Liberalism and National Security—The Ultimate Dichotomy
The evidence is continuing to mount but it seems clear that modern liberalism is at odds with national security. Whether they sit on the Supreme Court, occupy a seat in Congress, or publish some of our nation’s largest newspapers, several high profile liberals have significantly impeded our ability to wage the War on Terror, and we may be less safe as a result.
In a breathtaking decision, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a liberal majority on the Supreme Court held that the president does not have authority to order that terrorists be tried before military commissions. In a case where the court should not have had jurisdiction if the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 were to be taken seriously, liberal judicial activism has once again reared its ugly head. Justice Clarence Thomas offered a stinging dissent regarding the court’s willingness “to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous.” Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and National Review contributor, anticipated such a ruling offering this prescient thought: “Make no mistake: if this happens, the Supreme Court will have dictated that we now have a treaty with al Qaeda—which no president, no senate, and no vote of the American people would ever countenance.”
Applying the Geneva Conventions to barbarians who recognize no international laws of war would be laughable if it wasn’t so reckless. Perhaps Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote for the majority, would allow the Pentagon to take his home via eminent domain (see: disastrous Kelo decision) in order to house Guantanamo guests if the prison were to close. After all, shutting down Gitmo is a high priority in the left’s War on Terror strategy. And if Stevens is looking for a driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan can list Osama bin Laden as a reference.
Cheers undoubtedly rang out at the New York Times when the Hamdan case was adjudicated. After all, any effort to rebuff or expose the efforts of the Bush administration in the War on Terror will be encouraged by the old gray lady. The top of the fold Times story (“Bank Data is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror,” 6/23/06) revealing the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program was the latest in a series of damaging exposes dealing a hard blow to our clandestine capabilities. Coupled with the leak involving the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, the Times has made it abundantly clear that American national security will take a back seat to Pulitzer Prize nominations. It’s unclear, however, if those awards can withstand a dirty bomb attack. It might be best to keep them locked in an underground vault.
The New York Times has no left-wing agenda and is only interested in exposing matters of “public interest” its editors and defenders assert. But a closer look can be quite revealing. Take, for instance, Pinch Sulzberger’s recent commencement address at a New York State University: “You weren’t supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land,” bemoans Sulzberger. He continues, “You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, be it the rights of immigrants to start a new life; the rights of gays to marry; or the rights of women to choose. You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where oil still drives policy and environmentalists have to relentlessly fight for every gain. You weren’t. But you are. And for that I’m sorry.” Sulzberger doesn’t write for the Times—he publishes it.
While criticizing the efforts of the Bush Administration and at the same time besmirching our military service people is nothing new to those occupying power on the left. Although he later attempted to “clarify” his statement, the damage was already done when Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) spoke about his interpretation of U.S. policy regarding treatment of prisoners. Referring to a report describing prisoners being subjected to rap music and isolation, Durbin said, “If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings.” Our kidnapped soldiers are brutalized and beheaded while Gitmo terrorists are subjected to lyrics from the likes of Snoop Dogg. Something tells me that Snoop and his cohorts may be getting a bad rap.
When Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) told a civic group that our Army was “broken, worn out” and “living hand to mouth,” did he not consider that his statement would be read by our enemies? Even if he was right—which he isn’t—it is, at best, an irresponsible comment.
Here’s an inconvenient truth that many liberals fail to grasp: the biggest threat facing civilization isn’t carbon dioxide emissions; it’s climate warming via a nuclear detonation. And our enemies will stop at nothing to achieve this objective on American soil.
—
Michael Nevin, Jr. is a contributor to several Internet websites and a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He receives e-mail at nevin166@comcast.net.
July 26th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Applying the Geneva Conventions to barbarians who recognize no international laws of war would be laughable if it wasn’t so reckless.
Tony Blair said that the war on terror was not a battle between civilisation it was a battle for civilisation. Becoming barbarians means we lose.
July 26th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
So in other words, we should become our enemy. Never did I ever believe I would see such rhetoric in America coming from an American. Want to know what the ultimate dichotomy is, those that will show more animousity, prejudice and hatred towards their fellow Americans labeled “Liberal” than they have towards any enemy this country has ever seen. Never in my life would I ever imagine the word “Liberal” used with the same venomous bigotry as the word “nigger”. It was Adolph Hitler who once said, “If you divide people against each other, you can conquer them all” and this rhetoric is perfect example of Nazi propaganda that was used against the Jews before and during WWII.
