DebateGate

Candidate Paul assigns reading to Giuliani

By Andy Sullivan
Reuters
Thursday, May 24, 2007; 2:24 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Longshot Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul on Thursday gave front-runner Rudy Giuliani a list of foreign-policy books to back up his contention that attacks by Islamic militants are fueled by the U.S. presence in the Middle East.

"I'm giving Mr. Giuliani a reading assignment," the nine-term Texas congressman said as he stood behind a stack of books that included the report by the commission that examined the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.

[...]

Paul said it was irresponsible of Giuliani and other leaders to not examine the motivations of al Qaeda and other radical Islamic groups.

Among the books on Paul's reading list were: "Dying to Win," which argues that suicide bombers only mobilize against an occupying force; "Blowback," which examines the unintended consequences of U.S. foreign policy; and the 9/11 Commission Report, which says that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was angered by the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.

Another book on the list was "Imperial Hubris," whose author appeared at the press conference to offer support for Paul.

"Foreign policy is about protecting America," said author Michael Scheuer, who used to head the CIA's bin Laden unit. "Our foreign policy is doing the opposite."

A Giuliani campaign official could not confirm whether he had read any of the books on Paul's list.

WASHINGTONPOST.COM

Lybrel is a contraceptive, expected to soon be approved by the F.D.A., that will suppress monthly menstruation. I'm seeing evidence online that some women seem to be against the idea of eliminating their period, and some women seem almost paranoid about it (apparently some women seem to think the drug is some sort of tool of the patriarchy to make women ashamed of being women). I find myself a little surprised by this. When I first heard of Lybrel, I thought (in what is probably typical stupid male fashion) that most women would be glad to have the ability to have more control over their menstruation. Not that I hear women talk about this all the time, but the few times I have heard women talk about their periods, usually the women are complaining. So now I'm left wondering what women think about Lybrel and why.

So, ladies, um... er...  what do you think about Lybrel?

I had to wait a while to address this because I want to try to do this calmly, and not be insulting to those who are going to try twist what happened at Virgina Tech into an argument against gun ownership and/or for gun control. That is harder than you might believe. I am a nice guy, of course, but I find arguments that infringing on people's rights is somehow socially responsible is something that to me increasingly seems, well, highly questionable, to put it politely.

For whatever reason, in our society any time someone dies or is wounded by a bullet, the cry is almost immediate that the problem is the existence of the firearm. No one argues that the problem in, say, hit-and-run accidents is the existence of the automobile. Instead we blame the driver, and usually rightfully so. But, you say, firearms are made to kill and cars are not. Au contraire, firearms are not made to kill. Firearms are made to expel bullets at high velocity. A firearm, like a car or a hammer or a knife or a sharp stick, is only a tool. And like those other items, it can be used to kill, but that is not a necessary function.

But wait, you say, the main point of a firearm's function is to kill. Is it? A tool has as its function the use to which the user applies it. But, you say, the history of guns and their development is undeniable and firearms are made for killing. Okay, let's set aside the objections and say, for the sake of argument, that firearms are made for killing. What is required for a firearm to be used to kill? A person has to use the weapon. A person has to physically hold the weapon and decide to use it for the purpose of killing. So where does the blame lay, with the gun or with the person? With the person, of course. Firearms are not animate objects. They do not act on their own. They are, as I said, merely tools.

So to lay the blame for the Virgina Tech tragedy on the existence of guns is not a reasonable position. Okay, you say, but surly the incident shows that something should be done to keep firearms away from people, that we need laws controlling access to such weapons. No, I do not believe that it does. I believe it shows that we have done far too much to separate people from weapons and from the importance of self-defense. Indeed, the very notion that the tragedy at Virgina Tech should indicate that we need to ensure people are not able to defend themselves, i.e. limit and/or control gun ownership, is contrary to all common sense.

But surely, you say, taking guns away from people will cut down on violent behavior. Will it? Or will it merely prompt people to find other weapons to use? Look at Great Britain. They have banned guns (British folks looking to compete in Olympic shooting competitions have to leave the country to train) and pretty much most forms of self-defense. (Apparently someone thought Monty Python was serious when it had characters in a movie scream "Run away! Run away!") And what is the result? Higher crime and now Britain is looking into knife control laws. Not that long ago, as I recall, there was a suggestion put forth that Britain legislate the design of kitchen knives to eliminate pointy kitchen knives from being used as weapons. Or look at Kenya, which has laws that prohibit most people from owning guns. Kenya's rabid actions of enforcement have resulted in thousands of people being killed, tortured and forced from their homes. All with the approval of the U.N., naturally. Or we can look closer to home. Our own national capitol, Washington D.C., had a firearm ban for couple of decades or more, and at the same time one of the worst crime rates in the country. Clearly, taking away the ability of people to defend themselves with firearms if they so choose does not result in reduced crime rates, less violence, or a safer populace. There are, however, studies that suggest places where there is little to no restriction on firearm ownership and concealed carry laws exist, crime rates are generally lower across the board, including murders and homicides.

