It may be both entertaining and instructive to compare the Left's shifting positions on national security under different circumstances. It seems that whether Liberals and Democrats celebrate or condemn security leaks depends solely on whether the situation can be used to benefit them politically.

For more than two years we have been listening to Liberals, puffed up with (self-) righteous indignation, attacking the Bush administration over the supposed "outing" of CIA desk-jockey Valerie Plame. The Left chooses to ignore the fact that she was not, at the time, a covert agent, nor had she been stationed overseas in at least five years -- either of which condition is specifically indicated for criminality in the law they claim was broken.

A columnist named her work for the CIA as the reason her husband, Joe Wilson, was chosen to evaluate reports that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase "yellowcake" uranium from Niger. Robert Novak was understandably curious about the selection, as Wilson is a rabid Bush-hater who never actually investigated the question, and who published his "conclusions" in the mainstream media instead of a report to those who sent him. When Democrats flew into a rage over Novak's publication of supposed national secrets, which they claimed would put the lives of other agents at risk, Novak mentioned that an administration official had let the name slip during a conversation.

Liberals and Democrats immediately divined that Karl Rove, assistant to President Bush, had deliberately exposed Plame's identity in order to punish Wilson. In their view, it makes perfect sense that he would do this, as many Liberals seem to act on emotion rather than reason. Of course, the fact that Iraq actually did send a trade delegation to Niger, which Wilson himself reported as "a possible attempt to buy uranium," made Wilson's false public declarations to the contrary seem a bit odd. And the further fact that nearly 500 tons of yellowcake uranium was actually found in Iraq, and more radioactive material was discovered in at least one shipment of scrap metal from Iraq, made them downright laughable.

The Left was infuriated, demanding that Rove's treasonous act, his betrayal of national security, must be punished to the very limit of the law. When the much-ballyhooed special investigation finally came to a head, however... no one was indicted for exposing or betraying any secrets at all. Fitzmas (so named by the giddily expectant Left in honor of the prosecutor who would surely destroy the Bush administration) was a fizzle.

The simple fact is that no actual crime was committed in the Plame case. Even if events took place exactly as Liberals envision them, they would not rise to meet the standard for illegality laid out by the law. You can take out billboard ads along the highway for the purpose of displaying lists of common, everyday government employees, if you wish... so long as one of them is not currently under cover or has not been assigned to another country in the last five years.

Yet, if you listen, you can still hear Liberals chanting the name of Valerie Plame to this day... like a magical incantation with which to bring about the downfall of President Bush.

Somehow, in all this zeal to safeguard national security, the Left has lost track of the number of times security has truly been violated. When it's done by Democrats, or can be used to attack President Bush, however, violating national security apparently earns the Liberal Seal of Approval. "Leakers" become "whistle-blowers," a term formerly reserved to describe those who expose real government abuses, and usually for other than political purposes.

The real name of a covert CIA analyst was divulged by Senator John Kerry (D-MA) in April 2005, despite the fact that the CIA "asked news organizations to withhold his name," according to the New York Times. Kerry's defense was that the agent's name had been in the press years ago, when he had been the National Intelligence Officer for Latin America... and besides, Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) said it, too. At the time of disclosure, however, Fulton Armstrong held a sensitive undercover assignment. Calling attention to his real profession may have put him in danger. No one, as yet, has officially called for Kerry's or Lugar's impeachment, arrest and trial. You have to wonder why those who demanded arrests and impeachments over the Plame "outing" haven't clamored to see John Kerry frog-marched out of the Capitol building. Perhaps that "D" after his name stands for "Don't Prosecute."

Details of secret Eastern European prisons where captured al-Qaeda operatives were kept leaked out to the press in November 2005. The disclosure including locations, registration numbers from planes used as transport and the names of companies that were used as CIA covers. Every agent associated with those countries, those prisons, those planes or companies is now in jeopardy. The likelihood of a retributive terrorist attack against those countries will cause other countries to reconsider aiding the US, for fear of becoming terrorist targets. Those who should be calling for an investigation into this severely damaging leak seem to regard it instead as a tool with which to attack President Bush. How dare he abrogate the rights of terrorists, and treat them as enemies?

Many Democrats continue to fight the PATRIOT Act, which allowed the same law enforcement tools used in murder, mob and drug investigations to be used to investigate terrorism. It also tore down the "wall," erected at the urging of deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick during Clinton's presidency, that prevented law enforcement agencies from sharing vital information. How anyone claiming to care about national security can oppose the act on the grounds that someone might figure out how to abuse it someday is beyond me. No violations of any American's civil liberties under the PATRIOT Act have ever been verified, despite the hysterical hyperbole one hears from the Left.

