Freedom for Freedom

This brings to mind a loathsome newspaper column from yesterday by Thomas Sowell, a columnist syndicated in one of the local papers, titled “Fighting a foe willing to die not for the faint of heart”.

Mr. Sowell asserts, contradictorily, that ‘Americans’ (read liberals and civil libertarians) have grown soft both because they are not willing to die in defense of their freedoms and because they are not willing to give up freedoms in defense of their lives.

Will the horrors unleashed by Islamic terrorist in Mumbai cause any second thoughts by those who are so anxious to start weakening the American security systems currently in place, including government interceptions of international phone calls and the holding of terrorists as Guantanamo? … Contrary to some of the more mawkish notions of what a government is supposed to be, its top job is the protection of the people.

Let me stop you there, Mr. Sowell. The top job of the government is supposed to be the protection of the people’s rights; their right to live is only one among them. You may go on.

Nobody on 9/11 would have thought that we would see nothing comparable again in this country for seven long years.

We saw no attacks by foreign terrorists, comparable or not, for eight long years before that.

Many people seem to have forgotten how, in the wake of 9/11, every great national event- the World Series, Christmas, New Year’s, the Super Bowl- was under the shadow of a fear that this when the terrorists would strike again.

Could this have anything to do with it being major national news whenever law enforcement agencies had even a hint however unlikely, of an attack? Or the color-coded ‘threat level’ which was raised with never an explanation, seemingly on a whim?

They didn’t strike again here, even though they have struck in Spain, Indonesia, England and India, among other places. Does anyone imagine that this was because they didn’t want to hit America again?

They didn’t strike here for eight years before, even though they struck in any number of allied nations. Do you imagine that this was because they didn’t want to hit America then?

How many Americans are willing to see New York, Chicago and Los Angeles all disappear in nuclear mushroom clouds, rather than surrender to whatever outrageous demands the terrorists make?

Wait a minute, back up. I thought you, Mr. Sowell, were the one who would rather discard constitutional rights (habeas corpus for one) than see a repeat of Mumbai or 9/11 here.

The people who flew those planes into the World Trade Center buildings… want our soul- and if they are willing to die and we are not, they will get it.

Exactly. Thank you, Mr. Sowell, you have made my argument for me. If we are willing to give up our liberties in exchange for safety, we will have given away America’s soul.

Sorry for using this comment space as a soapbox to dismantle this insipid column, but at least it was, I believe, quite relevant to the topic at hand.