Pacifism Kills, Torture Saves

It seems you can't swing a dead cat these days without hitting some anti-US, anti-Bush, anti-war liberal, screaming something about the rest of the world hating us. Hell, you can't even fly a plane across the pond without some pacifist fruitcake from Vermont screwing things up. Catherine Mayo recently forced the diversion of a London to DC flight due to radical behavior, including urinating in the cabin aisle. James Taranto has uncovered several articles by Mayo for the Daily Times of Pakistan. Here are some excerpts of her "enlightened prose":

I think the US people have forgotten that President Bush didn’t win the election. He only got the job because they couldn’t decide what to do with pregnant chads in Florida. He was put in the White House because someone had to be there when Clinton left.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2003%5C02%5C25%5Cstory_25-2-2003_pg3_7

When people come into my room they comment on the map. I really have nothing to say about it. I am a citizen of the world. My friends in the US don’t like to send me e-mails anymore. Some mornings, my Inbox is empty. They have expressed guarded concern about their un-elected president. Congress is in recess. The Department of Homeland Security is in full swing.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2003%5C03%5C04%5Cstory_4-3-2003_pg3_7

Like their troops, Americans are plagued by questions about why they are in Iraq. No WMD, no Al Qaeda, no regime change. But they can’t admit this to themselves. Never in history has the US made such a bad mistake. Americans are wandering around in the dark, hoping that someone will provide an intelligent explanation soon.

http://dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2003%5C07%5C22%5Cstory_22-7-2003_pg3_4

I am an American child of the 1960s. We defied the standards of our parents and declared that a war was unjust. And we were heard. We changed the way humans think. We dared to say that the human race does not have to fight wars. Ever. All conflicts can be settled by peaceful means.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2003%5C03%5C18%5Cstory_18-3-2003_pg3_6

Now that last piece is important, especially the vacuous comment about "all conflicts can be settled by peaceful means." One of the most ubiquitous rallies cries of the lunatic left (eg. "Bush Lied, Baby Harp Seals Died!") has centered around the death of innocents caused by the zealous religious right and its war machine. So the next time you bother to debate someone who is of this inclination, ask them this: "Would you support the use of torture to thwart a possible terror attack?" Chances are they won't say "yes." It will either be "no" or "it depends".

If they say "it depends," juice the pot. Tell them the threat is somewhat vague, and the torture techniques are real, not just watching 24 hours of "Oprah." Eventually they will either get to "no" or put such restrictions on implementation that torture is a nonstarter. Then remind them of the recently thwarted attempt (shhh... by Muslims) to blow several transatlantic flights from the sky. Also make them aware of this (if they aren't already):

Reports from Pakistan suggest that much of the intelligence that led to the raids came from that country and that some of it may have been obtained in ways entirely unacceptable here. In particular Rashid Rauf, a British citizen said to be a prime source of information leading to last week's arrests, has been held without access to full consular or legal assistance. Disturbing reports in Pakistani papers that he had "broken" under interrogation have been echoed by local human rights bodies. The Guardian has quoted one, Asma Jehangir, of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, who has no doubt about the meaning of broken. "I don't deduce, I know - torture," she said. "There is simply no doubt about that, no doubt at all."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1844559,00.html

No one will argue that taking the fight to the Jihadists results in the tragic deaths of innocent people. Yet to adopt an appeasement strategy also means the death of innocent people. Specifically in this case the hundreds or thousands who would have died if these terrorists (shh... Muslims) accomplished their attack. So both pacifism and aggressive response results in the death of noncombatants. The difference is dhimmitude or liberty. Peace is good, but freedom is better.

PS. To whomever pulled the bloody toenails out from Rashid Rauf's feet - Thank You!