liberty
Giving in/up
This is why you cannot give in to terrorist demands. This is why it is pointless to "try to understand why" those who commit horrific acts of violence against innocents to further a religio-political agenda do so. Hamas vows to continue fight
In a show of force, Hamas founders and political leaders appeared Saturday on a stage together for the first time in 10 years to tell the Palestinian people that the militant group's armed struggle will go on after Israel's impending withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. 'Tomorrow Jerusalem,' Abbas exults Less than three days after he urged Palestinians to refrain from excessive celebrations over the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas on Friday presided over a huge celebration in Gaza City where he declared: "Today we are celebrating the liberation of Gaza and the northern West Bank; tomorrow we will celebrate the liberation of Jerusalem." The Israeli government acquiesced to the demands of terrorists. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PLO: these are terrorist organizations. They demanded land which was never theirs to begin with--that's right, the land of "Palestine" has always belonged to some other nation, including Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, so why aren't the Palestinians sending suicide bombers in to those nations?--through the use of terror. These are not "freedom fighters" or "insurgents," they are terrorists. The Israeli government caved, and it got them nothing. The reason is simple: the Palestinians, with the sometimes silent, sometimes vocal, backing of the entire Arab world, want nothing less than the complete and total destruction of Israel. They want all the Jews out of the land, dead or alive, but one could infer preferably dead. They want no Jewish state to exist. You cannot reason with people like this. You cannot give in to their demands and hope for the best. You kill them. You achieve total and complete victory, with overwhelming military force. Then you set about dictating the terms of the peace, and you help rebuild. It worked it Japan. It worked in Germany. It will work in Afghanistan and Iraq. It could have worked within the borders of Israel.
In times of impending calamity and distress
"In times of impending calamity and distress; when the liberties of America are imminently endangered by secret machinations and open assaults...it becomes the indispensable duty of [Patriots], with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publicly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God...that we may...through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; humbly imploring his assistance to frustrate the cruel purposes of our unnatural enemies...that it may please the Lord of Hosts, the God of Armies, to animate our officers and soldiers with invincible fortitude, to guard and protect them in the day of battle... ." --Proclamation by the Continental Congress, 16 March 1776 I'm certain there is an Anti-Christian Liberty Union lawyer determined to prove the above is a pre-Constitution violation of the Constitution...
The joys of air travel - The Report
Yesterday morning, my lovely bride dropped me off at the C terminal of DFW International. I entered, and made my way to the seats by the door. I proceeded to divest myself of all metallic objects, putting them in the side pocket of my carry-on, the only piece of luggage I had. I wore a t-shirt, cargo shorts, and sandals, my outfit designed to minimize my setting off the metal detector. I then proceeded to the self-serve kiosks to get my boarding pass. As noted, I had reserved the ticket on Wednesday night. I was able to pay for it Thursday morning before leaving the house, but didn't get the confirmation e-mail before we needed to get on the road. My credit card couldn't be read by the kiosk, so I proceeded to the service desk to see a ticket agent. Surprisingly, there was no line, and after navigating the maze of crowd-control stanchions, I walked right up to the next available agent. I showed him my driver's license, explained the kiosk wasn't reading my credit card, and I needed my boarding pass. He noted the kiosks seemed to do that quite a bit, punched up my flight info, printed the boarding pass, and off I went to yield myself to a full body cavity search. Shockingly, I did not set off the metal detector. Apparently, this is now a bad thing. I was asked to step in to the next line inside the security area, and the TSA agent requested my boarding pass, which I handed over. He then informed me I had been flagged "for additional security procedures." Of course I was, I remarked. After all, I had booked a one-way ticket to the party capital of the South--if not the entire United States--the night before, and paid for it that morning. Would it not be tragic if I managed to get past the flight attendants, any number of large, American males who wouldn't allow the aircraft they're on to be hijacked, the hijack-proof door mandated by the airlines since 9/11, and the two flight crew