Very few people need to be reminded that they live in America. We have what’s known as a Constitution. It was in the 90s that the Republicans and Conservatives reminded America of the Constitution when Democrats controlled all 3 branches of the Government. “The Constitutionally protected institution of checks and balances are not in place.” This led to the Contract with America. This led to the change of power and now those that complained of not having checks and balances with Democrats are now complaining that there shouldn’t be checks and balances with Republicans. How many double standards can this country take here? The Constitution is not some flimsy document to bend and shape to one’s political agenda. We have a free press system and if you don’t like it, move to North Korea where their press system is more conducive to your ideology. We have 3 branches of government for proper checks and balances and if you don’t like it, move to Iran where their government is more conducive to your ideology. We have the Constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to be a Conservative, Moderate or a Liberal without having to endure backwards ass prejudice and bigotry and if you don’t like it, move to China where their social policies are more conducive to your idiology. For every soldier who ever fought for these freedoms in this country, rhetoric like this is nothing more than you pissing on their graves. My Grandfater fought ideology like this in World War II and if he was alive today to read this Nazi rhetoric, he’d spit in your face. And in case you haven’t noticed, America is the most Liberal country in the World which makes you a Liberal too and if you don’t like these freedoms that people died for you to have, you know where the door is and feel free to kiss Lady Liberty’s ass on the way out!
July 27th, 2006 at 2:11 am
What’s the matter, Trev? My guess is that you can dish it out but can’t take it. You have intentionally turned a blind eye to some of the wonderful terms that have been directed at everyone who is not a “liberal” by “liberals”. Remember, honey, that the “liberals” started all this shite and now people are finally getting fed up and giving it back to you. Your and your fellow “liberals”, like all school yard bullies, act all big and bad until someone finally stands up to them and punches them out. They go running and crying to their mommies. As Harry Truman once said “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”. The sad thing is that if FDR, JFK or Harry Truman were alive today they called “neocons” and would be getting the Joe Liberman treatment by the Democratic party. That is if they hadn’t already quoted Reagan and left on their own accord.
Your comments about freedom of speech and the press are laughable. You seem to think that because some are disputing what the MSM is putting out as propaganda and are actually calling them on it that is somehow stifling their rights. You seem to think that papers like the NYT have the right to publish secrets that may put many lives into jeopardy because we have a “right to know” and the NYT has “freedom of the press”. I am sure you would have fully supported the NYT if they had published the full battle plan for the D-Day invasions, too. Of course that might mean you wouldn’t be here because your grandfather would have died but I am sure you would agree that would be a small price to pay for the NYT’s rights.
Well, Trevor, no they do not have the right to do whatever they please and hide behind the constitution. If that were the case I could take out a full page ads/television commercials and say some really wonderful things about you, complete with photoshopped pictures because I am exercising MY right of “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press”. As with all people who call themselves “liberals” today you do not grasp the simple fact that with great freedoms come great responsibility, and no you can not do whatever you damn well please without repercussions. To think otherwise is the sign of great immaturity.
But don’t worry Trevor, I have called the Waaaaaaaahbulance for you.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Nahanni, everything you just typed I’ve heard time and time again, over and over from your “leaders” including the waaaambulance thing from Michelle Malkin. Nothing new and nothing original because you aren’t allowed and we understand. The SS Propaganda rules! Coulter said it! Malkin said it! Limbaugh said it! Hannity said it! Hussein said it! Ahmadinejad said it! Jong Ill said it! Hitler said it! It’s all the same coming from you or anyone else with your ideology of prejudice, hate and empty bigotry. I’m not sure of the “Liberal” label since I doubt you even know the true definition of it and you probably never took the time to bother. Deaf, dumb and born to follow! Your “leaders” say it’s bad so you jump through the hoops for them and call your fellow Americans a “nigger”, “kyke”, “liberal”, “spic” or “faggot” and all the rest of the ignorance that people like you have peppered history with because ignorance is choosing to be stupid and some people will never be able to do better and for that….we feel sorry for you! Your sad! Pathetic and truly worthy of sorrow but we simply don’t have the time.
New York Times? Up! UP! Good girl! Treat?
July 27th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
Nahanni….need you be reminded from the Democrats losing power in the 90s? It wasn’t Conservatives, It wasn’t Liberals. It was those of us in the center, the REAL MAJORITY who outnumber you and your couterparts on the Left. Those who took control away then and we’ll be taking control away now. Educate yourself.