Most recently, the fact that the NSA tapped phones whose numbers were found in al-Qaeda databases and speed-dials was leaked. 2006 being an election year, the Left is foaming with faux outrage over this action, pretending not to understand why warrants were not requested under FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978). For those who actually don't understand: the phones were tapped without knowing who was using them, because al-Qaeda was obviously reaching out to touch someone in the United States. You can't get a warrant for "whoever picks up," but the President can order wiretapping without a warrant when the subject is associated with a foreign power. Even the FISA review court itself had to admit in 2002 that the President has the power to order warrantless surveillance to gather intelligence, especially as we are at war. (If it helps, pretend the Feds were only listening to the known al-Qaeda contact on the other end of the line.)

So where are the self-appointed security hawks on the Left? Are they demanding investigations into real exposure of covert agents' identities? Are they fighting to extend the PATRIOT Act, so the government will have the tools it needs to track down terrorists before they can strike? Are they calling for heads to roll over the leaking of classified information about where terrorists are housed and interrogated? Are they supporting the efforts of the NSA to gather information on those who have relations to al-Qaeda? Not at all... they're too busy prostituting information vital to national security for talking points and votes.

As a new year begins, it's almost impossible to resist trying to predict what it will bring. Naturally, as a Conservative, I look forward to the new year with more optimism than pessimism. Therefore, this is as much a collection of hopes as a series of predictions.

On the home front, the economy will most likely continue to grow at between 3% and 4% overall. When Liberals say that economic indicators like the stock market and unemployment are back where they were in 2000, they're ignoring some essential facts. The late 1990's economy they praise was based on the unstable technology "bubble" that burst in early 2000, plunging us into a recession that was deepened by 9/11. The Bush tax cuts have fueled several years of recovery and solid economic growth. Not even the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina was able to slow the economy.

The Dow will almost certainly break 11,000 in 2006. New Federal Reserve Board chairman Ben Bernanke will probably continue Alan Greenspan's policies, at least for now. It's possible that the Fed may stop raising interest rates, and even cut them, by mid-year. If that happens, the stock market will spike, possibly reaching as high as 11,500. The only thing that could harm our economy would be a sudden, sharp rise in oil prices... and that, unfortunately, depends on events in the Middle East.

A showdown with Iran seems likely this year, unless that country halts its nuclear program. Israel will never allow a theocratic Islamofascist state founded on terrorism, whose president declared that "Israel must be wiped off the map," to build nuclear weapons. The only way to avoid either a nuclear-armed Iran or a direct attack on that country may be to blockade the Straits of Hormuz. With their main oil-exporting route closed, the shaky Iranian economy would likely collapse within weeks. Unfortunately, oil prices would probably rise drastically for months, making such a blockade during the winter or summer less likely. China and Europe (with its various struggling economies) would protest any real action against Iran. Things may come to a head in March or April, while we still have a substantial military presence on Iran's doorstep.

Conditions in Iraq will continue to improve despite terrorist activity, forcing the mainstream media to switch its defeat theme from "Iraq is a quagmire" to "the political situation in Iraq isn't perfect." Syria may be forced to scale back support for terrorism, as even the UN is forced to scrutinise Bashir Assad's involvement in the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. After some more courtroom antics and delaying tactics, Saddam Hussein will surely be pronounced guilty of ordering the killings at Dujail. The sooner the death sentence is carried out upon him, the sooner the majority of Iraqi insurgents will lose hope, causing a greater split between them and the terrorists. American troop levels will drop as the Iraqis continue to build and train their own military, but look to the Democrats to claim that the President is pulling out because he's finally agreeing with them that we can't win.

The Chinese, meanwhile, will continue to manipulate events in Asia. Their military alliance with Russia and North Korea will embolden them to threaten the US over Taiwan. Secretary of State Condi Rice will have a difficult job this year, as she tries to steer the Russian government away from China, and away from the dictatorship it seems to be slipping into. Putin's plan to give his political party even more control over the process of appointing governors may cause more domestic problems and unrest. If Russia can be swayed back onto the democratic path, however, China may tone down the rhetoric over Taiwan.

The UN will continue to wallow in scandal, corruption and anti-Americanism, despite Ambassador John Bolton's attempts to institute reform. Kofi Annan's tenure is too rife with dishonesty and exploitation to change significantly while he remains the Secretary-General. His term is over at the end of 2006, however. 

Without a doubt, there will be disasters around the world this year -- natural as well as man-made. As always, American citizens will respond with aid, while the Left will castigate the Federal government for not taking more of our money and deciding where to send it for us. That won't bother most Americans, however -- the people in front of the cameras are not the people who need the help.

Back home, Democrats will continue to ramp up the anti-Bush rhetoric as the midterm elections approach, despite the fact that President Bush is not up for re-election. They're stuck in permanent campaign mode, and will blindly resist anything the President tries to do during his second term. If they continue to resist fighting the War on Terror with anything approaching seriousness, they may lose a few more seats in Congress, though not enough to give the Republicans a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Fighting judicial nominees like Samuel Alito -- who will be confirmed by the Senate -- will also expose them to the American people for what they are. There may be one more Supreme Court vacancy this year, and the Democrats would do better to hoard what strength they have left.

