Wire tapping Terrorists...
Think you heard the whole story concerning the NSA wire taps on NPR, on the DrudgeReport or in the NYT article? Perhaps not, here's some addtional information from Michelle Malkin, you be the judge.
Commentary: In the spirit of a national debate, we must tackle the issue of rights. What rights are inherent to a terrorist whose purpose is the destruction of our society?
In our society, enshrined in our constitution, we have recognized rights that protect us from excessive gov't intrusion and persecution. This is based upon the idea that we as individuals are part of a society that is living together in virtuous cooperation. If instead, there are persons that are bent upon undermining civil society and all the rights it infers then is it proper to extend those protections to the partys that intend the destruction of society?
No, it is not proper to extend such rights to terrorists. Society already recognizes the reality of war. In war, citizens are joined together into armies and explicitly empowered to violate civil rights of the enemy; in fact, the aim is to destroy the enemy.
The proper treatment of the enemy is always driven first by the primary goal; defeat and destruction of enemy threat. Only when that threat is rendered entirely destroyed (as in complete surrender) can some rights be extended to enemy combatants.
It would not be appropriate to extend special rights to this enemy as we do for soldiers of civilized societies that have signed and adhered to the provisions of the Geneva Convention. It is not appropriate to extend the enemy legal protections except to document and reassure OUR civil populations that they are, in fact, enemies. Capture on the battlefield, for example, is clearly evidence enough of enemy intent and action.
The present enemy recognizes no mercy. Beslan: School children targeted and murdered. Iraq: Aid workers captured and beheaded. London: Civilian subway riders bombed.
Our response as civilized (but threatened) society should be clear. Complete and utter destruction of the enemy encumbered by legalistic concerns.
Commentary: In the spirit of a national debate, we must tackle the issue of rights. What rights are inherent to a terrorist whose purpose is the destruction of our society?
In our society, enshrined in our constitution, we have recognized rights that protect us from excessive gov't intrusion and persecution. This is based upon the idea that we as individuals are part of a society that is living together in virtuous cooperation. If instead, there are persons that are bent upon undermining civil society and all the rights it infers then is it proper to extend those protections to the partys that intend the destruction of society?
No, it is not proper to extend such rights to terrorists. Society already recognizes the reality of war. In war, citizens are joined together into armies and explicitly empowered to violate civil rights of the enemy; in fact, the aim is to destroy the enemy.
The proper treatment of the enemy is always driven first by the primary goal; defeat and destruction of enemy threat. Only when that threat is rendered entirely destroyed (as in complete surrender) can some rights be extended to enemy combatants.
It would not be appropriate to extend special rights to this enemy as we do for soldiers of civilized societies that have signed and adhered to the provisions of the Geneva Convention. It is not appropriate to extend the enemy legal protections except to document and reassure OUR civil populations that they are, in fact, enemies. Capture on the battlefield, for example, is clearly evidence enough of enemy intent and action.
The present enemy recognizes no mercy. Beslan: School children targeted and murdered. Iraq: Aid workers captured and beheaded. London: Civilian subway riders bombed.
Our response as civilized (but threatened) society should be clear. Complete and utter destruction of the enemy encumbered by legalistic concerns.
Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty, and dies with chaos.
-- Will Durant (1885 - 1981)
posted by Fred Kleindenst at 11:36 AM | Permalink
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home