MrSpkr's random thoughts . . .: Betrayals in the Global War on Islamic Fascism

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Betrayals in the Global War on Islamic Fascism
When I was a kid, I spent many hours at my grandmother's house. Grandma loved history, and loved to talk about it with me. She had an old set of American Heritage books about American history. I spent many hours reading about the battles of the Civil War, the industrialization of American industry, the First and Second World Wars, and the 1968 journey to the Moon. I was so enamored with these tales of yesteryear I decided to major in History in college. Now, while I am a practicing attorney, anyone who knows me knows that my true love is still history.

In my studies, I have read of the occasional period in American history (such as the Copperhead movement in the Civil War; the loyalists in the Revolutionary War; and the various factions during the Vietnam War) in which political opposition to a governing party has been used to justify undermining national security or aiding and abetting America's enemies in the manner undertaken today by many on the Left and in the mainstream media. Perhaps it is a cyclical happening; perhaps we are overdue for such lunacy.

It does not seem to be a particularly wise choice, however, given the historical political results (Copperhead Democrats were out of power for a generation; Loyalists had no power or influence after the Revolutionary War; and the various factions of the Vietnam Era anti-war crowd have all but guaranteed their political opposition the Presidency for the past thirty years). So why do some continue down this path in light of such poor historical outcomes?

These questions came to mind as I reviewed the various MSM leaks regarding intelligence programs and methods we are using against our current enemies. I've refrained from commenting on these leaks until more information developed. It seems, however, that many in the MSM (and on the Left) believe the Constitution is a suicide pact and that the Executive Branch is the weaker sister in our system of government, rather than an equal to the Legislature and Judiciary.

The President's powers in times of war are quite broad -- a series of Supreme Court decisions dating back to the mid-1800's confirms the broad reach of Executive authority in times of war. Unfortunately, many on the Left either (a) truly believe that civil liberties deserve primacy over all other aspects of law and governance, and the costs be damned; or (b) are willing to undertake any measure to undermine U.S. interests in the war against Islamic fascism if doing so will provide political advantage, however temporary.

Shrinkwrapped has a great post comparing the recent string of MSM leaks regarding government actions in the global war against Islamic fascism to self-destructive behavior by other closed minded fanatics. In short, he agrees with my historical observations: those who refuse to compromise their extremist positions end up undermining their own cause.
- posted by MrSpkr @ 09:25

Comments:

I agree with your thesis that fringe groups often act with a covert agenda while proclaiming an explicit end of protecting freedom. The ACLU provides an example of that, most notably in its early days.

However, I have a question as to how you draw out the analogy to include Loyalists and Revolutionaries in the 1700s. Wouldn't the Loyalists be the party advocating an extreme submission to the controlling political power and draconian measures to preserve the peace – stationing of troops in private homes, disarming private citizens, limiting the press, etc.?

# posted by

Anonymous : Thursday, December 29, 2005 9:44:00 AM

"Unfortunately, many on the Left either (a) truly believe that civil liberties deserve primacy over all other aspects of law and governance, and the costs be damned; or (b) are willing to undertake any measure to undermine U.S. interests in the war against Islamic fascism if doing so will provide political advantage, however temporary."

Steve I think you're making a couple of assumptions that aren't truly warranted.

First you state that Liberals (if I may generalize as well) demand civil liberties to the exclusion of other considerations. I, for one, don't believe that to be true and I don't think most liberals feel that way either.

I believe that we must PROTECT civil liberties but I believe that we can fight an effective war against terror while doing that by following the established laws of the land. If those laws are found wanting then the Administration can ask Congress for additional powers ... as was done with the Patriot Act.

The slippery slope we are on now is one in which this administration is claiming virtually unlimited rights to do whatever IT deems necessary. All to often that power can be abused in the name of national security. I was around in the 60's and remember a friend who visited the local FBI on a college project. She was told that they knew all about her because she was a friend to a girl who was the girlfriend of the head of the local SDS chapter! And, of course, the Army went to great lengths to "monitor" US citizens who were protesting the Vietnam war, and were slapped down for doing so.

As in most things, there are degrees of grey involved here. No one (at least no one with rational thought) wants to hamper legitmate intelligence gathering, and we all worry about possible al Qaeda sleeper cells, but indiscriminate and unchecked monitoring of US citizens is against everything we as a nation believe ... the terrorists really will win if we aren't free to do and say what we will.

Your second assumption is that liberals (again I generalize) are complaining solely for political reasons. Now you know I think little of our President and have serious doubts about his policies. But politics aside, I don't like the idea of the NSA checking up on what I write in the "CessPool" or on Gyrene's "Annex" and putting my name on some list someplace FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES ... and I have no faith that this Administration wouldn't do that. Nor, if I may predict, would YOU feel confident that a Democratic administration wouldn't do the same.

The bottom line, in my opinion (and worth every penny you pay for it too) is that we have to balance civil liberties with essential intelligence gathering. The current laws on the books seem to allow for that, so I'm puzzled why the Administration has chosen to bypass those laws.

As to the leaks, they trouble me as well. While I don't believe that the leaks have caused any significant damage, they MIGHT have and the next leak most certainly could. Therefore we need to follow the laws in place to identify and bring the leakers to justice to dissuade others from following that path.

In truth, none of us know what's going to happen, anymore than the Copperheads KNEW that the South was going to fall apart in April of 1865. I think many of them were honestly appalled (as who would not be) at the cost of the war and honestly thought the best course was to let the damned rebels go. They were wrong ... we don't know ... YET ... what course the War on Terror will take, or what steps need to be taken to win it.

Let's just hope that by winning the War we don't lose something more important.

In any case, a well thought out post on your part ... I was shocked :)

Joe

# posted by

Joe Shaw : Thursday, December 29, 2005 2:45:00 PM

About Me