On the other hand, one of the big issues in the 2006 elections will be illegal immigration. If the Bush administration doesn't do anything to stop the flood of illegals flowing into this country, the Democrats may take control of the issue and even regain control of the Senate, if they can keep their opposition to national security out of the spotlight. It would be difficult for a Democrat to pretend to be serious about keeping the borders secure while opposing other measures designed to keep the country safer.

If President Bush continues to defend himself before the American people, instead of letting political attacks go unanswered as he did during most of 2005, the Democrats will be forced to go even further out on the Liberal limb, losing even more votes. Some politicians who are up for re-election in 2006, like Hillary Clinton, will claim to have been hawks all along, advocate border security, and retain their seats. Unfortunately, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa) will likely be re-elected, while Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa) may lose to Bob Casey Jr. I wonder whether President Bush will campaign as hard for Santorum, who has always supported him, as he did for wishy-washy Senator Arlen Specter (R?-Pa), who frequently stabs him in the back?

Will there be a successful terrorist attack in the USA this year? It's impossible to tell at this point. If Congress doesn't renew -- or significantly weakens -- the PATRIOT Act, a terror attack will certainly be easier to plan and carry out. The same applies to the Democrat attempts to portray the NSA's tapping phone calls to and from known al-Qaeda numbers overseas as "illegal spying on Americans" -- if they manage to gain traction with this non-issue, they may cripple our ability to defend ourselves. Who knows what other fake scandals the Democrats are holding in reserve, ready to spring on the public before the 2006 election?

The best weapon the terrorists have is time, unfortunately. More people will forget about 9/11 this year, as the little emergencies of everyday life push the memories into a corner. Hollywood will continue to do its part to vilify America, capitalism, Christianity and the Bush administration in movies, television and foreign interviews. Liberals will continue to disparage and degrade all the good America does while exaggerating any bad effects, becoming more shrill and divorced from reality as more people grow tired of their rhetoric and stop paying attention to the news and politics. Demotivating centrist and right-leaning voters would be a big victory for the Left.

However, the one prediction I can make with certainty is that the country will endure. I don't doubt that the Left will try their hardest to undermine those things that most Americans believe in, but I have no doubt that they will continue to fail this year.

The Left has been having a real hard time lately. The rebuilding of Iraq is actually going fairly well on the whole, there haven't been any terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11, the economy is screaming along like a freight train, and Americans are fighting back against the forced secularisation and judicial takeover of the country. With their pet political party openly becoming the party of obstruction and defeatism, Leftists can only look forward to having a tough time in next year's elections as well. As always, however, I'm here to help. If the Left makes and keeps the following suggested New Year's resolutions, I'm sure they'll do better in 2006. Really.

1. Stop being so reasonable, polite and quiet during debates. Instead of presenting boring facts and figures like Conservatives do, scream more catchy, emotion-laden slogans like "Bush Lied, People Died!" No one wants to be bored by reason; everyone expects you to be entertaining. If slogans work for the advertising industry in commercials, they'll definitely work for you. Feel free to recycle slogans from the sixties and seventies, as no one remembers them.

2. When you do need to present facts and figures, focus even more on sensationalism than accuracy than you've been doing. No one cared when 1,999 troops died in Iraq, but everyone wanted to hear about the 2,000th death, right? Use big numbers to make the Iraq war sound really bad, even if you have to make them up. Truth is relative -- yelling "Bush killed 100,000 innocent Iraqis!" lets people know that you really care about Iraqis, and Conservatives don't. Even if that number has been completely fabricated, it sounds good. I mean, bad.

3. Put more people like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Berg in the spotlight, as often as you can find them. In fact, the next time you find an aging hippie willing to tap-dance on his or her child's grave for you, actually bring the corpse along to rallies for effect. That'll wow the crowd for sure. If you can manage to find an anti-war parent who's lost a child in Iraq who also happens to be a cop-killer like Wesley "Mumia" Cook or multiple murder like Stanley "Tookie" Wiliams, you've got a media sensation that's guaranteed to bring down the Bush administration. Really try hard to find one this year -- it'll pay off in votes.

4. Show more support for the military. By "support," of course, I mean that you should increase the clamor to get them out of danger -- that's not what a military is for! Let everybody know that you just want those lovable brainwashed mass-murderering children to be safe and sound at home -- unless the UN tells them where to go and who to kill. 

5. More made-up scandals and false accusations of wrongdoing will do the trick in 2006. Stop flinging them out one at a time, though -- it's too easy for Conservatives to defeat them with those darn facts and reason that way. If you simultaneously accuse Bush of a half-dozen or so crimes and Constitutional violations all at the same time, people will believe you, because some mud will be sure to stick if you just throw enough.

