What to do With Traitors

by

What shall we do with people, Americans, who openly plot our failure and our demise? What shall we do with those who cheer when America stumbles and groan when it succeeds? What shall we do with those who meet with foreign leaders who have sworn our and our allies’ destruction? What shall we do with those who insult our national leaders, talk of surrendering to our enemies, or desireto negotiate with terrorists?

I was listening to 1300 AM on the way home late a few nights back when Gallagher pointed out that those who insult our president, thus harming our efforts to destroy terrorists, should be rounded up and placed in an internment camp.

Let me connect the dots. Americans who hate President Bush like to claim that it is patriotic to insult him and call him names because it is patriotic to support free speech. They are wrong. It is not patriotic to insult our president, and it never will be. How can you call the head of state a Nazi and simultaneously claim to love the country he is the head of state of? It’s like telling someone, “I love you, but your head is a cabbage and your breath smells of raw sewage.” You may claim to love them, but no one believes you do.

It is also not patriotic because of the type of war we are in. Our enemy will not stop when they have met military defeat on the battlefield. The war began because military victory is impossible for them. No one can argue with that. Terrorism will stop only when there is no hope for any victory through terrorism. This war is a war of ideas. On the one hand, a group of zealots believe they can influence politics and achieve victory through terrorism. On the other hand, a righteous coalition of nations vows that terrorism will never accomplish anything, except hurting those who practice it.

As it stands now, terrorists fight and kill our soldiers, our citizens, and our children because they believe it will break our will to fight. They believe that if they can make national news every night with images of broken Marines, that eventually the people will ask the president to stop fighting this fight. They believe that they can convince enough political leaders to do whatever it takes to cause American troops to withdraw by terrorism. On the other side, our government believes that if it consistently defeats terrorists, and if it can demonstrate that only through peaceful means can terrorists ever have hope of influencing any government, then they can defeat the ideology that makes terrorism a possibility.

When the president is insulted, when there are signs that we are not united in our goal of defeating the notion that terrorism is a viable strategy against the United States, when we show signs of cracking, that inspires the terrorists. Every time a democrat gets on national TV and says the president has failed and we have to withdraw, that inspires them. Every time a group of people get together and burn effigies of the president, comparing him to Satan and Hitler, they are emboldened. Don’t fool yourselves. They are not fighting a battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. The battle is occurring here at home in the hearts and minds of the free world. They will win when we allow them to win, and no sooner.

Therefore, criticizing our president is not only unpatriotic, but anti-patriotic. It is not what someone who loves this country and its people and its freedoms would do. It is instead what someone who wants to see America fall from its position of power, retreat from the support it gives to fledgling democracies worldwide, and lose its position of righteous superiority does. It is what our enemy wants us to do.

What shall we do about this kind of behavior? I believe Gallagher is right, but his prescription is wrong. It is already apparent what the president can do in times of war with citizens who try to subvert that war effort. He puts them on trial for treason, convicts them of “aiding and comforting” our enemies by jury, and executes them. It’s really that simple. Let it be a fair trial, but let the punishment for guilt be death. The constitution spells it out and historical precedence is clear.

Is it barbaric to kill those who help those who are killing us? To do anything less is suicide. To do anything less would mean you don’t support the troops and you want to see them come home in coffins. To do anything less means you think it is fine if a few Iraqi women and children die abroad as long as your political point is won at home.

Every soldier and every Iraqi civilian who is killed by a terrorist who believes he has a chance of winning this war dies an unnecessary death. Every person who inspires that terrorist has that blood on their hands. Think about that the next time you do or say something that might harm our reputation abroad, especially in the eyes of our enemy.

Advertisements

17 Responses to “What to do With Traitors”

  1. My Left Foot Says:

    OK, I use to think you were just a fervent conservative. Now I know you are a dangerous,delusional whack-job.

    Jonathan, you are now advocating death for those who oppose the war. We have United States Senators who oppose the war, who speak out against the war and the president. What happens if the Democrat controlled congress cuts off funding for the war? Do you then advocate for their hanging?

    I feel very sad for you.

  2. Jonathan Gardner Says:

    The constitution is quite clear on this matter. Once congress has declared war, they are done. Their only job is to write the check to fund the war for as long as they are able and willing to do so. When the war comes to its conclusion, there will be treaties signed by the president that the Senate will be asked for ratification. That’s about the extent of their involvement. In all other matters military, the president is supreme, and no one, not even the supreme court or the people of the United States, has any power to exert control over him in prosecuting the war.

