-Caveat Lector-
From
http://www.whwg.com/Firm/WritersSample.cfm?SampleId=42
http://www.whwg.com/Firm/WritersSample.cfm?SampleId=43
}}}>Begin
The Jewish World Review
October 19, 2001
"Questions for the Anti-War Crowd, Part II: What if someone took them
seriously?"
by Michael Long
If you want to see contempt for both America and reality itself
rolled up into one, check out the anti-war crowd. Differences
between themselves and other Americans are far more than disputes
over policy. The questions I myself have posed to the protesters
(see �Questions for the Anti-War Crowd�) represent a step-by-step
procedure to expose their fundamental hypocrisy and startling
na�vet�.
The anti-war crowd is dangerous less for their ideas (which are
dangerous enough: demanding that the U.S. forego retaliation;
cutting off Israel�as if appeasement would purchase peace; and
abandoning anti-Taliban rebels) than for their toxic
irresponsibility. That is, the arguments they make are offered with
the tacit understanding that no one will take them seriously.
One can best appreciate the bankruptcy of even their most detailed
tirades with a little thought experiment: What if someone in charge
actually did what the protesters said?
Consider the situation point by point. How serious can an armchair
president be if he opposes the Afghanistan�s Northern Alliance�the
leading opposition to the Taliban�because, as one poster to Mother
Jones online magazine put it, �the Northern Alliance is not
necessarily remembered with fondness�? Who would defend our right to
be free from terror if no one fought terrorists? Who would protect
dissenters from physical violence if no one stood against regimes
that deal in such violence?
Anti-war protesters reject that there is any virtue in American
power, though they are quite happy to bask in its protection.
Here�s a flash for the anti-war movement: politics is rarely a
matter of pure choices between good and evil. The protesters are
afraid of moral imperfection, so they damn anything less than the
ideal. And while they wait for that ship to come in, innocent people
pay the price; lately in the form of greater exposure to terrorism.
Because she is imperfect, the protesters cannot stand the thought of
supporting her. But the question is not of America�s perfection.
She isn�t perfect. The real question is this: Is America�or any
other nation, for that matter�good enough and tolerant enough to
merit defending against her enemies?
And the answer is obvious. Look around�the greatest tolerance
anywhere in the world is found right here. Not in middle-eastern
theocracies, nor in socialist �utopias,� nor in Fidel Castro�s front
yard, nor in a cave in which a psychotic bully legislates the lengths
of beards that can be displayed under the Afghan moon.
Reasonable Americans across the political spectrum instinctively
understand this, and thus we find no ideological monopoly of any kind
on standing up for America. Those who favor action come from the
Democratic Party; the Republican Party; the ranks of independents;
the occasional claque of Nader voters; the remains of the Perot
crowd. Nearly everyone senses in their bones that something sacred is
at stake, something not easily replaced, something that is worth
fighting for.
Both liberals and conservatives recognize that our differences are a
matter of degree. That is not to say that we differ on only trivial
things�far from it. But we hold in common something far more
important than our differences: we understand that civilization
itself�and civilization is another word for systematic
tolerance�breathes deepest in the American system. We are invested
in it, and we will protect that investment for ourselves and for
those who come after.
On the other hand, the anti-war crowd has no system to defend, no
place to go home to. Their passion for relativism has cut loose
their anchor. They are intellectually cornered and morally
paralyzed�they are marginalized and growing trivialized�because of a
crushing inability to identify and acknowledge right and wrong in a
world where such a capacity is the key to survival.
When will they learn that when someone kills six thousand innocent
people, he forfeits his right to be understood? Anyone who sees
terrorism as a reasonable means to a political end is an enemy of
civilization, utterly incapable of defending or even recognizing even
the lowest walls that separate us from chaos and anarchy.
Put another way, apologists for terrorists are terrorists themselves.
They preach tolerance, but they don�t really understand it.
Tolerance is a kind of love, but what good is love if it is not also
expressed through justice? Love without justice is mere license,
like a parent who refuses to say �no� to a child because he or she
�loves� the child too much.
