Rightank

So, I finally got around to reading Charles Krauthammer’s article on torture. Writing in the Weekly Standard, Krauthammer argues contra McCain and 90 other utopia-minded Senators that torture is a necessary evil for certain classes of captured terrrorists. (I disagree with Krauthammer that capital punishment is just as “terrible and monstrous” as torture, but that’s an argument for another day).

Krauthammer divides the unlucky but highly deserving terrorists into two groups: the ticking time bomb terrorist and the high-level terrorist with slow-fuse information. He describes the operating parameters for these two groups:

Each contingency would have its own set of rules. In the case of the ticking time bomb, the rules would be relatively simple: Nothing rationally related to getting accurate information would be ruled out. The case of the high-value suspect with slow-fuse information is more complicated. The principle would be that the level of inhumanity of the measures used (moral honesty is essential here–we would be using measures that are by definition inhumane) would be proportional to the need and value of the information. Interrogators would be constrained to use the least inhumane treatment necessary relative to the magnitude and imminence of the evil being prevented and the importance of the knowledge being obtained.

Krathammer’s first category is a no-brainer. Saving hundreds of innocents outweighs any moral tenet of law or principle that ordinarily prevents torture or inhumane treatment. The moral casuality we as an American society incur by shoving a terrorist’s face in a bucket of cold water for extended periods of time, etc., is less than permitting the loss of many American lives by deliberate inaction. Any policy (like McCain’s) that would prevent such action values terrorist life above American life.

Krathammer’s second category is sensible, particularly during the early days of capture. The proportionality-based scale (though hard to measure) fairly balances America’s need to extract potential life-saving information from the terrorist with the value of the terrorist’s psychological and physical well-being.

Torture is a nasty business, but it is a necessary tool in fighting the War on Terror. The U.S. government’s overarching policy in the Terror War should serve American interests above those of the terrorist thugs were are fighting. Krathammer’s suggested rules of terrorist treatment fit this policy–a policy designed to win the war, not lose it.

*UPDATE*
Jonah Goldberg on torture and the moral value of American versus terrorist life:

[T]orture has been made into a moral black box, a stand-in for “something existentially and self-evidently evil.” . . .

Suddenly, no matter what the context, no matter what the reason, torture is a stand-alone context-killer. Whereas even many liberals accepted that in some cases dropping atomic bombs on civilian populations could be morally acceptable given the right circumstances, torture never, ever, can be. Again, I’m willing to be persuaded that this makes sense. But as of right now, I can’t get my head around the idea that it might be morally acceptable to nuke untold thousands or millions, leaving many to endure vastly greater agony than involved in 2 to 3 minutes of waterboarding but it is absolutely morally unacceptable to humiliate and hurt a terrorist in order to gain information that might help us stop just such an attack on our own citizens.

I couldn’t agree more.

I’m sure many of you are as frustrated as I am that much of the conservative agenda, such as drilling in ANWR, has not yet been implemented.

Paul Weyrich has an excellent article reasoning that Liberal Republicans–not the House and Senate Republican Leadership–are preventing a more conservative agenda from being enacted into law. Weyrich explains that because the Dems are voting as a block in both the House and the Senate, the 22 to 26 Liberal House Republicans and 7 Liberal Senators have blocked conservative legislation from either moving out of committee or coming to a vote. Here’s Weyrich’s solution:

What is to be done? Most Liberal Republicans have been in Washington long enough to chair either committee or subcommittee. The Leadership should get the Republican Conference in both Houses to adopt a legislative agenda. Senators and Congressmen would be told in advance that the agenda would include party discipline votes. If a Senator or Congressman would not vote for the GOP agenda he or she could not chair a committee or subcommittee. Just watch how reasonable some Liberal Republicans would become. Chairmanships bring prestige. They bring the opportunity to move issues of interest to the chairs. They bring additional staff and monies with which to run the committee or subcommittee. Few willingly would give up those chairmanships for the sake of voting against ANWR or other divisive issues.

