Between the proposed trials of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and other Gitmo detainees in New York City and the arrest and interrogation of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, there's been a lot of noise coming from the right lately that our government is "granting" rights to terrorists and giving them a "platform" from which to spew their propaganda. What I want to know is: when did conservatives decide that government has the power to give anybody a basic human right or rights, and when did they start tacitly agreeing with al-Qaida's propaganda?
On the idea that our government is running around giving people rights, a few examples (emphases mine):
New Senator Scott Brown, in his victory speech:
And let me say this, with respect to those who wish to harm us, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation - they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime.
Senator Judd Gregg:
But Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, speaking on the CNN program "State of the Union," questioned why foreigners who allegedly are terrorists at war with the United States should be given full judicial rights of U.S. citizens.
Senators Lieberman and Collins:
On Monday, Lieberman and Collins wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder, as well as top White House terrorism official John Brennan, saying the decision to give Abdulmutallab full American constitutional rights had been a serious mistake
The NY Post:
We already know about Holder's fishy sense of justice. He OK'd the pardon of fugitive Marc Rich, is now investigating CIA agents who played hardball with terrorists, and wants to give those bloodthirsty maniacs rights they don't deserve.
Finally, Charles Krauthammer, the workings of whose mind are a mystery to me:
After 50 minutes of questioning him, the Obama administration chose, reflexively and mindlessly, to give the chatty terrorist the right to remain silent. Which he immediately did, undoubtedly denying us crucial information about al-Qaeda in Yemen, which had trained, armed, and dispatched him.
Leaving aside the fact that Abdulmutallab is apparently now talking again despite having been treated like a human being, what on Earth does Krauthammer mean, the administration "chose" to "give" him rights? Since when does an American administration, this or any other, have the power to "give" rights to anyone? Is it possible that Krauthammer and the rest, while no doubt dismissive of Obama supporters as believing him to be a messianic figure, are actually the ones endowing the president with god-like powers? We recognize that rights are inherent to all humankind, not gifts bestowed upon some people because of the benevolence of the government under which they live. The implications of interpreting the concept of "rights" otherwise are chilling. Commission of a crime can abrogate those rights, yes, but we're talking about an accused criminal, not a convicted criminal, and therefore those rights are still intact in this case.
Would our Founding Fathers recognize such a bastardized concept of "rights"? These were the men, after all, who wrote this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
It seems that conservatives see the Bill of Rights as a list of generous gifts from our government to its citizenry, rather than what it is: a list of prohibitions on government action to restrict or deny rights that it recognizes as universal. By that notion, there are no inherent human rights, and if rights can be given by a government at will, then they can also be taken away just as easily.
And these people accuse those the left of being statist? What could be more statist than the belief that government is in a position to grant rights to individuals?
On to the notion that, by trying him in open court, we would be "giving" Khalid Sheikh Muhammad a "platform" for his "propaganda."
Here's Rep. Pete Hoekstra:
Yet there was Hoekstra claiming on CBS' Face the Nation that terrorists should be denied open criminal trials because they "are going to do everything they can to disrupt it and make it a circus and allow them to use it as a platform to push their ideology."
Again, and I apologize, but I give you the deeply demented Krauthammer:
September 11, 2001 had to speak for itself. A decade later, the deed will be given voice. KSM has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable — a civilian trial in the media capital of the world — from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.
I don't know any other way to ask this: why do Charles Krauthammer and so many on the right hate America? Who on the left would ever suggest the propaganda of a serial murderer like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad could actually pass for credible argument? Why does Krauthammer, who I guess is a mainstream conservative columnist, believe that America's counter-argument to the propaganda of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad is so weak, so lacking in either substance or form, that it couldn't possibly hope to stand up against his rhetoric? Part of the point of trying these men in open court is to let their perverted, twisted, grotesque ideology see the full light of day and be discredited for the garbage that it is. Indeed, the very act of trying them in that fashion would help to discredit that ideology. Does anybody here believe, as Krauthammer and his ilk, that America and America's message aren't strong enough to withstand the rantings of a depraved killer on trial? I don't.