OxBlog

Monday, September 25, 2006

# Posted 10:09 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

"THE TERRORIST RIGHTS WING OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY": I was very, very angry when I read Paul Mirengoff of Power Line describe John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Warner and their supporters (of which I am one) as "the terrorist rights wing of the Republican Party.

After a number of readers objected to this description, Mirengoff posted a defense of the phrase, which was seconded by John Hinderaker. I believe Paul and John are arguing in good faith, so I will take their position seriously. Here is what I take to be Paul's central argument:
As short-hand descriptions go, "terrorist rights" gets it just about right. For that is precisely McCain and company have been pushing for -- the right of terrorists to more judicial process than they initially were granted; the right of terrorists to avoid aggressive interrogation techniques that the administration successfully has used to obtain important information from them; the right of terrorists to find out more about the evidence that will be used against them than the administration was willing to have disclosed in certain cases, and so forth. The term "terrorist rights" is no more unfair as applied to these advocates than the term "gay rights" is for advocates of gay marriage, legalizaion of gay sexual practices, etc.
I want to begin with Paul's analogy to the question of gay rights. I think it is fair to say that advocates of gay rights believe that homosexuals, at minimum, should be entitled to the exact same rights as other citizens. Not just more rights than they have now, but equal rights.

I also think it is fair to say that advocates of gay rights believe that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of heterosexuality. My point being that it is appropriate to refer to someone as an advocate of "terrorist rights" if they argue that terrorism is morally acceptable and that terrorists deserve the same rights as others.

Now let me broaden my argument a bit, since I want it to rest on more than one analogy. In general, when we speak of someone as an advocate of a certain group's rights, what do we mean?

Consider the following terms: women's rights, minority rights, workers' rights, and prisoners' rights. I think that the phrases "women's rights" and "minority rights" entail assumptions very similar to the term "gay rights". Both of them assert that the group in question are moral equivalents of a preferred group and therefore deserve equal rights.

Workers' rights is a different kind of concept. It usually refers to the belief that workers deserve a specified set of benefits and protections, not that they deserve the same rights as employers. In that sense, there is a rough analogy to what McCain et. al. want for terrorists, which is a limited set of protections. However, no advocate of workers' rights sees being a worker as something inherently evil.

What about prisoners' rights? Leaving aside the issue of rights for those who may have been wrongly convicted, prisoners' rights refers to a set of benefits and protections for those who have been incarcerated as a result of a committing a crime. In addition, there is a negative moral status attached to being a prisoner, but really that status is attached to being a criminal, not to being in prison.

Criminals are bad from the moment they commit their crime (or perhaps earlier). Their badness has nothing to do with whether or not they have already been caught and sent to prison.

Nonetheless, it is worth reflecting for a moment on the phrase "criminals' rights", because that is how the advocates of rougher justice describe the cause of those who speak out on behalf of prisoners. Just as McCain, regardless of his intentions, defends the rights of terrorists, the ACLU and others defend the rights of criminals.

But the critical point to recognize is that the ACLU etc. aren't petitioning for such rights because they believe that committing a crime entitles one to certian protections, but rather that there are limits to how a democratic government can punish those in its custody.

By extension, there is nothing wrong with describing John McCain or Lindsey Graham or John Warner or OxBlog as an advocate of detainee rights. Those detained by our government still have certain rights, even if they are terrorists. But if that same terrorist were not in US custody but in the crosshairs of a US army sniper, we damn sure would want his head blown off. That is why it is flat out wrong to call us advocates of terorrist rights.
(9) opinions -- Add your opinion

Comments:
The war on terror is ours to lose. Unfortunently, we are dealing with a brutal enemy, one who beheads people.

They are a tough bunch. If they are to be defeated, then methods that they understand will have to be utilized, wheather we a civilized or not. This is not fun and games, it is war, a war for the survial of our and the western worlds way of life.

Playing by rules like McCain and his grandstanding bunch of buddies want to do only gives aid and confort to the enemy. The American people, in my opinion, have had their heads in the sand way too long related to what is transpiring. Their next trip to the mall seemingly is more important that realizing that their way of life is treatened. Hopefully people will begin to wake up, start voting the useless windbags like McCain and Graham plus a bunch of liberal leftest like Kennedy and Kerry out of office while there is still time to preserve our way of life. If not, then be prepared to wear a rag around your head, or if female, be covered from head to toe and walk 5 paces behind your male et cetera. The choice is the choice of each and every individual, but be aware of the consequences of actions. We are fighting an enemy different from anyone ever fought before. Their life means very little. They behave like animials, thus they deserve like treatment. People who send their children off to be blown up are not civilized human beings, and trying to treat them as same will only result in our defeat. The choice is the choice of each individual in the Western World, and I personnally know where I stand. I would suggest to all to take an long hard look at who these terrorist are, what they represent, what their goals are, and them decide if we continue to treat them as civilized human beings, or treat them in a manner that they understand. Actually, wrapping them in a dead pig carcass, and throwing them in a hole as the British use to do to me is not all that bad.

