Human Rights and the Right Wing

Glenn Greenwald has, as usual, a great post on the ten American Baptists who were arrested in Haiti on charges of child trafficking.  I have to disagree with one thing he writes, because he does not go far enough:

Why would National Review -- which endorses far worse abuses when perpetrated on Muslims convicted of nothing -- take up the cause of an accused child smuggler and possible child trafficker, and suddenly find such grave concern over detainee conditions?  Or, to use their warped vernacular, which equates unproven accusations with guilt, why would National Review be advocating for the rights of child kidnappers and child traffickers?  Because, as a Christian, Allen is deemed by National Review to deserve basic human rights, unlike the Muslim detainees whose (far worse) abuse they have long supported

The distinction made by the National Review is much more start, I believe, than what Glenn indicates in the last sentence.  To the right wing Allen, as a Christian, belongs to a privileged and special class of people who should not be accused of any crime unless extraordinary evidence is presented against them.  In other words this goes beyond ordinary human rights.  A conservative Christian should be deemed, in the opinion of the National Review, to be innocent, unless perhaps charged of some act against another conservative Christian.  Other people, such as Muslims, are never of any account.  If a conservative Christian is the least bit uncomfortable, then then the most monstrous of acts is fully acceptable if it will, to the tiniest degree, relieve anxiety in a conservative Christian.  The slightest concern on the part of a conservative Christian should be held of the greatest possible importance, while the very lives of other people are of no account whatsoever.  That is the distinction made by the National Review.