    They can go ahead and debate how much money they are willing to spend to fund the war they declared on terrorism as long as they want. We may even debate whether we made a mistake entering this war, or whether the president is doing a good job as commander in chief and whether we should impeach him or whatnot.

    When people step out of bounds and into helping the enemy, encouraging them, and insulting our commander in chief, that is the line of treason they should dare not cross. When they speak publically in ways that embolden our enemy, that is treason. When they meet with our declared enemies (state sponsors of terror like Syria), that is treason.

  3. Jonathan Gardner Says:

    Imagine for a moment that we were in a different war in a different time. Let’s pretend we were in the Civil War. Let’s pretend, as actually happened, people wrote articles and gave speeches about how the war was wrong and the South was justified in fighting. Let’s pretend, as actually happened, that people were actively sowing seeds of discontent in the North to help the South win.

    Would the president be justified in locking these people up and trying them for treason? Would the president be justified in executing those found guilty?

  4. thehim Says:

    What about the war on drugs? What if Congress officially declares war on poverty or war on racism? The problem with your entire silly post here is that the ‘war’ you’re talking about has no clear defineable objective right now, not that people are opposed to its vague goals. People who oppose the President on Iraq aren’t trying to undermine the President or the country, they’re pointing out the obvious fact that Bush’s approach to fighting terrorism is highly counterproductive and we need to do things differently.

  5. Jonathan Gardner Says:

    If people disagree with President Bush’s strategy or his tactics, they are allowed to discuss that publically. What they can’t do is insult him, claim the war is lost, broadcast enemy propaganda, or publish military secrets. That is helping the enemy. That is treason.

    Congress may not write a law limiting your right to free speech, but the president certainly can prosecute those who use their right to assist the enemy.

    You are trying to change the topic of debate. I am not opposed to allowing people the right to disagree with the government! I am opposed to people helping our enemies. I am opposed to people trying to make us lose the war.

  6. dugoutnut Says:

    Jonathan:

    Jonathan, congress is free at anytime to cut off funding for the war.

  7. thehim Says:

    If people disagree with President Bush’s strategy or his tactics, they are allowed to discuss that publically. What they can’t do is insult him, claim the war is lost, broadcast enemy propaganda, or publish military secrets.

    People can’t insult him or claim the war is lost? You seriously believe that’s treason? First of all, the war in Iraq has become a lost cause. We have reached a point where nothing can be done militarily to improve the situation or to achieve any goals that benefit the United States. A “surge” will do nothing but inflame the situation and strengthen the religious fanaticism. President Bush has demonstrated an almost criminal lack of responsibility in dealing with what’s going on over there. He refuses to listen to military leaders, to Middle East experts, or even to his own new Secretary of Defense. His incompetence is threatening America’s dominance in the world, and you’re actually more concerned with people calling him names? That’s pathetic.

    Congress may not write a law limiting your right to free speech, but the president certainly can prosecute those who use their right to assist the enemy.

    How does insulting the President help the enemy? Are you actually dumb enough to believe that when someone calls President Bush a nasty name that it has some effect on what’s happening in Iraq? Again, the bigger problem with this is that, as I explained over at my Effin Unsound post, the way President Bush has been executing the War in Iraq, he’s been assisting one of our enemies (Iran) for almost 4 years now.

    I am not opposed to allowing people the right to disagree with the government! I am opposed to people helping our enemies. I am opposed to people trying to make us lose the war.

    Then start getting angry at President Bush! He’s the one making us lose the war in Iraq. He’s the one helping Islamic terrorism flourish in the Middle East. He’s the one helping Iran develop nuclear weapons and helping Syria undermine the Lebanese government. He’s the one triggering the comeback of the Taliban in Afghanistan. No one has done more to benefit the people who want to kill Americans more than President Bush. He’s isolated America and made us look like a dangerous hegemon. Opposition to America has gone from a bunch of nutjobs living in caves to being a major popular movement across the world. That didn’t happen because of Michael Moore. It happened because of how the War in Iraq has unfolded, how the Bush Administration has gone back on the principles of individual liberty that this great country was founded on. Real patriots understand what treason really is. It’s when you undermine the country, not the person running the country.

  8. jk Says:

    “Therefore, criticizing our president is not only unpatriotic, but anti-patriotic. It is not what someone who loves this country and its people and its freedoms would do.”

