Do Americans have a right to die with their heads still attached to their shoulders?
As you know, Abu Musab al Zarqawi (search) makes the argument that we do not. He's now severed the head of one American and a South Korean friend of America. His compatriots in Saudi Arabia got the head of yet another American.
Against the backdrop of these outrages, we hear from the Archbishop of Canterbury — Rowan Williams (search) — over the ocean in Great Britain.
Archbishop Williams and a colleague wrote an open letter last week warning that the sense of "moral shock" over the Abu Ghraib story was wearing off.
The archbishops of Canterbury and York, plus about 100 Anglican bishops, got together and tried to decide how to keep the sense of moral shock about Abu Ghraib (search) going, since it seemed to be dying off.
Maybe this explains why we keep seeing confounding coverage from the British press. By what measure is Abu Ghraib still a bigger story than the determination of lunatic terrorists to cut off heads?
Where is the moral outrage about the removal of heads in revenge for putting ladies' panties on heads?
How can the Anglican bishops obsess in such disproportionate outrage.
Oh, right... Abu Ghraib was committed by Americans — therefore, outrage.
And the beheadings were committed on Americans, therefore the shrug.
Now we get it. If it's bad for Americans, they actually like it and have no interest in condemning it.
That's My Word.
What do you think? We'd like to hear from you, so send us your comments at email@example.com. Some of your e-mails will be featured on the air or on our site.