Those senators and congressmen demanding that we supply to Islamic terrorists all of the legal rights reserved by the Constitution to U.S. citizens are, de facto, advancing the theory that we now live in a one-world polity where borders and sovereignty mean nothing. Foreign terrorists who revile our Constitution and wish to destroy us are, evidently, just as good as those American citizens foolish enough to have elected these people. These representatives are choosing those who wish to destroy us over those of us who elected them to safeguard us. They are betraying our trust.
They tell us that they do so in order to maintain our moral high ground over the terrorists. Apparently, they very much wish to impress the jihadists. Worse, they are asserting that unless we extend to al Qaeda rights that most free people, living in democracies, don’t even have, we are no better than those who routinely behead people, kill innocent children, burn down churches, and gouge out eyes.
Linguistic philosophers label this reductionism; which means reducing everything to an equal plane. For example, the one who speeds five miles above the limit is just as bad as the murderer. Communists and those on the left always used this theory to reduce freedom to being no better than communist dictatorship. If there is found in America one person denied some sort of right, then America is no better than societies where all are denied every type of right. Such reasoning is deliberately false.
Now, not all these legislators are that malevolent; however, they are very much misguided, thinking childishly, where reasonable distinctions are never made and only black-and-white absolutism is understood. Undoubtedly, a good many are very sensitive to how they are perceived and, therefore, choose their need to be viewed as saints over the practical — and moral — need to protect the citizens of this country. Enter: “we are all citizens of the world.” How true it is that some members of Congress always seek to “expand entitlements.”
No doubt, there are certain universal standards we must uphold and apply to everyone. But, demanding that terrorist suspects be given classified U.S. intelligence — and by extension the listening world and al Qaeda — to help plan their defense is not one of those timeless universal imperatives. Likewise, broadening the term torture to include just about anything that makes the terrorist uncomfortable is indicative of a society preoccupied with looking good and nice, as opposed to protecting itself.
What ever happened to those quaint notions of a society believing enough in itself and its worthiness to do the rudimentary things necessary to survive, yes, live?
One is very disheartened to hear our representatives imply that our goodness as a society, our fair laws, and our openness make us “no better than them” — unable to hold the moral high ground — unless we twist our Constitution to treat terrorists in super-humane ways our Founding Fathers would have found laughable. Does are virtuousness all boil down to this?
At best, we are forced to conclude that these senators and others in the West do not yet believe we are truly in danger. Would one deny roughing up a criminal if that person had at his finger tips the whereabouts of a criminal partner who has abducted one’s child and is but one-half hour from killing the child? Sickeningly, there are certain liberals, whose feeling of moral superiority is so important to them, that they might, perhaps, choose the “dignity” of the terrorist over their child’s life. But these are not models to be emulated but people whose notions must be vigorously rejected by those who still have a healthy feel for life and its responsibilities.
Some senators contend that this refashioning of procedures and be-knighting terrorists with Aunt Betty’s legal rights is necessary to gain future approval from courts who will hear these cases when remanded to them by suits brought by the ACLU. But since when does Congress legislate what it thinks is fundamentally wrong simply to please the court? Doesn’t Congress write laws according to its own sense of justice, daring or hoping that the court will exercise caution before overturning the concurrence of the people’s representatives? Obviously, these senators are sending to the court what they, in fact, do believe should be law.
Some of our courts will be pleased with these renegade senators. After all, some courts have asserted that our Constitution is to be interpreted not only by that which is organic to the Constitution’s content but, now, by the mores, attitudes, and judgments of any society and country in the world that has a written opinion on subjects and matters over which the court is deliberating. In this “reciprocal” legal world, it stands to reason that the courts not only receive to our Constitution but also supply from it — to the world. In other words, we apply our laws to everyone out there, even those who are not citizens, like foreign terrorists.
One senator is fearful that failure to give the terrorists the most liberal and far-fetched benefit of every doubt will heighten the risk to our soldiers if captured by the jihadists. I would wager everything I have, that even with the passage of the new “moral” standards demanded by the senators, our captured soldiers will still have their tongues slashed, eyes gouged, heads chopped off, not to mention all the additional tortures and humiliations exacted on American infidels and sons of Satan.
Do these senators believe that the gruesome graphics we have thus far witnessed at the hands of jihadists against our soldiers — burning them alive, throwing them on the tarmac and stomping on them — is out of frustration that Congress has not extended them Warren Court interpretations of the Fourth Amendment? Oh, if only Daniel Pearl could have assured his beheaders that Sen. John McCain was committed to drafting new procedural rules! Some of our senators are simply too puffed-up with self-importance.
These new rules — prohibiting sleep deprivation, good cop/bad cop routines, and noticeable cold and hot temperature fluctuations — will render interrogation completely ineffective. Those military personnel or C.I.A. agents overstepping these new gingerly and pathetic investigation procedures will undoubtedly be accused of war crimes. Strange how those claiming to care about treatment of our soldiers are enacting rules that will put our personnel in prison and invite incarceration, or even execution, by overseas courts. Removing effective interrogation leaves us all more vulnerable to future terrorist plots.
One gets the feeling that in all our efforts and challenges today, what is paramount is not the achievement of the goal but being perceived as “good.” In other words, everything is looked at as yet another “civil rights opportunity.” We’ve become one-dimensional.
Even the war on terror is but another chance to enshrine some new set of civil rights laws. This time: Terrorist Rights. For so many children of the sixties, victory against terror pales to the push for this latest civil rights campaign. Republicans may control the three branches, but the two branches, the yin and the yang, remain liberal. And we are paying for it daily.