Soren's comment to the previous post got me thinking (for a change).

 

If Denmark were like America, Anne Mette Hommel would be getting her full 15 minutes right now as the political right and left tripped all over themselves to get some tv face-time supporting or condemning her.

The blogosphere would react predictably, the long-since ossified partisan camps falling duly into line.  The virtual pages of the Huffington Post would be full of vitriol for this immoral, hypocritical, vicious, lying, stupid, whoring bitch.  Victor Davis Hanson would write up a lengthy piece for National Review comparing Anne Mette Hommel to some heroic soldier immortalized by Thucydides or Herodotus. 

 

Molly Ivins would tear Anne Mette Hommel apart in a syndicated column on Monday, calling her names and trashing her appearance.

 

Senator Robert Byrd would prop himself up in the senate and scream "disgrace!" until he ran out of breath.

 

The senators from Massachusetts would co-sponsor a bill called the "Clean Military Bill" in which soldiers using untoward language in the presence of enemy combatants could be jailed for two to six years.  (The bill would also include generous federal budgetary supplements for Boston's MTA.)

 

John McCain would introduce a bill declaring January 13 "Anne Mette Hommel Day."  It would pass in the Senate on purely partisan lines but would never even get to a vote in the House.

 

In New York, Kofi Annan would trot his cheshire smile out before the microphones that afternoon to announce something with the words "Anne Mette Hommel" in it, if only to get some face time.  He would make tsk-y sounds worthy of Al Gore.

 

Speaking about an entirely different subject on Tuesday, Jacques Chirac would make an offhand reference to the disgraceful military conduct of a supposedly democratic country.  His europhiliac audience would chuckle gleefully: they know who he means!  They know!  They really do!

 

At next week's question time, Tony Blair would be asked if it weren't clear, now that Anne Mette Hommel had been convicted of some of the charges against her, would the right estimable minister not concede that perhaps he had in face been mistaken in allying himself with a nation whose military could produce such a monster?

 

At an unrelated press briefing, the president himself would be asked by a member of the the White House press corps whether he would characterize the convicted Anne Mette Hommel as a hero, as some of his supporters are doing.  The president would give a political non-reply.  The right would be infuriated and pillory the president's wobbliness (for not calling her a hero outright), although some cooler heads would explain the president couldn't really say anything else.  The left would be infuriated and pillory the president's evasions (for not conceding she had been convicted on some counts and therefore obviously couldn't be a hero), although some cooler heads would explain that...  well, eventually cooler heads would emerge, presumably, and explain that, in fairness to the president... well, okay, the analogy kind of breaks down here.

 

What wouldn't happen if Denmark were America, any more than it seems likely to happen while Denmark remains Denmark, is for anyone of any influence to stand their ground and say, "This is a big mess and we need to sort it out.  Let's work through the complications together and come up with a compromise that protects our soldiers while still preventing real abuse of POWs.  Let's have a public discussion about what torture really is and is not.  And let's start to educate the public about what the Geneva Conventions actually mean in black-letter law."

 

A legal system that punishes its soldiers for using abusive language towards enemies whom they are lawfully permitted to kill on the battlefield just doesn't make any sense.  (Are soldiers allowed to call the enemy names while they're shooting at them?)  But that's where this policy and judicial precedent seem headed.  "Here comes an enemy, surrendering to me.  No one's watching.  If I shoot him dead, there's one less enemy in the world and that's that.  If I take him into custody, he'll probably end up suing my government and getting me court-martialed or worse."  If you really and truly care about taking care of enemy POWs, wouldn't you rather encourage they be taken alive rather than shot?  And do you really think that name-calling--something the ACLU will forever defend your right to deploy against me in civilian life--ought to be a crime?

 

Anyway, at this writing Anne Mette Hommel only gets 11,400 hits on Google.  That's less than me, for crying out loud.  So it doesn't look like her story's going to break through the clutter and give her the fifteen minutes that all of us (for very different reasons) probably believe she deserves.  Maybe that's good.  Maybe the powers-that-be can get more done without the hot glare of global attention.

 

And maybe Dom Perignon will start flowing from my tap.

 

(If you can read Norwegian, here's some more angst on the topic from Norway.)

I haven't had much time to follow the news lately, but just browsing the news in English during lunch today I came across this old (English) article in Jyllands-Posten and it sort of staggered me.

 

Hommel and the MPs were charged with mistreating Iraqi prisoners in March, April, and June 2004 during questioning at the Danish military camp in Basra.

 

The five were convicted of aggravated dereliction of duty in the case. The court, however, found that the military had not adequately prepared Hommel for duty in Iraq, and therefore decided not to issue prison sentences.

 

Hommel was found guilty of forcing detained Iraqis to sit in stressful positions during questioning, as well as for requiring that guards hold them in position if they tried to move.

 

She was also found guilty of using degrading terms such as 'dog', 'dog shit, and 'penis' to refer to the detainees.

 

Calling someone names during war is a prosecutable offense?

 

Bring back the troops, man, we already lost...

