Posted on 05/07/2006 6:17:09 AM PDT by xjcsa
May 7, 2006
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
"America, you lose," said Zacarias Moussaoui as he was led away from the court last week.
Hard to disagree. Not just because he'll be living a long life at taxpayers' expense. He'd have had a good stretch of that even if he'd been "sentenced to death," which in America means you now spend more years sitting on Death Row exhausting your appeals than the average "life" sentence in Europe. America "lost" for a more basic reason: turning a war into a court case and upgrading the enemy to a defendant ensures you pretty much lose however it turns out. And the notion, peddled by some sappy member of the ghastly 9/11 Commission on one of the cable yakfests last week, that jihadists around the world are marveling at the fairness of the U.S. justice system, is preposterous. The leisurely legal process Moussaoui enjoyed lasted longer than America's participation in the Second World War. Around the world, everybody's enjoying a grand old laugh at the U.S. justice system.
Except for Saddam Hussein, who must be regretting he fell into the hands of the Iraqi justice system. Nine out of 12 U.S. jurors agreed that the "emotional abuse" Moussaoui suffered as a child should be a mitigating factor. Saddam could claim the same but his jury isn't operating to the legal principles of the Oprahfonic Code. However, if we ever catch Mullah Omar or the elderly Adolf Hitler or pretty much anyone else we're at war with, they can all cite the same list of general grievances as Moussaoui.
He did, in that sense, hit the jackpot. We think of him as an "Islamic terrorist," an Arab, but he is, in fact, a product of the Western world: raised in France, radicalized in Britain, and now enjoying a long vacation in America. The taxpayers of the United Kingdom subsidized his jihad training while he was on welfare in London. Now the taxpayers of the United States will get to chip in, too.
On the afternoon of Sept. 11, as the Pentagon still burned, Donald Rumsfeld told the president, "This is not a criminal action. This is war."
That's still the distinction that matters. By contrast, after the 2005 London bombings, Boris Johnson, the Conservative member of Parliament, wrote a piece headlined "Just Don't Call It War." Johnson objected to the language of "war, whether military or cultural . . . Last week's bombs were placed not by martyrs nor by soldiers, but by criminals."
Sorry, but that's the way to lose. A narrowly focused "criminal" approach means entrusting the whole business to the state bureaucracy. The obvious problem with that is that it's mostly reactive: blow somewhere up, we'll seal it off, and detectives will investigate it as a crime scene, and we'll arrest someone, and give him legal representation, and five years later when the bombing's faded into memory we'll bring him to trial, and maybe conviction, and appeal of the conviction, and all the rest. A "criminal" approach gives terrorists all the rights of criminals, including the "Gee, Officer Krupke" defense: I'm depraved on account of I'm deprived. If you fight this thing as a law enforcement matter, Islamist welfare queens around the world will figure there's no downside to jihad: After all, you're living on public welfare in London plotting the downfall of the infidel. If it all goes horribly wrong, you'll be living on public welfare in Virginia, grandstanding through U.S. courtrooms for half a decade. What's to lose?
It's a very worn cliche to say that America is over-lawyered, but the extent of that truism only becomes clear when you realize how overwhelming is our culture's reflex to cover war as just another potential miscarriage-of-justice story. I was interested to see that the first instinct of the news shows to the verdict was to book some relative of the 9/11 families and ask whether they were satisfied with the result. That's not what happened that Tuesday morning. The thousands who were killed were not targeted as individuals. They died because they were American, not because somebody in a cave far away decided to kill Mrs. Smith. Their families have a unique claim to our sympathy and a grief we can never truly share, but they're not plaintiffs and war isn't a suit. It's not about "closure" for the victims; it's about victory for the nation. Try to imagine the bereaved in the London blitz demanding that the Germans responsible be brought before a British court.
Agreeing to fight the jihad with subpoenas is, in effect, a declaration that you're willing to plea bargain. Instead of a Churchillian "we will never surrender!", it's more of a "Well, the judge has thrown out the mass murder charges, but the DA says we can still nail him on mail fraud."
And, even if the defendant loses the case, does that mean the state wins? Here's an Associated Press story from a few weeks ago recounting yet another tremendous victory for the good guys in the war on terror:
"A Paris court fined the terrorist known as 'Carlos the Jackal' more than $6,000 Tuesday for saying in a French television interview that terror attacks sometimes were 'necessary.' The 56-year-old Venezuelan, whose real name is Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, was convicted of defending terrorism. The court did not convict him for expressing pleasure that 'the Great Satan' -- the United States -- suffered the Sept. 11 attacks, saying those comments were his personal reaction."
That's right, folks. The French state brought a successful hate-speech prosecution against Carlos the Jackal, albeit not as successful as they wanted:
"Prosecutors asked for a fine four times larger than the $6,110 penalty imposed. But the judges said they did not see the need for a higher fine because Ramirez's comments referred to the past and aimed to justify his own actions. Ramirez, dressed in a red shirt and blue blazer, kissed the hand of his partner and lawyer, Isabelle Coutant-Peyre, during the judgment."
Coming soon to a theater near you: The Day of the Jackal's Hate-Speech Appeal Hearing.
Copyright © Mark Steyn, 2006
Well stated. I'm afraid the west is not up to dealing with the threat they now face. In fact, I don't think more than a handful in the west even know what they're dealing with. Most believe the problem is a few bad apples among the otherwise "religion of peace." Heck, even Bush tells us Islam is not the problem.
"You mock others' analytical thinking and yet you are unaware that we are at war and that Al Qaeda was originally formed to overthrow the Saudi government."
Well...to enable my "analytical thinking" please supply with me with the FACTs. Where is the mocking in that?
