Replies

We have no choice but to endure, and there yet remains much strength in our people. One more hit within our borders on such a scale as 9/11 and so many arguments for complacency and appeasement will disappear, IMHO.

If the terrs prove again that they can strike with such coordinated operational sophistication, nobody will be able to argue that 9/11 was an aberration. If the terrs attack with bio agents or radiation, nobody will argue that our existence is not threatened. Without those rhetorical gimmicks, the response of the American psyche should then tilt well toward the extreme "fight" side of the "fight/flight" response, we might guess. A shift in the group zeitgeist perhaps somewhat like the citizens who, after ambivilently opposing the tax increase to build the new stadium, then get all excited when the home team executes a championship victory.

Following such atrocities, I think that we would witness a lot of different kinds of "Korematsu" type treatment of targeted groups, including but not limited to internment camps on the basis of criminal associations, electronic tracking on the basis of immigration status, and infiltration arguably on the basis of religious affiliation. All of this would be likely be considered permissible under the US Supreme Court's decision in Korematsu v. U.S. [323 U.S. 214 (1944)].

In Korematsu, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the infamous eviction order, President Roosevelt's Executive Order No. 9066, 7 Fed. Reg., 1407. In a previous case, Hirabayashi v. U.S., the Court decided that the evictions and curfews did not unconstitutionally discriminate against persons of "ethnic affiliation" with the enemy people, and wherein the Court stated bluntly that "[w]e cannot close our eyes to the fact, demonstrated by experience, that in time of war residents having ethnic affiliations with an invading enemy may be a greater source of danger than those of a different ancestry." [320 U.S. 81, 101-102 (1943)].

These cases have not since been overturned and remain good law, even now ready to be put to use when the "invading enemy" clause of the above Hirabayashi dictum appears sufficiently analogous, in my humble opinion. So, when it comes down to it, America will not be constrained by our own Constitution from protecting ourselves. Too many come here today, but they may well be entering a very difficult trap which could both eliminate them and also bring unintended sad consequences for their kin folk.

So we might endeavor to plant the seeds of mental toughness within the minds and hearts of our associates, friends and family members who remain naive to the realities of the world. Giving a preparedness pamphlet to an elderly relative, or buying a box of JHP cartridges for a friend who's still in denial, can serve to plant such seeds of mental toughness. Even challenges such as those described in the article can be overcome with but a little faith.

One more hit within our borders on such a scale as 9/11 and so many arguments for complacency and appeasement will disappear, IMHO.

You know, I thought the same thing right after 9/11 and look at things now.

I know. We're all hearing a lot about how the anti-war crowd is just a loud, radical minority that nobody listens to. They said the same thing about that punk Mario Savio in Berkely in 1964.

If we understand nothing else about the leftist America-bashers, understand this: They hate America. They hate everything America stands for. They will do anything to undermine this country, subvert the efforts of our military to destroy a dangerous enemy and do anything in their power to see this nation in ruins. They are traitors to everything this nation ever stood for, an enemy in every sense of the word and must be stopped.

It applies to the war protestors, the media, the Hollywood leftists, and the liberal intellectual academic elite. It was true in 1964, and it's true now. No difference.

Know your enemy before it's too late.