Responding to Israel, Rejecting the Flag Amendment, & Trying the Terrorists

Ashkelon is one of Israel's primary vacation cities. The Palestinians this week lobbed a rocket into that city which exploded in a high school. Fortunately, the school was empty. Had it been occupied, dozens if not hundreds of Israeli adolescents would have been injured or killed.

During World War II, the Nazi Luftwaffe (air force) attacked the city of London which began the battle of the skies and cities. Ultimately, about 43,000 Londoners lost their lives during that blitz, September 7, 1940 to May 16, 1941. In the two-day firebombing of Dresden, an estimated 25,000 to 40,000 German civilians died.

I have no doubt that in any air war of attrition using rockets or planes Israel would be the victor. We know what Muslim terrorists are capable of in their quest to destroy western civilization. Their goal is the destruction and elimination of the Crusader (their reference to Christians), Jews and all others who won't convert to their religion, recognize the primacy of Islam and pay them tribute. In Iraq, al Qaeda terrorists and their allies kill not only members of the coalition led by the U.S. but their own fellow Muslims who adhere to a different sect. Sunni killing Shia and Shia killing Sunni.

The European nations, which have denounced Hamas as a terrorist organization, should have reacted with outrage when the deliberate rocketing of Ashkelon occurred this week. It makes no difference whether or not the high school was deliberately targeted. The Palestinian rockets, like the V1 rockets of the Nazis in World War II, are not capable of being aimed to hit a specific target. They are aimed at a city to explode and kill indiscriminately.

In response to the attack, Prime Minister Olmert said the Palestinian action was "an escalation of unprecedented gravity." You can be sure that he was signaling an overwhelming response to come. When that occurs, European countries will have to decide, in the refrain of an old labor song, "Which side are you on?" Switzerland has already denounced Israel's response as disproportionate and a form of collective punishment.

When President George W. Bush was asked about the Israeli response, he said "The initial goal should be freeing the Israeli soldier. That is the key to ending the crisis."

Until that happens and the rocketing stops, Israel will defend the lives of its people as we in the U.S. will defend ours. To do otherwise would cause us to lose the ongoing war of civilizations.

* * *

A large percentage of U.S. citizens -- and I am in that category -- cannot understand why members of the Democratic Party in the U.S. Senate voted against a proposed constitutional amendment that would have, if passed, given the Congress the right to enact legislation to protect the U.S. flag from desecration. The final vote in the Senate was 66 to 34 on the constitutional amendment, one vote short of enactment, passage requiring a two-thirds vote. In the House, the vote in support of the constitutional amendment was 305 to 124, well over the necessary two-thirds.

The arguments against passage offered by the Democratic leaders -- Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Democratic Minority Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois, were that the issue was too minor in the face of more compelling and weighty problems requiring Senate attention, and that we should never take the First Amendment lightly by reducing its protection of free speech.

The facts are that for more than 200 years, it was a criminal offense to desecrate the flag of the U.S. In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court by a vote of 5 to 4 overruled the statute and declared flag burning to be protected under the First Amendment. The only way to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court is by a constitutional amendment.

All fifty state legislatures petitioned Congress to enact the amendment. The Democrats once again have done exactly what the Republicans wanted them to do -- They foolishly stood up against a traditional value treasured by a majority of Americans, especially when we are at war. These same Democrats had no problem in supporting a law making it a crime to burn a cross for the express purpose of intimidating others. There, they did not find a violation of First Amendment rights. I supported the law banning cross-burning, as I do the constitutional amendment banning flag-burning.

* * *

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court by a vote of 5 to 3 decided that the President cannot unilaterally create military commissions to try enemy combatants now held at Guantanamo. There are three kinds of trials available for enemy combatants. One is a regular criminal trial, such as that given to Zacarius Moussaoui with all of the protections provided to every U.S. citizen tried in such a court, including the Miranda warning that one need not respond to questions by law enforcement and if you do, your admissions may be used against you. The Moussaoui trial while ending in a guilty verdict took an extraordinary long time and at times Moussaoui's antics appeared to make a mockery of the judicial system.

A second option is a trial provided by courts martial which has looser rules on evidence. The third which has been used in our history is the military commission where even easier rules of evidence apply. The Supreme Court has ruled those courts are available, but only if authorized by Congress. So the Bush administration, castigated by the press and described as having suffered an enormous defeat by the Supreme Court decision, is now in the position of having to ask the House and Senate to provide the necessary legislation.

In the House, there is no doubt it will be forthcoming. In the Senate, it is necessary to deal with the 60 vote rule required to cut off filibusters. If there is objection to the proposed legislation it will come from the Democrats, who, in the face of war will be seen as obstructionists. The 2006 midterm election which should easily reverse majorities in both Houses in favor of Democrats may well be lost if Democratic leaders impose their out-of-touch philosophy on their members.