    You might want to check the latest polls, as well as the latest election. You’re advocating murdering a large majority of the American people for doing precisely what they should be—criticizing the idiot war criminal occupying the White House.

    It seems to me that anyone supporting such a position is truly the one working for the enemies of the United States.

    Finally, Congress has an ongoing oversight responsibility in any war. If some nut like Bush stays the course to hell, they have the power and the moral obligation to cut off funding for his wars. And that is precisely what they should do.

    (jk)

  9. Jonathan Gardner Says:

    jk:

    President Bush is neither an “idiot” nor a “war criminal”. You are throwing false charges around. His intellect is well established: he got better grades than Kerry! His war record is clear: The worst atrocity we have on record is a couple of marines who may or may not have shot some civilians who may or may not have been hiding terrorists. Tell me how that makes President Bush a war criminal!

    I thoroughly believe that by calling him an idiot and by calling him a war criminal you are inspiring the terrorists to continue what they are doing because they believe they are winning the war politically. They see you and folks like you insulting their national leader and think, “Ahh, victory is around the corner. Soon, they will remove Bush from office and call off this war and will submit to sharia law in order to sue for peace!”

    I don’t know what premises or arguments you are using to justify your statement that people supporting my position are “truly the on working for the enemies of the United States.” How is it that by advocating that we stand united behind the president we chose and we authorized to fight a war against our enemies standing behind the enemy? It makes no sense. Go ahead and try to connect the dots. I’m all ears.

    But remember this: Ever since President Bush was ordered by Congress to pursue the terrorists using whatever means necessary, we have not suffered another attack. Terrorism around the world has actually decreased since we started the war on terror.

    Congress has no oversight of the war! Stop disillusioning yourself. Tell me where in the constitution they are set above the president in matters of warfare. It is quite clear: The commander in chief is the president, not congress, and not the supreme court. Congress declares the wars and writes the check. The president kills the bad guys and wins the war. That’s it.

  10. Jonathan Gardner Says:

    TheHim:
    People can’t insult him or claim the war is lost? You seriously believe that’s treason?

    Yes.

    First of all, the war in Iraq has become a lost cause. We have reached a point where nothing can be done militarily to improve the situation or to achieve any goals that benefit the United States.

    How is saying this not treason? You are saying that we cannot win. How is that not helping the enemy?

    President Bush has demonstrated an almost criminal lack of responsibility in dealing with what’s going on over there. He refuses to listen to military leaders, to Middle East experts, or even to his own new Secretary of Defense.

    Which universe are you living in? There is certainly no correlation between fact and what you just said. President Bush has bent over backwards to listen to his military, the experts, and his sec. defense.

    His incompetence is threatening America’s dominance in the world, and you’re actually more concerned with people calling him names? That’s pathetic.

    No, YOU are threatening our dominance because you refuse to support YOUR president.

    How does insulting the President help the enemy?

    Read my post again. I am quite clear on the subject. That was the entire intent of the article, to explain how these two things are connected.

    Are you actually dumb enough to believe that when someone calls President Bush a nasty name that it has some effect on what’s happening in Iraq?

    I don’t like being called names. I am sure you don’t either. Please avoid calling people names in the comments on my blog.

    Let me reverse the question, the way it should have been asked: Do you believe that what is said here at home does not effect what’s happening in Iraq? I have proof that it does. Just read any document or speech by any of the terrorists leaders. Note how they quote democratic party leaders exensively, and almost quote Michael Moore word-for-word. They are listening, and they know the war can’t be won in Iraq–it has to be won here first.

    Again, the bigger problem with this is that, as I explained over at my Effin Unsound post, the way President Bush has been executing the War in Iraq, he’s been assisting one of our enemies (Iran) for almost 4 years now.

    Proof, please. If President Bush is indeed helping Iran, I would love to know how because that would be very bad.

    Then start getting angry at President Bush! He’s the one making us lose the war in Iraq. He’s the one helping Islamic terrorism flourish in the Middle East. He’s the one helping Iran develop nuclear weapons and helping Syria undermine the Lebanese government. He’s the one triggering the comeback of the Taliban in Afghanistan. No one has done more to benefit the people who want to kill Americans more than President Bush.

    You’ve said that the war in Iraq is unwinnable. How could President Bush make us lose if we could never win in the first place?