That�s not love, that�s immorality. What a shock�and what a
pity�that some folks still don�t know.
To contact Mike Long, please send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jewish World Review
October 26, 2001
"The Moral Case For Torture: Dirty hands don't always mean dirty
souls."
by Michael Long
CONSIDER this thought experiment. Someone has planted a bomb
somewhere in your city. Could be anywhere-shopping mall, grocery
store, sports bar, nursery school. You are the chief of police, and
you have the perpetrator in custody. His latest bomb is set to go off
tomorrow, and he has blown up bombs in your town before. He won't
tell you where the bomb is. He won't be bribed, threatened or enticed
into talking. But he knows. And the clock is ticking.
What do you do? Your answer is academic, but for a few officials in
the federal government, this scene is being played out for real, even
as you read these words.
Several Al-Qaida associates are now in American custody. One in
particular, Zacarias Moussaoui, attended flight school and boasted to
other students that all he wanted to do was to learn how to steer a
commercial jet, not how to take off or land one. Mr. Moussaoui seems
to have missed his plane on 9/11. He is now in our hands, and is,
shall we say, reticent to tell us what he knows. What do we do?
A few facts are virtually certain: 1) Mr. Moussaoui was part of the
9/11 hijack scheme; 2) Mr. Moussaoui was and is an active participant
in the largest single act of terror and mass murder in the history of
the U.S.; 3) Mr. Moussaoui has in his head information that would be
useful in tracking down those planning the deaths of more innocents.
The word floating around Washington these days is "torture," as in,
well, use your imagination. (I often accuse the Left of hiding behind
"weasel words" to cover up what they really mean, so I will not
suddenly acquire some sanitized PR term for "torture.") Make no
mistake, we are talking about inflicting pain on an individual in
order to get him to tell us information-pain not as an instrument of
punishment or retribution, but pain as a tool to elicit information
that will save lives; pain as the vehicle to force a choice: talk, or
suffer more. The question is, should we do such a thing?
September 11 has given many a new sense of moral clarity; in
particular, of the relationship between justice and force; of the
sanctity of innocent life; and lately of the dubious nobility of
preserving every civil right for those hell-bent on destroying them
for the rest of us. The national morality is no longer defined as a
bottomless well of gentility; many now appreciate that such is the
road to anarchy. Therefore, in limited and particular circumstances,
torture must be an acceptable option. Never to be used as an
instrument of punishment or payback, but only as a way of securing
information that can save lives in time-essential circumstances when
the tactics of war are being prosecuted on individuals at peace.
Hardly comfortable with torture? Me neither. Let's keep it that way.
But the argument for torture rests on the priority of innocent life
itself over the rights of the guilty. Those who declare their
hostility toward innocent human life forfeit their right to have
their human rights-their membership in civilization-respected, to the
extent that maintaining those rights will cost others their very
lives.
By torturing Mr. Moussaoui for the truth, we would be treating a
torturer with torture itself, but only in pursuit of information to
save lives he himself holds at stake. It's a slippery moral slope,
but never has America been on firmer moral ground than in the days
after 9/11.
Of course, it may not come to this, though the distinction will be
merely semantic. The Justice Department may extradite Al-Qaida
terrorists to nations where the rules of interrogation are "not so
clear." The President may also invoke his privilege to establish a
special military commission to accommodate the threat. (Byron York
notes in National Review Online that President Roosevelt did just
that in World War II with German terrorists.)
Or maybe we will take our chances with the terrorist cells among us-
that is, maybe the government will force us to take our chances-in
the name of preserving some nebulous "purity." I prefer that we do
what's necessary to get the truth out of the Al-Qaida agents now
sitting in our jails. I would rather accept G-d's judgment for
torturing one man-and perhaps (though unlikely) the wrong man-than
risk thousands more lives because someone can't tell the difference
between dirtying his hands and dirtying his soul.
End<{{{
>>>A: I couldn't find part 1; B: I suppose that when a person has
assumed the role of "victim" (withing the context of "culture") for
so long, anything sounds reasonable. From one of the 2%ers; not the
1%ers. A<>E<>R <<<
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