6. Be more open in your contempt for the common American. If more people only knew that you understand what's good for them better than they think they do, they'd be more willing to let you take charge. Don't pander to the masses anymore -- let them know right up front that they're all stupid and ignorant, and need you to tell them how to live in a more enlightened, European fashion.

7. Increase your demands for the government to acknowledge that so-called "terrorists" have the same Constitutional rights and legal protections as so-called "Americans." We're all citizens of the world, and one person's "terrorist" is another person's "freedom fighter," right? If the law is to be truly fair to everyone, all moral judgments must be suspended. Well, don't put it in precisely those words, but you know what I mean.

8. It seems that more and more black people are embracing non-Liberal ideas like personal responsibility and color-blind hiring or school admission policies. Some even support President Bush! When they do, make sure you continue to launch vicious personal attacks, calling them "Uncle Tom" or "Aunt Jemima," throwing Oreo cookies at them or forcing their charities to close down. This is guaranteed to keep them all firmly on the Left, among those who truly respect them and their independence as a people and as individuals.

9. Spend more time publicly complaining that your First Amendment right to free speech has been taken away. Not enough people are getting the message that your right to express yourself is gone. Also, whenever well-known Conservatives are giving speeches in your area, you must make more of an effort to drown them out. Scream, bang drums and cause disruptions so that no one can hear them. People will respect you for taking a stand.

10. Apologise more for all the evil things America has done. Europeans and Muslims need to hear how sorry you are that President Bush is putting people like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein out of business, intimidating leaders like Moammar Ghaddafi, and spreading democracy where no one wants it. After all, Saddam was elected in a 100% landslide by his own people, who obviously loved him! Surely when other Americans see you beating your breast over how horrible we all are, they'll realise that you and only you are qualified to lead the country.

Bonus: Seriously? Give up. Your defeatist, anti-capitalist, anti-military, anti-religion, anti-tradition, anti-America stance will never be accepted by most Americans.

The Nativity with Donors and Saints Jerome and Leonard
ca. 1510–15 Gerard David (Netherlandish, born about 1455, died 1523)
from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City

Prior to 21st century America, had one group of officials tried to prevent their own government from discovering the plans of enemy agents hiding among the populace, they would have been tried for treason -- if they were lucky. Had some members of Congress tried to prevent the government from tapping the phones of known Nazi collaborators during WWII, or attempted to protect the "right" of Confederate spies to pass information to the South during the Civil War, they would have been arrested. Unlike anything we've seen before, the Left is turning national security and the prosecution of a war against terrorists into political talking points.

Since shortly after 9/11, the NSA has been monitoring international phone calls to and from domestic phone numbers known to be affiliated with al-Qaeda associates. Without an easy way to communicate with al-Qaeda leaders overseas, another attack would be more difficult for terrorists to plan and execute. It was a wartime decision essential to our defense, and as such came directly under the authority of the President as commander-in-chief. Those who claim that the Legislative or Judicial branches of the Federal government should have control over military decisions are clearly unfamiliar with the Constitutional separation of powers, or how "efficiently" bureaucrats can run a war. The Left likes to pretend terrorism is merely a matter of civilian law enforcement, but this is a war, not an episode of CSI: Terrorism. Treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter, like jaywalking or stealing apples, is what allowed al-Qaeda to plan 9/11 so elaborately and secretly in the first place.

The fact that phone calls with al-Qaeda have been monitored is not news, though the Left seems to think it is. In 2002, the Associated Press reported that the government had "recently uncovered numerous calls from difficult-to-track prepaid cell phones, Internet-based phone service, prepaid phone cards and public pay phones in the United States to known al-Qaeda locations overseas." The story mentioned that the phone calls were "one piece of a growing body of evidence pointing to the presence of suspected members of terrorist sleeper cells operating on U.S. soil, and a growing sophistication on their part to keep their communications secret." The Left's response, three years later, is to attack the Bush administration for not having the proper paperwork on file when they eavesdropped on conversations with terrorists.

In fact, warrantless electronic surveillance has been done before, and since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was signed in 1978. President Carter authorised wiretapping without requiring a court order in 1979. President Reagan authorised warrantless searches against agents of a foreign power. President Clinton authorised electronic surveillance without a warrant in 1995, as well as physical searches of property. Clinton's Deputy Attorney General, Jamie Gorelick, testified before the Senate that the "Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Some may remember Gorelick as the person responsible for building up the wall between law enforcement agencies that kept them from sharing information they gathered during terrorism investigations.

But does electronic surveillance without a court-issued warrant violate the law? In 2002, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review examined the issue of warrantless surveillance. The Court noted that "all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." Is the President's authority under the Constitution limited by FISA? "We take for granted," the Court stated, "that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power." Since that is precisely what FISA was created to do, doesn't that essentially make FISA itself unconstitutional?