The choice is yours. Think about it, think about the future of our nation and the civilized western world, and think about what it going to take to crush those whose only desire is to eliminate the western devils. They do not play by the same rules. Read the Koran, and perhaps one will better understand what type of enemy we are dealing with, what their goal is, and what under the name of religion they are allowed to do. It is not pretty.
 
I also question the morality of anyone who would let ten thousand Americans die in a terrorist attack rather than use any means at our disposal to get information on the time, place, and means of such an attack.

Would you question the morality of someone who would let 2,973 people die without bothering to forcefully respond to a PDB entitled 'Bin Laden determined to strike in US?' Admittedly, he was on vacation.

You have this right wing fantasy that torture is some kind of a magic bullet. Suppose for a second that this is true. Since we can torture anyone we want in Iraq, anyone, and we do, then why is our situation there so dire? Why are things there getting worse and not better?

Now let's look at an alternative analysis. Regardless of whether torture is effective or moral, regardless, it plays well with a certain political wing, your wing. Could torture be for purely domestic purposes, the vicarious thrill of Chuck Norris beating up the bad guy? Around election time? Rovian? Immigration didn't work and abortion is getting kind of boring; so let's try torture.
 
Actually, damav, we're just fact checking. You're welcome to join in or you can live in your Right Wing horror movie. Since I don't like you, I hope your movie is rated PG-13 so that you don't have sex before your character gets killed off.

Page 533 of the 9/11 report says distribution of the PDB in "the Bush Administration, distribution in the pre-9/11 time period was limited to six people." The briefer gives the PDB to the President and in separate briefings to the SecDef and SecState. Ashcroft as Attorney General was not on the PDB distribution list.

Rumsfeld knew. Ashcroft didn't care.
 
I should be banned for this but I am going to respond to everyone:

lorenzo said: "that it needs these extra steps to win, when, for example, the War against the Japanese Imperium and the Nazis did not."

*aaarggghh* There were no extra steps in the Pacific left to take.

"They do not play by the same rules. Read the Koran, and perhaps one will better understand what type of enemy we are dealing with"

I don't mean to be a dick, but I doubt you have read the Koran. There are too many people on the net telling people to read the Koran so they can see how bad muslims are, most muslims can't even read it at this point.

"Shorter anonymous: They hate us for our human rights, so we must give up our human rights."

Human rights are relative just like compassion and culture:)

"You have this right wing fantasy that torture is some kind of a magic bullet. Suppose for a second that this is true."

Anon, how are you? It's not a fantasy you are typing about, a little more then a dozen people have gotten a taste of the big R and broke, just like the Americans do, and gave up intel. No fantasy, not torturing P.O.W.'s, just results.

"blah, blah, blah, Rovian, blah"

It's so stupid it's funny. Only someone from Europe would drag Chuck Norris into anything. God you suck. I am going to save this in some sort of scrap-book and e-mail tim blair (you have got to attach your name to something this mindless, please):

"Now let's look at an alternative analysis. Regardless of whether torture is effective or moral, regardless, it plays well with a certain political wing, your wing. Could torture be for purely domestic purposes, the vicarious thrill of Chuck Norris beating up the bad guy? Around election time? Rovian? Immigration didn't work and abortion is getting kind of boring; so let's try torture."

:0:):0:)
 
I wouldn't say banned; I don't think that the fab four ban people, even you. More than likely you will be ignored. Also, for your purposes, my name is Mike.
 
"lol, why should I take a break from my alleged 'lust for torture' to run out and research some obscure off topic 'gotcha points' from several years ago."

Because you would lose the argument if you tried, so - like your beloved president - you'll just simply ignore inconvenient facts and hop onto the next falsehood in order to promote your concocted worldview.

Plus, it's obvious you wouldn't know the first thing about researching.

So, submit a face-saving "lol" and hope you can smoke screen everyone from noticing you're at a loss. Then run away. Quickly.

Sorry. You lost.
 
If you think ABC/Nightline are credible this guy might count for something. (Yes, I know bill o'reilly is a jackass but it was the first clip I could find). It also does not apply to P.O.W.'s, nobody said it did/will etc...

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/
 
I think the most interesting question here is WHY?. Why has McCain taken this pro-terrorist position? The explanation offered-that of protecting our troops in case of capture-is truly ludicrous and more than just a little insulting to those with an intellect above a duck. I believe John McCain is the most self-interested, self-serving and arrogant member of the Senate. (Just consider the amount of ground that covers!) He will do nothing without consideration of the possible impact on his presidential ambitions. Indeed these come well before his concerns for the United States or its citizens. But why come out so forcefully for the rights of the enemy? Clearly he believes his 2008 run will not be negatively impacted. Is he once again courting a fawning liberal media? It's an interesting question.
 
Beat By Dre. ith the online shopping becoming more popular than ever before, there are several great tools that help you save money.
 
Post a Comment


Home