So, in light of what happened at Virginia Tech, can I and do I support the protection of the right of people to own and carry firearms? Yes, and emphatically so.

Now then, a few things have been said here recently that I would like to address.

The constitutional protection for firearms, what there is of it, is nonetheless a fluid, not a rigid, concept, allowing the superseding principle of "reason" to largely trump any cries for unrestricted access, and the like.

First, no, the constitutional protection for the right to own firearms is not fluid. The Second Amendment is clear and concise in stating "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is not an ambiguous statement open to "fluid" interpretations. That such interpretations have been applied does not make correct either the interpretations or the legal application of them. Second, the notion that the concept is "fluid" and "allowing the superseding principle of 'reason' to largely trump any cries for unrestricted access" assumes that there is something unreasonable about the direct and clear meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There is not, however, anything unreasonable about it. It is eminently reasonable, and to make it unreasonable requires the application of unnecessary terms like "fluid".

The claim that gun control cedes "freedom" is a cockamammy notion and dumb in the Age of Bush II, but especially when analyzed under the "rationality standard" implicit in all our law-making and jurisprudence.

On the contrary, it is a perfectly valid notion. One may argue that such a surrender of liberty is or is not necessary in our society, but that does not make the notion any less true, even when analyzed under the vague and subjective "rationality standard" implicit in most supercilious chiding about the matter.

[Firearm ownership] is a right that must be earned and should be severely regulated.

No. It is a right that the Constitution assumes belongs to every citizen, not that it must be earned. This is why the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon that right.

There is more to which I could respond, but that might approach a more ad hominem direction, and such is not my intention. This is about the ideas and trying to contribute more than an emotional reaction.

Excerpts from "A Glimpse Into Government: What those Justice Department emails really reveal" by Radley Balko:

In addition to its misplaced priorities, this Justice Department has endured allegations of illegal spying and wiretapping, abuse of national security letters, neglecting federalism in its enforcement of drug and death penalty policies, attempting to suspend habeas corpus for terrorism suspects, and all-around contempt for the Constitution. It’s sad, but not terribly surprising, that it would take accusations of excessive partisanship – that is, unfairly using the office to gain a political advantage over the Democrats – to spur the Democrats in Congress to take any meaningful action. Trample on the rights of U.S. citizens, and the Democrats largely look the other way – can’t be seen as soft on crime, or on national security. But trample on the political prospects of Democrats, and the subpoenas fly.

   [...]

The discrepancy understandably gave Charlton pause: How could he prosecute a company for violating federal obscenity laws when another company was making money for the federal government selling the same titles? The conflict didn't seem to faze the Justice Department. Charlton's hesitation sparked a letter of complaint from Brent Ward to Kelvin Sampson. In an office where the attorney general had declared fighting obscenity a "top priority," a complaint from Gonzalez's hand-picked "Porn Czar" undoubtedly carried heft.

   [...]

So here we have several disturbing revelations pertaining to the way the Justice Department operates. And all were revealed via a series of emails pertaining to just one U.S attorney by way of an unrelated scandal. We see in from this one example that a federal prosecutor's attempts to make just a few recommendations on good government and proper procedures with respect to the way federal crimes are prosecuted were shunted aside as unnecessary hurdles to more charges, more convictions, and more sentences. That's worth knowing. And it makes you wonder what else we'd discover were this administration not so hell-bent on keeping everything it possibly can hidden from public scrutiny.

Whole article at Reason Online.

Dinesh D'Souza recently said:

By suggesting that we make common cause with traditional people around the world who share our abhorrence of liberal cultural excess, I am not “blaming America” or taking the side of the Muslims. It would be one thing if we were winning that war and didn’t need new ideas and new tactics. The reality, of course, is that we are not winning and we are desperately in need of both ideas and tactics.

   [...]

The only way to win, I suggest, is to create a new configuration of forces. We must give up on leftists in America and Europe who will never join our side and instead find common cause with the traditional Muslims who share many of our values and can actually help us defeat radical Islam. In fact, as the limits of our military strategy have shown, they are the only ones who can.

Those quotes are from part 4 of D'Souza's series of columns called "The Closing of the Conservative Mind". The series is his rebuttal to the conservative critics of his book The Enemy at Home.

The question is: Is D'Souza correct? He blames the political left for cultural excesses that contribute to the Muslim world believing itself to be under assault. And so, to make this brief, he says the political right should forget the liberals and make common cause with "traditional Muslims" who are closer in values to American conservatives. Is he right? If so, why?

Over at Reason Online, there is an interesting article about the work of the U.S. Border Patrol. In my opinion, the money quote is this:

"It's very hard to make this job look pretty," Vasquez says softly to me later, referring to Ramirez and his companions. "We're fortunate enough to live in a country where there are lots of opportunities. And most of the people who we run into out here want to make that dream happen. Unfortunately, it's our job to stop that dream. That's what we do on an everyday basis. Maybe because I'm Latino the aliens think I should understand where they're coming from. And I do, to a certain extent. But it's my job."