And what of our Constitutional rights? There is, as yet, no evidence that American citizens were targeted for electronic surveillance, but what if they were? The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects us against "unreasonable searches and seizures." Is it unreasonable to tap phone numbers discovered in al-Qaeda databases? Is it unreasonable to listen in on phone calls to or from known al-Qaeda locations?

The Left is merely ramping up paranoia, hoping that people fearful of government intrusion will vote the Big Government party into power in 2006 and 2008. The fact is that no one actually cares about your recipe exchanges with Aunt Sally, or how you complain about your boss and to whom. Unless your Aunt Sally is a known al-Qaeda operative in Pakistan, no one's even listening.

If Osama bin Laden calls me up from his Baluchistan hideout, however, you can bet I want the Feds taking notes. Moreover, I want them tracking the call to its source and sending every JDAM and MOAB in our inventory.

It's sad, even tragic, that for every advance abroad, we seem to take several steps backward at home. Our enemies no longer have any need to attack America directly -- they have the services of the "mainstream" media and the political Left.

Despite the Left's continued attempts to portray Iraq as a failure or disaster, that country is well on its way to becoming the focal point of a spreading Middle Eastern democracy -- the only realistic answer to terrorism's root cause. Two critical tests remain for the Iraqi government: whether they can form a stable government out of the 275 members of Parliament that have recently been elected, and whether its members can effect a smooth transition of power when their term of office ends in four years.

Events are taking place in the Middle East that have never happened there before, and never quickly and smoothly anywhere. It was seven years between the end of the American Revolution and the time our own Constitution took effect in 1789. If ratification had been thrown open to a popular vote as it was in Iraq, the process would certainly have taken well over a decade. How can three years be termed a "failure" by any but the childishly impatient standards of Liberals? No reasonable person expected this process to take less than three to five years, even without the meddling of Iran and Syria -- not to mention the terrorists and their "war on this evil principle known as democracy."

The Coalition government appointed a representative group of Iraqis to write a temporary constitution; Iraqis voted under that constitution in January 2005 to elect an interim government of their own. The interim government wrote a permanent constitution that was ratified by 79% of the voters in October 2005. Iraqis recently turned out in overwhelming numbers, coming from all factions and ethnic groups, to vote for their first democratically-elected government -- the first such government in the entire Arab world. Now the members of the Iraqi Parliament will have the chance to participate in a give-and-take representative governing system such as we have... well, no one said a democratic government was perfect, but it's certainly better than a fascist dictatorship. Iraqis have bootstrapped themselves from a collapsed totalitarian government to free elections under their own constitution in less than three years, with our help.

On the other hand, home politics have forced what can only be seen as victories for our enemies in the War on Terror, offsetting our amazing successes abroad. Democratic Senators are filibustering the renewal of the PATRIOT Act -- a piece of legislation hated by the Left for no good reason. Not one single instance of abuse of any citizen's civil liberties under the Act has ever been verified. All the PATRIOT Act really does is allow the same methods used for investigating organised crime, serial killings and drug rings to be used when investigating terrorism. Yet some Senators are working to undermine the PATRIOT Act, on the shaky grounds that they think can see a way someone might possibly figure out how to abuse it somehow, though it may take a concerted effort of the entire Federal government to do so. If the PATRIOT Act is not renewed, key provisions expire at the end of 2005 -- and those who block it will be partially responsible for any future acts of terror that could have been prevented by it.

Aiding the Democrats in their effort to undermine the President are, of course, the members of the "mainstream" media. Just as the Senate went into heated debate over renewing the PATRIOT Act, the New York Times decided to attack the President for allowing wiretaps of phone conversations in America several years ago. Ramping up unfounded fears of unconstitutional government activities is a sure way to pressure Senators to let the PATRIOT Act lapse. The story (coincidentally printed just in time to aid sales of the author's upcoming book on the subject) claims that the President unlawfully allowed the NSA to listen in on foreign conversations involving American citizens without getting an advance court order. The only part of the claim that's untrue is the word "unlawfully."

It turns out that not only was the action authorised under FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978), but that some of the members of Congress pretending to be shocked by this revelation were kept apprised of the NSA's actions all along. Though FISA contains a clause preventing secret surveillance of a "United States person," the character of someone who might be an "agent of a foreign power" -- which includes anyone working with a terrorist group -- should logically pre-empt that designation. Naturally, if America's security agencies are prevented from tapping American phones even when used by terrorists, all the terrorists need to do is pick up some disposable cellphones with American numbers and throw them away after one use, before a court order to tap them can be obtained. Thanks to the New York Times and whoever leaked information about a secret, legal tactic to gather information on terrorist activities, this will probably become standard operating procedure for terrorists in the future.

