required reading
I Will Only Love You, If You Kill Yourself
This Catch 22 is a suicide pact. For if one says that America, England or Israel are worthless unless they give the same rights to terrorists that they do to their citizens– he is in effect saying that America, England and Israel are worthless either way, as he is only prepared to accept their worth if they demonstrate their willingness to destroy themselves.
It is the same thing as a man saying to a woman, “I will only love you, if you kill yourself.” His statement contains the word “love” in it, but it is premised on her agreeing to cease to exist. Which means that he hates her existence, and loves the idea of her non-existence. So too the left love their countries.
This is the “progressive” approach toward the civilized world. They cannot love Britain, only a New Britain that agrees to flood itself with so many Muslim immigrants that it chokes and dies under their numbers. Only when Britain fills itself with her enemies, will they wave the Union Jack. Otherwise they will hiss and boo, shout and stomp, throw stones through windows and write passionate songs about how much they hate it. “I will only love you, if you kill yourself.”
They cannot love Israel as a country that defends its citizens against its enemies. No, they can only love an Israel that tears off pieces of itself and offers them apologetically to the enemy. They cannot love an Israel that kills Muslim terrorists, only one that beats Jewish settlers. They cannot love an Israel that tries to raise fences to keep the killers away, only that demonstrates its willingness to let the terrorists kill as many Jewish children as they can, thereby demonstrating its nobility and willingness to die, rather than lift a hand to defend itself. Yes J-Street and its activists love Israel. “I will only love you, if you kill yourself.”
And if Israel does not agree to kill itself, then they will lobby against it, smear it, poison it, visit it to throw stones, burn the fields of Jewish farmers and write popular plays denouncing it. This is their love. And if you deny it, you will be silenced. For they love Israel, there is no denying that. They have done everything possible to kill Israel, and if it still lives, it is thanks to the fragmented remains of the army, the few hundred thousand people living on the frontier hills in the face of terror, and the courageous few who still dare to speak out. But oh the left loves Israel. How dearly they love it. They positively love it to death.
And do you doubt for a second that the American left loves their country? Perish the thought. They love America. The America that legalizes illegal aliens, displaces its own citizens to make way for them and tears down all barriers against crime and terror. They love America, so long as it frees terrorists from prison, and when war is declared against it by a fanatical cult of mass murderers, it gives the murderers their day in court with lawyers and a trial. And when the terrorism continues, its leaders tell the people that the best thing for them to do is go out shopping and lead their lives as if terrorism doesn’t exist. This is the America they love. “I will only love you, if you kill yourself.”
This America, in which the Constitution is wielded to protect Islamic terrorists and a man who hates the country can make his office in the White House. Their America in which the lives of Americans are worthless but the comfortable treatment of captured terrorists is worth more than gold. In which all of the nation’s history and values are viewed as nothing more than the brutal atrocities of greedy savages, while the brutal atrocities of newly arrived greedy savages are treated as heroic achievements worthy of celebration and praise… oh yes, this America they love.
This corpse of America, plastered in red, white and blue makeup to cover the wounds inflicted by its enemies. This charade in which they paint their deathwish for America in the colors of the flag and hold it up for everyone to salute. This political necrophilia is the America that they love. This is the Britain that they love. This is the Israel that they love. This is the Australia, the Denmark and Holland and France that they love. For they as much as their Islamic terrorist comrades are in love with death. But where Islam wants to cut off the head and bury the body, they want to take it to a costume ball, to hold it up and proclaim it as the New America, the New Britain, the Terra Nova of appeasement, surrender and death.
The Muslims proclaim a commandment to fight against the world until there is no one left who will deny that Allah is god and Mohammed his prophet. The Left proclaims an endless Jihad against the civilized world until there is no one left who values his country over any other country, who thinks of his home and family as his own, who takes home the wages he has worked for, and who sees himself as better than all the politicians and lawyers who presume to rule over him. Death to the Infidel, cries the Muslim. Death to the Greedy, the Selfish, the Capitalist, the Propertarian, the Nationalist, the Patriot, the Father, the Owner, the Voter, and a thousand such names, cries the Left. In this propaganda arms race, the Muslim is superior for he has defined his enemy as being all non-Muslims. The Left too needs a catchy name. A simple word that covers the spectrum of everyone who does not belong in their new order. Perhaps they should simply cry out, “Death to the Individual” and have done with it.