    You remind me of the democrats. They came out and said “Hey, we can’t get military victory in Iraq–house to house fighting will cost too many lives.” Guess what? We did. They said, “They’ll never hold successful elections.” They did. They said, “They’ll never agree to a constitution.” They did. Everything is impossible with you.

    I also ask you to look around. Terrorism worldwide is in retreat. Al Qaeda is in shambles. The taliban is hiding in caves, unable to hold any ground. Neither can any terrorist set up a base in Iraq without having that base found out and destroyed days later. In Lebanon, the anti-hezbollahs turned out en masse to protest hezbollah. The upper middle east, who had thought that they would have to cowtow to the terrorist tinpot dictators to the south, have become powerful allies with the US.

    As far as I can tell, the effect President Bush’s foreign policy has had has been tremendously good. Yes, nothing is perfect. Yes, things are still bad and people are still dying. But now there is hope where there was no hope before. Now there is peace where there was once war. Now there are democratic governments where dictators ruled with terror.

    If you’d like to dispute my understanding of the facts, you are invited to do so. I’m also interested in hearing how President Bush has helped Iran develop nuclear weapons and done those other things. As far as I can tell, he’s been one of the few voices and forces to stop it.

    He’s isolated America and made us look like a dangerous hegemon.

    Islated us from terrorist tinpot dictators and from their supporters like France, Germany, and Russia. And made us look dangerous to terrorist supporting dictators like Iran, Syria, and North Korea. I count that a good thing. I want to be separated from evil and I want to appear as dangerous as possible to anyone who dare threaten my right to worship however I see fit.

    Let anyone who imagine they can impose their religion by the sword on me fear me even more than they fear their god!

    Opposition to America has gone from a bunch of nutjobs living in caves to being a major popular movement across the world. That didn’t happen because of Michael Moore. It happened because of how the War in Iraq has unfolded, how the Bush Administration has gone back on the principles of individual liberty that this great country was founded on.

    Everyone has always envied America after World War II, even before we started mopping up the Taliban in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda in Iraq. We are envied because we are successful. My goal in life is not to be popular or liked. I simply want to live my life the way I believe it should be lived and in peace.

    I love how you state that President Bush has gone back on the principles of individual liberty. Yes, he has. Finally, we are returning the US to be the great protector of individual liberties at home and abroad, rather than the weak facilitator that we were under Clinton and Carter! I love our return to uncompromise on individual liberties.

    Real patriots understand what treason really is. It’s when you undermine the country, not the person running the country.

    Exactly. I have laid out how undermining the president who is running our wars (not the country–that’s not his job. Look it up in the constitution) weakens our country and emboldens our enemy. If you are a real patriot, you would do what you can to make our country stronger and more secure, not undermine its military.

  11. thehim Says:

    How is saying this not treason? You are saying that we cannot win. How is that not helping the enemy?

    We cannot “win” the war in Iraq. There is nothing we can do militarily to settle the civil war that’s started there between Shia and Sunni factions. Our “enemy” is not a single entity. We have a variety of “enemies” around the world. And the longer we stay stuck in Iraq, the more opportunities those enemies will have to hurt us, and the more enemies there will be.

    Which universe are you living in? There is certainly no correlation between fact and what you just said. President Bush has bent over backwards to listen to his military, the experts, and his sec. defense.

    Are you serious? Did you even see what happened in just the past week? General Casey, General Abizaid, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff all said that we shouldn’t put more troops in Iraq. A week later, Casey is now saying that he’d support having more troops, and Bush (who is supposedly bending over backwards to listen to them) is just ignoring the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell, and all the other experts who know that a “surge” will be useless. This has been happening for years. Where have you been?

    No, YOU are threatening our dominance because you refuse to support YOUR president.

    But our President is threatening our dominance. Why should I be supporting a President that is making America weaker? You’re kindergarten equation for patriotism doesn’t quite work when we have a President who is failing at his job. Study some American history. Our founding fathers placed a lot of value on criticizing our leaders.

    Let me reverse the question, the way it should have been asked: Do you believe that what is said here at home does not effect what’s happening in Iraq?

    That’s correct. What’s said here has a minimal affect over what happens in Iraq. The average Iraqi is not watching CNN. The average Iraqi is more concerned about their basic needs, food, electricity, employment, education for their children, etc. They’re not too concerned with America’s political situation.

    Just read any document or speech by any of the terrorists leaders. Note how they quote democratic party leaders exensively, and almost quote Michael Moore word-for-word.

