Posted on 02/22/2006 5:25:22 AM PST by SJackson
Next week a vastly important book will be published: "Preemption, A Knife That Cuts Both Ways" by Alan Dershowitz. Yes, that Alan Dershowitz: the very liberal civil libertarian, anti-capital punishment Harvard Law School professor. And but for my lack of his legal scholarship, there is nary a sentence in the book that I — a very conservative editor of the Washington Times, and former press secretary to Newt Gingrich — couldn't have written.
The premise of his book is that in this age of terror, there is a potential need for such devices as profiling, preventive detention, anticipatory mass inoculation, prior restraint of dangerous speech, targeted extrajudicial executions of terrorists and preemptive military action including full-scale preventive war.
In his own words, from his Introduction: "The shift from responding to past events to preventing future harms is part of one of the most significant but unnoticed trends in the world today. It challenges our traditional reliance on a model of human behavior that presupposes a rational person capable of being deterred by the threat of punishment. The classic theory of deterrence postulates a calculating evildoer who can evaluate the cost-benefits of proposed actions and will act — and forbear from acting — on the basis of these calculations. It also presupposes society's ability (and willingness) to withstand the blows we seek to deter and to use the visible punishment of those blows as threats capable of deterring future harms. These assumptions are now being widely questioned as the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of suicide terrorists becomes more realistic and as our ability to deter such harms by classic rational cost-benefit threats and promises becomes less realistic."
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
What is truly "troubling" is the See No Evil mentality which looks at the world without seeing those desperate to destroy us. Using a 9/10 mindset is the sure path to destruction.
On this issue (post 9/11 security) I would seriously doubt the 35% figure and would, at the very least, double your figure. On most political issues in general I would tend to believe that a 51% figure is a little too, uh... conservative. I think there is a vast silent majority outside the Beltway and throughout flyover country that the MSM and political punditry ignore. These were the people that enabled George Bush to win two elections despite an allout assault from the MSM.
What you said.
As I remember Allan he was one of the people who foolishly thought negotiating with the Muslims would bring peace to Israel. I doubt if he was ever a Likud supporter.
He has had a change of mind.
Fifty years of making the same mistake over and over in dealing with people whose God wants them to convert or kill you is taking its toll of the Muslim appeasers in Israel and the Israel supporters in this country.
As you said 9-11 helped things along. -Tom
Happens when one realizes it's really ME those misunderstood militants want dead.
"The classic theory of deterrence postulates a calculating evildoer who can evaluate the cost-benefits of proposed actions and will act — and forbear from acting — on the basis of these calculations."
Sounds like the theory many are using...
In point of fact the first election did not show Bush with a majority of the popular vote. And a small majority of the popular vote in the second is not indicative of any vast majority on the scale you postulate.
Polls indicate that around 35% consider themselves conservative and about 25% liberal. Bush was able to attract a lot of moderates concerned about National Security during his campaigns.
Since a large percentage of eligible voters did not do so I would assume these are neither conservative nor liberal. This group is larger than either the conservative or liberal groups. I will call this the Meathead Majority though it is actually a plurality.
Isn't this the same guy who called rehnquist a republican thug the day he died?
There's your problem.
I thought the same thing after reading "A Case for Israel". Of course, the left blasted him for writing it. Some liberals, especially Jewish liberals, were slapped awake after 9/11. I'm one of them. I will never, ever support a liberal candidate again. To this day, they are still in denial about terrorism, islamofascism, and the threats to our liberty. And their attacks on the men and women in uniform are just appalling.
Many liberal, anti-gun activists carry concealed weapons. Many liberal, pro-tax activists diligently work to minimize their own tax liability. Every liberal, pro-choice mother wants their daughter to talk with them before having an abortion. (Prove me wrong!)
Similarly, since it's his own people in the cross-hairs of Islamicists, his policy beliefs in this regard are strictly conservative. Because that's what really works.
That is the understatement of the year!
I saw an interview with Dershowitz a while back about torture. He basically said 'You do what you gotta do, and you keep your mouth shut about it'.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
This seems to be a major point that about 3/4's of the people who work for the United States government seems to have missed and/or ignored!
BTW, I saw him say that, too; I had to look more than once to make sure it was HIM doing the talking.
Leftist are no fans of Israel, so it is not their "ox"getting gored. Conservative Christians and conservative Jews are Israel's biggest supporters. Liberals don't give a hoot about Israel. It is more accurate that the so-called Palestinians be characterized as a liberal "ox".
Not when they show exactly what I see.
How many conservatives are in the Senate? House? And by conservative I do not mean anyone who is not a raving liberal.
Prof. Dershowitz argues that we need to begin to develop a "jurisprudence of prevention" to legally circumvent our present Constitutional safeguards protecting individual liberty.
It is better, he argues, to "democratically" [using majority rule] decide now, before the next disaster, this new jurisprudence — the rules by which we will take these necessary [but unconstitutional] actions.
-- Such policies conflict with our traditional [Constitutional] concepts of civil liberties, human rights, criminal justice, national security, foreign policy and international law; -- but he shrewdly observes that historically, nations — including democracies — have resorted to such deviations from law and custom out of necessity. -- [and thus infringe on the very liberties they are sworn to protect]
"-- The premise of his book is that in this age of terror, there is a potential need for such devices as profiling, preventive detention, anticipatory mass inoculation, prior restraint of dangerous speech, targeted extrajudicial executions of terrorists and preemptive military action including full-scale preventive war. --"
The premise of his book is that declaring an "age of terror" justifies the dismantling of our Constitutional way of life .
Dershowitz is a socialist, and the socialist agenda for more government control never changes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.