In their more honest moments, leftists will admit that they do not love America, only its potential. Its potential to be changed by them. Its hope for a future in which they rule over it. Its potential to be destroyed by them and remade into something new and awful. Moments like Michelle Obama proclaiming that she had never been proud of her country before this, are a chilling glimpse into the mind of the left that cannot love anything that is not an expression of its own ego. That cannot be help but be driven to destroy what it cannot possess.
Defenders of the habeas lawyers representing al-Qaeda terrorists have invoked the iconic name of John Adams to justify their actions, claiming these lawyers are only doing the same thing Adams did when he defended British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre. The analogy is clever, but wholly inaccurate.
For starters, Adams was a British subject at the time he took up their representation. The Declaration of Independence had not yet been signed, and there was no United States of America. The British soldiers were Adams’ fellow countrymen — not foreign enemies of the state at war with his country.
Second, the British soldiers were accused of a crime. The constitution was not yet in place, but as I pointed out in my column this week, former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy explains that the great American tradition later enshrined in the Sixth Amendment “guarantees the accused — that means somebody who has been indicted or otherwise charged with a crime — a right to counsel. But that right only exists if you are accused, which means you are someone the government has brought into the civilian criminal justice system and lodged charges against.” Unless they have been charged before military commissions or civilian courts, the al-Qaeda terrorists held at Guantanamo do not have a right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. They are not accused criminals. They are enemy combatants held in a war authorized by Congress.
In the 234 years since Adams and his compatriots fought for our independence, the United States has held millions of enemy combatants — and not one had ever filed a successful habeas corpus petition until the habeas campaign on behalf of Guantanamo detainees began. Thanks to this campaign, Guantanamo detainees now enjoy unprecedented rights far beyond those afforded to lawful prisoners of war with full Geneva protections. Nothing in the Geneva Conventions provides POWs with the right to counsel, access to the courts to challenge their detention, or the opportunity to be released prior to the end of hostilities. Yet thanks to the habeas campaign, al-Qaeda terrorists who violate the laws of war now enjoy all these privileges.
The habeas lawyers are not doing what John Adams did — representing accused criminals already in the judicial system. Rather, they have reached outside the judicial system and dragged the terrorists in. And with these actions they have done immense damage to our national security. Detainees freed from Guantanamo under pressure from the habeas campaign have gone back to the fight and killed American and allied forces. And according to Paul Rester, the director of the Joint Intelligence Group at Guantanamo Bay, their actions have decimated his ability to effectively question captured terrorists who remain for intelligence to protect the American people. Interrogators must be able to expose intelligence to terrorists during questioning. But with the growing presence of habeas lawyers, interrogators are constrained from doing so for fear this intelligence will get out. Captured al-Qaeda training manuals instruct terrorist to “take advantage of visits to communicate with brothers outside prison and exchange information that may be helpful to their work outside the prison” — and a number of law firms have been sanctioned for helping terrorists in Guantanamo pass messages. To expose intelligence to terrorists under such circumstances would put the lives of American troops at risk. “I might as well put an intelligence computer in a cave in Waziristan,” Rester says.
And then there is the ACLU’s so-called “John Adams Project.” In 2009 it was revealed that the lawyers in this project had stalked individuals they believed were CIA interrogators, surreptitiously took their pictures, and showed them to al-Qaeda terrorists at Guantanamo Bay — placing the identities – and, therefore, the lives — of these covert operatives and their families at risk. Would John Adams be proud to have his name associated with such conduct?
Pro bono hours are a scarce commodity, and how lawyers choose to spend that time tells us a lot about them. When they devote their time to representing the indigent, the elderly, battered women or refugees, we do not hesitate to say that those choices tell us something about their values. The same is true if they choose to devote their time to freeing America’s terrorist enemies from lawful confinement under the laws of war. At least that is what the founder of the organization that is coordinating the habeas campaign on behalf of captured terrorists — the Center for Constitutional Rights — has said. The late William Kunstler was once asked by Andy McCarthy why he never represented clients on the right with whose views he disagreed. Kunstler replied: “They have a right to an attorney, but they don’t have a right to ME.”
Kunstler chose his clients based on his values. And so do the lawyers working with his organization to represent al-Qaeda terrorists. There is nothing wrong with raising questions about the virtue of those choices.
ed. comment by me, rumcrook, no there isnt, and I deem them to be traitorous scum. only the times we live in allow them to conduct themselves so, and 100 years ago or more they would be strung up in the gallows for thier actions. I would pull the rope on the trap door for these “lawyers” and shed no tear.
No comments:
Post a Comment