The Sunlight of Legal Justice

The Wall Street Journal called the assassination of Hezbollah killer Imad Mughniyeh an “unambiguous victory.” Alan Dershowitz said, “The case for targeting him is compelling - legally, morally, religiously, and militarily.” The Boston Globe however felt the need to inject some ambiguity into their editorial “Death of a terrorist” (2/14/08). It’s true they deserve praise for not having titled their piece, “Death of an Insurgent” or “Death of a “Freedom Fighter.” The Globe's parent New York Times couldn't quite go out on a limb, and settled for: "Bomb in Syria Kills Militant Sought as Terrorist." It is also appropriate that much of the editorial details what they call the “obscene career” of Mughniyeh. The editorial board however can’t help expressing regret about violations of due process in his assassination. It begins:

THE CAR-BOMB assassination in Damascus of terrorist mastermind Imad Mughniyeh will mean different things to different parties. But for anyone who cherishes the sunlight of legal justice, Mughniyeh's obscene career and violent end should be emblems of a lawless netherworld where terrorists kill civilians and security services hunt the killers.

The formulation is a bit obtuse, but it appears that by the “sunlight of legal justice” they mean that they wish Mughniyeh had been arrested and put on trial. The editorial concludes:

But in the shadow world [as opposed to the sunlit world] of terrorists and counterterrorists there are no rules of evidence, no presumption of innocence, and no legal justice. This is why the fight against terrorism must include a foreign policy that fosters the rule of law around the world.

Once again, the left insists on viewing Islamic terrorists as criminals who should be brought to justice and afforded the constitutional guarantees of American citizens who have violated jaywalking or embezzling laws. As Dershowitz points out, “By any reasonable definition of that term, [Mughniyeh] is a combatant who has declared war on the United States, Israel, France and other countries whose citizens he has killed.”

The Globe might have been more credible if they had argued that without due process, we might assassinate an innocent man, but there seemed to be no doubt that an obscene murderer’s life had been ended. The problem is that Mughniyeh was being given haven by a sovereign country (or somewhat sovereign if you discount Iran’s influence) that refused to extradite him. It’s not a simple matter of sending a police car over to bring him into the sunlight of legal justice. We would have to send a kidnapping team into Syria. It would have been a risky mission, which might have involved loss of life on our side, or theirs. Is this a morally superior course of action? And wouldn’t the verdict for mass murder be death anyway?

Finally, that final line: “This is why the fight against terrorism must include a foreign policy that fosters the rule of law around the world.” I’m all for the rule of law, and I thought that’s what the Bush Doctrine was trying to accomplish in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don’t we foster the rule of law by toppling Saddam Hussein and the Taliban and establishing democratic governments? But then the Globe is more concerned with rule of law being applied to terrorists than to the 58 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Boston Globe: Conservative soapbox

I thought about writing a letter to the editor about a letter to the editor about two other letters to the editor, but it seemed the epistolary dialogue had gone on long enough.

A Globe reader in Dedham is concerned that the Globe published two letters from conservatives: “Right-wing media have done enough damage to discourse in this country; the Globe should not serve as an additional soapbox for disinformation” (2/14/08). This statement seems to be an example of psychological projection, defined as “a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one’s own unacceptable thoughts.” The reality is that the media is dominated by liberals, so liberals accuse the media of right-wing bias. The reality is that the Globe is a liberal soapbox, so liberals accuse it of being a conservative soapbox.

The letter also reveals how liberals argue with conservatives. Rather than participating in a debate, liberals believe that the presence of a debating partner has “damaged” the discourse; rather than arguing their point of view they dismiss conservative opinions as “disinformation.”

What Middle Ground?

Commentary for Rural Route Today

I’ve been a friend of the editor of Rural Route Today for several decades, but we’ve never really discussed politics. When I mentioned that I had moved rightward, away from my liberal Democrat past, Robin was intrigued. She felt she was more in the center; she thought it was important to find some middle ground in this country or we’d be in big trouble. She was surprised that I could have anything in common with a bunch of right-wingers. I prefer “neo-conservative intellectuals” but never mind. (Although “neo-conservative” has become a vaguely anti-Semitic term of general opprobrium, I mean the word in its original Irving Kristol/Norman Podhoretz sense: a conservative who started life as a liberal.)

Robin’s concern with finding a middle ground has been reflected in the Presidential election; Obama, McCain and Huckabee have all campaigned to “reach across the aisle,” to unite the country with a new “bipartisan” leadership. In his rebuttal to the State of the Union address last month, Obama promised that—unlike Bush--when he was President the entire Congress would rise to applaud his speeches.

The call for consensus is an effective political tactic. How do you respond--I’m an extremist and I don’t believe in finding a consensus? But is it more than a tactic? Is there really a middle ground on the essential issues of the day? Is it meaningful to talk about “getting beyond partisan politics as usual” and “getting past all this blue state/red state” animosity?