members, hijack the MD-80, and crash it in to Bourbon Street? Where would the populace spend their hard-earned money to travel to so they could get just as liquored up as they could at home? Perhaps worse yet, what if I flew the plane in to the SuperDome, denying the Saints a venue in which to lose to any number of possible opponents? Can you tell I so miss living there? Note to the flying populace: the code for additional security checks is apparently "SSSS" and is noted in the upper left and lower right of your airport-printed boarding pass. The TSA agent asked me to point out my bag coming off the x-ray conveyor, which I did, and he handed me off to another agent. Agent #2 walked me up to the GE EntryScan, a device slightly larger and taller than a phone booth. Upon entering, you stand on the footprints, and four separate air jets blast a squirt of air on you. You stand there for a few seconds until you see the green lights, declaring your person explosive- and hazardous powder-free, and you're free to step forward, and out of the booth. Agent #2 then asked me to have a seat while he searched my bag. I slurped down the last of my Chick-Fil-A sweet tea, which was all that was left of my breakfast, and we made idle chat while he dug through the bag and ran the testing-for-explosives wand around. He noted the thinline NIV copy of the Bible that goes with me when I travel--usually in my computer backpack, which I did not have this time--remarking, "Good book. I'm in the process of reading it completely through for the ninth time." A couple of minutes later, he was finished, after checking my iPod and Canon S500. He repacked the bag nearly exactly as he found it, zipped up the three compartments, and handed it over, thanking me for my patience. This was by far the most pleasant "additional security screening" I've endured to date. My gate was just across the way from the security checkpoint, so I settled in to a chair, reached in to the right-side cargo pocket of my shorts, and pulled out my mobile phone. Yep, I had forgotten to take it out, and it had not set off the metal detector. So much for airport security.
The joys of air travel
This about says it all:
I'll let everyone know the result when I return on Friday.
Denigrating military service
I felt "The Patriot Perspective" from today's Federalist Patriot (PDF file) was worth reprinting.
Fundamentally Asinine Administration
If you had any doubts that the FAA's (see post title for definition of acronym) flight regulations regarding anti-terrorism were completely insane, there's this, courtesy of the Air Finance Journal:
Before deploying from Savannah, Georgia to Iraq by a chartered airliner, the troops of the 48th Brigade Combat Team, a National Guard unit, had to go through the same security checks as any other passengers. Lt. Col. John King, the unit's commander, told his 280 fellow soldiers that FAA anti-hijacking regulations require passengers to surrender pocket knives, nose hair scissors and cigarette lighters. "If you have any of those things," he said, almost apologetically, "put them in this box now." The troops were, however, allowed to keep hold of their assault rifles, body armour, helmets, pistols, bayonets and combat shotguns. [Via Political Diary, emphasis added. --R]
Are you sleeping?
Tony Blair, British Prime Minister:
"September 11 for me was a wake up call. Do you know what I think the problem is? That a lot of the world woke up for a short time and then turned over and went back to sleep again."
The Long War or the Short Surrender
This is the third and final part of a series on national security run in the pages of The Federalist Patriot. This part can be found in today's issue (PDF file), and is reprinted here with permission.
Our modern hubris
Senator Rick Santorum, (R-PA):
A generation ago, liberals figured out something that most conservatives couldn't have dreamed of in their worst nightmare. A few well-positioned autocrats can do what most Americans thought, and the Constitution says, takes two-thirds of the Congress and three-quarters of the state legislatures to do: namely, change the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean. The plan was simple. Put justices on the Supreme Court, backed up by lower court judges, to "modernize" our Constitution by fiat, with the claim that Supreme Court decisions, whether based on the words of the Constitution or not, have the same status as the Constitution itself.
How often do we hear that our founding compact needs to be a living, breathing document whose meaning changes with the times? Never mind what the words of our Constitution actually say; never mind the clear intent of the Constitution's writers and signers; never mind two hundred years of judicial interpretation; never mind the centuries-old wisdom of the common law: We are much wiser today than our predecessors. Or so goes the liberal boast. In fact, it is said, we are now able to see just what they were "getting at" even better than they could — as if the U.S. Constitution were only a "nice try" at a plan of government.
