freecounterpoint: A kindler, gentler WOT?

Thursday, May 04, 2006

A kindler, gentler WOT?

That's what the Beeb (sounding very French) advocates. Perhaps surprisingly (or not?), Peggy Noonan disagrees, and shows some steely nerve, but mostly, hopelesness.

7 comments:

Mr roT said...: AI, I know how gratifying it is to knock the French, but the BBC is not sounding in the slightest bit French when they write  [...] It could be read as another example of how surprising this nation [the USA] can be, how unpredictable the results of freedom often are.  After all, Moussaoui himself did not exactly ingratiate himself with the jurors, and the panel was not convinced that he was mad or that he wanted to die.  They simply looked at the cold hard facts presented to them and decided they did not add up.  There was no reference to obesity. There was no reference to savage capitalism. There was no reference to Abu Ghraib. There was no reference to George W Bush's ability to steal two elections despite putative stupidity or the quality of the schools here.  This article's kissing the collective ass of freedom, democracy, and fatter, the American people, is really not in Le Monde's stylesheets.  Smash the French when they deserve it, sure. But don't smash BBC for sounding French when they sound like NRO.; 5/05/2006 11:51 AM
Mr roT said...: [Actually AI wrote this, but I deleted his comment by accident]

Superficiallhy, you have a point, JJ: OK, the style is not the usual sneering, oh-so-superior le Monde type. Rather, smooth and lulling. But, in the end, there is a convergence here, which I think Peggy Noonan nicely captured in her piece. And the net effect is to try and push us back to the pre 9/11 mentality, lull us into complacency (and defeatism?). And the smoothie types from BBC (and assorted MSM) have a much better chance at succeeding at that than the infuriating French...; 5/05/2006 11:51 AM
Mr roT said...: I am satisfied with the sentence but I must say I do not know the law very well. Accessory to a hell of a lot of murders is not even one murder, is it?  Rabidity of the populace in a war is not necessarily a virtue. It is moral strength and desire for justice. As long as our opponents are unjust, this jury's choice augers well, I think. If we become unjust then the terrorists will have won something substantial. They will have made our systems indistinguishable,; 5/05/2006 11:52 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Accessory to premeditated murder has been a capital offense in this country, even when it was just one. Clearly, according to the law, death was a possible sentence for the crime he pled guilty to. So, in terms of hewing to what the law allows, sentencing him to death would have been as much in accord with justice as granting him the right to cackle at us for the rest of his natural life.
Is your point, then, that you consider capital punishment immoral? And so the jury, in your lights, made the moral decision? If you do allow for the morality of capital punishment, then what about the case of Moussaui makes you say "but not for him"??; 5/05/2006 5:41 PM
Tecumseh said...: I take a different tack here. I am not interested in arguing the nuances of Moussaoui's guilt, the relative vitues of our jury system, or his finely calibrated punishment. This is totally besides the point, I say. The guy did not belong in that civilian court to start with. As I said, he was an enemy combatant, caught behind lines in civilian clothes, bent on sabotage and destruction. He should have been tried by a military tribunal, convicted, and promptly executed. Anything less just shows we are not serious about waging this war.; 5/05/2006 8:59 PM
Mr roT said...: Would the same be true of Timothy McVeigh, AI?; 5/06/2006 3:36 AM
Tecumseh said...: Look up the definition of enemy combatant, JJ. In my book, such a person must normally be from the army of a foreign enemy, that is waging war (declared or not, in uniform or not) against us. If caught prisoner, he should be judged by military tribunals.

Domestic terrorism does not fir into this category -- it should be properly handled by civilian courts.

There is an in-between area here: American citizens who take up arms on behalf of a foreign power, as Johhny "Taleban" Walker did. Here I think Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution applies. (I know, I know, JJ does not believe this article exists, or ever applies, but try re-reading the Constitution one of these days, it's right there in black and white, not in some chimerical penumbra.); 5/06/2006 9:42 AM