About Me

Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

WHAT ARE LEFTISTS AFRAID OF?

July 10th, 2008

Please see this article by Jon Eisenberg on Salon.com.  My response follows. http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/09/alharamain_lawsuit/index.htmlBIZARRE

BIZARRE AND TROUBLING INDEED!

For years now I’ve wondered what motivates “Americans” who oppose any and every effort to keep America safe from more terrorist attacks.

I know the standard defense: “We’re not opposed to keeping America safe! We’re opposed to the subversion of our right to privacy! We’re opposed to government undermining our First Amendment rights to free expression!” Yada, yada,yada.

If anyone reading this believes I’m questioning the patriotism and “American-ness” of Mr. Eisenberg and his fellow travellers then that’s very perceptive since I am, notwithstanding Senator Obama’s recent ploy to undercut the patriotism issue.

I would remind Eisenberg et al. that dead people have no rights and that the United States is at war! Any–I repeat–ANY surveillance, whether it be wiretapping, inspecting mail, or going though the garbage and inspecting the discarded dirty underwear of suspected terrorists, is fine by me if, ultimately, it prevents even one more attack on our soil.

I wonder what Eisenberg and his cohorts are afraid of and what they’re hiding. And please don’t blather about Ben Franklin who wrote, “They who would give up an essential liberty deserve neither liberty or security.” He also wrote, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we will hang separately.” And, Ben didn’t live in a time when a city could be obliterated in seconds.

Is that all alarmist?

I hope so!  Someone should wake up Eisenberg and his ilk.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

TORTURE OR REASONABLE FORCE

TORTURE OR REASONABLE FORCE?

Okay, torture sucks. So, too, does the idea of people being detained without right to counsel, without the freedom to protest their status, etc.

Now let’s move on to a hypothetical. 

Picture yourself in a situation in which you have excellent reason to believe that your family has been targeted by some fanatical, religious nutcase and the nutcase’s buddies. You have irrefutable information that their plan is to execute you, your wife, kids, grandkids, friends, neighbors, everyone you know, and they’ve already shown their expertise at such executions by killing thousands of others. Their Nutcase Army is on record as despising you and everyone you know and love—as well as everyone you may not know and love—and is pledged to make all of you dead and their modus operandi shows they won’t conduct the slaughter mercifully.

Now, remembering that this is all hypothetical, let’s say you capture a few of them and are able to detain and chain them in your basement. Also, you reasonably suspect some of them have information that could save the lives of your loved ones, neighbors, of everyone you know.   Assume too that there are no available law enforcement agencies to deal with these suspects. It’s all up to you.

You have a major decision to make: Do you accord them all the sacred rights and privileges of prisoners in American jails, including hotshot lawyers and extensive law libraries so they can appeal their detention, daily exercise and gyms so they can work out and three squares a day of their preferred comestibles to make them more fit to kill you, and literature so they can read how much their god hates you and prayer mats 5 times daily so they can pray that they figure a way to murder you?   

Or, always being humane as you would be with dogs, do you attempt to extract the information that could lead to saving many thousands of lives?  Torture is out of the question–no maiming or mutilation permitted, no racks, no  But are you morally entitled to, say, deprive them of sleep, bombard them with loud, offensive noise such as rap music, intimidate them with your basset hound, make them stand naked in the downtown square, even pretend to drown them?

Keep in mind now, you do not ever endanger their health. Granted, the above won’t exactly leave them in the same state of mind which they exhibited when you caught them; it could render them less murderous—or more.  Then again, neither are you the same tranquil person you were before discovering their nefarious scheme to destroy everyone you know.  You provide adequate food to sustain them, you allow them to rest after stints of sleep deprivation and to clothe themselves after their excursions downtown and, of course, adequate toilet and showering facilities. You allow them to read and meditate and pray.

 All of this within reasonable limits, however: no gourmet meals, no sleeping in til noon, no fancy duds, no Charmin, and no daily showers with Irish Spring and Paul Labrecque shampoo. 

At the end of all this, after virtually draining your 401k and your bank account to pay for the upkeep of people sworn to kill you, they surrender the information needed to eradicate the Nutcase Army and their ilk and end their threat to the well-being of you and yours. You proceed to dispatch that danger and, the threat removed, you drain the remainder of your funds to pay their freight home to the squalid life they had been accustomed to. 

Okay. So, have you acted morally and righteously in employing your tactics to save many thousands? I say, Yes. Have you violated the God-given rights of your prisoners, United Nations and Geneva Convention protocols, and perturbed the Brits?  Probably.(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/02/terrorism.terrorism) Have you done the right thing? I think so, even if all those whose lives you preserved don’t agree.  Only survivors determine right and wrong.

As Stormin’ Norman Schwarzkopf said of bin Laden when asked if he should be forgiven, “Forgiveness is up to God. I just hope we hurry up the meeting.”  Whether that Hypothetical You—or our country–will be forgiven for our tactics–or for GITMO, Abu Ghraeb, and purported terrorist prison ships– will also be up to God. Personally, I think He will understand and cut us some slack on that meeting.

Tags: , , ,

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OBAMA, TERRORISM, AND APPEASEMENT

 

This whole hullabaloo over whether Bush was referring to Obama as an appeaser is a proverbial tempest in a teapot and much ado about nothing.  Of course Bush was referring to Obama in his speech in the Knesset!  Most probably he was also referring to what some wag has called an 84 year old walking hemmorrhoid, Jimmy Carter.  And the description fits both.

Carter aside, since it's unkind to abuse the senile, let's look at the context.
 
A simple syllogism:  GWB says negotiating with terrorists is appeasement.  Barack Hussein Obama says he would negotiate with a terrorist state, Iran.  Therefore, Obama is an appeaser.  No? 

Obama is fuming over the insinuation.  See http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/05/16/mccain_hits_obama_on_diplomacy

Before we can establish whether that syllogism holds any validity we would have to briefly examine both terrorism and appeasement.

Merriam-Webster
 defines terrorism as “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion” and appeasement as "to cause to subside . . . to buy off by concessions"  (emphasis added).

Since President Mahmoud Ahmadinjad’s Iran regularly threatens the forcible eradication of Israel, finances and trains known terrorists, commits acts of international intimidation, and preaches venom at every opportunity, can we not label Iran a terrorist state?  Since Obama promises that, as President, he would sit down with Mahmoud and negotiate with that pipsqueak terrorist, what could Obama expect to achieve?  Since negotiating involves give and take, that is, offering quid pro quos, what would he give and what would he take?  Why bother to confer if you’re not prepared to concede something?

The possibilities are endless but the bottom line is not:  President Obama would have to offer the terrorist state of Iran concessions in order to gain concessions, much like Chamberlain offered the Sudetenland to Hitler after a desparate Hitler promised to leave the rest of Europe alone.  (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERsudetenland.htm)

That’s called appeasement.  The ultimate result for Chamberlain?  World War II and 60,000,000 dead.  The ultimate result of Obama’s planned appeasement of Iran could be World War III and, perhaps, far more dead people. 

The syllogism holds.  Let Obama fume all he wants.  The shoe fits.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »