The Seattle Times Shills for the Enemy

Today the Seattle Times published one of the most ridiculous excuses for surrender in Iraq that I've ever seen. Using this single photgraph ((c) 2007, Seattle Times), seemingly without context, they opined:

The image in Tuesday's newspapers was of a sea of Iraqi flags, as tens of thousands of Iraqis paraded in Najaf against the occupation of their country by the United States. If anyone were looking for an Iraqi answer to the "surge," it is in that photo.

There are those in America who still believe that a measured increase in manpower could bring about order and safety in Iraq. To them, we say: Look at the photos from Najaf. There is what they think of your idea. Ponder that crowd. See how many flags are in it. Think of the last time you saw American flags flying everywhere — what event had just happened. That was 9/11. Recall how people felt then. That is Najaf now. "Death to America," the crowd said. Thousands said it.

There is no arguing with a force like that.

The piece went on to argue that leaving with our tails between our legs was perfectly honorable, and not a surrender at all because we weren't giving our troops up as prisonoers.

Daring to, in fact, "argue[] with a force like that," I wrote the following letter to the editor. I've included links in this version.

Editor, The Times:

Your absurd editorial, “The Flags of Najaf,” represents perfectly the complete disconnect between the reality of Iraq and the head-in-the-sand leftist media vision of it.

You paint a picture of a popular uprising, a spontaneous demonstration from everyday people who just want America to leave so they can get back to their lives and businesses. Nothing could be further from the truth. First, you claim there were “tens of thousands” of demonstrators, when in reality, the numbers were closer to 5 – 7,000. Even the protesters themselves only were able to claim 10,000 – at most half of your claim. Either this is a sloppy oversight or flat dishonesty.

Second, you fail to mention that the demonstration was orchestrated by murderer Muqtada al Sadr from his hiding place in Iran, likely with logistical support and funding from Iran itself. This demonstration is actually a profound sign of this villain’s weakness, not strength. When the best he can do is get a few thousand people to waive flags as opposed to besting joint American/Iraqi forces in the field, things are definitely looking up. This was a failed attempt at enemy propaganda, and it takes a willful blindness to see it as anything other than that.

Finally, you laughably argue that leaving on a timeline demanded by those who have sworn to destroy our nation is not a surrender, as if Iraq is locked away in its own little hermetically sealed bubble. No serious person believes that leaving Iraq won’t have deadly consequences for the brave Iraqis still risking their lives to form their democracy, or for the safety of the United States itself. Iran’s fingerprints are all over the Najaf “protest” – does anyone seriously believe they aren’t a threat to us?

I urge the Times to stop going out of their way to shill for the enemies of America. Your readers deserve facts, not false jihadist propaganda.

I'm looking forward to their correction, of course.

Update: Shockingly, the Seattle Times didn't print my letter, or even include it in the "online only" letters. Oh, well. I suppose I understand, though - they had to make room for the guy informing us all about "Halliburton and the other fattening merchants of war" and "The unborn generations of Americans whose future has already been mortgaged by the Bush administration".

Journalism at its finest.

The Pelosi Seven's Unconstitutional Globetrotting

"Upon the principles of a free government, inconveniences from [multiple personalities in government] must necessarily be submitted to in the formation of the legislature; but it is unnecessary, and therefore unwise, to introduce them into the constitution of the Executive. It is here too that they may be most pernicious... In the conduct of war, in which the energy of the Executive is the bulwark of the national security, every thing would be to be apprehended from its plurality."

-- Federalist No. 70 (emphasis added)

"We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States."

-- Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA)

The danger inherent in Rep. Pelosi and her gang of seven's shameful trip to Syria was clearly foreseen by the framers of the Constitution. What Lantos doesn't understand is that how he views his job - and apparently how Pelosi sees hers - is directly at odds with the Constitution. In fact, how he "views his job" is irrelevant - his job description (at least as it relates to foreign policy) is pretty clearly laid out in the Constitution he swore to support and defend. In case he needs it spelled out, it doesn't include negotiations with foreign leaders in contravention of official US foreign policy.

The United States doesn't have separate Democrat or Republican foreign policies, it has A foreign policy. One. Period. And the execution of that foreign policy is the sole province of the President - the one the American people elected knowing full well he would be entrusted with that responsibility for the next four years, not the wanna-be one accountable to no one except a few hundred thousand hippies in the second smallest congressional district in the country.

It's bad enough when members of our government with more bombast than brains or influence do these kinds of things, like when Rep. McDermott went to Baghdad on the eve of war to show his support for terrorist-funding fascists over the President of the United States. This is the category in which I place the six shamefully seditious fools who followed Pelosi on her illegal errand, including the three Republicans. But when it's the Speaker of the House of Representatives, she's holding herself out as an alternative President - someone who will assure terror-sponsoring foreign leaders that they need not worry about the man in the White House who points out their evil or may impose sanctions. She's going as someone who announces - with credibility - that she has the power to thwart US interests and our Constitutional scheme, to the delight of our enemies. (And doing it while wearing a headscarf in submission to Islam, no less.) Whether that is her intent or not is irrelevant. She's aiding the enemies of freedom to the direct detriment of the people and the Constitution of the United States. What Jihadist can see one of the most powerful people in America treating a fascist terror leader as a statesman while wearing their religion's required attire and not believe victory over the blasphemy of liberal democracy is at hand?

This isn't a partisan issue, either. This is a precedent that, once set, can never go away. Imagine the howls that would have gone out from those now praising Pelosi had Newt Gingrich gone to negotiate with Slobodan Milosevic in between Clinton's ordered Tomahawk barrages. They would have been universal, loud, and correct. But not any more. There's no sanction for this beyond condemnation and outrage, short of a sedition charge (a card that sadly will never be played). If Pelosi gets away with this, we will forever have an "opposition foreign policy," with the party out of power seeking to undermine our own president in the halls of foreign governments.

Talk about the Constitution under assault.

Can any foreign power take a country seriously when independent factional heads each pursue their own foreign policies, each seeking to undermine the other? Lose tribal confederations do that, not Great Nations. Our Constitution gives us the method - we debate, then we decide, then one person acts with one voice beyond our shores. For two centuries, we've followed that model. Now the Speaker of the House (the only one of the seven with any real power, which is why her actions are the most worthy of scorn) has chosen to disregard that for her own short term ends. It's illegal and anti-American, and dangerous in the extreme at a time in history our lives and way of life depend on those who value freedom opposing theocratic fascism with one voice.

I can only hope the voters of this great nation choose to keep it so, and rebuke this behavior next year at the polls.

Normally a free burrito and a lunch speaker is a good thing...

For those of you who don't know who Lynne Stewart is, you can read about her here (Orrin and others' take) or here (her own website, and the propaganda video we sat through when she came to visit today).

The skinny is she represented a convicted Islamic terrorist, intentionally broke some rules regarding her contact with him, got prosecuted and convicted for it (and, if justice prevails, will be going to jail soon) and is now being lionized by some on the left as a symbol of courage in a time of tyranny.

Here's how I would try to explain to my more liberal friends why I find Stewart (and her story) so unappealing:

Let's say I represented an anti-abortion activist who happened to primarily speak a foreign language.

And let's say he was convicted of plotting to blow up an abortion clinic and running a group that had successfully pulled off several of these mass murders.

And let's say that as a precaution against more bombings occurring at his direction the government was keeping my client in maximum-security lock up and not allowing him any contact with the outside world.

And let's say they made an exception for me as his lawyer, and told me I could bring support staff (translator, assistant) but our conversations with my client had to be limited to issues surrounding his legal defense and under no circumstances could I (or my staff) communicate on his behalf with his followers either personally or via the media.

And let's say I agreed to all of this in writing.

Now let's say I decide to patently disregard this agreement.

Let's say the "staff" I choose to bring for my client meetings are people who have ties to my client's demonstrably violent organization.

And let's say I allow my client to talk to these associates in their shared language (which I don't speak or understand) about issues wholly unrelated to his legal defense -- and I know they're talking, not translating, because the entire time they're doing it I'm making loud remarks about nothing, presumably to make it harder for the government to listen in to their conversations which it has informed me it might be doing.

And let's say a few months later another abortion clinic is bombed, killing or maiming dozens of doctors, nurses, staff, patients and bystanders...and my client's organization takes responsibility and demands his release.

And let's say even after this tragedy I continue to allow my client to meet with these conduits to his organization and speak with them as he chooses.

And let's say I issue a press release on my client's behalf wherein he urges followers to reject any peace with the "baby killers".

Again, let's say I did all this.

Would you praise me as a "zealous advocate"? Would you laud me as a "civil rights champion"?

Let's just say I wouldn't.
----

Bottom line, Lynne Stewart deserves to go to jail.

If she thought the restrictions the government was placing on her contact with her convicted-terrorist client were unconstitutional she could have challenged them. I might even have supported her in some of her objections...

Instead she made an agreement with the U.S. Government in obvious bad faith, broke it intentionally, and (at the very least) endangered innocent lives by doing so. (During the period when she was facilitating her client's communication with his organization it murdered 60 people and issued a demand for his release.)

I'll say it again, she deserves to go to jail.

Also, all the burritos were vegan.

Terrorist Abettor Lynne Stewart to Speak in Seattle

According to the announcement in The Crier (the Law School's official newsletter),

Celebrate International Women's Day with special guest Lynne Stewart speaking on “My fight for justice in Patriot Act America”

Acclaimed for defending poor people, radicals of color, and controversial figures, Stewart, a civil rights attorney, was sentenced to 28 months in prison on charges of abetting terrorism in a trial described as “a triumph of fear over reason” by Mumia Abu-Jamal. Stewart will discuss her appeal and the inspiration she draws from the legacy of female resistance to repression.

Co-sponsors: Radical Women, Seattle University Departments and Programs: Anthropology, Sociology & Social Work, Criminal Justice, Political Science, Pre-Law, Women’s Studies; the Black Panther Party Reunion Committee, National Lawyers Guild - Seattle and SU Law School Chapter.

This free event is at Seattle University, Pigott Auditorium. Enter campus on East Marion at 12th Ave. Continue straight past the visitor parking lot. The auditorium is in the Pigott Building, the first building on the right. For more information call 206-722-6057 or email RWseattle@mindspring.com.

The sponsors of the event are radical socialist groups and an otherwise respectable University down town. She's endorsed by a cop killer. But she's simply a "civil rights attorney," "acclaimed for defending the poor." There's no mention of the crime her legal defense fund is attempting to defend her against, nor of the 60 dead people she helped to kill in the name of world-wide imposition of Sharia law and the oppression of all women. That the "Radical Women" are one of the prime sponsors of this is a sick joke.

Here's some background on Stewart I put together last year, from a side comment thread on this blog on another topic.

Walter Reed - A Casualty of the Political War

The emerging scandal surrounding the deteriorating level of care for wounded vets at Walter Reed Army Medical Center is a serious one, and one which even now seems not to be garnering the level of press attention it deserves. The reason for this, I'm convinced, is the heightened hyperbole of the political debate, and the cries of "Wolf!" coming from the left, and the smug, blind arrogance on the right.

Specifically, the left has been making charges against the Army's logistical, financial, and materiel support (this time around) since 2002. Not enough pay, not enough armor, not enough medical support. Some of them have been important and valid criticisms. Many (especially more recently) have been flatly ridiculous. But because the universal conclusion of these bomb throwers was, "So that means we shouldn't fight terrorists at all - run away!" the complaints were ignored for what in many cases they really were - an attempt to be anti-war and anti-military without sounding anti-war or anti-troop. Most telling was that almost none of them couched their critiques in terms of how to better improve the fighting efficiency and efficacy of the Army - They were nothing more than calls for pre-emptive American surrender. As a result, no one who took seriously America's crucial role in battling tyranny, fascism, and Islamo-terrorism world wide took any of the complaints seriously - even when they deserved to be soberly addressed.

Usually, I don't mind "partisanship" or "politicization." I usually consider those synonyms for "standing firm on principle" and "robust debate and democracy." But this is a case where the line has been crossed, and the team sport mentality causes substantial harm to those we can least afford to hurt - the volunteer bulwarks of freedom.

The absurdity of many of the left's complaints allowed the right - who "knew" that their status as the only serious party when it came to national security was secure - to ignore ALL the complaints. The were entrenched in power - why should they bother with introspection? Why should they give any ammunition to their political enemies, who they (not incorrectly) feared would only use it to further undermine the American war effort?

And so it was that the conditions at Walter Reed continued to deteriorate, American heroes were left to fight through the red tape of the world's largest HMO on their own, and those who have sacrificed for our freedom were given lip service instead of real help.

I'm glad that heads have rolled at the highest level. I'm glad that the Bush administration has begun taking action to remedy the situation. I hope that the Republicans have gulped enough humble pie to take the time to sort the serious complaints from the chaff thrown up by pacifist appeasers of tyranny. And I hope that Democrats, now under the weight of leadership, will tamp down the shrill and the dishonest, so they can better serve the American military.

But I'm not going to hold my breath. Thanks be to the bloggers and the few reporters who wouldn't let this problem simply melt into the roar of partisanship.

Newt the Feminist?

I still don't particularly care for Newt Gingrich personally, but I have to admit, he's got a lot of compelling things to say. He probably articulates the junction between a (not "the") principled conservative approach and practical efficacy of that approach better than any other right-leaner out there, politician or pundit.

In this recent interview with the New York Post, he lays out a great deal of the problems - and solutions - facing the country and conservatives. Take this tack on the War on Jihad:

For example, we should be talking about women's rights. I mean, women's rights is the easiest, cleanest single fight worldwide in taking on [the most radical forms of Islam]. . .

What better way to mobilize and/or shame liberals into understanding the dangers we face? He understands that there are a thousand good reasons for fighting this fight, and all of them resonate differently with different groups. It's ironic that this icon of divisiveness (admittedly an unfair caricature largely inflated by the MSM) understands so well how to build a broad coalition. I just don't think he's the one to do it.

Nominating Newt would guarantee the inauguration of President Hillary in January 2009. I wouldn't vote for him. But I sincerely hope he enters the race. His presence will force serious attention to serious issues that need to be faced by the Republican party - lest conservatism fall into irrelevance and the US becomes just another Eutopian Socialist society slowly committing cultural suicide.

Separation of War Powers

A very good rundown/overview by Jeffrey Rosen on the Constitutional issues surrounding Congressional contemplations on Commander-in-Chief encroachment. (That's called alliteration, folks! Woo hoo!)

War and US History

A great perspective piece from Victor Davis Hanson on our national successes, failures, and political silliness in times of war and conflict.

Even our most successful wars witnessed far more lethal stupidity than anything seen in Baghdad. Thousands of American dead resulted from lapses like the Confederate surprise at Shiloh, Japanese surprise attacks on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, and the German surprise attacks in the Ardennes.

Peace: "Not just another top-heavy bureaucratic organization..."

Saddam cheerleader and my district's Representative Jim McDermott has an op-ed today championing Dennis Kucinich's "Department of Peace" proposal.

Essentially, it's a catchall department for universal gun control, socialism, appeasement of foreign dictators, K-12 social engineering - things which apparently "represent[] the ideals on which this country was founded."

(That those "founding ideals" would no doubt come as a shock to the individual-liberty minded signers of the Declaration of Independence doesn't seem to interfere with any of this high-mindedness. I think Rep. McDermott could use a few more civics and history classes...)

Let's take a look at some of the more amusing/troubling highlights:

"In a world torn by conflict, I can't think of a better time, or a greater need, for America to act as a force for good at home and around the world."

By implication, of course, this means we haven't been a force for good either at home or abroad, at least not in recent memory. Riiight. If only we were as benevolent and helpful as France and Russia.

"The legislation, which I am co-sponsoring, would fund, support and coordinate programs already in existence -— in schools, prisons, police departments, educational institutions, charitable organizations and elsewhere -— that are proven to reduce domestic and international violence and enhance the security and health of all Americans."

Schools, prisons, police departments, educational institutions are Constitutionally the province of the states. The federal government already has far too heavy a hand in these plenary powers, and to what end? Success? Improvement? No! Why do we want MORE federal control? Does McDermott, who no doubt is among those fools who thinks Bush is basically Hitler without the dashing mustache, seriously want the President directly in charge of local police departments, schools, and prisons? And government funding and "coordination" of private charities means they aren't private charities any more. It's not like government will make them more efficient. No thanks.

"In my years as a congressman and as a physician in the U.S. military, I have recognized repeatedly that the interests of the one cannot triumph over the interests of the many; that the security concerns of the United States are best served by diplomacy and cooperation rather than brute force."

Yet another way to say, "interests of the one" is "individual liberty." Again, I think the founders would be shocked to discover that their founding ideals included stamping out individual interests. This is nothing more than a call to socialism. And rejecting "brute force" so completely requires the belief that we should have "cooperated" with Hitler. At least he didn't imply he's a Vietnam veteran this time.

"It will create a Peace Academy, on par with the Military Service Academies, to train civilian peacekeepers and the military in the latest nonviolent conflict-resolution strategies and approaches."

Ah, yes - because the UN's success with "peacekeepers" has been so profound. Is there a single example of them actually being successful without a prior military success? Maybe if we had a few Peace Academy graduates to try out their nonviolent conflict-resolution strategies on the animals slaughtering their countrymen in the Sudan, they'd be singing Kumbaya by the end of the year... The sight of a battalion of USPA graduates massing in great strategic drum circles is surely enough to bring dictators, warlords, wife beaters, and terrorists to their knees!

"I've learned there's something about the human spirit, about the spirit of Americans everywhere, that strives for cooperation rather than domination. We all yearn for peace, and for the prosperity that peace brings. We all yearn for a better world for our children and our children's children. We want for them the best education possible; health care that encompasses and embraces everyone; a retirement secure from the plagues and worries that come with inadequate income and support; a healthy environment; and a world freed from the horrors of war.

"By reducing the immense costs of violence both domestically and internationally, a U.S. Department of Peace will help secure these essentials. It will demonstrate to our citizens and to the world that the United States is committed to using its great strength in partnership with all peoples to work for, and champion, peace. And, it will provide a beacon of hope for everyone that the peace we yearn for is not an unachievable dream, but an obtainable reality."

All for just $8 Billion dollars. It's so easy! If only we had thought of it earlier. For $8 billion, we can have universal health care, fix Social Security, implement socialism, and eliminate war and crime forever! Brilliant! If only Bush wasn't standing in the way of this wisdom...

Unfortunately, many humans ARE motivated to dominate and conquer, not to "cooperate." The enemy we fight has no ambition to get along with Christians and Jews, they want us either converted, subjugated, or dead. The only way to achieve "peace" with a group with such ambitions is to kill them, scare them off, or surrender to them. I know which option I prefer. I think McDermott could save the $8 billion and simply surrender now. I'm sure his wife wouldn't mind "cooperating" by putting on a burqua. And the upside is that a more peaceful law enforcement system wouldn't be so darn mean to him when he violates federal wiretap laws.

Stand by for more good ideas. We can have a "Department of Fairness," a "Department of Niceness," and a "Department of Sharing." We can outlaw crime and it will magically go away! We can have a "Department of Un-Biased Media" that will ensure we're only exposed to the correct, fair, and peaceful ideas - Dennis Kucinich would LOVE that! Or we could form an umbrella organization simply called the "Department of Good Things." That would save even more money by covering it all under one (how did Jim put it) "a uniting framework for existing organizations scattered throughout the U.S. currently working to bring peace to our communities and the world."

World. Problems. Solved.

That this un-serious perpetual adolescent is an elected US representative who is routinely reelected with 75% - 80% of the vote is shameful. Is there seriously not a single grown-up Democrat in the entire 7th District Seattle could send instead?

