Noted patriot David Horowitz, responding to the Obama administration's announcement that it would try terrorism suspects in civilian court, calls it "The Worst Decision By A US President In History." I'd snark about Japanese internment, or the trail of tears, but I don't want to tempt him.
In all seriousness though -- while there is a lot of blathering about Maoists and Castroites and America haters -- the fact of the matter is that America is a country of laws, and that fact seems to infuriate certain folks on the right. One gets the feeling that their rage at Iran stems from jealousy more than anything else -- why are they so lucky to be able to have process-free show trials and we're not? (Answer: because we're a constitutional democracy, and they're an authoritarian theocracy, and that's a distinction I prefer to maintain).
The international jihadist movement, more than anything else, wants to be seen as in a war with the United States. Why? Because wars carry with them honor, and glory, and most importantly, legitimacy. Al-Qaeda likes the frame of a holy war because it fundamentally legitimizes violence -- violence is not per se wrong in war -- and they like it because the glorious struggle of warfare is a fabulous recruiting tool for disaffected young men looking for a chance to prove their masculinity and honor. Which, in all likelihood, is why Mr. Horowitz wants to forward the war framing as well -- it fuels his John Wayne hero fantasies of being part of an epic struggle for global supremacy. Apparently, police officers are just too mundane. But America ought not craft legal policy based on what best enables David Horowitz's fantasy life. The struggle against Islamist terrorism is serious business, and it can't be left to fundamentally unserious persons like David Horowitz.
The terrorists of al-Qaeda aren't noble holy warriors. They're run of the mill thugs who happen to play with bigger weapons. That doesn't mean they're "isolated individuals who have decided to break the law" -- the law understands the concept of a conspiracy. It means that, morally speaking, they do not deserve the social elevation to the level of "warrior". They're not. They're simply violent criminals backed by a murderous ideology. Nothing more, and they deserve nothing more.
It is a symbol of American greatness that we are strong enough to follow the rules, even when our enemies do not. It is a symbol of American greatness that we always hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards, even when our enemies openly flout them. It is a symbol of American greatness that even in times of great stress, we maintain our commitment to due process and rule of law, even as our enemies have disdain for both.
That's what makes America, America. And that's what makes David Horowitz anti-American.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
No matter what political philosophy he is espousing, David Horowitz is constitutionally incapable of not being a crackpot.
Your ad hominem attacks on Horowitz are unbecoming of you and you avoid truly answering his concerns of a civilian trial of these terrorists. It is a logical fallacy and while you write well it indicates sloppy thinking.
But what of Horowitz's concerns which you so easily dismiss in your ad hominem response? These include the media circus (ala the OJ trial) that the defense would most certainly wage and the potential of releasing national security secrets or the converse of not being able to utilize such secrets in open court?
If the terrorists are tried by a military tribunal or whatever was planned for them are you implying that such proceedings would have been illegal and not part of our rules? I do not think so.
Would the likelihood that these men were never read their Miranda rights automatically grant their release? And if you say no to this question then you are not treating them like criminals, but more like the terrorists that they are and not eligible for a civilian trial.
And do you really think that these men, who acknowledged their culpability, will plea guilty when they have a chance of acquittal? Would you want them to walk free to plot and plan another attack?
On that last question I would not be surprised if you said yes and ignored any possibility of further death and destruction in America or to Americans in pursuit of your utopian purity of what you consider the law. I for one do not believe in stupid suicidal gestures. Further if any are released then America would be considered even more of a paper tiger than it already is considered.
If any are released it would make America less serious in the eyes of terrorists in this war against Islamism. And these Islamists think of themselves, as does a large plurality, if not a majority, of the Islamic world along with many Imans, as noble holy warriors.
Finally part of our rules of war - and this is a war - is that those who do not follow the rules cannot expect any rules in their favor. Whatever we give them is above and beyond what we need to and if we give too much to the Islamists it can endanger us.
"Would the likelihood that these men were never read their Miranda rights automatically grant their release?"
Wow, you do not understand how Miranda works at all if you think it is an automatic release mechanism.
joe,
Have you not noticed the significant correlation between ignorance of the criminal law and belief that real life is just like Law & Order?
After all, there's no better way to gain expertise on criminal law than by getting a master's in English literature, hanging out with the Black Panthers, and then spending the rest of your career criticizing academia for being insufficiently conservative.
Finally part of our rules of war - and this is a war - is that those who do not follow the rules cannot expect any rules in their favor. Whatever we give them is above and beyond what we need to and if we give too much to the Islamists it can endanger us.
Cyril already agrees with the defendants that they are not criminals, but rather warriors fighting a mighty empire that must make great shows of strength. Of course he's going to agree with the defendants that they should remain as martyred symbols of the struggle between Islam and the West, instead of dragging them into court every day to make fools of themselves until they are convicted.
What is the "media circus" that was waged (one can wage a circus? that's a new idiom) in prior trial of terrorists (yes, we've done this before, kids!)? This new kind of conservatism with its utter forgetfulness of history -- even recent history -- lacks the virtues of the Burkean brand.
Post a Comment