Whole article at the other end of this link.

In a recent column, Michael Medved, movie critic and conservative pundit, had this to say about the core convictions of conservatism:

Most of the common efforts to define the fundamentals of conservative thinking fall short in their explanatory power. For instance, it’s impossible to say that conservatives want “small government” above all, when most of us want expanded governmental efforts to crack down on terrorists, crooks and illegal immigrants. Yes, we generally favor “less regulation” but we also want more restrictions on abortion, pornography and desecration of the flag. It’s true that most conservatives and Republicans describe themselves as religious and we certainly recognize the value of organized faith, but nearly a fourth of GOP’ers remain proudly secular and there’s no obvious religious basis for, say, backing lower taxes on capital gains. The essential instinct behind modern conservatism goes beyond a desire for small government or any religious impulses, and animates our approach to politics, culture, foreign policy, family life, child-rearing, the business world and much more. Above all, conservatives feel impelled to make clear distinctions between right and wrong. We reject all notions of moral relativism. Though we’re obviously imperfect, and (like all human beings) often fail to do the right thing, we try to draw lines between the beneficial and the dysfunctional, between productive and destructive. In policy as well as personal life, we seek to differentiate between good and bad behavior, and we want all of society (not just government) to encourage the good and discourage the bad. In other words, conservatives insist on making distinctions, giving the individual broad latitude to choose, and then recognizing that choices must carry consequences. A decent society supports and rewards good choices and discourages bad ones.

Whole article at TownHall.com.

Medved seems to be saying the core of conservatism is a desire for moralistic and authoritarian control of society. Is this true? Am I misunderstanding him? Is he wrong?

If you are a conservative and agree or disagree with Medved, would you care to try answering a few questions brought up by Jacob Sullum as part of his response to Medved's column?

As a libertarian who used to work at National Review and who counts conservatives among my friends and political allies, I have long searched for the unifying thread that ties together the seemingly disparate positions typically advocated by people on "the right." Why does opposition to gun control tend to go hand in hand with support for drug control (National Review's editors being an honorable exception on that score)? What does banning flag burning have in common with repealing restrictions on political ads? Why does pro-life on abortion and assisted suicide become pro-death on capital punishment? How does support for freedom of contract jibe with opposition to gay marriage? What do lower taxes have to do with prohibiting cloning? How is support for free markets reconciled with bans on migrant labor and online gambling?

The rest of Jacob Sullum's response is at Reason Online.

Any answers are welcome. I am not out to attack anyone. I will not argue with your answers or criticize them in any way. Possibly I might ask for clarification of a statement, but I will not be sarcastic or antagonistic about it. I just want to see how people address this issue.

A few excerpts from an article headlined "Growing Calls in Australia for Terror Suspect’s Return" by Raymond Bonner:

SYDNEY, Australia, Saturday, March 3 — The decision by the United States military to charge an Australian citizen, David Hicks, with one terrorism-related offense comes as Prime Minister John Howard is under mounting pressure, even from conservatives in his own party, to have Mr. Hicks charged, tried and brought home. Mr. Hicks is the first detainee from the American base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to be charged under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. But the single charge, of providing “material support for terrorism,” after Mr. Hicks has been held for five years in Guantánamo, has been met with skepticism, disbelief and some anger here, from conservatives and liberals alike.

[...]

The relatively minor, single charge after such a long detention “means they’ve botched it,” said Barnaby Joyce, a federal senator for Australia’s conservative National Party, which is part of the governing coalition. “They’ve completely abused the process of justice.”

[...]

Mr. Hicks’s lawyers are in any case certain to challenge the charge on the grounds that there was no such crime when Mr. Hicks was training with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 2001. The United States Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, but in light of recent laws passed by Congress and various court rulings, it is not certain that Mr. Hicks will be afforded that protection.

[...]

The groundswell of support for Mr. Hicks here does not arise because Australians believe that he is innocent, but rather because many here believe he has been denied justice by having been held so long without a regular trial. “He may well be a rat bag, but even rat bags deserve their day in court,” is how Senator Joyce put it. “It is about due process of law, the principles we are fighting for in Iraq,” he added in an interview. “In fighting the barbarians, we are starting to imitate the barbarians.”

[...]

The combined public relations strategy has recently gained traction. For nearly five years, the opposition center-left Labor Party stayed far away from the Hicks case, as did the Australian news media. In the first nine months of 2006, there were 63 mentions of David Hicks in The Australian, according to the paper’s researchers; in the last five months, there have been 255. The list of public leaders calling for David Hicks to be given an expeditious and fair trial has grown steadily longer and includes those from the Labor Party. In January the director of military prosecutions in the Australian Army, Brig. Gen. Lyn McDade, called Mr. Hicks’s detention “abominable.” “I don’t care what he’s done or alleged to have done,” General McDade, a former prosecutor, told The Sydney Morning Herald. “I think he’s entitled to a trial, and a fair one.”

Whole article at the other end of this link.

I agree with the Australian senator and general on this one.