First they came for the tyrants,
I remained silent:
I was not a tyrant.
Then they came for the terrorists,
I remained silent:
I was not a terrorist.
Then the ACLU and EU got their panties in a twist, and clapped a stopper over the whole thing in a pique of moral superciliousness,
And I remained silent:
Even though there was a fricken’ war on, and I thought maybe the good guys should get cut a little huss, at times.
Then the tyrants and the terrorists returned,
And I remained silent:
We were all hiding in the basement, hoping they’d kill us last.
But hey: At least we got to keep our smug sense of superiority!
Update: Here’s the ACLU’s version of the story. For clarity’s sake, I’m not unsympathetic to the plight of a man mistaken for someone else and treated shoddily – if in fact that’s what the truth ends up being. Nor am I immune to fears that left unchecked, even the most nobly intended governmental authority might in time transform itself into a more benign form of tyranny. That it might, in other words, become what it had beheld.
I just don’t think we’re anywhere near to that point just yet, I really don’t. And frankly, given the hysterical and fevered scrutiny being applied to nearly every political or military action by a hostile and hyperventilated national media, not to mention feckless European politicians preening in front of the mirror of self-satisfied anti-Americanism, I don’t see us getting there anytime soon.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact: The collective security of the nation will always trump the rights of an individual, or else we never would have had a draft, just for one example. I would far rather see the folks entrusted with our security acting as vigorously and quickly as they can in the world, understanding that mistakes may well occur but believing also that punctillious legal prissiness in a time of war may well cost us more than we are prepared to pay.
And just as an aside, conceding the merits of the suit being brought arguendo, can someone please tell me what standing the ACLU has to take a suit against the US government for actions taken by its agents in a foreign country upon the person of a foreign citizen?
Where would we be without Ramsey Clark? BTW, who let him out of the time capsule?
So. . . just to clairify – you don’t think that kidnapping people and holding them without trial, charges or representation counts is tyrannical?
Do we really want to allow the charge of terrorism to be a blank check, as it were, for law enforcement? Do we really want to leave use of this power up to the discretion of law enforcement?
Ah, Eric. My online conscience. Who knows what evil lurks within my heart to which I might give free rein, if ever I thought for a moment that you were not still out there, somewhere, reading…
Seriously: This is an area full of misgivings for me, full of deepening shades of grey. I would not have it that we became indistinguishable from that which we fight against, to supplant one kind of absolutist tyranny for another. And yet…
And yet, if the federal constable has reason to believe that a foreign citizen is actively a member of a international terrorist organization in an avowed and apparent state of war with the United States and its citizens, and sees the fleeting opportunity to (arrest? kidnap?) take him into custody while in a third country, should he decline to do so, or seek permission? What if that third country has given him permission to do so? What if his naturalized country has permitted it? What if neither will admit it, for reasons of state?
Is it evil in intent to have been found wrong in fact if the constable errs in good faith? Is it evil to make a mistake, when the penalty for not acting can be so very severe?
These “renditions” are not per se extrajudicial – they are unusual and therefore should be subject to greater scrutiny, I suppose. But I do find the implicit assumption behind the political histrionics – that America is somehow the root of all evil, rather than those who slit throats and crash airplanes into skyscrapers – deeply offensive.
Whether we leave these questions up to law enforcement tends to questions of motive, ultimately: I believe that those who we are trying to capture are trying to kill us, while those who are trying to capture them are trying to protect us.
Others may disagree, I suppose.
ACLU Sues Tenet and CIA Over Secret Prisons
Hat tip: The Political Pitbull
The leftwing blogs and MSM are celebrating the latest from the ACLU! Crooks and Liars has a video
NY Times German man sued former CIA Director George Tenet and other U.S. spy agency officials on Tuesday for wrongful i…
[...] Neptunus Lexus has a nice summary that would argue otherwise. For clarity?ɬ
[...] Neptunus Lexus has a nice summary that would argue otherwise. For clarity’s sake, I’m not unsympathetic to the plight of a man mistaken for someone else and treated shoddily – if in fact that’s what the truth ends up being. Nor am I immune to fears that left unchecked, even the most nobly intended governmental authority might in time transform itself into a more benign form of tryanny. That it might, in other words, become what it had beheld. [...]
This poor dude is just a “prop” for the (u)ACLU’s agenda.
Why don’t they bring “suit” in the world court at the Hague. Wouldn’t that be more appropriate venue for their underlying “cause”?
It’s all about the “game” they play deconstructing institutions and traditions “they” (who are they anyways?) don’t agree with. It has absolutely nothing to do with law OR principle. God forbid you apply a little commonsense or (shudder)morality to any argument. Why do they do it? Because they can and have…with some success I might add.
Who funds these folks? What kind of a fool would personally fund such an organization?
B2