    Hahaha! Yeah, and they’re not quoting people on the religious right when they talk about the immorality of the west or about how American secularism is threatening their religion. Please, don’t make me laugh.

    They are listening, and they know the war can’t be won in Iraq–it has to be won here first.

    And you’re helping them win it. The terrorist strategy is to make it appear as if they are more powerful than they really are, in order to rally the support of their own countrymen. They are inconsequential in Iraq right now. Even the Sunni insurgents, who we are fighting primarily right now, hate the Al Qaeda folks and want them out. Yet when Al Zawahiri makes some silly comment in a videotape, you’re hiding under your bed screaming about how powerful they are. They’re not, but it helps them when you think they are. And when you start believing that the threat they pose is so great that we need to stop thinking rationally about how we interact with the world, YOU’RE PLAYING RIGHT INTO THEIR HANDS.

    If President Bush is indeed helping Iran, I would love to know how because that would be very bad.

    Well, let me explain. Iran is a Shiite country. Iraq, under Saddam, was a Sunni-led country that had a majority Shiite population. The two countries fought a war against each other in the 80s because the U.S. feared that Iran would eventually have too much influence over Iraq. So the Reagan Administration built up Saddam during the war so that that wouldn’t happen. Now that we’ve invaded and let them vote, they’ve voted in the kind of government that would have resulted had Iran won that war. Basically, they brought about the end that the Reagan Administration was fighting to avoid! Now, we’ve isolated ourselves from many of our allies, bogged down our army, and reinforced the stereotype of America as the Great Satan all at the same time! Hell, Iran endorsed President Bush in 2004. Doesn’t it bother you that the leaders of Iraq, who Bush said he has trust in, are also re-starting new ties with Tehran?

    You’ve said that the war in Iraq is unwinnable. How could President Bush make us lose if we could never win in the first place?

    There were stated objectives as we invaded Iraq. Depose Saddam Hussein’s regime, discover and destroy any Weapons of Mass Destruction, establish a democracy in Iraq, use the invasion as an example to keep other rogue regimes and terrorist groups in line, and to use oil revenue to pay for it. We did the first, discovered that there were no WMD’s and we’ve reached a point where the final three goals are impossible. It was theoretically possible to have achieved all of those goals, but it was obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Middle East that the way Bush approached this war doomed it to failure. He lied about Saddam’s links to Al Qaeda, he told key allies to take a hike, and he invaded with way too small a force. Oh, but I guess pointing all those things out would have been treason. OK, dude…

    You remind me of the democrats. They came out and said “Hey, we can’t get military victory in Iraq–house to house fighting will cost too many lives.” Guess what? We did.

    When? We haven’t achieved anything close to a definitive military victory over there. Every time we kill insurgents or invade a city, the problem just gets worse.

    They said, “They’ll never hold successful elections.” They did.

    No they didn’t. For an election to be successful, the government has to function afterwards. Showing up, dipping a finger in ink, and choosing the person who believes in the same religious teachings as you doesn’t mean anything when it just turns into a civil war between the particular political factions. Hell, they voted under Saddam and it was just as pointless then.

    They said, “They’ll never agree to a constitution.” They did. Everything is impossible with you.

    But the fact that they agreed to a constitution didn’t mean anything. They still have no justice system. Shia areas just implement their own sharia law. The Kurds are acting like an independent country. The Sunnis are overwhelmingly opposed to the central government and trying to overthrow it. Even Al-Sadr’s 60,000 troops are fighting against the status quo, which they fear is too secular. And hundreds of thousands of people are fleeing the country every month? How is that a success, by any measure?

    I also ask you to look around. Terrorism worldwide is in retreat.

    What!?! Are you kidding?

    Al Qaeda is in shambles. The taliban is hiding in caves, unable to hold any ground.

    Have you been in a coma for a few years?

    Neither can any terrorist set up a base in Iraq without having that base found out and destroyed days later.

    Al-Zarqawi operated freely in Iraq for years. They videotaped their training. What are you talking about?

    Man, I’m done, I may be back to break down the rest of this ridiculousness later. You are one clueless dude.

  12. thehim Says:

    OK, gotta finish this before heading off to the in-laws. This was just too funny to ignore…

    In Lebanon, the anti-hezbollahs turned out en masse to protest hezbollah.