Last, but certainly not least, is the protection for terrorists recently advanced by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and agreed to by President Bush. This is a blow to US efforts to glean information from captured terrorists. McCain wants to prevent the US from using torture or "degrading treatment" to coerce terror detainees to surrender information. McCain's answer to critics is that the President could simply authorise breaking the law under extreme circumstances. Well, then, what's the point of writing such a law in the first place? Laws should not be written just because they sound nice and get a US Senator media approval. That's a poor use of my tax dollars.

The torture part is not a problem -- the US does not condone the torture of anyone, not even terrorists. The question is what constitutes torture. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defined torture in 2002 as inflicting severe pain, organ failure or permanent damage that was "specifically intended." The Left has used that definition (since broadened to exclude some highly aggressive methods) arrived at by Gonzales' legal team to slander him as "condoning torture" ever since. Gonzales expressed no personal opinion on the use of aggressive interrogation techniques, however. Mere discomfort or fright is simply not torture, despite the Left's hypersensitive caterwauling, and can lead to cooperation by breaking the subject's morale. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a high-ranking al-Qaeda leader (and 9/11 planner) captured in 2003, lasted all of two-and-a-half minutes before breaking down under the "waterboarding" technique, which simulates drowning but has no lasting physical effect.

The word "degrading," however, is far too ambiguous and subjective to be used without definition. Many on the Left feel that the terrorists themselves should get to decide what's "degrading." If a terror suspect objects to wearing handcuffs, not being able to choose his own clothing or having a woman anywhere in sight range, he could term his treatment "degrading" -- and many on the Left would accept that as a proper description. Personally, I feel it's degrading to Americans to be forced to treat terrorists as honorable opponents who follow any sort of honor code. There can be no reasonable objection to aggressive interrogation techniques that force subjects to reveal information that saves American lives, as long as real torture is not involved. Name-calling, orange jumpsuits and rap "music" should certainly not be defined as "degrading" (although the rap could be classified as "torture.")

If we're going to get anywhere in this war, we have got to stop treating terrorists with kid gloves, cease granting them rights and privileges they don't have and don't deserve. Why would any captured terrorist give up information, knowing that there's nothing we can do to him to make him talk -- not even keep him up past his bedtime? The fact that terrorists think we're too soft and spineless to fight back was the reason they kept attacking us with increasing ferocity and confidence through the decade culminating in 9/11.

Were they right, after all?

14 Jan 06 UPDATE: I'm not surprised by the sudden surge in sales of disposable cellphones, as reported by ABC News:

Federal agents have launched an investigation into a surge in the purchase of large quantities of disposable cell phones by individuals from the Middle East and Pakistan, ABC News has learned.

The phones — which do not require purchasers to sign a contract or have a credit card — have many legitimate uses, and are popular with people who have bad credit or for use as emergency phones tucked away in glove compartments or tackle boxes. But since they can be difficult or impossible to track, law enforcement officials say the phones are widely used by criminal gangs and terrorists.

It is nearly impossible to understand the Left's penchant for celebrating killers. From common thugs like Wesley Cook (also known as Mumia Abu-Jamal) and Stanley "Tookie" Williams to serious mass murderers like Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein, the Left often seems to sanctify criminals while vilifying those who stop them. Now one more murderer is finally dead, after forcing the families and friends of his victims to wait an excruciating 24 years for closure.

Like every other reasonably competent human being, Stanley Williams knew that murder was against the law, and that his own life was forfeit for commiting such an act. Yet he made the decision -- over and over -- to take lives anyway. Not only did he murder a convenience store clerk, a couple at a motel and their adult daughter, but founded the vicious Crips gang. The infamous LA gang has been responsible for perhaps thousands of murders and other crimes since its creation in 1971. When the butcher's bill finally came due, the Left -- as usual -- attempted to insulate Williams from the consequences of his actions.

If only they cared this much when innocent human beings are sentenced to death by the courts... or killed without any trial at all. As I have often said, "Liberals will fight to protect the guilty and kill the innocent, while Conservatives will fight to protect the innocent and punish the guilty."

Williams' supporters claimed that he deserved clemency because he wrote books about the bad side of gang membership during the 24 years he spent in prison. Although some of the books had a message intended to steer kids away from gang life, there was no admission of or remorse for the crimes he committed. I'm sure he was awfully sorry he got caught and sentenced to death. However, that did nothing to bring back the people he killed, nor did it atone in any way for their deaths. He denied them a chance to write their own books. What right did he have to ask for consideration after two dozen more years of life than he allowed any of his victims?

Williams was sentenced to death based on overwhelming evidence of guilt, in accordance with the law. Governor Schwarzenegger's statement upon his refusal to interfere said, in part, "Based on the cumulative weight of the evidence, there is no reason to second guess the jury's decision of guilt or raise significant doubts or serious reservations about Williams' convictions and death sentence." Even the ultra-Liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was unable to find legal grounds upon which to grant a reprieve. Still, Hollywood half-wits, race pimps and the rest of the "usual suspects" turned up to demand that justice not be done. Funny how the same people who scream that following the law is "racist" seem to forget that Williams himself committed what would now be termed a "hate crime." After all, Williams told accomplice Tony Sims that he killed Albert Owens "because he was white and he was killing all white people." 

