An American Lion

Due to the fact that I actually signed up to participate in the “Red State” forum of ideas over a year ago, I still get E-mails on occasion from Mr. Erick Erickson, a young man who fancies himself the Sean Hannity of the blogosphere. Red State, however, is a nitpicky circle jerk. Stray from the party line and they howl at you like fools. Poor Larry Johnson’s No Quarter is in the same boat right now.

As an actual conservative Republican, now mostly evolving into a libertarian with progressive social ideas but a rigorous appreciation for a healthy business climate in this country, I can have a good laugh at Mr. Erickson because he is young, not wealthy, and has never gotten anything about this country right. Where people like him fail, and fail big, is that they have a kneejerk reaction to everything liberal. I, on the other hand, take the best ideas that come out of liberalism and I make them conservative and I appropriate them so that the American people can see me for the pragmatist that I am. Mr. Erickson can’t do pragmatism, and he can’t do nuance. All he can do is blink his unimaginative little eyes and blurt out things that don’t make any sense. Few of his ideas or initiatives ever take hold. Republicans know that the key to winning the White House in 2012 will be to co-opt liberal ideas and welcome back the “Reagan Democrats” who voted Republican in 1980 and 1984 because they wanted smaller government and strong national defense.

The only thing missing, of course, is Reagan. And what we are missing in this country is a leader who can lead us back to optimism and steely determination. I believe that the American people are yearning for a man who can do three things—talk plainly to them, act like an asshole with their money, and can present America to the world as an unapologetic land of opportunity. The American people are getting tired of lofty speeches, profligate spending, and round-shouldered apologies.

Really, what do we have to be sorry for? Nothing. And, today, we are going to announce that we will put a man, and several others, on trial for attacking this nation. There’s no blood involved here. This is the rule of law being applied to terrorism, plain and simple.

Mr. Erickson’s E-mail seems hysterical, yes, but it is also misguided.

Today Barack Obama is going to announce that the terrorist mastermind of September 11th, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be sent to New York City for a criminal trial in a civilian court.

In that trial, the terrorist will get all the rights afforded an American citizen in a criminal trial, including the right to a fair trial, the right to a taxpayer funded attorney, the right to review all the evidence against him, potentially including classified intelligence matters, the right to exclude evidence against him including, potentially, any confession obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques, etc.

At best, this will be a show trial fit not for the American Republic, but a third world kleptocratic totalitarian regime.  At worse, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will gain access to classified material he can then leak to other terrorists while New York yet again becomes a target for terrorists.  We have already had occasions in this country where terrorists’ sympathetic lawyers have conveyed information, orders, and plans to other terrorists.

So many aspects of this are false. What destroys the legitimacy of any terrorist is the blind, emotionless application of the rule of law. The terror world knows nothing but revenge. America doesn’t do revenge. America does the rule of law and the application of justice, and that can mean that we will judiciously try you and provide for your defense or that can mean that we can judiciously bomb your cities and blow up your precious bridges, power plants, and office buildings.

I wish President Bush had simply gone after the terrorists, insisted on a light footprint, captured them, locked them up, and had them put on trial. Taking away our privacy was a massive blunder. Our intelligence agencies can’t do anything right, so why bother pretending they are going to be exposed? Why bother pretending that Mohammed is going to get access to anything good? There’s no there there. And he’s not going to be free on bond, nor is he going to be handed a cellphone so he can call Yemen and tell his homeys what’s the 411. Mr. Erickson has been watching too many old Dirty Harry movies.

If Mr. Mohammed was tortured, then that’s going to be revealed in a court of law, and the utility of this is that it will stop the U.S. government from using torture. This is a good thing. We are above that horrid example.

Finally, I go to the example of John Adams and the Boston Massacre, and it is in the example set by John Adams that we see how “the American Republic” was formed as an idea—by making certain that the rule of law is paramount in a nation governed by laws, not men:

Before the trials began, a propaganda war of sorts took place. Gov. Hutchinson sent a report to London criticizing Boston for its violence and mob actions against the British soldiers. He later wrote, “government is at an end and in the hands of the people.” Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty took the testimony of witnesses for their own document, which they titled, “A Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre in Boston.” But the most effective propaganda piece was Paul Revere’s widely printed cartoon, “The Bloody Massacre,” an exaggerated misrepresentation of what really happened.

The court appointed Samuel Quincy, a strong Tory (British sympathizer), as special prosecutor. Sam Adams persuaded the town of Boston to pay for a second prosecutor, Patriot Robert Treat Paine.

Capt. Preston could not get anyone to defend him in court until a Tory merchant persuaded lawyer John Adamsto do so. Although he was one of the Patriot leaders in Boston, the 35-year-old Adams believed that it was vital that the British soldiers and their captain receive fair trials. Adams believed that the cause for self-government would be damaged if Boston justice turned out to be little more than lynch law. Joining Adams on the defense team were a a Tory judge, Robert Auchmuty, and a young fiery Patriot lawyer, Josiah Quincy, the younger brother of the special prosecutor. Ironically Tory Loyalist Samuel Quincy had the job of convicting the king’s men of murder, while Patriot John Adams led the effort to defend them.

This is what America was founded upon. Within a few short years, the example of Adams became the road map for the creation of a new nation. The world saw far flung colonies do the rule of law better than the British example, and they took note. I guarantee you—Erick Erickson doesn’t know the first thing about John Adams. Therein lies the problem that the modern Republican Party has right now. They do not know their history.

That Mohammed is a terrorist is relevant, yes, and an important distinction. The goal of the terrorist is to get this nation to stray from its values and react to terror with terror and to abandon the rule of law. Forget it. We’re better than that. And if found guilty, Mohammed will hang, and he will hang well. He will do so having been given a vigorous defense and the right to face his accuser and the right to see the evidence against him. Do you think they’re not paying attention to that throughout the world? A man who was allegedly responsible for killing thousands of Americans and planning more attacks is about to be given what few people in the Middle East have ever experienced, and that is the even application of the rule of law and the right to a fair trial. Attack us if you want, but we aren’t changing. And we are better than you because we apply the law, turn away from revenge, and continue on with our lives, happy and prosperous and judicious in the way we conduct ourselves. If you behave, we might let you dirty shirt wearing clowns come live here, provided you work hard and learn to accept America for what it is, and that is, the best idea, ever. Period. End of story.