So, it's now come to this! A plot is uncovered in which an American-born jihadist, Abu Ali, planned to assassinate the President of the United States and the usual "civil rights" and humanitarian groups here in the U.S. are upset not about assassins running amok but, you guessed it: the rights of the Islamic assassin. Under the umbrella of "evidentiary procedures", they are doing whatever they can to get the case against the Al Qaeda suspect thrown out.
Referring to Abu Ali's imprisonment in Saudi Arabia, the New York Times wrote: This case is "another demonstration of what has gone wrong on the federal war on terror." Even before the claim of "coercion" has passed legal verification, the New York Times is already there indicting our law enforcement.
We shouldn't be surprised, however, given that many efforts by officials to protect citizens from jihadists wishing to kill us here have resulted in "humanitarian" groups working strenuously to protect not us but those wishing to kill us. But such is the inevitability of those gripped by political ideologies and sloganeering that have become their identity and purpose.
The Bible long ago labeled the sickness of such an "ism" avodah zarah, Strange Worship. In other words, attaching oneself to suicidal propositions that defy common sense but make the "believer" feel superior. It is fanaticism - proving, once again, that emotions hold greater sway than do IQs.
Like Nero fiddling while Rome burns, many liberals still luxuriate in these pastimes since they do not concede the real and present danger we face. And that is because their liberal blame-America-first perspective holds that terrorism against the West would stop tomorrow if only the "imperialistic" U.S. would become like Canada and if we would simply, in the fashion of Dr. Freud, learn "to understand" the terrorists, "good boys gone bad."
Mature people wishing to protect their families are wise to dismiss those who see "social work" as the answer to all of the world's dangers. Serious people cannot surrender their safety and destiny to those in the high-profile civil-rights industry who see a time of war as simply an opportunity and bonanza to implement what constitutes their identity, meaning-in-life, power, and chances at fundraising.
There is, however, much more at work here than simply liberal foolishness and one-dimensional fanaticism. It is the desire to control America by defining every incident within terms the Left has historically owned, namely, civil rights. Once so defined, we, out of habit, become answerable to them - the self-proclaimed arbiters of all civil rights issues. It is a habit worth breaking.
In our country, we defer to law enforcement on issues of safety as we do to the military on matters of national defense and similarly to elected representatives on issues regarding legislation and law. By defining every issue as a civil rights one, the FBI, the military, executive and legislative are pushed aside, removed from their rightful jurisdictions. What should be their purview becomes that of the ersatz ad hoc humanitarian groups and liberal newspapers. With the takeover of everything by these self-appointed groups, we the people become, in effect, disenfranchised.
Though not elected nor serving in our military and law enforcement, hard core activists on the Left inhere to an arrogance that they are the only ones qualified to lead the nation on the issues of the day. As command- and- control moralists, they define everything as a violation of civil rights - cowing a gullible and good-willed public - so that, voila!, they become the controlling legal authority. They become the power!
To be sure, some are obsessed with the civil rights of those wishing to disrupt society since such constituted their youth and the activities today of many of their children. It is, after all, their self-interest.
This was brought to light recently at a small gathering of liberal clergy and professors where the question was asked: Should a prayer be said in time of war for the United States government? The conclusion reached was that the following prayer be said: "That the U.S. government not abuse its power." Military victory and the protection of our U.S. soldiers were, to my horror, not considered vital to this group since its self-interest lies in protecting what it does during war- which is not serving and soldiering but protesting.
Forty years of understanding criminals, our enemies and terrorists have led many on the Left to empathize with those elements-- viewing them as fellow "protestors". It is only natural to begin admiring the object of one's "understanding"; to feel a kinship to those to whom we give our political talents and energy; to those in whom we have invested our identity and who provide us with "social activism" purpose. Witness Lynn Stewart. We often sanctify the objects that give us "moral purpose".
Without doubt this has led to a self-hate: hate of our country and the people the Left holds responsible for causing "all of society's and the world's suffering." The old mantra "it is society's fault" has now morphed into "it is America's fault." The consequence: more concern for the "oppressed" jihadist than the white, Christian, conservative, southwestern rancher George Bush, President of the United States.
Any neutral observer can't help but see the blatant selectivity groups such as the ACLU use when deciding whose "rights" are worthy of defense, concerned, apparently, not for ordinary law-abiding citizens but mostly the hardened criminals, illegal aliens and, now, terrorists. The Non-American Civil Liberties Union is a more apt description of their mission.
The ever increasing crop of flashy "humanitarian" groups-- there seems to be a new one every week-- is a consequence of money being shoveled from the treasure troves of leftwing capitalists into the hands of those schooled in the legal thuggeries needed to bring down certain people (e.g. Donald Rumsfeld) and practices the sponsors don't like. Little things like federalism, republicanism, and checks and balances will not be allowed to stand in the way of those on the Left who consider themselves morally best suited for command and control.