Euro-Civil Rights and Terrorism

The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens has an interesting piece on the European approach to civil rights in their own domestic fights against the Jihadists:

Consider the powers granted to Mr. Bruguiere and his colleagues. Warrantless wiretaps? Not a problem under French law, as long as the Interior Ministry approves. Court-issued search warrants based on probable cause? Not needed to conduct a search. Hearsay evidence? Admissible in court. Habeas corpus? Suspects can be held and questioned by authorities for up to 96 hours without judicial supervision or the notification of third parties. Profiling? French officials commonly boast of having a "spy in every mosque." A wall of separation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies? France's domestic and foreign intelligence bureaus work hand-in-glove. Bail? Authorities can detain suspects in "investigative" detentions for up to a year. Mr. Bruguiere once held 138 suspects on terrorism-related charges. The courts eventually cleared 51 of the suspects--some of whom had spent four years in preventive detention--at their 1998 trial.

I may be a powerful executive, lock-'em-all-up neo-con fascist, but I just can't get behind this at all. I can't tell if Stephens is endorsing it per se, but he clearly thinks it's worth thinking about.

I think we can fight this enemy without shredding our due process tradition like that. I think we have the tools in our own Constitution to aggressively defend ourselves here at home, especially if we remain willing to fight threats overseas. Despite the problems in Iraq, I firmly believe it has already been (and continues to be) a success for America - if for no other reason than it continues to be a sink for Jihadi money, manpower, planning, and weaponry. I am convinced that our presence in Iraq (and wider robust military approach) is directly responsible for the failure of any terror organization large or small to mount an attack in the US since 9/11 more substantial than a single gunman in Seattle, another lone attacker in Salt Lake City (brought down by a citizen with a gun), and a sidewalk-driver in San Francisco. Despite the wailings of the anti-Bush crowd and self-professed civil libertarians, we've had that success while keeping our basic rights well in tact - certainly no less so than in any past conflict our nation has been involved in.

This is one of the very real ways our military is protecting our freedoms, directly, right here and now. I hope Congress considers this before putting those freedoms at risk by thinking we can simply hide here at home behind our porous borders and our libertarian Bill of Rights.

DC Circuit: Military Commissions Act Constitutional

Here's the story.

As I've written before, this is the right decision. I hope the Supreme Court agrees.

It also gives me the opportunity to respond to something Professor Epstein said two weeks ago opposed to the MCA - that a military tribunal is unconstitutional because the ajudicator is part of the executive branch. If that were true, then every single court-martial and non-judicial punishment ever imposed by the military in the past 220 years or so has been unconstitutional. And that's just absurd.

What Flags Are OK To Desecrate?

What do you call it when a group selectively uses the mechanisms of the State to suppress expression of a point of view they find politically objectionable?

If you're the San Francisco State University administration, the SFSU student council, Students Against War, the International Socialist Organization, or the General Union of Palestinian Students, you call it "protecting diversity," "preventing violence," or "promoting tolerance."

This story starts with an "anti-terrorism rally" held last October on campus by the College Republicans. To emphasize their point, students stomped on Hezbollah and Hamas flags. According to the college paper, the Golden Gate (X)Press, members of Students Against War and the International Socialist Organization showed up to call the Republicans "racists," while the president of the General Union of Palestinian Students accused the Repubs of spreading false information about Muslims.

In November, the Associated Students board passed a unanimous resolution, which the (X)Press reported, denounced the California Republicans for "hateful religious intolerance" and criticized those who "pre-meditated the stomping of the flags knowing it would offend some people and possibly incite violence."

Now you know that there are students who are opposed to desecrating flags on campus -- that is, if the flags represent terrorist organizations.

But wait -- there's more. A student filed a complaint with the Office of Student Programs and Leadership Development. OSPLD Director Joey Greenwell wrote to the College Republicans informing them that his office had completed an investigation of the complaint and forwarded the report to the Student Organization Hearing Panel, which will adjudicate the charge. At issue is the charge that College Republicans had walked on "a banner with the world 'Allah' written in Arabic script" -- it turns out Allah's name is incorporated into Hamas and Hezbollah flags -- and "allegations of attempts to incite violence and create a hostile environment," as well as "actions of incivility."

At an unnamed date, the student panel could decide to issue a warning to, suspend or expel the GOP club from campus.

***

The university's response? [SFSU] Spokesperson Ellen Griffin [said], "The university stands behind this process. [...] I don't believe the complaint is about the desecration of the flag. I believe that the complaint is the desecration of Allah."

So what if it is? If a student put a crucifix in a jar of urine, they probably would have gotten a scholarship from the art department. And if people will be uncontrollably driven to violence because someone expresses disgust with a terror organization who acts in the name of Allah, maybe they aren't ready to be Americans. At the very least, they should have had to re-take high school civics.

I oppose American flag burning legislation, because, as much as I'm offended by such action, real Americans respond to expression with either expression of their own, or by walking away. That's what it means to live in freedom. I imagine the SFSU folks also oppose laws against American flag burning, but considering the flag-selectivity of the administration and the complaining student organizations, I have to wonder if their reasons for that opposition have more to do with an approval of the message than any free speech principles.

Alas, this isn't limited to the rarefied atmosphere of San Francisco. At our own institution, the College Republicans had their "Affirmative Action" bake sale shut down by the University. Minute Men and their supporters were shouted down last October and ousted from their speaking event at Columbia. And speakers who violate the campus orthodoxy often face pies, disruption, and threats. At some law schools, new students are publicly warned away from the Federalist Society, and no faculty member will serve as their advisor.