 

(Not only that, but I think the Chicago cop that arrested me in 1985 for--well, I'm still not sure what, and neither was the judge who dismissed the case--that cop tortured me, and probably needs to be hunted down and prosecuted.  Or is name-calling legal in America, savage bastards that we are?)

Molli's language skills have been constantly accellerating since our trip to the states.  She's learning so many words we can no longer keep up.  The first thing she does when you pick her up out of her crib in the morning is to begin feverishly pointing at things and naming them (in whatever language she wants).  Anything that should fall under the sweep of her index finger but whose word is not yet known to her will elicit a simple "dih-deh," which is ordinarily short form for "What's that?" but in these cases is merely being used as "whatever."

 

A couple of days ago I noticed Molli sticking her tongue out a lot during some of her babble sessions.  It kind of disturbed me.  I thought maybe something was wrong with her tongue, or that maybe she was turning into one of those kids that's always sticking her tongue out.  I asked Trine if she'd seen any of this behavior.  She hadn't, but she didn't seem too concerned.  Yesterday I met Trine down on the sidewalk as she was strolling Molli home from some errands.  Molli was making "bleah" sounds and sticking out her tongue like mad.

 

"That's what I'm talking about," I said to Trine, "isn't that weird?"

 

"Isn't what weird?"

 

"That tongue thing she's doing!"

 

"What tongue thing?"

 

"Bleah," Molli said, as if on cue, sticking her tongue out and leaving it out.

 

"That!"

 

"Oh," Trine said.  "That's nothing.  She's just saying brød.  I bought some bread at the bakery and she won't shut up about it."

 

"But why does she stick her tongue out like that?"

 

"She's learning the soft D."

 

"I never stuck my tongue out like that when I was learning the soft D."

 

"You never learned the soft D."

 

Touché.

 

God, I hate this language. . .

 

* * *

 

I came across a two-month old copy of DSB's "Ud og Se" magazine the other day.  (DSB is the regional train service in Denmark, and Ud og Se is free on board their trains... but apparently you can get home delivery for 172 kroner a year.  You can also check it out online.)  The issue I encountered included a feature on nudists.  I didn't have time to read the article, which included several splashy full-frontal photos of the nudists interviewed, but I did have time to get the gist: nudism isn't about sexuality, see, it's about being natural.  There were comments like, "Man is the only animal that gets dressed to go swimming."  Very "aren't-we-superior-for-not-wearing-clothes" type stuff.  Fair enough, especially given the way the nudists looked.

 

Problem is, one can't help noticing that every single one of the nudists pictured in the article is completely clean-shaven down below.  How natural is that?  "Man is the only animal that shaves his naughty bits," I wanted to shout back at the snarky nudists.

 

Had to get that off my chest.  Sorry.

Molli's language skills have been constantly accellerating since our trip to the states.  She's learning so many words we can no longer keep up.  The first thing she does when you pick her up out of her crib in the morning is to begin feverishly pointing at things and naming them (in whatever language she wants).  Anything that should fall under the sweep of her index finger but whose word is not yet known to her will elicit a simple "dih-deh," which is ordinarily short form for "What's that?" but in these cases is merely being used as "whatever."

 

A couple of days ago I noticed Molli sticking her tongue out a lot during some of her babble sessions.  It kind of disturbed me.  I thought maybe something was wrong with her tongue, or that maybe she was turning into one of those kids that's always sticking her tongue out.  I asked Trine if she'd seen any of this behavior.  She hadn't, but she didn't seem too concerned.  Yesterday I met Trine down on the sidewalk as she was strolling Molli home from some errands.  Molli was making "bleah" sounds and sticking out her tongue like mad.

 

"That's what I'm talking about," I said to Trine, "isn't that weird?"

 

"Isn't what weird?"

 

"That tongue thing she's doing!"

 

"What tongue thing?"

 

"Bleah," Molli said, as if on cue, sticking her tongue out and leaving it out.

 

"That!"

 

"Oh," Trine said.  "That's nothing.  She's just saying brød.  I bought some bread at the bakery and she won't shut up about it."

 

"But why does she stick her tongue out like that?"

 

"She's learning the soft D."

 

"I never stuck my tongue out like that when I was learning the soft D."

 

"You never learned the soft D."

 

Touché.

 

God, I hate this language. . .

 

* * *

 

I came across a two-month old copy of DSB's "Ud og Se" magazine the other day.  (DSB is the regional train service in Denmark, and Ud og Se is free on board their trains... but apparently you can get home delivery for 172 kroner a year.  You can also check it out online.)  The issue I encountered included a feature on nudists.  I didn't have time to read the article, which included several splashy full-frontal photos of the nudists interviewed, but I did have time to get the gist: nudism isn't about sexuality, see, it's about being natural.  There were comments like, "Man is the only animal that gets dressed to go swimming."  Very "aren't-we-superior-for-not-wearing-clothes" type stuff.  Fair enough, especially given the way the nudists looked.

 

Problem is, one can't help noticing that every single one of the nudists pictured in the article is completely clean-shaven down below.  How natural is that?  "Man is the only animal that shaves his naughty bits," I wanted to shout back at the snarky nudists.

 

Had to get that off my chest.  Sorry.