    Hezbollah just had a massive rally against the government after one of the main Christian politicians in the country was killed. Hezbollah is stronger today than it’s ever been, by far.

    The upper middle east, who had thought that they would have to cowtow to the terrorist tinpot dictators to the south, have become powerful allies with the US.

    The Upper Middle East? What are you talking about? Being allies with the U.S. has become radioactive. Even Mubarak openly questions our leadership now.

    As far as I can tell, the effect President Bush’s foreign policy has had has been tremendously good. Yes, nothing is perfect. Yes, things are still bad and people are still dying. But now there is hope where there was no hope before.

    You’ve been tremendously fooled if you believe that. The Middle East is standing at the brink of a regional war only 4.5 years after the Saudis had put together a plan for the countries in the region to finally start recognizing Israel’s right to exist. Since then, we’ve gone backwards. Iraq has gone from bad to much, much, worse. The hopes of the Lebanese have been dashed. The Turks have been on war footing as soon as it became clear the Iraqi Kurds were able to be autonomous. Iran has taken a sharp to the right politically and just hosted a conference questioning the Holocaust. Hope? Are you kidding me?

    Now there is peace where there was once war. Now there are democratic governments where dictators ruled with terror.

    Where? Where in the Middle East is there peace where there was once war? Just name one place? Iraq? No, there was actually peace there and now there’s war. Afghanistan? Same thing, although that’s the only place where you could even try to make the claim that there’s now a democratic government. Where is this magical place where war was extinguished and is now peaceful? Every part of the Middle East has become more inflamed over the past few years.

    Islated us from terrorist tinpot dictators and from their supporters like France, Germany, and Russia.

    Well, guess what? World diplomacy is hard. Sometimes you can’t isolate yourself from the tinpot dictators. That’s reality, and it takes responsibility to face up to that reality. France and Germany are our allies. They are strong allies, and telling them to take a hike was a huge mistake as we set about trying to fix the problem of terrorism in the Middle East, just because they were absolutely right about how big of a mistake it would be to invade Iraq at that time. Now, we’re in a situation where we have no choice by to talk to the bad leaders in both Syria and Iran (and the bad leaders we already talk to in Saudi Arabia). We can continue to act like a 5-year-old on the world scene and ignore the people we think are big meanies, or we can start acting like grownups and dealing with the world as it is.

    And made us look dangerous to terrorist supporting dictators like Iran, Syria, and North Korea.

    Actually, Bush has done the opposite. We already did look dangerous to them, and it was a great deterrant for years. But now that our army is stuck in Iraq, we don’t look so dangerous any more. Invading Iraq was supposed to send a message. Unfortunately, it sent the wrong message.

    I want to be separated from evil and I want to appear as dangerous as possible to anyone who dare threaten my right to worship however I see fit.

    So you want to be separated from the people who threaten your right to worship however you see fit? So then I assume you’re a big supporter of the ACLU then, because that’s one of their main functions, to uphold the First Amendment. Second, you’ll never be separated from “evil”. Human beings will always do bad things, and there will always be people who go crazy and harm others. That’s what terrorism is. You, and too many other Americans, see the prevalence of terrorism in the Middle East and start trying to label who societies as “evil”. But terrorism happens in the U.S. and other countries just the same. Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Ted Kazcynski. A guy in Iowa tried to drive a car bomb into an abortion clinic last year. As long as you’re alive, you will never be separated from evil. But if we keep believing that evil belongs to a certain part of the world geography, we will continue to make the problems in the world worse.

    Let anyone who imagine they can impose their religion by the sword on me fear me even more than they fear their god!

    Yeah, I’m sure they fear you, sitting at your keyboard attacking people who call President Bush names. You’re a terrifying sight.

    Everyone has always envied America after World War II, even before we started mopping up the Taliban in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda in Iraq. We are envied because we are successful.

    No, we are not envied, we are admired. And we are admired because we stand for liberty and justice, not just because we win wars. The allied victory in World War II in Europe was a victory for justice, against a man who convinced his countrymen that his country was being undermined by the press, by minorities, and by pacifism. Since then, people have looked up to America as the force to uphold liberty, civil rights, and religious freedom. Now, we’ve begun to believe that we are only admired because we are powerful, and we’ve forgotten about how we should be caring about liberty, civil rights, and religious freedom. If just winning wars was what it took to make people respect your authority, then the Nazis would have never lost.

    My goal in life is not to be popular or liked. I simply want to live my life the way I believe it should be lived and in peace.

