creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
William Murchison
William Murchison
22 May 2012
Do You Care? I Don't

All the Facebook tabulation of recent days — whatever it may have meant to Mark Zuckerberg and his … Read More.

15 May 2012
Same-Sex Politics

So how did "same-sex marriage" get to be a political issue in the first place — the kind of … Read More.

8 May 2012
The Truth When It Hurts

What Barack Obama has going for him in 2012 is, well, put it this way: human nature. Witness the French. … Read More.

Homicidal Maniacs On The Loose

Share Comment

For two or three years running, it seems, all we've heard from the political left in the United States, concerning the war on terror, is: Aren't we awful?

Blog and editorial commentary around presidential election time tilted heavily to the view that it was high time we restored constitutional liberties after their trashing by the George W. Bush administration. We needed to close the Guantanamo holding pen for terrorists, tighten the rules against spying on Americans, renounce disgusting forms of interrogational persuasion (usually labeled torture), and broaden the judicial rights of suspected or accused terrorists.

That was before Mumbai and the fiendish slaughter by Islamic terrorists of nearly 200 unoffending Indians, along with a few foreigners, including an American Jewish couple with, fortunately, an unharmed 2-year-old child.

If the Mumbai bloodbath fails to refocus some American eyes on the complexity and immense risk involved in combating homicidal maniacs, what, frankly, will?

I have grown fond of using the phrase "homicidal maniacs" when discussing terrorists. It's what they are, and if not demented, (meaning deprived of reason, in the way modern psychiatry has taught us to talk), they're morally hollow, which comes to the same thing. They're kindred spirits to Javier Bardem in "No Country for Old Men"; killing machines, without pity or remorse; the diametrical opposites of, shall we say, Jesus, Socrates and the Buddha.

Possibly there's no use laboring the point. How you endeavor to stop mad dogs is the point: not shooting on sight, of course, unless they come foaming around the corner, but, rather, to begin with taking them as seriously as they take their potential victims.

I'm not sure the Western left is ready for that crucial step. Its legions would rather shred Bush. Not to mention Vice President Cheney, whom various left-wing types hope they can indict for God knows what after he leaves office, as punishment for helping keep us safe.

It seems to have escaped general notice in recent years that the United States hasn't been subjected to a single terrorist attack since 9/11.

For which there are likely various reasons: among them, the lack of a substantial radicalized domestic community into which terrorists can blend. We're not Baghdad. We're not even Mumbai or Jakarta. We're Dallas and Chicago and Casper, Wyo. You can't pull the stuff in places like this that you pull abroad.

But surely much of the credit for our thus-far-clean record of public safety is owing to stringent federal measures to catch or head off terrorists: domestic surveillance included; Guantanamo included; the Patriot Act included; conceivably even water boarding. (As if the momentary terrorizing of a terrorist, for the sake of prospectively vital information could offset the prospect of preserving American lives and property!)

Mumbai reminds us that terrorists aren't idealists, they're barely identifiable as human; it reminds us, further, that heading them off is a proposition more urgent than cleaning up after them. Clearly a civilized nation, which we still were, the last time I looked, shouldn't and won't insert bamboo slivers under fingernails to extract The Truth. That nation has a right anyway to snoop effectively in order to protect even ACLU members against threats of mayhem and massacre.

The Western left gives lip service to the idea of self-defense without acknowledging the danger of defending too little or too lethargically — the very danger that the Mumbai massacres exemplify. It's an old syndrome of the left, seen back in the '60s in the context of inner-city crime and Vietnam protest. It begins with figuring that the disrupters of order enjoy at least some marginal entitlement to understanding, "victims" as they are of "society." Normally those who thus argue usually live in safe neighborhoods — the United States, for example.

One thing's sure: No such neighborhoods can remain safe unless constantly and efficiently patrolled by the forces of law and order so as to exclude the entrepreneurial mass murderer. We're the good guys, comparatively speaking. They're the miserably, exquisitely bad guys. Why do so many Western liberals have so hard a time with that simple, undeniable proposition?

William Murchison is a senior fellow of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. To find out more about William Murchison and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Sir;... It does not matter if a person is a homicidal maniac, because our constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment... I think it is safe to say, that such behavior is covered as well before the matter of guilt is decided... But if you go back further, you find in our founding document the statement that all men are created equal... Where is the exception in that statement, because the Muslim is as equal as are we, not better or worse...Now; there is always a tu quo que defense; but the nazis were not allowed that defense, and we should not allow it for our criminal torturers... And, in English Law, Henry VII who claimed all power, set up the first star chamber, tending to employ the methods of Roman Law, which were much more favorable to the executive than common law... Now, this was used against the nobles who were jealous of their rights... There were no juries, and no suspect was allowed to cross examine, or in some instances, to even see witnesses against him... He was allowed to be tortured to extract evidence against accomplices if the case was a very serious one, and the council thought the procedure necessary... But; that was in 1487, and Henry was not just a king, but a tyrant... Are we expected to give up hundreds of years of progress on the basis of some sort of royal prerogative, or some devine right as Americans??? I will tell you what a torturer is: That person is a criminal and a coward... Now, I will tell you something about myself... I was once arrested and though I did not resist, I was injured savagely... Those clown cops would not have stood a chance if I had resisted, and I LET them put numbchucks on my neck, and when they got on those clubs, I could not have told you I had a body, except from memory... And to be honest, I was not a nice man... I carried a gun almost every where I went, out of reach, buried so to speak, and I might have used it, and certainly would have if I had known the months of severe agony I would be in from the nerve injury they did to me... Thirty years later it still hurts, and I have a constant shake in my hand so I can't get a spoon near a plate without making a racket... But I never raised a hand against the law... They were just afraid of me, and instead of saying you are under arrest; they just started with pushing and grabbing... The thing is, what they did was not only cowardly, but unnecessary... And it makes me sick to hear people like yourself defend torture when you don't even know if it is warranted, or will produce any desired results... You prescribe for others, treatment, for days and for years that you would not endure even for a moment because you are gutless... Now, I know that people can survive great pain, because I have...People can survive injustice, and this I know, and imprisonment which steals from them the treasure of time... But this behavior on the part of some of us indicts us all, and justifies the violence they; our other enemies, do to us in return... To have rights we must deserve rights, and to deserve rights we must extend rights... Don't be a gutless coward expecting others to defend with crime and inhumanity all the wealth and privilage you hold dear... Go, and kill an ant... Lincoln said once to some boys heaping coals on the backs of terrepins to free them from their shells; that an ant holds his life in the same regard as you do yours.... Pray to God you do not go to Muslim Hell where your skin will be burned off to grow again and be burned off again and again and again... God is Great and Merciful... Consider in what sense we may be like the God who made us... Consider that we may one day need those Muslims for the defense of our lives, and our rights, and treat them as equals, and as human beings deserving of respect....Thanks... And God only knows for what....Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Dec 2, 2008 5:40 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
William Murchison
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 26 May 2012
Oliver North
Oliver NorthUpdated 25 May 2012
Linda Chavez
Linda ChavezUpdated 25 May 2012

22 Dec 2009 Silent Night, Sordid Night

25 Dec 2007 Christmas vs. The Rejectionists

2 Feb 2010 Government Itself Needs an Education