Thursday, March 17, 2005


There has been much handwringing, soul-searching, by Liberal Cassandras as they make dire predictions about the collapse of our democracy if we so much as inconvenience one "detainee" at Guantanamo and other detention facilities. Subjecting them to conditions such as allowing them to believe themselves to be drowning or in imminent danger of drowning is described as "torture," which, according to the liberals, make us no better than the monsters we are fighting. If they are deprived of one meal or have their access restricted to Coca Cola, the Civil Liberties Union or Amnesty International runs to the International Court at the Hague.

Are they tortured? Depends on your definition of torture, I suppose. Suffice it to say that Marine Corps recruits at the now defunct MCRD in San Diego would not cry for the "detainees" at Guantanamo who would undoubtedly cheer at the sight of American women and children being incinerated by aircraft driven into US buildings (probably preferring to be the suicidal zealots flying said aircraft.) Under the liberal's definition of torture, most military recruits in boot camp would have grounds for law suits.

Our view on how we treat detaineed terrorists was summed up by an unusually patriotic American jurist who pointedly noted that the United States Constitution was not intended to be a suicide pact. We are not obliged to fight by the Marquis of Queensbury rules while our opponent is kicking below the belt.

Where are the liberals in the case of a bed-ridden woman-- innocent of any crime, terrorism or secession-- adjuged by court-appointed doctors who have made the diagnosis of Permanent Vegetative State-- although that diagnosis have been contradicted by other equally qualified physicians.

Never mind that this supposedly vegetative state does not prevent her willing care-givers-- her mother and father-- from giving her the love and nurturing which rewards them with what they think is a NON-VEGATATIVE response... Never mind the strong belief held by other doctors that Terri would respond to treatment and therapy (had it not been disallowed by the husband after he received medical malpractice compensation for that purpose.) In spite of all of this the liberal judiciary have given this woman's husband the right to execute her by dehydration and starvation and (barring an act of Congress or the intercession of the Supreme Court) one can presume that he will be more successful with the help of the courts.

Take note that no Civil Liberty Union or Amnesty International attorneys are championing Terri Schiavo's cause. Perhaps they are too busy filing legal motions to make sure terrorists are not uncomfortable or deprived of their daily bread, water and Coca Cola.

The liberals take great liberties in gleefully accusing Republicans and the Right of being hypocritical or inconsistent because they oppose abortion but support the death penalty ...

MEMO to Liberals: We oppose abortion for the same reason we oppose the execution of Ms. Schiavo... they are innocents, unlike the murderers, terrorists and criminals in general that you choose to champion so zealously.

You have a right to your own opinions - You do not have a right to your own facts!