Threatening Republicans with the loss of their chairmanships is a great idea though many Republicans would throw a political tantrum. Weyrich expects this but feels the tantrum and potential fallout would be worth it:

The GOP Leadership won’t propose an agenda because it fears that Liberal Republicans would defect to the Democratic Party. I doubt they would. Many of them could not be elected as Democrats. If they were to defect, so be it. If it meant that because of defections the Democrats would control Congress, well and good. Then at least the situation would be clarified, Liberals in one party, Conservatives in the other. Conservatives then could do the real work for which they were elected free of political blackmail by Liberal Republicans. It would be tough medicine to administer. Some Conservatives wouldn’t like it either because they would not want that kind of penalty hanging over their heads.

The Republican Leadership find themselves in a quandry: Get tough with the Liberal Republicans or face voter dissatisfaction at the polls and within the conservative Republican base. It’s time to get tough and let the Liberals fall where they may.

The War over of Christmas begins this year with a traditional Christmas gift: The selection, cutting, and delivery of a Christmas tree by Nova Scotia to the city of Boston. The gift is a tradition, that stems from the Boston’s graciousness in helping the country recover from an explosion in 1917.

The rub is that the Boston city bureaucrats decided to deride and spit on the Scotian gift by renaming the Christmas tree a “Holiday” tree. This didn’t sit well with the logger who selected and cut the tree:

Donnie Hatt says if he’d known the tree he donated to Boston would be called a holiday tree, “I’d have cut it down and put it through the chipper.”

Boston should “just put Return to Sender on it because we sent it as a Christmas tree, not a holiday tree.”

Hatt also called Boston’s decision “a bunch of bullcrap.” How politically incorrect of Mr. Hatt to brandish the politically incorrect naming of the Boston tree!

Attempting to extract “Christ” from Christmas is a bunch of bullcrap. Christmas is what it is: a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. Separationists’ attempt to blur by lying about its symbolism and tradition is stupid and does not fool anyone (but it infuriates many). I wonder: Would Boston rename the Christmas tree if that tree were symbolic of the Muslim faith?

State Representative Tom Brinkman (R-OH) has sued Miami University (Ohio) alleging that the university is unconstitutionally giving health benefits to employees living as domestic partnerships in violation of the Ohio Constitution. Section 15.11 of the Ohio Constitution states:

Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

Brinkman’s argument is that the domestic partnership benefit granted by Miami University recognizes a legal status of non-marriage that intends to grant an effect of marriage (university health benefits) to gay or lesbian couples. Moreover, Brinkman could also argue that mere recognition of a domestic parternship violates the Marriage Amendment as only marriages between one man and one woman are constitutionally valid.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of the case. In my view, Brinkman has a strong case against the Miami University. If Miami were to lose, then other Ohio universities with similiar policies (e.g., The Ohio State University) would be required to withdraw their domestic partner benefits. More to come in the days ahead.

Hat tip: Dark Angel82 at Free Republic.

George Washington gratefully announced the following in the first Thanksgiving Day Proclamation:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor. . . .

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be–That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks–for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation–for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed–for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted–for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

Can you hear Michael Newdow screaming? It must be agonizing for atheists and constitutional revisionists like him to read the documents of our Nation’s history.

I am grateful to God for all of His many blessings in my life and my family. Like Washington, I thank God as well for the Nation of which I am a citizen–The United States of America. I am grateful for the religious freedom I enjoy. Despite attempts by the Reverend Barry Lynn and others to castigate and banish religion from the public square, Americans can worship God publicly and privately without fear of government interference. Many Christian Chinese risk death, incarceration, and separation from their family by choosing to worship God according to the dictates of their consciences while Americans doddle to church every Sunday worrying if they’ll finally make it on time for the opening prayer. Truly, Washington’s thanks to God for our religious liberty is a blessing we Americans take for granted.

John O’Neil wrote an excellent editorial on why the suggested troop pull-out by Congressman Murtha (D-PA) and company is standard protocol for the Donkeycrats:

The Democratic Party (notwithstanding its cynical expressions of concern for the same troops it periodically seeks to label as engaged in widespread crime) is regarded with intense distrust by many active duty and retired military personnel. They have been Kerried once too often. It was once the majority party that stopped the Nazis, Fascists, and North Koreans and that in words of a far different Kennedy summoned us “to fight any battle” for freedom. Sadly, the party of Henry Jackson and Franklin Roosevelt has become the party of retreat – from the Iranian Hostage Crisis to the retreat from Mogadishu; to opposition to the 1991 Gulf War; to the failure to avenge the 1993 World Trade Center bombing or the USS Cole bombing or the murder of our own troops and embassy personnel around the world. Indeed, this past Thursday night, the nation watched the bizarre spectacle of a Democratic Party speaking in favor of immediate withdrawal but too afraid to even cast a vote recording for posterity these convictions. And the drift from American values to the party of Mr. Kerry and Michael Moore has been matched by its shrinking base. Recent polls, for example, show vastly lower approval ratings – in the low 20s – for Congressional Democrats than even the low rating of Mr. Bush.