Conservative vs liberal approach to law
The characterizations we most commonly hear in contrasting liberal and conservative judges tend to use phrases such as "activism" vs. "restraint," and approaching the Constitution as a "living document" vs. focusing on "original intent."
However, I think asking a more fundamental question sheds light on why our society's most vulnerable _ the poor and otherwise disenfranchised _ need conservative judges. We should be asking: "What is the purpose of the law?"
In this sense, I would contrast a conservative-vs.-liberal approach as the former viewing the core purpose of the law as individual protection and the latter relating to law as a tool for social engineering.
Providing the tools for homeland defense
Yesterday's Federalist Patriot (PDF file) contained part two of the series on U.S. National Security. Titled "Homeland Defense," it discusses the steps taken since 9/11, including the Patriot Act, and looks forward. I've reprinted it below.
Why bother with CC?
Unlike Jeff, I don't hate Creative Commons. I just don't see the point. I believe we're much better off working with our legislators to getting copyright lowered, back toward something resembling what the Founding Fathers intended. Update, 8:45 PM CST: In the August issue of Wired (archive not posted online at the time of this writing), in the "Posts" section, there is a little blurb on Creative Commons, targeted at the right-leaning talk show host the left loves to hate, Mr. Limbaugh:
Hey, Rush! Ever Heard of the Creative Commons?
"There are some things [from my show] that we can't [podcast] yet, like music because of copyright problems. ... But just want to tell you we're continually working on it. ... I know the Millennium Copyright Act is what this is all about, and until that's changed, none of this is going to change."
From The Rush Limbaugh Show
June 14, 2005
Rush Limbaugh, talk radio host Now, unless I'm completely misunderstanding, I don't believe, Wired writers, that the Creative Commons would be of help in this situation. Whatever music Rush is referring to, my guess it is of one of two natures. First, he's talking about music they use to lead in and out of the show from commercial breaks. This music is more often than not popular music from the last three or four decades, and is the copyrighted material of those artists. Creative Commons would play no role. Second, the music referred to could be the parody songs some times featured on the show. More often than not, these songs are not the copyrighted property of The Rush Limbaugh Show or the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, parent company of the show. These parody songs are often the property of a third-party artist. Again, Creative Commons would play no role. So I'm not sure why Wired feels the need to slam CC on Rush...
Throwing down the gauntlet
Despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Democrats and the rest of the Left, the President stuck to his guns and nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court. The not-so-loyal opposition has already begun to put its foot in its mouth, as the President dares them to raise a ruckus over a nominee they unanimously confirmed two years ago to the appellate bench. Hinderaker's take on Leahy/Schumer:
[I]t was fun to see Pat Leahy and Chuck Schumer on television tonight; they looked just awful. After President Bush's terrific, upbeat presentation of Roberts, and Roberts' graceful, brief talk, Leahy and Schumer sounded like they had just dropped in from another planet. They were dour, hateful, and came across as sad and pathetic minions who have been sent on a hopeless mission by their bosses at "People for the American Way." Hugh thinks the Roberts' nomination is a "home run," and from what I've read, it sounds that way. Let's just hope and pray fifteen to twenty years from now, he's still in the Rehnquist-Scalia-Thomas mold, and not drifting aimlessly as O'Connor ended.
Teaching the Constitution
The president and those who wish to see the Constitution restored to its "original intent" need to reteach it if they are to overcome the liberal orthodoxy expressed by the late Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and echoed recently by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that "the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Try that at the supermarket. Is a pound what the shopper says it is, or do scales, which rely on a standard, determine a pound's true weight? Would we get away with telling a police officer who pulls us over for speeding, "I decided that 70 miles per hour is 55 for me"?
Why, then, this constantly changing Constitution that is in the minds of liberals to be altered like a suit of clothes to fit the wearer, rather than a document to which all must conform if the general welfare is to be promoted?
It is because those revisionists know they can't use the legislative process to ram through any of their social engineering ideas. ... They know the people (with the possible exception of a majority in Massachusetts) would vote them out of office and so they turn to unelected judges, appointed for life, to do their ideological dirty work for them.
If the Constitution is to again be seen as a finished document that has been refinished in recent years, the president must foreswear any talk of "moderation" and "conciliation" in his choice of court nominees. Truth cannot be moderated.
[...]
The president owes the country an ideological battle, which he can win if he is willing to fight it. By virtue of his office, he commands attention unavailable to anyone else. He should not only campaign for his nominee(s), he should act like a teacher, quoting the Federalist Papers and the Constitution and making his case that this great document served America well until some judges began tampering with it.
Cause and effect: Defining the enemy 2
It matters little that "the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists," to quote a familiar Western mantra. It matters a great deal that most terrorists are Muslims. The sooner Western leaders and Western media begin stating what is obvious to most people; the quicker the real root cause can be dealt with.
The excuses given by Westerners and many Muslim clerics for terrorism are just that: excuses.
Defining the enemy
The Federalist Patriot started a three-part series in this past Friday's Digest (PDF file) titled "U.S. National Security: Imminent Threats." I feel it is worthy to reprint here (with permission). All emphasis has been added by yours truly.
Dear Moderate Muslims
Doug Giles poses the questions to so-called moderate Muslims that so many of us, perhaps afraid of being politically incorrect, are afraid to ask:
As a moderate Muslim, can we rest assured that you do not believe that warfare and terror are any way to establish your religion in people’s lives? Can we also be certain that those of us who do not believe and will not believe your particular take on divinity can feel completely safe around you and that we can confidently expect you to work with us to build our world into a better place without condemnation being breathed down upon our heads?
Winning hearts and minds
Support, among Muslims, for suicide bombing against civilians has also faded. (Only Muslims were asked this question.) The percentage saying the practice is "never justified" jumped since March 2004 from 35 to 46 in Pakistan and from 38 to 79 in Morocco, and jumped since the summer of 2002 (the last time the question was asked in these countries) from 54 to 66 in Indonesia and from 12 to 33 in Lebanon. (The Turks held stable on the issue, with 66% saying suicide bombing is "never justified," statistically identical to the 67% who gave that answer in March 2004.) Most interestingly, opposition to suicide bombings in Iraq specifically was higher, in several countries, than opposition to suicide bombing in general; 56% of Pakistanis and 41% of Lebanese oppose that "insurgent" tactic, along with 43% in Jordan, where only 11% oppose suicide bombing in general (and by "general," obviously, they mean "Israel").
Concern over the threat of Islamic extremism is widespread in several of these countries, with the percentage deeming the threat "very great" or "fairly great" at 47 in Turkey, 53 in Pakistan, 73 in Morocco, and 45 in Indonesia. Interestingly enough, respondents in different countries define "Islamic extremism" differently. In Lebanon, Jordan, and Morocco, the prevailing view is that Islamic extremism means "Using violence to get rid of non-Muslim influences in our country." But to pluralities in Turkey and Indonesia, it means "advocating the legal imposition of strict Shari'ah on all Muslims." The respondents in those two democracies, it seems, are less worried about their Muslim extremists killing people than they are about their getting elected -- another point in democracy's favor, I'd say. As Mr. Tarbin says, it's not all good news, but at least it's trending in the right direction.
Policies toward terrorism
So what’s amazing isn’t the number of attacks we’ve lived through -- it’s the lack of attacks. September, 2001. Bali, Indonesia, October 2002. Madrid, Spain, March 2004. Now London, July 2005. On average the terrorists seem able only to strike once a year. And note the death tolls: U.S., some 3,000. Bali, 202. Madrid, 191. London, about 50.
Now, if terrorists could strike more often, of course they would. If they could kill more people in each strike, of course they would. So it’s reasonable to conclude that, since so much time goes by between attacks and since fewer people are killed in each attack, our policies toward terrorism are working.
What are those policies? Well, fighting back, for one.
Jihadists-R-Us
As eight of the most powerful world leaders were convening in Gleneagles, Scotland for the G8 Summit trying to figure out how to battle poverty, salvage human lives, stop the AIDS epidemic in Africa and keep our globe from warming ... what does militant Islam do to help? Well, they set off four bombs in the heart of London killing 50+ people and seriously injuring over 700.