Opinion/Mark Steyn: Been following the latest horrifying stories from what Amnesty International calls the "gulag of our time"? John Kass of the Chicago Tribune was outraged to hear that records by Christina Aguilera had been played at Guantánamo at full volume to soften up detainees for interrogation. He thought they should have used Dance, Ballerina, Dance by Vaughn Monroe, over and over.
Well, readers had plenty of suggestions of their own, and so the Tribune's website put together a list of "Interro-Tunes" - the most effective songs for aural intimidation, mood music for jolting your jihadi.
A lot were the usual suspects, such as Captain and Tennille's blamelessly goofy Muskrat Love, which, as I recall, put the queen to sleep at a White House gala. Someone suggested Bob Dylan's Everybody Must Get Stoned, which even on a single hearing sounds like it's being played over and over.
I don't know what Mr Kass has against Ballerina, which is very pleasant in the Nat King Cole version. But he seems to think one burst of "Dance, ballerina, dance/And do your pirouette in rhythm with your aching heart" will have the Islamists howling for the off-switch and singing like canaries to the Feds. Who knows?
I sang Ballerina myself once on the radio long ago, and if it will discombobulate the inmates, I'm willing to dust off my arrangement and fly down to Guantánamo, if necessary dressed liked Christina Aguilera. If they want an encore, I'll do my special culturally sensitive version of that Stevie Wonder classic, My Sharia Amour.
By now, one or two readers may be frothing indignantly, "That's not funny! Bush's torture camp at Guantánamo is the gulag of our time, if not of all time."
But that's the point. The world divides into those who feel the atrocities at Gitmo "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime-Pol Pot or others" (as the Tribune's hometown senator, Dick Durbin of Illinois, charged the other day), and the rest of us, for whom the more we hear the specifics of the "atrocities" the funnier they are.
They bear the same relation to the gulags (15-30 million dead), the Nazi camps (nine million dead) and the killing fields of Cambodia (two million dead) as Mel Brooks' Springtime for Hitler does to the original. Nobody complained at Auschwitz that the guards were playing the 78s of The Merry Widow (the Führer's favourite operetta) with the volume knob too high.
The first time the full-blast junk-pop treatment caught the eye of the media was a decade and a half back, when US troops bombarded the Panamanian strongman General Noriega with the Bobby Fuller Four's I Fought The Law (And The Law Won). In those days, nobody reckoned it was torture. But these days torture seems to be in the ear of the behearer.
Because the jihadi find western culture depraved - and I'm don't necessarily disagree with that, at least where Christina Aguilera's concerned - we're obliged to be extra-super- duper-sensitive with them.
Says who? Again, the more one hears the specifics of the "insensitivity" of the American regime at Guantánamo, the more many of us reckon we're being way too sensitive.
For example, camp guards are under instructions to handle copies of the Koran only when wearing gloves. The reason is that the detainees regard infidels as "unclean". Fair enough, each to his own. But it's one thing for the Islamists to think infidels are unclean, quite another for the infidels to agree with them.
Far from being tortured, the prisoners are being handled literally with kid gloves.
The US military hand each jihadi his complimentary copy of the Koran as delicately as white- gloved butlers bringing his lordship the old London Times. When I bought a Koran to bone up on Islam a couple of days after September 11th, I didn't wear gloves to the bookstore. If that's "disrespectful" to Muslims, tough. You should have thought about that before you allowed your holy book to become the motivation for global jihad.
I'm not arguing the merits here so much as the politics. There's certainly a discussion to be had about how to categorise these people. As things stand, they're not covered by the Geneva Conventions - they're unlawful combatants, captured fighting in civilian clothes rather than uniform. As a point of "international law", their fate is a matter entirely between Washington and the state of which they're citizens (Saudi Arabia, mostly).
I don't think it's a good idea to upgrade terrorists into lawful combatants. But if, like my namesake the British jurist Lord Steyn, you feel differently, fine, go ahead and make your case.
Where the anti-Gitmo crowd went wrong was in expanding its objections from the legal status of the prisoners to the treatment they're receiving.
By any comparison they're getting better than they deserve. It's the first gulag in history where the torture victims put on weight. Each prisoner released from Guantánamo receives a new copy of the Koran plus a free pair of blue jeans in his new size: the average detainee puts on 13 lb during his stay, thanks to the "mustard-baked dill fish", "baked Tandoori chicken breast" and other delicacies.
These and other recipes from the gulag's kitchen have been collected by some internet wags and published as The Gitmo Cookbook.
Judging from the way he's dug himself in, Dick Durbin, the Number Two Democrat in the US Senate, genuinely believes Gitmo is analogous to Belsen, the gulags and the killing fields. But he crossed a line, from anti-Bush to anti-American, and most Americans have no interest in following him down that path.
You can't claim (as Democrats do, incessantly) to "support our troops" and then dump them in the same category as the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge.
For a political party that keeps losing elections because it has less and less appeal outside a few coastal enclaves, Durbin's remarks are devastating.
The Democrats flopped in 2002 and 2004 because they were seen as incoherent on national security issues. Explicitly branding themselves as the "terrorists' rights" party is unlikely to improve their chances for 2006.