    But you’ll advocate that others fight wars for that? And then accuse anyone who questions those rationales of treason and demand they be killed? That’s awful nice of you, to demand that others fight wars in order for you to feel like you live in peace and then refuse to bear any scrutiny. That might be the most cowardly thing I’ve heard in my life.

    I love how you state that President Bush has gone back on the principles of individual liberty. Yes, he has. Finally, we are returning the US to be the great protector of individual liberties at home and abroad, rather than the weak facilitator that we were under Clinton and Carter!

    What!?!? The President just signed a bill making it possible for people to be detained indefinitely solely if the Pentagon declares them an unlawful enemy combatant!! He tossed the right of habeus corpus into the trash can. You can’t possibly be less of a protector of individual liberty than that. That’s as bad as the Soviet Union, or Saddam, or any of the other tyrants who did not have any respect for individual liberty. You can’t just lock someone up anywhere in the world and say, “This guy is a prisoner of war”. That goes squarely against every principle that the world’s respect for America is based on.

    I love our return to uncompromise on individual liberties.

    My god, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Do you even understand what the term individual liberties means? It means that individuals (ALL individuals) have certain rights that no one, not even President Bush, has a right to violate. To say that by allowing President Bush to lock people up at solely his discretion and deny them due process that he’s doing more to uphold individual liberties may be the stupidest thing a human being could possibly believe. That may be the Holy Grail of human idiocy.

    Exactly. I have laid out how undermining the president who is running our wars (not the country–that’s not his job. Look it up in the constitution) weakens our country and emboldens our enemy. If you are a real patriot, you would do what you can to make our country stronger and more secure, not undermine its military.

    If you were a real patriot, you’d actually care about the principles this country was founded upon.

  13. Jonathan Gardner Says:

    I do care about the principles this country was founded on. You are right, individual liberties are the most important. That is why killing those who threaten our independent liberties is the primary responsibility of our federal government. Thank God we have leaders and soldiers who understand that we are at war, and that it won’t end until the bad guys give up or die. Let’s support our troops and our president in their mission, and stop claiming it is impossible to win when it is not.

  14. Jenos Says:

    killing those who threaten our independent liberties is the primary responsibility of our federal government

    Since when has killing anyone been the primary responsibility of the federal government? The government is set up to govern, that is create and enforce laws to keep society working smoothly and properly. Now sure, that does sometimes involve killing someone, but killing has never been the primary responsibility of our government and we should all fear the day that that becomes the case in America.

  15. Jonathan Gardner Says:

    Jenos, go read the constitution again. Killing our enemies is job #1 in the constitution. What do you think it takes to defend out country? Should we just mildly irritate our enemies or hurl invectives in their general direction?

  16. thehim Says:

    Jenos, go read the constitution again. Killing our enemies is job #1 in the constitution. What do you think it takes to defend out country? Should we just mildly irritate our enemies or hurl invectives in their general direction?

    I have read the constitution and you still have no idea what you’re talking about. Killing our enemies is not job #1 in the constitution. Protecting the rights of man is job #1 in the constitution. Sometimes that means that you have to wage war against a determined enemy. But on an individual level, believing that you have to kill certain people without giving them due process in order to protect the rights of others is assinine. It goes against absolutely everything our founding fathers believed in. Even during World War II, we had no problem treating Nazi POW’s as dignified humans (and this was a very big reason why post-war Germany became such a strong U.S. ally). Today, we’re torturing people in prisons all over the world. A real patriot would be bothered by that.

  17. Jonathan Gardner Says:

    (1) Yes, we do treat our enemies with dignity–the moment they stop trying to kill us like the Germans did when they were captured. Until that time, we keep the pointy end towards them.

    (2) We do not give our enemies due process. We have even fought wars where we identified the enemy as those living in communities such as Dresden, Germany or Nagasaki, Japan, and killed them all without a single legal document submitted to any court. Once congress authorizes the president to wage war, he is in charge, and no court, no congress, can limit his actions against the enemy during that war.

    (3) We do NOT torture, never, nowhere, no how. There is ZERO evidence that we have tortured. I’m still waiting for ONE SHRED of evidence that we torture. You are welcome to produce that evidence if it exists, but I have yet to see it. I have seen allegations, insinuations, speculations, and even false testimony by the enemy. That is not evidence, however. It is only insinuations, speculations, and false testimony by the enemy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: