'Terrorist 'Rights' Cruelty to Fallen' by Thomas Sowell Login to Kupika  or  Create a new account 

This diary entry is written by tiggerlemon101. ( View all entries )
Previous entry: Sometimes Life Just Gives You A Kick in the Ass in category (general)

'Terrorist 'Rights' Cruelty to Fallen' by Thomas SowellCategory: (general)
Saturday, 19 September 2009
05:13:59 PM (GMT)
This excellent article was in today's issue of the Windsor Star.  It was written
by Thomas Sowell, a reporter to the Star, and I would like to share it with the
lovely people of kupika.  No copyright infingement is intended.

   Britain's release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi - the Libyan terrorist whose bomb blew
up a plane over Lockerabie, Scotland in 1988, killing 270 people - is galling enough
in itself.  But it is even more profoundly toubling as a sign of a larger mood that
has been growing in theWestern democracies on our time.
   In ways large and small, domestically and internationally, the West is
surrendering on the instalment plan to Islamic extremists.
   The late Aleksander Solzhenitsyen put his finger on the problem when he said, "The
timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a
sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles."
   He wrote this long before Barack Obama became President of the United States. 
But, this administration epitomizes the "concession and smiles" approach to countries
that are our implacable enemies.
   Western Europe has gone down that path before us but we now seem to be trying to
catch up.
   Still, the release of a mass-murdering terrorist, who went home to a hero's
welcome in Libya, shows that President Obama is not the only one who wants to move
away from the idea of a "war on terror" - as if that will stop the terrorists' war on
  The ostensible reason for releasing al-Megrahi was compassion for a man terminally
   It is ironic that this was said in Scotland, for exactly 250 years ago, another
Scotsman - Adam Smith - said, "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent."
   That lesson seems to have been forogtten in America as well, where so many people
seem to have been far more concerned about whether we have been nice enough to the
alleged mass-murdering terrorists in our custody than those citics have ever been
about the onnocent people beheaded or blown up by the terrorists themselves.
  Tragically, those with this strange inversion of values include the Attorney
General of the United States, Eric Holder.
   Although President Obama has said that he does not want to revisit the past, this
is only the latest example of how his administration's actions are the direct
opposite of his lofty words.
   It is not just a question of looking backward.  The decision to second-guess CIA
agents who have extracted information to save American lives is even worse when you
look forward.
  Year from now, long oafter Barack Obama is gone, CIA agentsdealing with hardened
terrorists will have to worry about whether what they do to get information out of
them to save American lives will make these agents themselves liable to prosecution
that can destroy their careers and ruin their lives.
   This is not simply an injustice to those who have tried to keep this country safe,
it is a danger recklessly imposed on future Americans whose safety cannot always be
guarantees by sweet and gentle measures against hardened murderers.
   Those who are pushing for legal action against CIA agents may talk about
"upholding the law," but they are doing no such thing.  neither the Constituation of
the United States nor hte Geneva Convention gives rights to terrorists who operate
outside the law.  There was a time when everybody understood this.  German soldiers
who put on American military uniforms in order to infiltrate Emerican lines during
the Battle of the Bulge were simply lined up and hot - and nobody wrung their hands
over it.  Nor did the U.S. Army try to conceal what they had done.  The executions
were filmed and the film has been shown on the History Channel.
   So many "right" hav ebeen conjured up out of thin are that many people seem
unaware that rights and obligations derive from explicit laws, not from politically
correct pieties.  Of you don't meet the terms of the Geneva Convention, then it
doesn't prtoect you.  If you are not an American citizen, then the rights guaranteed
to American citizens do not apply to you.
   That should be expecially obvious if you are part of an international network bent
on killing Americans.  But, bending over bacwards to be nice to our enemies is one of
the many self-indulgences of those who engage in moral preening.
  But getting other people killed so that you can feel puffed up about yourself is
profoundly immoral.  So is betraying the country you took an oath to protect.

Last edited: 19 September 2009

Dave12H says:   19 September 2009   421419  
What a terrrible article.
I love the way in continously defends the C.I.A (criminals in action)
tiggerlemon101 says:   19 September 2009   447727  
I don't agree with everything it said... I don't support the CIA or
its methods of torture (or any methods of torture, LOL), but the point
is there.

"You shoot me, I shoot you"... not, "You shoot me, I let you out of
prison because you're criminally insane and allow you to go home to a
hero's welcome."
tiggerlemon101 says:   19 September 2009   252195  
EDIT: So it's okay to let criminally insane people who've tortured
and killed millions, as well as destroyed families and governments, to
go free?
Kirti says:   20 September 2009   772872  
Don't let mass murderers go. But for Lady's sake, make bloody sure
you have the right guy, and no capital punishment.

If it's wrong for them to torture Americans, it's wrong for us to
torture them, even to save Americans. It doesn't matter that we are
American and they are not. Killing is always bloody wrong in every
situation. Period.

The law said something about "no cruel and unusual punishment", did it
not? Also it said "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are credited equal, and have certain unalienable rights, to Life,
Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness." It doesn't say "all men in our
country". All men. Therefore, when America treats foreign criminals
the way we usually so, we are breaking all three of our biggest rules
in one go.

Taken an oath to protect? I beg your pardon Mr. Article Writer. I
swore no oath. I say a revised version of the Pledge each morning.
Being born here does not mean I support the horrible things we do, be
them mass murder, or the release of mass murderers.
Kirti says:   20 September 2009   727787  
Aaaah, spell check fail!

I meant "created" equal, not "credited" equal! (Of course we aren't
credited equally, that's what Capitalism means!)
Dave12H says:   20 September 2009   153775  
@ At tigerlemons second point.
Well the USA have been doing it all over the world(particulalry in
south america) since WW2, they haven't been punished.


The article is horrendous, it sadens me that it actually might
infulence people. 
Lyncheh says:   20 September 2009   818851  
If he actually did it.
tiggerlemon101 says :   22 September 2009   539842  
@Kirti and Lyncheh - Yes, that is presuming he actually did it.  Like
I said, I don't agree with EVERYTHING this article says.  Just the
general idea.

@Dave - Kill, yes.  People of all cultures kill, though.  Americans
are not, for the most part, terrorists. 


Next entry: Made Up Song About A Guy Who's Girlfriend is A B**** So He Left Her
For Another Girl
in category (general)
Related Entries
‹The~Labryinth›: rant . i think my first .
‹burblegurm›: You know, I get it already. =____= seriously.
OperationLove: Member submitted.
‹Beth;ICan;Make;You;Believe;In;Love&&;Sex&&;Magic›: Has kupika changed to this :O -Rant Rants!
Hahex: Kupika GET

About Kupika    Contact    FAQs    Terms of Service    Privacy Policy    Online Safety
Copyright © 2005-2012