Posted on 04/24/2002 12:03:45 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
When it comes to terrorists and terrorism, isn't it time for some serious, effective punishment?
Last Sunday, April 21, on "Fox News Sunday," host Brit Hume asked Secretary of State Colin Powell about his recent journey through the Arab countries and the Middle East. Hume asked, "What did you get, if anything, what kind of commitment of any kind did you get from Chairman Arafat?"
Secretary Powell quickly replied, "We got a strong statement denouncing violence, denouncing the bombing that had taken place in Jerusalem the day before." Mr. Powell offered later in the dialogue, "I've said to the chairman rather directly, I appreciate the statements, but what we really need is action."
I couldn't agree more with Secretary Powell. Real action is what is needed! That begs the question, what kind of "action"? How do we really plan on bringing this "action" about?
From my morning microphone in Sacramento, I talk with listeners who understand the need for peace. For the most part, the majority of people on the face of the Earth want peace for themselves and for their brothers and sisters.
Then again, maybe I'm the one confused. Maybe it's just a matter of spelling. Is the translation from English to Arabic confusing the communication process? Whenever we say "peace," do they think "pieces" of land … "pieces" of people?
If spelling is not the easy solution, what remains is behavior. It is behavior that calls for a firm lesson in punishment. It's time for a spelling out of the definition of "effective punishment" against ALL (Yasser Arafat included) terrorists and organizations of terrorism.
President Bush had it right with his labeling of the "axis of evil" and his "if you harbor a terrorist, you are a terrorist" comment! But we have lost sight of this "effective punishment" response. Ever since Saddam financially supported the first homicide bomber, we have had our sights on political solutions and not punishment for evil behavior!
So, what is this "effective punishment"?
I know what it is not. It is not calling Prime Minister Sharon a terrorist to appease the appeasement crowd. It is not allowing the U.N. to determine history's record by naming the battle in Jenin an Israeli massacre. It is not giving terrorists, bombers and members of the terror network more U.S. aid and "soft speech."
Effective punishment is as certain as possible, occurs as soon as possible and becomes as severe as possible.
This type of punishment must be as certain as possible. Terrorism needs a clear message of certain and consistent response. The U.S. cannot root out the world's terrorists while offering Palestinian terrorists the reward of statehood. We applauded the infrastructure in Afghanistan being rooted out. The same tactic employed by Israel is called an incursion and a massacre.
Certain punishment is clear – "you punch me, I'll punch you." You bring homicide bombers; I'll find their camps and kill them before they kill more. When you behave in this fashion, be certain that this will be our response. It will be stern and, more importantly, don't act surprised when it is!
The second prong of effective punishment states that it must occur as soon as possible. Prime Minister Sharon responded immediately. Sharon continued the punishment until the punishment was complete. To delay confuses the message and allows for the questioning of the mission.
The best way to lose the effect of this punishment is to allow a lapse of time to occur. Would you spank your child today for rebellious behavior acted upon three months ago? Of course not! Yet, that is exactly what the terrorists want to accomplish. Dispatch a homicide bomber today, cry incursion tomorrow – then hope the conclusion plays out in apathy and appeasement.
The third element of effective punishment is making it as severe as possible. President Reagan had this one figured out from the start. The vileness of terrorism should bring about a severe response from the civilized of the world.
The only language terrorists understand is severe return. Since Flight 93, the common passenger on a commercial airliner that is being hijacked no longer sits quietly by and offers "whatever" to the terrorists. Now, common passengers turn into judge, jury and, potentially, executioner. Who blames them?
The same severe response is needed militarily. Let me clarify: Homicide bombers are, well, bombers! The enemy has launched a bomb, a murderous, military-style strike against innocent people. The reply must be severe – anything less amounts to defeat and failure.
Remember that President Bush told us this war would be long and be hard. Many battles would be seen, and others you will just hear about. This sounds like "effective punishment" to me – certain, soon and severe punishment for the behavior of evil terror.
Now that it is spelled out, there remains only one question: When will we turn this punishment loose?
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.