From Pat Buchanan:
Are we at war – or not?
For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?
Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.
And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.
When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.
Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.
We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are at war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?
Obama's arrogance is killing American soldiers. But he doesn't care. (via Grouchy Old Cripple)
Hat Tip: Richard E. Swanson
From the Palmetto Pundit:
Near the end of the episode dealing with the eventual collapse of both towers of The World Trade Center, there was a scene showing rescue workers sifting through the rubble looking for survivors. It was eerily silent except for the chirping of what sounded like hundreds of beepers coming from beneath the rubble. They were the emergency locators worn by police officers, firefighters, and first responders who were running up the stairs in an effort to send everyone else down.
Each and every chirp marked the location of one selfless hero who made the ultimate sacrifice for their fellow man. I don't know how many chirps there were, but it sounded like hundreds and was deafening to me. I honestly didn't think there was anything else that happened on 9/11 that could affect me more profoundly or make the wounds of that day any deeper than they already were, but I was wrong.
The chirping made the sacrifice of each of those brave souls more real than ever before. I couldn't sleep thinking of the impact it must have had on the rescue workers trying desperately to locate them and hoping beyond hope they were still alive. Many of the best and bravest America had to offer seemed to be calling out to them from beneath an insurmountable mass of twisted steel and broken glass and yet there was very little that could be done to reach them in any sort of timely fashion. I can't imagine a more hopeless feeling, and yet I can't remember a more tireless effort in the face of such impossible circumstances.
The chirping served as a reminder that no matter who wishes us ill, there will always be those among us who will face any foe, stare down any threat, and yes, pay any price so that we all may remain free. The debris may have appeared insurmountable, but the chirping is what left the lasting impression on me. From now on, when I hear crickets chirping on a warm summer evening, I will be reminded of the selfless sacrifice made by those who gave all for their fellow man that day and those who stand ready and are doing the same today.
From The Fourth Checkraise:
Canada's system of Human Rights Commissions has received quite a lot of criticism recently, a lot of it coming from Ezra Levant who was himself a target of a costly investigation for publishing the notorious Muhammed cartoons. Thinking about these issues, I'd actually argue that since the Human Rights approach has been so very efficient in stopping hate, it could also be used to stop other important threats to Canada. For example, terrorism. I therefore propose that we establish "Terrorism Commissions" that operate the exact same way as the Human Rights Commissions. Anyone could file a pre-terrorism complaint against anyone else whose words or actions they suspect might theoretically somehow enable terrorism some day in the future. The government would pick up the tab for the accuser and shield him from any retribution, whereas the accused party would be presumed guilty unless he can conclusively prove that there is no way that anyone anywhere might one day become a terrorist because of him. Truth would not be any kind of defense, of course, and to be as efficient as possible, these Terrorism Commissions should not be burdened by pesky ethics and rules, so that they would have unlimited power of search and seizure at whim. Since liberals and the left generally see nothing wrong with the HRC's, they shouldn't have any problem with identical Terrorism Commissions, right?