Analysts describe three policy categories: social, economic and foreign. On social policy, opposing gun control, abortion and gay marriage would put you in the conservative camp; liberals support all three. On foreign policy, conservatives favor strong defense and a military response to terrorism; liberals call for defense cuts and dialogue with our friends and enemies. On economic policy, conservatives argue for lower taxes and small government; liberals believe that since government is the solution to problems, cutting taxes means cutting necessary government programs.

More specifically, Democrats believe that tax cuts favor the rich, that we need to raise taxes on the wealthy to give the less fortunate members of society a helping hand; Republicans believe that tax cuts stimulate the economy and benefit everyone.

One side believes that immigrants deserve a shot at a better life; the other side believes that people who enter the country illegally have broken the law and should not be provided taxpayer-funded services.

One side believes that global warming warrants the creation of a global legislative mechanism to control greenhouse gas emissions; the other believes that global warming is neither catastrophic nor man-made and that market forces should guide the creation of new energy sources. One side sees Armageddon and the other side sees a pretext to expand global governance.

One side believes that health care is a right that should be guaranteed by the government; the other fears the consequences of putting a multi-billion dollar industry under the control of the kind of bureaucrats who run the Department of Motor Vehicles.

One side believes that affirmative action is the only fair means to compensate the victims of our nation’s history of racism and slavery; the other believes that affirmative action itself prolongs racism by focusing on skin color.

One side believes that abortion is murder, the other believes a woman has the right to make choices about her own body.

One side thinks that if we promote energy conservation we need not defile our coastlines and the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge with drilling rigs; the other thinks that the risk of environmental damage is small compared with the benefits of developing domestic resources.

These examples present two clear and conflicting ideologies. I would not argue that there are only two possible choices on these issues, that compromise is always impossible. Our health care system is already a hybrid of government and private enterprise, and I certainly hope that we can find common ground to deal with immigration issues. My point is that there is nothing inherently superior about the middle ground between two strongly felt opinions—nor about a candidate who sides with liberals on some issues and conservatives on others. Getting a 100% conservative rating on economic issues and a 100% liberal rating on social policy doesn’t put you in the center of the political spectrum in any meaningful way.

The way I see it, in a democracy we argue our point of view and elect candidates who agree with us. The side that wins gets to implement its policies. Since no party ever gains complete control of government, it is necessary to compromise, but compromise is not necessarily a virtue; a secondary definition of the word is, “the acceptance of standards that are lower than is desirable.” Legislative compromise is not the same as “putting our ideological differences behind us.” What’s wrong with ideological differences? How can we put them aside without compromising firmly held beliefs?

Certainly we can agree to avoid rude political speech like MoveOn.org’s ad calling General David Petreus a traitor (“David Betray-us”). And the corresponding rude behavior on the far right… well, nothing comes to mind at the moment, although I’m sure that VPR listeners who don’t know where to find Rush Limbaugh on the dial would be happy to point out how hate-filled talk radio is.

Conservatives talk about a stool that is unstable without three conservative policy legs—John McCain being the unstable stool that some like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have tried to kick over. When Mitt Romney was in the race they had a valid point: conservatives should vote for the most conservative candidate. Since McCain is more conservative than either Obama or Hillary, it seems obvious that it is time for conservatives to support McCain.

Interestingly, calls for moderation seems to come mostly from the liberal side of the aisle. This isn’t because Democrats are by nature more moderate than those hate-filled talk radio conservatives; it’s just that liberals have defined the language. When Republicans adopt liberal positions, Democrats praise them as “moderate”; when Democrats take conservative positions, they are called “conservative Democrats” (conservative being a pejorative)—or a “traitorous anti-Christ” in the case of Joe Lieberman (also meant as a pejorative).

Obama’s call for centrism before the State of the Union came at the end of a list of specific policy initiatives, of which I agree with precisely none. He called for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, nationalized health care, and higher taxes on the rich. He called the Surge a failure. Not exactly centrist positions. I don’t fault Obama—he is after all running for political office, and the strategy of positioning your candidacy above the fray is time-honored. But the only way he could unite the American electorate would be if everyone who disagrees with his liberal ideas gives up the debate and goes along with him. This is not about finding middle ground; it’s about ending the debate.

Personally, I enjoy the debate. I have no intention of compromising my extremist positions, but I don’t want to shut liberals up. Monday morning without James Carroll’s moonbat columns in the Boston Globe just wouldn’t be as much fun.

Deadly SUVs (cont.)

The Globe reports "A sport utility vehicle driven by an 86-year-old man jumped the sidewalk and ran over an 8-year-old girl." Is the SUV relevant, or just an opportunity to inject some anti-SUV propaganda?