None of this is new or surprising. But this kind of thuggery deserves to be exposed and mocked again and again and again. As often as it takes.

The Futility of War?

Clint Eastwood, on the message of his two new movies, "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Letters From Iwo Jima":

"I think every war has a certain parallel in the futility of it and that's one of the reasons for telling these stories -- they are not pro-war stories." ***

"I grew up in the war pictures in the 1940s where everything was propagandized. (In) all the movies, we were the good guys and everybody else were bad guys," [Eastwood] said. "I just wanted to tell two different stories where there were good guys and bad guys everywhere and just tell something about the human condition."

Except that WWII wasn't futile. It was a life or death struggle for freedom, against the forces of evil. And had the US and the Allies (who really were the "good guys") chosen not to fight the fascist Imperial Japanese, or Nazi Germany, (who really were the "bad guys"), the world undoubtedly would be a darker place.

War is a dark, terrible, awful thing. It destroys families and often shatters the lives of the soldiers on either side. Innocent people die, and cities are demolished. At no time in the national debate should we loose sight of that. But as terrible as war is, sometimes the alternative is worse. As John Stewart Mill said,

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Some wars are futile. The one we currently find ourselves waging is not. The choices we make now will determine the fates of millions for centuries to come. Life or death? Freedom or slavery? Theocratic Fascism or liberal secular democracy? Calling these choices "futile" is to discount these differences; and to declare our disagreements illegitimate. It is to say that our history is no more noble than that of the USSR's. Or to Nazi Germany's. It is the worst kind of moral relativism.

The veterans of WWII were fighting for more than futility, as the millions they liberated can attest to. I am a fan of Clint's movies, and I even look forward to seeing these. But I can only shake my head that the disappointing simplemindedness of this American icon.

Bump: The Return of Professor Epstein - TOPIC UPDATE

*** Update! ***

TODAY - February 6, 2007, 4:00 PM, Room 119

Room change - note it is now in 119, not 118.

Professor Epstein will be discussing his view on war powers and executive authority as it relates to the War on Terror. He has a very different take from our last speaker, but from a legally (as opposed to politically) conservative point of view. Here's a preview.

It also looks like we won't have the food, per the Academic Services rules about not befouling the classrooms outside of the lunch hour. However, several of us are planning to grab some food and perhaps a tasty mug or two at the College Inn Pub after the event, and the FedSoc will pick up the first couple of pitchers in lieu of food at the event. All are welcome!

**************

World renowned University of Chicago Professor Richard Epstein will be giving a talk next Tuesday, February 6th at 4:00 PM in room 118. The topic and possible debate adversary is TBD (check back here for updates), but we can tell you for sure that:

a) it will be from a very different point of view than the standard conservative/liberal camps,
b) it will be an extremely interesting talk, and
c) there will be free food.

See you there!

Iraq vs. Darfur - Just What Is a Worthy Call to One's Conscience?

These pictures, taken at the University Temple United Methodist Church across the street from the UW law school, illustrate perfectly the moral bankruptcy, hypocrisy, and vapidity of the left's foreign policy worldview:

Around the country this weekend, tens of thousands of people marched in favor of the killing of countless Iraqis - the certain outcome if we were to retreat redeploy from that country. Whatever their signs may have said, it was clear what they wanted. They marched in favor of American defeat, in favor of the anti-democratic forces in Iraq, in favor of Fascist Iran's geopolitical goals. They literally spat at an OIF veteran who dared to disagree with them. Why? Because Bush lied about WMDs, because our presence there only creates more terrorists, and because we're only there for the oil anyway. (That none of these claims are in any way supported by facts have no impact, remember.) They claim to be anti-war, but the truth is that they don't care about war unless the US has something to do with it. Or at least, they care far less about mass killings than about being anti-Bush. A call to one's conscience indeed.

Why are the Christians in Darfur more worthy of being saved than the Kurds or Shi'ites were under Saddam's Iraq? Why is the sectarian violence (some could say civil war) in the Sudan worthy of sending American troops to battle al Qaeda, IEDs, and an "endless war" in a country without any real government, when at the same time, it is a moral imperative that we guarantee the same deadly results in Iraq by withdrawing immediately?

Because of the fact that Russia, France, India, and China buy substantial supplies of their oil from the same Sudanese government which is happily allowing the killings to continue (much as those governments prevented action against Saddam for the same reasons), why do they imagine the UN will do anything? And since it's by now obvious that these three permanent vetoes will prevent any kind of action in the Sudan, does this "Crisis of Conscience" require that we go in unilaterally? Or is intervention only morally justified if we can get a corrupt international debating club to sign off on it?

SaveDarfur.org, the organization the banner asks us to donate to, has four goals:

• Strengthen the understaffed and overwhelmed African Union peackeeping force already in Darfur.
  
• Push for the deployment of a strong UN peacekeeping force.
  
• Increase humanitarian aid and ensure access for aid delivery.
  
• Establish a no-fly zone.

