A Response To: The ACLU vs. Rumsfeld

Wednesday, March 02, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
FOX News

Editorial Link: Here

My Response:

Bill,

If the "system" by which we prosecute "war" on terrorism, or more accurately, global insurgency, is not up to standards - OUR standards - either legally or morally, than it must be challenged for the good of our nation when the war is eventually over. It should not go unnoticed that we have NOT declared war on anyone or any country. It should be further noted that it would be very dangerous to promote the idea of a never-ending war.

If we are facing a new type of enemy that does not fit within our defined system for prosecuting war or the law, then we need to concentrate on changing the system. If, indeed, extreme measures of interrogation are warranted (and effective - which they are NOT in most cases), then let's define the limits and move forward. But, our system of government is set up to allow for the vetting of such law through the court system. If the laws are inconsistent with our Constitution or moral stance, then they should be challenged.

Those who give up liberty as we know it in this country for the dubious reward of safety, which cannot be assured anyway, deserve neither. And our quest to provide said safety will, in the end, bankrupt us. It is our "economic center of gravity" that OBL attacks.

Liberty comes at a price, and that price should NOT be born only by the soldier. Liberty comes with inherent security flaws. It would be a shame to allow the very thing that makes us great to wither so we can attempt to save ourselves from every peril that presents itself. How you LIVE is under your control, how you DIE never is. I say let the laws allow us to live FREE and well since the length is out of our hands anyway.

Imagine a day when conservative cheerleading is outlawed because it demoralizes our attempts to prosecute some action. The ACLU would be there for you. Those who fall in the "selected group" that benefits from oppressive laws rarely see the dangers in the precedents that those laws set. Slippery slope anyone? When the law finally turns against them, it's usually too late.

If, in the end, the ACLU and their ilk are successful, then the TRUTH is that the laws needed to be rethought. Do not mistake the GOAL of the laws with the APPROACH of how we attain the goal. If the approach is harmful, then let's rethink the APPROACH while maintaining our sights on the GOAL.

Your simplistic reasoning is a direct result of not being able to understand the difference between our GOALS as a nation and our APPROACH and the resultant consequences, both intended and unintended. It's not about seeing Saddam off, but HOW we went about it. From lying to get us into the war, to the poor planning and execution of the invasion follow-on, to the isolation we caused because of our arrogance; all of these things and more have now made the next steps that much harder and have further exacerbated the problem we were supposedly trying to fix - global insurgency via terrorist acts.

Do you get it?

So, let the ACLU do its thing. If there is no fire to the smoke, than the nation and the world will be better off for knowing.