continue to use the words terror, terrorism and terrorist - as we did in all our flagship bulletins from Thursday.

We must report acts of terror quickly, accurately, fully and responsibly. Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgements. The word "terrorist" itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term, without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them.

Hassan Muhammad, whose 13-year-old son Alaa also died, said: "Why do they attack our children? They just destroyed one US Humvee, but they killed dozens of our children. What sort of a resistance is this? It's a crime."

This is a horror. In a column written June 28, I asserted that more Iraqis (civilians) had now been killed in this war than had been killed by Saddam Hussein over his 24-year rule. WRONG. Really, really wrong.

Columnist for the London Arabic daily Al-Hayat Jihad Al-Khazen, who often attacks the American administration and U.S. policy, wrote: 'The Arabs and Muslims, from amongst whom has emerged most of the terrorism since September 11, must head the counter-terrorism efforts. We are responsible for this terrorism before the others, and thus we are responsible for resisting it, and the effort required [on our part] begins by not denying our responsibility for it ... More than once I have written [this], and today too I write that the Arabs and Muslims must help the U.S. and not leave the running of the war on terror to it ... There is no point in accusing the American administration of responsibility for the spread of terror. What is important is that this terrorism exists, and is killing innocents, and everyone must cooperate to defeat it ... The first thing required from the Arab and Islamic countries is to launch a campaign [to increase] awareness amongst the societies that will strip terrorism of its well-known justifications and will emphasize that it constitutes a departure from the religion."

"This is Anthony, Anthony Fatayi -Williams, 26 years old, he's missing and we fear that he was in the bus explosion ... on Thursday. We don't know. We do know from the witnesses that he left the Northern line in Euston. We know he made a call to his office at Amec at 9.41 from the NW1 area to say he could not make [it] by the tube but he would find alternative means to work.

Since then he has not made any contact with any single person. Now New York, now Madrid, now London. There has been widespread slaughter of innocent people. There have been streams of tears, innocent tears. There have been rivers of blood, innocent blood. Death in the morning, people going to find their livelihood, death in the noontime on the highways and streets.

They are not warriors. Which cause has been served? Certainly not the cause of God, not the cause of Allah because God Almighty only gives life and is full of mercy. Anyone who has been misled, or is being misled to believe that by killing innocent people he or she is serving God should think again because it's not true. Terrorism is not the way, terrorism is not the way. It doesn't beget peace. We can't deliver peace by terrorism, never can we deliver peace by killing people. Throughout history, those people who have changed the world have done so without violence, they have [won] people to their cause through peaceful protest. Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, their discipline, their self-sacrifice, their conviction made people turn towards them, to follow them. What inspiration can senseless slaughter provide? Death and destruction of young people in their prime as well as old and helpless can never be the foundations for building society.

My son Anthony is my first son, my only son, the head of my family. In African society, we hold on to sons. He has dreams and hopes and I, his mother, must fight to protect them. This is now the fifth day, five days on, and we are waiting to know what happened to him and I, his mother, I need to know what happened to Anthony. His young sisters need to know what happened, his uncles and aunties need to know what happened to Anthony, his father needs to know what happened to Anthony. Millions of my friends back home in Nigeria need to know what happened to Anthony. His friends surrounding me here, who have put this together, need to know what has happened to Anthony. I need to know, I want to protect him. I'm his mother, I will fight till I die to protect him. To protect his values and to protect his memory.

Innocent blood will always cry to God Almighty for reparation. How much blood must be spilled? How many tears shall we cry? How many mothers' hearts must be maimed? My heart is maimed. I pray I will see my son, Anthony. Why? I need to know, Anthony needs to know, Anthony needs to know, so do many others unaccounted for innocent victims, they need to know.

It's time to stop and think. We cannot live in fear because we are surrounded by hatred. Look around us today. Anthony is a Nigerian, born in London, worked in London, he is a world citizen. Here today we have Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, all of us united in love for Anthony. Hatred begets only hatred. It is time to stop this vicious cycle of killing. We must all stand together, for our common humanity. I need to know what happened to my Anthony. He's the love of my life. My first son, my first son, 26. He tells me one day, "Mummy, I don't want to die, I don't want to die. I want to live, I want to take care of you, I will do great things for you, I will look after you, you will see what I will achieve for you. I will make you happy.' And he was making me happy. I am proud of him, I am still very proud of him but I need to know where he is, I need to know what happened to him. I grieve, I am sad, I am distraught, I am destroyed.

He didn't do anything to anybody, he loved everybody so much. If what I hear is true, even when he came out of the underground he was directing people to take buses, to be sure that they were OK. Then he called his office at the same time to tell them he was running late. He was a multi-purpose person, trying to save people, trying to call his office, trying to meet his appointments. What did he then do to deserve this. Where is he, someone tell me, where is he?"