How are these things any different than what we have tried and are trying to do in Iraq? How will they NOT result in US soldiers being killed, or in "distracting" us from the "real" war on terror? Wouldn't we be invading a sovereign nation that isn't a threat to us? There's no WMDs there! Wouldn't we just recruit more terrorists who can claim we're oppressing the Muslims because we are intervening on behalf of the Christians? Wouldn't we open ourselves up to accusations that we're only there to take the oil for ourselves? What's SaveDarfur.org's exit strategy? If Bush is an incompetent buffoon who only makes things worse for the locals by his military interventions, why are they demanding he lead the charge? Are these people Chickenhawks for advocating Darfur intervention without volunteering to go there themselves?

Why is it that being a super power means we can only use force when it's NOT related to our national interests? Even if the absurd conspiratorial accusations against Bush lying and terrorizing his way into Iraq were true, how do people who think it is worth American lives to prevent mass sectarian violence not demand we stay there?

There are no answers to these questions, of course. Darfur is hip, Iraq is not. That's it. That's the real difference. And Darfur has the added bonus of "never going to happen" because of French, Chinese, and Russian interests there. Which means the high school idealists, college-know-it-all hippies, academics, and other assorted activists can feel good about "making a difference" without ever having to face the consequences which come with the best intentioned humanitarian interventions.

I would love to intervene in the Sudan. I wish we had the military to do it. Unfortunately, our military is too small to solve every world problem at once. So how about we finish solidifying our victories for freedom and human rights against murderous oppressors where we already are first? Don't think success in Iraq will be able to be ignored by the Sudanese thugs who know they're next on the radar...
"Blessed are the Peacemakers" indeed. Too bad neither this church, nor the "anti-war" crowd, nor the defeatists in Congress can claim such a title.

Western Civilization's Fall to the Barbarians - Part II?

This story should scare the hell out of everyone who believes in and loves western style liberal democracy.
The RealClearPolitics blog has the quick breakdown:

> 37% of British Muslims aged 16-24 want to live under Sharia - compared to 28% overall and only 17% of those over 55.

> 36% of British Muslims aged 16-24 believe Muslims who convert to other religions should be punished by death - compared to 19% of those over 55.

> 74% of British Muslims aged 16-24 prefer Muslim women wear a veil - only 28% of those over 55 agree.

And the most concerning number of all:

> 13% of British Muslims aged 16-24 agree with the statement "I admire organizations al-Qaeda that are prepared to fight the West." Only 3% of those over 55 agreed with the same statement.

The obvious question is, "Why didn't they just stay/go to a country that does live under Sharia law? There's plenty of them. Why are they bother coming to Britain? To Europe? The US?"

Maybe the terrifying answer is that they aren't here to Westernize themselves, or to take advantage of our free and open society. Maybe they're here to Sharia-cize the West. And maybe right now, Europe is letting them succeed...

How Do We Measure Troop Morale?

Much has been made of this Military Times poll from last December, which purportedly shows a drop in support for the way the Iraq war has been prosecuted. Senator Webb even referred to it in his attack on the war in his State of the Union response (although he didn't specifically cite it). The tiny handful of actively engaged anti-war activists in uniform are given as much press time as they can handle. So we're about to face a Carter-era crisis of troop defection, necessitating either a full scale retreat or a draft, right?

I don't think so.

The media (2003) has been banging this drum (2004) for years, now (2005), based on anecdote, inaccurate polls, and wishful thinking. What's more, I don't doubt that there's a hell of a lot of folks in uniform (a substantial majority, in fact) who wouldn't much rather be at home raising families than being shot at and bombed by fascists. I'm quite concerned about the effect on Reservists, who I think have been overused in a system still designed for a WWII type mobilization effort. And there's no question, I think, that we have too small of an overall force, that our people are spread too thin, and as a consequence, we are not as flexible and are more vulnerable now than is prudent.

But to the narrower question of morale. How to judge it? Polls of military members are difficult to conduct scientifically. The phrase, "A [griping] sailor is a happy sailor" is a truism older than Noah, which makes the results difficult to decipher. And the various press reports are hopelessly biased.

So let's just count heads. If they're staying, it probably means they're generally optimistic, and think they're being treated fairly. In an economy boasting 4.5% employment, with veterans even less than that, it's not like they can't take that training and get a better deal. So what is it?

They're joining. And they're staying. In ever increasing numbers. Higher than pre-9/11 rates. Voting with their feet. And that's a poll you can track with certainty.

Marine veteran W. Thomas Smith, Jr. explains why the retention and recruitment rates aren't reflective of the doom and gloom picture of imminent collapse distributed by the MSM:

What the numbers do suggest, and what we who have worn the uniform of the United States have always known, is that soldiers and sailors gripe. They get frustrated like everyone else. They blow off steam. And they have been doing so since armies first marched and navies sailed. They complain about the food (even when it is superb). They dismiss the equipment as being worthless (even when it is the best in the world). And they sometimes grumble that their leaders are stupid (though those leaders might be tactical masters on the battlefield). The unhappiest and most rebellious of those who gripe are also the most vocal in their griping.

