LIBERALISM AND NATIONAL SECURITY- THE ULTIMATE DICHOTOMY

The evidence is continuing to mount but it seems clear that modern liberalism is at odds with national security. Whether they sit on the Supreme Court, occupy a seat in Congress, or publish some of our nation’s largest newspapers, several high profile liberals have significantly impeded our ability to wage the War on Terror, and we may be less safe as a result.

In a breathtaking decision, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a liberal majority on the Supreme Court held that the president does not have authority to order that terrorists be tried before military commissions. In a case where the court should not have had jurisdiction if the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 were to be taken seriously, liberal judicial activism has once again reared its ugly head. Justice Clarence Thomas offered a stinging dissent regarding the court’s willingness “to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous.” Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and National Review contributor, anticipated such a ruling offering this prescient thought: “Make no mistake: if this happens, the Supreme Court will have dictated that we now have a treaty with al Qaeda—which no president, no senate, and no vote of the American people would ever countenance.”

Applying the Geneva Conventions to barbarians who recognize no international laws of war would be laughable if it wasn’t so reckless. Perhaps Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote for the majority, would allow the Pentagon to take his home via eminent domain (see: disastrous Kelo decision) in order to house Guantanamo guests if the prison were to close. After all, shutting down Gitmo is a high priority in the left’s War on Terror strategy. And if Stevens is looking for a driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan can list Osama bin Laden as a reference.

Cheers undoubtedly rang out at the New York Times when the Hamdan case was adjudicated. After all, any effort to rebuff or expose the efforts of the Bush administration in the War on Terror will be encouraged by the old gray lady. The top of the fold Times story (“Bank Data is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror,” 6/23/06) revealing the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program was the latest in a series of damaging exposes dealing a hard blow to our clandestine capabilities. Coupled with the leak involving the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, the Times has made it abundantly clear that American national security will take a back seat to Pulitzer Prize nominations. It’s unclear, however, if those awards can withstand a dirty bomb attack. It might be best to keep them locked in an underground vault.

The New York Times has no left-wing agenda and is only interested in exposing matters of “public interest” its editors and defenders assert. But a closer look can be quite revealing. Take, for instance, Pinch Sulzberger’s recent commencement address at a New York State University: “You weren’t supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land,” bemoans Sulzberger. He continues, “You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, be it the rights of immigrants to start a new life; the rights of gays to marry; or the rights of women to choose. You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where oil still drives policy and environmentalists have to relentlessly fight for every gain. You weren’t. But you are. And for that I’m sorry.” Sulzberger doesn’t write for the Times—he publishes it.

While criticizing the efforts of the Bush Administration and at the same time besmirching our military service people is nothing new to those occupying power on the left. Although he later attempted to “clarify” his statement, the damage was already done when Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) spoke about his interpretation of U.S. policy regarding treatment of prisoners. Referring to a report describing prisoners being subjected to rap music and isolation, Durbin said, “If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings.” Our kidnapped soldiers are brutalized and beheaded while Gitmo terrorists are subjected to lyrics from the likes of Snoop Dogg. Something tells me that Snoop and his cohorts may be getting a bad rap.

When Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) told a civic group that our Army was “broken, worn out” and “living hand to mouth,” did he not consider that his statement would be read by our enemies? Even if he was right—which he isn’t—it is, at best, an irresponsible comment.

Here’s an inconvenient truth that many liberals fail to grasp: the biggest threat facing civilization isn’t carbon dioxide emissions; it’s climate warming via a nuclear detonation. And our enemies will stop at nothing to achieve this objective on American soil.

—

Michael Nevin, Jr. is a contributor to several Internet websites and a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He receives e-mail at nevin166@comcast.net.