Posted on 08/17/2006 4:57:45 PM PDT by wagglebee
The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated.– Robert Jackson, chief U.S. prosecution counsel at the Nuremberg Tribunal
When World War II ended, German police arrested that nation's Nazi leadership and they were tried in German courtrooms, correct? No, of course not. They were arrested by the Allies and taken back to their home countries where they were tried under the criminal justice system there.
No, you say that's not correct either? Well, good for you. The Allies convened the Nuremberg Tribunal and tried the individuals responsible under an amalgam of international law, convicted the bulk of them, sent some to jail and executed others.
Why did we do it that way? Read again the opening quote from Mr. Jackson:
"May it please Your Honors,
"The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power ever has paid to Reason." (Read the full address.)
We did it that way because it was necessary for civilization to survive. We did it for "crimes against the peace of the world." In today's self-inflicted multicultural "paradise," such a concept is beyond the intellectual grasp of the great bulk of the West's leftists. The idea that one culture could possibly be superior to another violates what passes for the leftist conscience: Tolerance.
Therefore, a culture that leaves little baby girls to die in the ditch, while it values and cares for little baby boys, cannot possibly be judged superior to a society that cares for both equally. A culture that denies women education is simply "different" than one that provides educational opportunities for all. A culture whose government is based on graft, corruption, intimidation and violence is no better – or no worse – than one whose government is based on laws that treat all citizens equally and fairly, and which punishes graft and corruption.
And a culture that promises rewards to an individual who straps a vest laden with explosives, nails and ball bearings – then walks into a crowded public space and detonates it – is no better or worse than the culture being attacked. To judge one against the other violates the modern liberal conscience. (If you have any doubts about where this leads, examine the staged photos coming out of Reuters and the Associated Press.)
Yet the modern liberal conscience is capable of judgment: It has judged that the war on terror is unnecessary and those prosecuting it are evil. Why? Because they have violated the liberal conscience. For this reason – violation of the liberal conscience – those defending the West against murderous Islamic assault and violent imposition of an Islamic theocracy must be prosecuted for their "crimes against humanity." Try Rumsfeld for war crimes; bow down five times a day to bin Laden and maybe he won't hate us so much.
When I read that police are arresting Islamic terrorists for plotting to blow up airliners full of innocent people, I know that the war on terror is nearly over. The vermin that began World War II were not arrested by police, read their Miranda rights, and then assigned an ACLU attorney and a court date in the nation's criminal justice system. They were held in prisoner of war camps and tried under what international law the Allies saw fit to grant for "crimes against the peace of the world."
Likewise, the Islamic terrorist vermin plotting mass murder to impose an Islamic theocracy that will consume the entire world need to be removed from the nation's criminal justice system, interred in prisoner of war camps for the duration of the conflict, and when the conflict is over tried, found guilty and executed for their "crimes against the peace of the world." Any pronouncements issued by the U.S. Supreme Court may be safely ignored, inasmuch as the Constitution gives them no authority to issue any decisions or pronouncements affecting the president's conduct of a war. Congress can stop such pronouncements and power grabs by forcing the court to adhere to its constitutional mandate; surely separation-of-powers raids into the executive's turf is bad judicial behavior and as such warrant impeachment.
As Robert Jackson asked of the court when the Nazis were brought to Nuremberg for justice, "Who was responsible for these crimes if they were not?"
He nails it right here!
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
This is an incredible commentary!
Excellent, excellent article. Thanks.
Right on.
Excellent piece, ping
Great one, thanks! You are right....he nails the liberals!
Interesting piece.
First we need to win the war, then we can have all the "trials" the lawyers want.
Meanwhile, in Oz, the Left is putting forth the father of David Hicks as Father of The Year!
And who is David Hicks? He's in GITMO. Picked up in Afghanistan fighting with the taliban...after a stint killing Serbs. He learned his 'trade' in a Pakistani madrassa. Gained his islamic 'stripes' in Saudi Arabia.