To me, this doesn't validate or invalidate the Iraq policy per se. If war policy was based on how cushy we can make the lives of soldiers, I'm not so sure we'd be speaking English today. But undoubtedly, the probability of victory is a powerful retention motivator, while certainty of defeat would drive those numbers down. And that gives me a lot of cause for optimism.

U.S. loses important terrorism case ... for now

U.S. v. Ressam (No. 05-30422). See here and here. You'll recall the millenium plot to bomb LAX. Ressam came into the U.S. through Port Angeles and was tried in Seattle. See 221 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (W.D. Wash. 2002). He was sentenced to 22 years on charges carrying a 65-year maximum. The government appealed the sentence as unreasonably lenient. Ressam appealed his convictions.

Today the Ninth Circuit reversed the conviction on one count--carrying an explosive in the commission of a felony--because: 1) the statute requires a relationship between the underlying crime and the act of carrying an explosive; 2) the jury was not instructed on such an element; and 3) the government did not offer evidence that defendant's explosives were used to facilitate his false customs declaration. The court did not reach the sentencing issue, but vacated the whole sentence. So the court gave Ressam a cookie and the U.S. a cookie. And they go back to the District Court to fight over the crumbs.

My sense is it'll turn out worse for Ressam. Granted it's rare you woundn't want to appeal a conviction garnering 22 years, but does it get any better under the circumstances? If I'm not mistaken, the U.S. wanted life at the outset of the trial; if they can ask for life on remand I'm sure they will. Perhaps better to fight the government's lenient-sentence appeal and rely on trial court discretion than to press reset as to one count and hope for the best.

Who Should Be Allowed to Make Policy?

By now, pretty much everyone has recognized that Senator Boxer was wrong (and beyond stupid both politically and logically) in implying that Secretary Rice couldn't understand the implications of her policy decisions because she doesn't have children. But like John Kerry's "botched joke," Senator Boxer's comment was simply a Freudian slip that showed the end result of the absurd logic employed by many of the anti-war activists.

This is an issue that's always been particularly irritating to me, from the "absolute moral authority" of Cindy Sheehan (which ignores pro-war mothers), to the defenders of draft dodgers who only now demand that a President have served before he makes national security decisions. This absurd and un-democratic line of thinking is evident with every "chickenhawk" argument ever made. But I was moved to write today by a letter to the editor in today's Seattle Times which condemned Senator McCain for being pro-war despite him having a son serving in Iraq right now. Apparently, even if you DO have a "personal stake" in the Iraq war, you're only allowed to make the "correct" (liberal and selfish) decision.

So - if you're for the Iraq war, and have a son or daughter serving in Iraq (no one has children serving - those in Iraq are adults who have their own votes, opinions, and freedom to volunteer or not), you're exploiting your children for political gain. Pro-war and no kids, you're a cold hearted villain making decisions without understanding the impact on "real people." Pro-war and a veteran? Cynically exploiting your service for political gain. Pro-war and not a vet? Chickenhawk.

Of course, these are just the opposite on the other side of the isle. Anti-war with a family member in a combat zone? "Absolute moral authority." Anti-war with no family involved? Brave souls speaking out and "taking their democracy back." Anti-war and a vet? "How DARE you question a war hero!!!" Anti-war and not a vet? Well, they're speaking out for the soldiers who aren't allowed to because they've been silenced by their military-industrialist slave masters.

So how about this? Let's follow the "Chickenhawk!" shouters down their rabbit hole, and adopt their logic. Only veterans vote on national security issues, or parents whose soldier children are still minors and can't yet vote. Direct family members of active duty members get one half-vote, since they are impacted, but aren't risking their own lives. (I wonder how many hours the current Democratic Party would survive under this scheme - the shouters should be careful what they ask for...)

And then lets extend that to everything. Only taxpayers are allowed to vote on any issue which involves government expenditures, with more votes granted to those who pay more taxes. Only property owners are allowed to vote on eminent domain rules. Only people with children are allowed to vote on education policy.

And it doesn't need to just be about voting. We can have separate issue-specific legislatures, where only people directly affected by those issues are allowed to run for office. Only judges who have been through divorces can be on the bench in family court, only those with a history of drug use can prosecute drug crimes, and only convicted criminals can be Public Defenders. Better, let's require our judges, prosecutors, and public defenders to all have a personal stake in the outcome of the case they're involved with.

Or we can recognize that ALL Americans have a personal stake in national security, tax policy, education, and objective jurists. We can all recognize that "You don't know what it's like, man!" is a cowardly way to avoid having to make a hard policy decision yourself, and is "logic" best left on the playground. It has no place in the editorial page of the newspaper, or in the chambers of Congress.

Reyes for President?

Apparently the in-coming (Democratic) head of the House Intel committee does n't know that Al Qaeda is primarily Sunni. He also appears not to know a great deal about the inner workings of Hezbollah.

Big frickin deal. Good for him. This kind of knowledge is largely irrelevant to his role in Congress. The Intelligence Committe is primarily concerned with oversight and crafting authorizing legislation. One does n't need an encyclopedic knowledge of the various flavors of Islamic thought and the nuanced and finely wrought doctrinal distinctions between them to be effective at oversight, or crafting intelligence legislation.