Score One Point For Democracy, . . . Three Points For Terrorism

It's sad, even tragic, that for every good thing happening in the War on Terror, we seem to take several steps backward at home. Our enemies no longer have any need to attack America directly -- they have the services of the moguls of the "mainstream" media and the political Left, (sometimes synonymous).

Despite the Left's continued attempts to portray that war, especially any event within the Iraq theatre of operations, as a failure or disaster, and that country is well on its way to becoming the focal point of a spreading Middle-Eastern democracy -- the only realistic answer to terrorism's root cause. Two critical tests remain for the Iraqi government: 1.) Whether they can form a stable government out of the 275 members of Parliament that have recently been elected, and 2.) Whether its members can effect a smooth transition of power when their term of office ends in four years.

Events are taking place in the Middle-East that have never happened in that region before, and never quickly and smoothly, anywhere else on the planet. I’ve tried to point out to several leftists, over the past few weeks, that it was seven years between the end of the American Revolution and the time our own Constitution took effect in 1789. If ratification had been thrown open to a popular vote as it was in Iraq, the process would certainly have taken well over a decade. How can three years be termed a "failure" by any but the childishly impatient standards of our contemporary Liberals??

No reasonable person expected this process to take less than three to five years, even without the meddling of Iran and Syria -- not to mention the terrorists and their "war on this evil principle known as democracy."

The Coalition government appointed a representative group of Iraqis to write a temporary constitution; Iraqis voted under that constitution in January 2005 to elect an interim government of their own. The interim government wrote a permanent constitution that was ratified by 79% of the voters in October 2005. Iraqis recently turned out in overwhelming numbers, coming from all factions and ethnic groups, to vote for their first democratically-elected government -- the first such government in the entire Arab world. Now the members of the Iraqi Parliament will have the chance to participate in a give-and-take representative governing system such as we have... well, no one said a democratic government was perfect, but it's certainly better than a fascist dictatorship. Iraqis have bootstrapped themselves from a collapsed totalitarian government to free elections under their own constitution in less than three years, with our help.

On the other hand, home politics have forced what can only be seen as victories for our enemies in the War on Terror, offsetting our amazing successes abroad. Democratic Senators are filibustering the renewal of the Patriot Act -- a piece of legislation hated by the Left for no good reason. Not one single instance of abuse of any citizen's civil liberties under the Act has ever been verified. All the Patriot Act really does is allow the same methods used for investigating organized crime, serial killings and drug rings to be used when investigating terrorism. Yet some Senators are working to undermine the Patriot Act, on the shaky grounds that they think can see a way someone might possibly figure out how to abuse it somehow, though it may take a concerted effort of the entire Federal government to do so. If the Patriot Act is not renewed, key provisions expire at the end of 2005 -- and those who block it will be partially responsible for any future acts of terror that could have been prevented by it.

Aiding the Democrats in their effort to undermine the President are, of course, the moguls of the "mainstream" media. Just as the Senate went into heated debate over renewing the Patriot Act, the New York Times decided to attack the President for allowing wiretaps of phone conversations in America several years ago. Ramping up unfounded fears of unconstitutional government activities is a sure way to pressure Senators to let the Patriot Act lapse. The story (coincidentally printed just in time to aid sales of the author's upcoming book on the subject) claims that the President unlawfully allowed the NSA to listen in on foreign conversations involving American citizens without getting an advance court order. The only part of the claim that's untrue is the word "unlawfully."

It turns out that not only was the action authorized under FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978), but that some of the members of Congress pretending to be shocked by this revelation were kept apprised of the NSA's actions all along. Though FISA contains a clause preventing secret surveillance of a "United States person," the character of someone who might be an "agent of a foreign power" -- which includes anyone working with a terrorist group -- should logically pre-empt that designation. Naturally, if America's security agencies are prevented from tapping American phones even when used by terrorists, all the terrorists need to do is pick up some disposable cellular phones with American numbers and throw them away after one use, before a court order to tap them can be obtained. Thanks to the New York Times and whoever leaked information about a secret, legal tactic to gather information on terrorist activities, this will probably become standard operating procedure for terrorists in the future.

Last, but certainly not least, is the protection for terrorists recently advanced by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and agreed to by President Bush. This is a blow to US efforts to glean information from captured terrorists. McCain wants to prevent the US from using torture or "degrading treatment" to coerce terror detainees to surrender information. McCain's answer to critics is that the President could simply authorize breaking the law under extreme circumstances. Well, then, what's the point of writing such a law in the first place?? Laws should not be written just because they sound nice and get a US Senator media approval. That's a poor use of my tax dollars.

The torture part is not a problem -- the US does not condone the torture of anyone, not even terrorists. The question is what constitutes torture.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defined torture in 2002 as inflicting severe pain, organ failure or permanent damage that was "specifically intended." The Left has used that definition (since broadened to exclude some highly aggressive methods) arrived at by Gonzales' legal team to slander him as "condoning torture" ever since. Gonzales expressed no personal opinion on the use of aggressive interrogation techniques, however. Mere discomfort or fright is simply not torture, despite the Left's hypersensitive caterwauling, and can lead to cooperation by breaking the subject's morale. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a high-ranking al-Qaeda leader (and 9/11 planner) captured in 2003, lasted all of two-and-a-half minutes before breaking down under the "water-boarding" technique, which simulates drowning but has no lasting physical effect.

The word "degrading," however, is far too ambiguous and subjective to be used without definition. Many on the Left feel that the terrorists themselves should get to decide what's "degrading." If a terror suspect objects to wearing handcuffs, not being able to choose his own clothing or having a woman anywhere in sight range, he could term his treatment "degrading" -- and many on the Left would accept that as a proper description. Personally, I feel it's degrading to Americans to be forced to treat terrorists as honorable opponents who follow any sort of honor code.

There can be no reasonable objection to aggressive interrogation techniques that force subjects to reveal information that saves American lives, as long as real torture is not involved. Name-calling, orange jumpsuits and rap "music" should certainly not be defined as "degrading" (although the rap could easily be classified as "torture.")

If we're going to get anywhere in this war, we have got to stop treating terrorists with kid gloves, cease granting them rights and privileges they don't have and don't deserve. Why would any captured terrorist give up information, knowing that there's nothing we can do to him to make him talk -- not even keep him up past his bedtime?? The fact that terrorists think we're too soft and spineless to fight back was the reason they kept attacking us with increasing ferocity and confidence through the decade culminating in 9/11.

Were they right, after all?? . . . Don’t ask your favorite leftist, . . . if you want an honest answer!!

God Bless,
Dan'L