The retreatist Dems are trying to have its both ways: placating the radical leftists donors who fill their coffers and support their candidates (like MoveOn.org) while at the same time proclaiming their steadfast support for our troops. John O’Neil demonstrates, however, in a Democrat’s war victory is defeat or deliberate inaction. It’s as if the Democratic Party has whitewashed the last part of the Star-Spangled Banner. No longer the “Home of the Brave,” America is a regime that tortures terrorist detainees and ignites uprisings in Iraq and elsewhere. What a shame.

Evidently, the Dems are blocking the Director of National Intelligence’s (DNI) lawyer from being confirmed. NRO’s Byron York posted Negroponte’s letter to Senators Frist and Harry Reid.

The letter, coupled with the Murtha’s stupifying demand for Iraqi troop withdrawal, proves yet again that the Dems would rather undermine the President and vindicate their pride instead of protecting our country.

Victor Davis Hanson has a great piece on what lessons American can learn from the ongoing French riots. Importantly, he recognizes that certain facets of the American ethos are necessary in order for national stability and strength:

[T]he United States should return to its former ideal of a multiracial society under the inclusive aegis of Western culture. True, Americans are enriched by cultural diversity in food, fashion and the arts. Yet our core American values of democracy, human rights, private property, a free economy, an unfettered press and unbridled inquiry are not optional or up for discussion. In other words, we succeed precisely because we are the antithesis of a tribal Mexico, unfree China, intolerant Islamic Middle East–or socialist and statist France.

Neither multiculturalists nor moral relativists understand that there is a level of inflexibility in American values. For example, patriotism, faith in God, and hard work, are American values are krypontite to some cultural affirmations or liberal ideals. The core values of Americanism are something we need to immerse youngsters and immigrants–not some Farenheit 9/11 version of America’s founding.

France is hemorrhaging from within because of their lack of a national identity within their immigrant masses. A return to an emphasis in Americanism in our public discourse and places of learning will prevent a cultural rupture within our borders that might occur within a generation’s time.

I apologize for my lack of posts these past couple of days. Family in town plus a crazy college football rivalry weekend has a put a damper on the blogging. I’ll pick it up again on Monday.

In conjunction with the WSIS summit in Tunis, the U.N. Working Group on Internet Governance has released a book: Reforming Internet Governance:Perspectives from the Working Group on Internet Governance. In the book, different authors elucidate on the framework of the Working Group, as well as their rationale on why one nation (the United States) should not be permitted to control the internet. Abdullah A. Al-Darrab, a member of the U.N. working group, argues in his chapter “The Need for International Internet Governance Oversight”:

Since the Internet is a global network which knows no national boundaries, and the security of the Internet is of concern to all States and impacts their national security, it is not reasonable for one Government to undertake the oversight role on behalf of all the Governments of the world.

Thus, Al-Darrab has two reasons why the U.N. should remove the U.S. from internet governance: First, the internet is a world-wide phenomenon; Second, international security (including the hated spam).

It is indeed the case that the internet (aka world wide web) is accessible across the globe. However, any multi-national corporation (e.g., Microsoft and Coca-Cola) qualifies as “global network[s] with no national boundaries.” Moreover, doesn’t the availability argument circumvent the intellectual property rights (not to mention the taxpayer investment) that the United States acquired designing, building, and launching the internet?

The international security argument doesn’t work either. How should the United States (or any nation) believe that the post-Oil for Food U.N. can properly handle the security issues that will fall under its jurisdiction? Isn’t the international security argument really about the ability to prohibit unwanted sources of democratic thought from entering into countries who are ruled by dictators and thugs?

The U.N.’s quest for digital rule is not because the United States and ICANN are doing a paltry, disorganized job. Rather, it is the sensational organizational success of the internet that drives this international quest for monopolization–which as with all America’s successes, is difficult for the liberal internationalist intelligensia to swallow.