Friday, September 08, 2006

Terrorist Battle on Multiple Fronts

Fighting the terrorists who hide in the shadows are tough enough to seek out and destroy. It is even harder when the liberals throughout the world side with them in the name of protecting their liberties.

With a formal acknowledgement of "secret CIA prisons" in Europe, the European public wants to know where they are. We now see U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan getting involved: "I cannot believe that there can be a trade between the effective fight against terrorism and protection of civil liberties. If as individuals we are asked to give up our freedom, our liberties, our human rights, as protection against terrorism, do we in the end have protection?"

Why must the U.S. justify these in the name of terrorism and frightening people?

This battle between good and evil will continue for as long as life itself. There will be those in government and society you want on your side and there will be those you don't.

Liberals, regardless of their borders are still liberals -- they think their high and might ways are so superior to the rest. They think negotiation, treating terrorists with the up-most dignity is the only way to address this problem. That we are creating more terrorists because we have secret prisons.

They a) do not believe there is a GWOT and that b) no war is necessary. There is a GWOT and we must take the fight to them. War is hell, always has and always will be. Sometime the tactics are harsh but they are effective.


Anonymous said...

Thanks for telling all us liberals what we believe; I have been waiting for you to do that. Now let me tell you what you believe.
a) Generalizations about people are fine; there is no such thing as a case by case scenario. No room for individual thought; no room for reevaluating your ideas; no room for clarification.
b) Accusation is proof and conviction should not be upon evidence or any due process.
c) Terrorists are absolutely without reason and have not been in any way motivated by failed or incorrect policies.
d) War, being hell, requires nations and peoples to be driven down to hell in the efforts of "protection."

You, sir, are the epitome of incorrect thinking in this country today. You characterize dissent with disloyalty. You characterize questions about policy with a lack of intelligence. I do not believe I am superior to you; I believe I have more knowledge in specific areas. That does not make your right to speak or write about this invalid, nor does it make you inferior. We have different points of view; the difference is that you equate that difference with unpatriotic.

Let me refute your conclusions, speaking for my own liberal self. I will let others speak for themselves, but these are my opinions.
A) There is a global war on terror; we must fight it globally. To fight it requires more than just bombs; it requires specific intelligence gathered from a variety of sources through legal means.
B) War is necessary and has been necessary for a long time; Clinton was wrong to ignore the threat, but Bush was wrong to misappropriate resources on Iraq when the intelligence failed to show a threat or specific links to terror. War on nations, such as Afghanistan, that harbor terror needs to be taken. War on Pakistan may be necessary if their government does not make a serious effort to fight terror, which they currently are not. War on Iran may be necessary if they do not renounce terrorism, but as with all states, we need to exhaust use every diplomatic and non-combat options before firing a shot.
C) As Murrow said: "We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law." Calling someone a terrorist does not make them one, in the same way accusations of communism and witchcraft were not proof in and of themselves. Our nation is based on the principle of "Equal Justice Under Law" and that applies to all people in US custody, regardless of citizenship.
D) It is imperative that the US have the moral high ground on this war; war being hell does not require this country to commit hellish deeds to its own citizens or anyone else. Secretary-General Annan's logic is correct; the more rights we lose, the less our government protects and the more it rules. Freedom is worth fighting and dying for, but we have a Constitution which identifies when freedom may be abridged. That is the checks and balances: Congress makes the laws, the President enforces the laws, the Courts interpret the law. The President does not have the power to unilaterally make law; this has been true from when Lincoln had his infamous 12 week dictatorship or FDR and Japanese internment.

JDH said...

I appreciate the comments.