Father of the Year? If I was David Hicks' father, I would hang my head in shame and keep my mouth shut. He and Cindy Sheehan would make a great pair. Maybe your Left will nominate Cindy for Mother of the Year?
All men may be created equal. All governments are not.
One look at the UN confirms it.
ping
Gotta read it, maybe later tonight.
The American Political War on Terror
[Steve Schippert]
Something has happened to this country that my grandfathers would scarcely recognize and certainly struggle to fathom. That this requires discussion disgusts me daily.
While it can be traced back to before the 60's (though blossoming then), what really happened was the galvanization of self-loathing using Vietnam as a social catalyst. But the face of this nation changed most significantly when the election of the greatest true conservative leader on a chilly 1980 November evening forced a barely contained media into open rooting for a specific political party. The degeneration of policy discussion and political leadership since has been palpable, fueled by the successes of anti-military media coverage developed during the Vietnam era and skillfully maintained and nearly perfected since then.
And such is the nature of the degeneration of American politics. That this repulsive decay also consumes the very defense of the world's one true beacon of freedom causes true physical discomfort. For we do not own that freedom but are tasked with her defense and care by default.
That we must defend her from ourselves is heartbreaking. That we dare not pause to rest lest we lose her from within is enraging.
And so it is with this ever-present disgust that I read Restarting the Clock of History from Wretchard at Belmont Club, as he paints the portrait of our own mindless internal struggle while the wolves circle, darting between trees and shadows, laughing as we argue amongst ourselves in self-defeat over whether the wolves' teeth or our own defense against them are the greater threat.
The West was supposed to die; slowly and comfortably but ineluctably. And we were supposed to buy off the Islamists until we could finish the job ourselves. Bush declaring his intention to fight for the survival of the West was just as logical as Chomsky's pilgrimage to Hezbollah and just as infuriating to his enemies.
Until September 11 it was possible for the more "enlightened" segments of society to regard patriotism, religion and similar sentiments with the kind of amused tolerance that one might reserve for simpletons. Nothing that a little institutionalization and spare change couldn't straighten out. The problem for the Democratic Party is that the Great Polite Silence is over. People like Chomsky and President Bush have stopped being hypothetical and become all too real. Bring it on.
United we stood. At least for a few days, as the union was fleeting and superficial. The union was little more than an uncharacteristic measure of quiet among those who merely waited patiently to finally cry out "Not in our name!"
Why is the defense of this nation a political issue at all? There are those who will argue that it is the manner in which we defend ourselves that is at issue.
That, my friends, is a convoluted disingenuous sheen of reason upon the unreasonable.
A former Attorney General currently vociferously defends a mass murdering dictator deposed by our own forces. An icon of the self-loathing anti-American academic Left, Noam Chomsky, embraces Hizballah, the chief beneficiary of Iran's terror export, and condemns the War on Terror as bigotry wrapped in fiction. A former Vice President travels to the home of fifteen 9/11 hijackers and professes that Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" by America and its sitting president and held in "unforgivable" conditions.
These are not arguments of the manner in which to defend America. These are sycophantic rantings of whether to defend her. The flood of emotions in disbelieving reaction range from anger and rage to depression and grief.
We dare not rest as the most important front of the War on Terror and for the very survival of Western Civilization lies not upon the sands of distant shores, but in our own common discourse. The most important battlegrounds are around our dinner tables and in intelligent and persuasive common sense discussion among our peers, seeking the discomfort of battle and the very defense of defense rather than the comfort and unproductive endeavor of agreement among friends.
The line has been clearly drawn. Tire not. Engage.
All done!
Nailed. This guy gets it. Too bad so many others don't.
Under what jurisdiction, pray tell, the ICC?
Not on your life. They deserve military trial, and if found guilty, a speedy execution.
Leftists? Only Leftists? Oy, me not thinks so! Enough self-congratulation, folks. "tolerance", "multi-culti" and "eracism" are all part of the nameless religion we all with our great leaders, Left and "Right", practice today.
Excellent, thanks
The League of Nations begat the United Nations. Luckily the United States was not a member of.
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.