Or perhaps, there are no FACTS to enable an analysis?
This is what started the resurgence of radical Islam, which fuels the terrorists:
Mondale, Carter, and radical Islam
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/bowyer/021213
We are still living now with the direct consequences of the failure of the Carter administration to understand the nature of radical Islam and with its botched Iran policy in general. Before the Ayatollah and his followers seized power in Iran, radical Islam was nothing other than an unlikely dream. For the most part, this cause was championed by ideologically driven and idealistic students and seen by serious men in Central Asia and the Middle East as unrealistic. Ideologies are often like this; people avoid them when expectations are low, but flock to them more and more as their prospects improve. Most people, in short, avoid political movements that they see as losers and embrace political movements that they see as winners, regardless of ideology.
That's why the Iranian revolution is so important to the rise of radical Islam. In the same way that Marxism was energized as a movement when the Bolshevik's seized Russia, radical Islam was able to draw propaganda value and financial support from the nation of Iran once it controlled an actual nation-state. Its most significant barrier to ascendancy—its reputation as a hobby for clerics and radicalized students—was razed with the fall of Tehran. Radical Islam was unleashed upon the world of nations.
Now I suspect we can look forward to all the inmates in Club Gitmo having their day....er....years in court. I'm sure they will go to school on the Moussoui case and be equally entertaining.
Oh man, you are kidding. That's terrible.
What facts are you missing?
That we are at war? Congress approved military action.
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq
Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When Iraq under Saddam Hussein ordered a military invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, Bin Laden called for jihad against Saddam and asked the Saudi government for permission to send jihadists to protect the country and help liberate Kuwait. Instead the Saudi government agreed to host a coalition for a short period of time made up of forces from the United States and other non-Muslim nations to establish a base in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden, who had hated the United States even before the Gulf War, was outraged; he and most other Muslims considered the presence of non-Muslim forces on Saudi soil as an affront to the Muslim faith. Disagreements and squabbling between Bin Laden and the Saudi royal family soon exploded into full-blown hostility, especially after US forces remained in Saudi Arabia upon liberating Kuwait.
Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1991, moving to Sudan at the behest of its government. There he began to build what the United States would decide to name Al Qaeda and much of its current militant and governmental structure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
But I suspect you're not really interested in facts. You are in love with your ignorance.
BTTT
Another EXCELLENT article by Steyn.
More of the same:
Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, bin Laden offered to help defend Saudi Arabia (with 12,000 armed men) but was rebuffed by the Saudi government. Bin Laden publicly denounced his government's dependence on the U.S. military and demanded an end to the presence of foreign military bases in the country. According to reports (by the BBC and others), the 1990/91 deployment of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia in connection with the Gulf War profoundly shocked and revolted bin Laden and other Islamist militants because the Saudi government claims legitimacy based on their role as guardians of the sacred Muslim cities of Mecca and Medina. After the Gulf War, the establishment of permanent bases for non-Muslim U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia continued to undermine the Saudi rulers' legitimacy and inflamed anti-government Islamist militants, including bin Laden. Bin Laden's increasingly strident criticisms of the Saudi monarchy led the government to expel him to Sudan in 1991...
Around this time, bin Laden and his associates began developing and executing a series of meticulously-planned terrorist attacks. In 1995, the Saudi Arabian government stripped bin Laden of his citizenship after he claimed responsibility for attacks on U.S. and Saudi military bases in Riyadh and Dahran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
Osama bin Laden
"Osama is of Saudi Arabian origin, but his Saudi citizenship was revoked in 1994 as a reaction to his attempts to overthrow the regime of Saudi Arabia."
http://i-cias.com/e.o/osama_b_laden.htm
BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Who is Osama Bin Laden?
"Bin Laden became an out-and-out opponent of the Saudi regime and began to direct his efforts against the US and its allies in the Middle East.
In 1991, he was expelled from the country because of his anti-government activities...
The Saudi government is reported to have sought reconciliation but, when this failed, it froze his bank accounts and stripped him of his Saudi citizenship."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1551100.stm
USATODAY.com - Osama bin Laden: Who and why
"His aim is to overthrow existing Muslim governments that maintain friendly U.S. relations, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and eventually abolish state boundaries in the region, U.S. officials say."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/15/osama-qna.htm
Had enough?
The USA courts can also be media sideshows with dangerous individuals playing the clowns.
Here is a good article with a terrible headline "Part Of Me Died When I Saw This Cruel Killing" from todays UK Times that tells us AGAIN how savage and barbaric our enemy is in this fight.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2168496,00.html
Also, see this article by the editors of NRO.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWVhMThiNGExZTRhZTY3ZTc3OTk5NTQ3ZGExYjI3NmY=
You're absolutely right.
Interesting . . .I've had more thoughts along the same lines as you lately. Seems the entire world has gone mad!
On your way up there, drop by your friendly FFL and plunk down $7000 of your soon-to-be-rapidly-depreciated U.S. printed currency, and ask him to get you one of Ronnie Barrett's long arms to add to your collection. And get a telescope -- one with an altazimuth tripod mount, plenty of magnification, for your OP.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1628202/posts
It may be media deception, however. I was very upset by it, but other posters have told me that this was not exactly what Bush meant. I think we're going to have to wait for a fuller report.
Only if Steyn believes that spending the rest of one's life in Salinas CO (23 hrs inside 1 outside) is victory. Maybe "Counting Flowers (or bricks) on the Wall" for years doesn't bother some people at all.
Unfortunately, I fear that a consequence will be rampant kidnapping of Americans - the ransom will be the release of this terrorist. If he was executed, that would not be a possibility.
Really? How so?
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.