I wouldn't be surprised if Schwarzenegger's refusal to overturn the decision of the courts was based, at least in part, on the arrogant presumption of his Hollywood pals that they just "know better" than all the judges who have reviewed the case over the years. Side note to the high-profile Hollywood Liberal crowd: No reasonable person wants to hear simplistic solutions to complex problems dreamed up by poseurs and phonies who are overpaid to mouth lines written by others. We can get the same ideas from children for free, and in crayon.

Few on the Left seemed to consider the rights of Williams' victims. Not only did they not lose their right to justice when he murdered them, but their relatives, at least, are owed some sort of closure. Was their 24-year wait for reckoning made any better by Williams' books and the celebrities who fawned on him? Has Williams -- or his groupies -- ever even bothered to apologise to them for the destruction of their lives for no good reason? Where was the anti-death-penalty Left with their high-sounding idealistic speeches when the Owens family asked why Albert was killed? And what about Yen-I Yang, Tsai-Shai Yang and Yee-Chen Lin? When Robert Yang asked why his parents and sister were shot, where was the Left? Nominating their murderer for the Nobel peace prize, that's where.

In part, society depends upon a pact. We don't seek personal justice or retribution for wrongs, but agree to turn that over to the criminal justice system. If you are the victim of an illegal act, the justice system is supposed to pursue your aggressor, even if you are already dead. It doesn't always work perfectly, but -- on the whole -- it does work. Punishing criminals helps to protect us from repeat offenders and other potential criminals. When the law is carried out and justice served upon lawbreakers, others who would choose to violate the law may be stopped by fear of punishment.

Sure, perhaps Stanley "Tookie" Williams did some good for society by writing books and speaking out against gang life. That in no way precluded society's need for him to pay for his crimes. His final -- in fact, only -- act of redemption, therefore, was to attest to the integrity of the social pact by his death. By visiting justice upon Williams in accordance with the law, the legal system proves to other violence-prone criminals as well as law-abiding citizens that, even if they turn slowly and squeak too much, the wheels of justice do turn.

Treason is defined, in part, as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemies of the United States, according to the Constitution (Article III, Section 3) and the United States Code (Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, Section 2381). Yet the Constitution also states, in the First Amendment, that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." How do we distinguish between free speech and treason? Where do we draw the line? The answer may be found using that least-used resource: common sense. 

I would submit that the elected leaders of this country have more responsibility than the rest of us to ensure that they give no aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. With American troops risking their lives in daily battle on behalf of the nation, critical words from those in leadership positions carry greater weight than in peacetime, both with the enemy and with our own troops.

Yet the leaders of the Democratic party consistently attack the war in Iraq with lies, from distorting the history of our confrontation with Saddam Hussein, to prevaricating about their own statements which led us to war, to defaming the character of every member of the Bush administration in turn. Worst of all, however, is the slander they spread about our troops.

The Chairman of the Democratic party, Howard Dean, said during a radio interview on 6 December that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong." Does this statement not give "aid and comfort" to the enemy? The leader of a major political party, to which nearly half of all Americans belong, is telling the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq that they will win; that they will beat the United States.

Dean also said that, "this is the same situation we had in Vietnam," and in a certain sense, he's right. The beaten, demoralised North Vietnamese leadership was given new hope by certain American politicians and the press, to the point where they struggled on until America's Liberals turned public opinion against the war. America was forced to withdraw from Vietnam in disgrace, having never lost a battle, by people just like Howard Dean. With his defeatist statements, Dean is giving our enemies the aid and comfort they need to keep fighting. How many Americans will die because of Dean's irresponsible remarks, made only to seek political advantage? Tell me why that's not treason.

Senator John Kerry (D-MA), the Democratic party's most recent Presidential candidate, appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation" on 4 December to deface the American military. Speaking to interviewer Bob Schieffer, Kerry said that "there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- the historical customs, religious customs." (And some people accuse GW Bush of being incoherent?) .

Does a United States Senator and former Presidential candidate accusing American soldiers of terrorising women and children in the dead of night not give aid and comfort to the enemy? Just as he did during Vietnam, John Kerry is falsely accusing American troops of committing atrocities as a matter of normal course in an attempt to undermine support for the war among Americans. As a consequence -- intended or not -- he is yet again handing America's enemies an immense propaganda victory. How many potential terrorists will have their hatred of Americans fueled by Kerry's matter-of-fact statement that American soldiers are terrorising women and children in their homes at night, breaking cultural and religious taboos? Tell me why that's not treason.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) fully supports and endorses the recent statements of Representative John Murtha (D-PA), the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. Murtha has made a big splash among the anti-war faction by calling for an immediate -- within six months -- pullout from Iraq. On 1 December, Murtha told a group of leading Pennsylvania citizens that America would be forced to abandon Iraq within a year because the troops are "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth." Murtha is hailed as a hero in the media for suddenly changing his mind about the war in Iraq, but called it "unwinnable" and stated that "we cannot prevail... with the policy we have today," while urging President Bush to send even more troops in May 2004.