The Dick Durbin Pol Pot Connection, 2

Dick Durbin’s comparison of the U.S. at Guantanamo and Pol Pot has been out of the news for a while, so he’ll be gratified by today’s Globe editorial which mentions him and then goes on to make the colossally idiotic statement regarding our waterboarding three known terrorist leaders: “The Spanish Inquisition, Nazi Germany, militarist Japan, Pol Pot - this is the roster that Bush wants the United States to join.” See, they all condoned waterboarding, so do we, so that puts us on the same “roster.” There might be some pathetic logic if the Globe had made the case that these were the only four regimes in history to use waterboarding. This is doubtful, but even so, what about the many far more odious torture techniques used by any number of countries? The French in Algeria, perhaps? Why not write about the U.S. wanting to join the same roster as…France? And what about handcuffs? Pol Pot used handcuffs. American police use handcuffs. Is this Pol Pot handcuff roster really one our men in blue want to join? And wait, if I recall correctly, the Nazis used jail cells with locked doors. So does the Cambridge Police Department. Bunch of Nazis!

World's Best Dog Walks No More

Daisy Lapides-Wilson
Sept 29, 1994—February 1, 2008

We are sorry to have to report the death last Friday of our beloved dog Daisy (a.k.a., the Animule, the Mule, Thumper, Sweetie, Daze). As any of you who met her will testify, she was the world’s best dog. This is not her owners’ subjective bias but simply a fact.

Daisy’s mother was an English setter, her father unknown. We suspect that the rogue was part Great Dane and part Holstein. She had pointing instincts from her mother, and could stalk a squirrel as long as her owner was patient enough to watch.

Even the world’s best dog was not without her faults. The rumble of distant thunder would reduce her to a mass of jelly quivering in the nearest enclosed space. She was too big to fit under our bed, so she usually made do with the shower. It was quite a surprise to find her in the bathtub one dark and stormy night when I turned on the light at 2 AM.

This understandable fear of thunder progressed with age to a somewhat less rational fear of rain. After all, when it rained it might thunder. It finally moved into full blown paranoia, where a cloudy day might be suspected of bringing rain and then thunder. In her final weeks I had just crossed the highway near our house when a lightening struck close to us with a particularly loud crack of thunder. Although Daisy has walked off leash around the busiest streets, she decided at that point that she was going home and she headed off with the intention of crossing Fresh Pond Parkway without me. Death by traffic was insignificant next to terror from the skies.

Daisy had little use for most other dogs, and could nip puppies who didn’t listen to her warnings. Her entire focus was on humans. She made an exception for large handsome male dogs—mainly Dobermans and large German shepherds. Even at age 13 with a large tumor weighing her down, she would frolic unabashedly in the presence of dogs who turned her on—and the expression is an accurate description of the way her entire demeanor switched. When she was younger she would run in giddy circles, legs akimbo, squeaking, ramming her chest against the object of her infatuation, while her paramour looked patiently at this silly dame making a fool of herself.

Daisy was abused as a young dog and she had self-esteem issues, which left her psychologically needy. We hated to leave her alone for even an evening, and we no doubt surprised many people by asking if it was all right to bring our dog along to dinner. It’s not that she was a well-behaved dog; it’s that she was more like another human guest, better behaved than many people’s children. She enjoyed large crowds—especially elegant parties where a piece or two of brisket might be directed her way. She would always work the room like a politician, introducing herself politely with a wagging tail, her head bowed in submission.

Daisy could walk through an elaborate set-up of 300 Playmobil pieces, seemingly oblivious of the obstacles, not looking at her feet, without knocking over a single piece. It was always a feat of incredible dexterity, motivated by utmost considerate of others’ feelings.

Someone said that she has an old soul, and although I don’t believe in reincarnation, it seemed apt. A second person made the similar comment—suspecting that she had been a queen in a former life. I was thinking more along the lines of my grandmother Mabel Wilson. They shared a similar compassion, wisdom (in Daisy’s case, assuming the absence of male Dobermans) and a rebellious streak that appeared not in youth but at the end of a life threatened by cancer.

Daisy’s nickname Thumper came from the enthusiastic tail thumping that greeted us after any absence longer than 45 seconds. She was a born percussionist and often at dinner would thump her tail back and forth between two chairs. She enjoyed the fire extinguisher by the back door for its higher bell tones.

An elderly British woman once pronounced of Daisy, “She ought to be a breed.” Alas yes, she ought to have been. The science of cloning is still too new to have given us another Daisy. We mourn her loss like the third daughter that she was.

Happy squirrel hunting, you old mule.

Starting With Our Own

James Carroll invokes Obama and JFK’s American University speech to argue for nuclear disarmament: “The abolition of all nuclear weapons, starting with our own, must be at the top of the new president's agenda.”

I can’t speak for Obama, but those words, “starting with our own” are a distortion of Kennedy’s passionate yet pragmatic plea for peace: “Our primary long range interest in Geneva…is general and complete disarmament, designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms.” Kennedy concludes: “We do not want a war. We shall be prepared if others wish it.”

This is a far cry from the reckless unilateral disarmament that Carroll advocates.

At American University, Kennedy did not shy from blunt criticism of the Soviet Union: “The Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today.” Fortunately, he says, both the Soviets and the Americans share a “mutual abhorrence of war.” As Sting phrased it, “The Russians love their children too.” Today however we are faced with an enemy that straps explosives to one-year old babies.