Twenty-seven people, many of them children, were killed by a suicide truck bomb today as the children gathered around an Army vehicle where troops were handing out chocolates and other gifts. The blast was so powerful it set a nearby house on fire. The attack, which killed an American soldier and wounded three others, occurred about 10:50 a.m. in east Baghdad, according to the United States military. As service members in a Humvee were giving presents to a group of children, a vehicle filled with explosives detonated. "There were some American troops blocking the highway when a U.S. Humvee came near a gathering of children, and U.S. soldiers began to hand them candies," a man named Karim Shukir told The Associated Press. "Then suddenly, a speeding car showed up and struck both the Humvee and the children."

Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove's head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we'd say the White House political guru deserves a prize--perhaps the next iteration of the "Truth-Telling" award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud.

I say give Karl Rove a medal, even if Bush has to fire him. Why? Because Valerie Plame should have been outed by somebody. And if nobody else had the cojones to do it, I'm glad Rove did — if he did do it, and he still says he didn't.

"disdain for the general who thinks Job One is simply whacking the bad guys and who, ever conscious of public relations, cannot admit that American soldiers have tortured prisoners or, in panic, killed innocent civilians. Contempt for the ghoulish glee of some who think they were right in opposing the war, and for the blithe disregard of the bungles by some who think they were right in favoring it."

One story that really got me was the tale of former ambassador to Yemen Barbara Bodine suggesting to Rumsfeld in March of 2003 that it would behoove the Bush administration to develop a plan to pay Iraqi civil servants. Rumsfeld replied that American taxpayers would never go for it and that he was not concerned if they were paid for several weeks or even months; if they rioted in the streets in protest, he said, the US could use such an eventuality as leverage to get the Europeans to pick up the tab. Stunning, no?

What does all this tell us? First, that if they aren't blowing us up, then they'll be blowing up someone else. And you don't get to choose who. Secondly, who or what they blow up is largely a matter of what's available. Jews anywhere, Americans after that, Shia next and Brits probably a distant fourth. Africans for fun.

The way ahead is undoubtedly brutal and unsure. But let's not delude ourselves that the alternative was that much better: an Iraq pulverized by still more sanctions, poverty and tyranny or one in which Saddam lived to see another day and gave aid and comfort to al Qaeda. We chose the better of two options. Both were and are still hellish. But this war is young and was always going to last a generation. We owe our government sturdy, even fierce, criticism but we also owe our civilization support. That civilization - one in which people live free from tyranny and suffocating theocracy - is being fought over in Iraq today; and I have not the slightest hesitation in knowing whose side I am on. Our enemy is targeting innocents daily; while we are doing our best to advance their freedom. The Iraqi people told us what they want last January - peace with democracy. We cannot afford to betray either them or our principles now.

"Double super secret background" ... actually is a joking wink reference to the movie "Animal House". The fraternity had been placed on 'double super secret probation' by the evil Dean. Cooper probably just used that as joking slang (or Turd Blossom did :-).

How did Karl Rove know that Ms. Plame was a CIA operative? I cannot imagine that the WH keeps a list of CIA personnel. If in fact Ms. Plame was an undercover CIA operative, her employment with the CIA should have been known by a relatively small number of people within the agency. Everyone else should have know her as her cover profession. I'm assuming undercover CIA operatives do not use a CIA desk job as their cover. Somewhere along this information trail someone knowingly released the identity of Ms. Plame as a covert employee. Was this at the request of Karl Rove or others within the WH? Did he have clearance? Should he have had clearance?

Two points, briefly:
1. People need to stop hiding behind Clintonian semantics here and understand that even if no actual technical violation of the law is found in the Rove/Plame case it will still be true, based on what we know now from the Time emails, that White House actions compromised a CIA asset during a time of war. What would Hannity, Limbaugh, Scarborough and all the cable loudmouths be saying if it had been Sidney Blumenthal?

2. Scott McClellan once told the American people that Karl Rove was not involved in any way, and that the President would remove anyone found to be involved. During the Lewinsky scandal many people insisted that it was not the sex that bothered them, but it was the lying, spinning, parsing, and direct misleading of the American people that offended them, and that came to define the Clinton White House. What would the cable loudmouths be saying if instead of McClellan it had been McCurry?

This isn't about technical violations or a game of gotcha. It's about character, and George Bush needs to show some.

"Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..."

[T]ranscripts of recorded statements allegedly made by Mr. Bouyeri and introduced in the trial offered a window into his way of thinking. "I knew what I was doing," Mr. Bouyeri told his brother in a phone conversation shortly after the killing, according to the transcript. "I slaughtered him." Then Mr. Bouyeri laughed, said Judge Udo Willem Bentinck, who was reading the transcript aloud.

He argued that he did not kill her son, "but I have chopped off his head according to the law that orders me to do so to everyone who offends Allah. I do not not feel your pain as I do not know what it is to suffer the loss of a child."

Early on Friday morning another BBC webpage headlined "Testing the underground mood," spoke of "the worst terrorist atrocity Britain has seen." But at 12:08 GMT, while the rest of the article was left untouched, those words were replaced by "the worst peacetime bomb attacks Britain has seen."... In its round-up of world reactions, BBC online was also quick to highlight the views of conspiracy theorists. The very first article listed by the BBC started by quoting Iranian cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Emami-Kashani saying Israel was behind the London attacks. It was followed by a commentary on Iranian state radio explicitly blaming the Mossad.