What a burst of enthusiasm Murtha's words must have engendered among our enemies! How much hope will they take from his proclamation that they are, in fact, winning the war? Despite fantastic losses, and despite earning the enmity of the Iraqi people, the terrorists and Saddam supporters in Iraq can now believe that if they just find the strength to hold on a little longer, they can push the hated United States out of Iraq. How many of the enemy will fight rather than surrender, because Pelosi and Murtha have told them they're winning? How does that not give the enemy aid and comfort? Is that not treason?

Not all Democrats follow the defeatist, destructive path of their leaders. But those ARE their leaders -- the Chairman of their party, their most recent Presidential candidate, their party leader in the House of Representatives. Some Democrat politicians have repudiated the statements of Dean, Kerry, Pelosi, Murtha and the rest... not because those remarks were vile, untrue and treasonous, but because the Democrats are afraid such openly anti-American statements might "harm efforts to win control of Congress next year," according to the Washington Post. The only way they can regain power is to hide their true feelings, and they know it. Treason, it seems, is still considered malapropos by some Democrats.

But not all.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the world's biggest Christmas fanatic, aside from giving gifts. I don't put up a tree, I don't decorate, I don't bake cookies and I don't sing Christmas carols (well, not while sober). I don't send out Christmas cards. I don't wear red and green clothing. I don't run down the street shouting, "Merry Christmas!" to everyone I see, like Jimmy Stewart in It's A Wonderful Life.

How outrageously self-centered would I have to be, though, to consider myself "offended" when others do those things?

82% of Americans belong to one Christian denomination or another, according to a 2002 Pew research poll, while only 1% consider themselves athiests. An ABCNEWS/Beliefnet poll conducted the year before showed the number of Christians to be 83%. Only a tiny percentage of non-Christians take offense when the vast majority of Americans don't hide their religion. And why should they? Don't they have a right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, to the "free exercise" of their religion? Yet the loudly-complaining far Left demands that no one be allowed to "offend" them. I have yet to see a Constitutional right to "freedom FROM religion."

In recent years, the attack on public recognition of the major religion in this country has become offensive in itself. More stores are advertising "holiday sales," more organisations are holding "holiday parties" and more people are putting up "holiday trees" every year. Even the Capitol Christmas Tree had come to be called a "holiday tree" since the late 1990s, until House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) forced its offical name to return to normal this year. Fear of giving offense to 1% of the population is causing a great deal of offense among the rest of us. If I lived in a country where the population was more than 80% Muslim, I don't think I'd complain about public celebrations of Ramadan. If I lived in Israel, I wouldn't demand they refer to the menorah as a "holiday candlestick" just for me.

What the hell is a "holiday tree," anyway? What's it for? 

I was recently invited to a "holiday party" by a local Republican group. I will not attend, on the grounds that they didn't specify precisely what holiday they're celebrating. Is it Christmas? Hannukah? St. Lucia's Day? The Feast of St. Nicholas? Portugese Independence Day? Winter Solstice? A Week Before The End Of The Year Day? Baby-Eating Day? (I'm sure the Liberals would believe that.) I could get into a good old-fashioned Saturnalia, but I need time to get my tunic dry-cleaned. I don't celebrate generic holidays. If they aren't important enough for you to name them, they aren't important enough for me to celebrate them with you.

When they're done savaging Christmas, perhaps the militant secularists will go after Easter. How much fun will it be when the Holiday Bunny leaves Holiday baskets full of Holiday candy for the kiddies to find? After the children dye and decorate Holiday eggs, you can hide them and have a Holiday Egg Hunt. Maybe the whole family can watch the Holiday Parade on tv.

How does that sound any more ridiculous than secularising Christmas -- changing a tradition of centuries, celebrated by millions of families, just to appease a tiny, hate-driven minority? Do you think they wouldn't force Bing Crosby to re-record his biggest hit song as "I'm Dreaming of a White Holiday," if they could? Or would the Political Correctness Police have a problem with that, too? After all, there isn't much snow in the South, and children there might feel left out.

No one will make you celebrate Christmas at gunpoint. No one will kidnap you and drag you to a Christmas party, force you to sing Christmas carols off-key or demand that you wish anyone a "Merry Christmas." No one will make you enjoy yourself. You are free to not celebrate, as I am free to celebrate, a holiday that was a part of American society before there was a United States. If I wish you a "Merry Christmas," try not to launch into a diatribe about how I'm forcing religion down your throat.

Maybe I'll put up a Christmas tree, after all... just in case any militant secularists happen by.