Disproportionate Response?

With Israel pounding Southern Lebanon in response to the Hizbullah kidnapping and killing of Israeli soldiers, and sending over 1,500 rockets into Northern Israel and beyond, many in this country, including the Secretary General of the United Nations, are stating that Israel is giving a “disproportionate response.” What exactly does that mean? Is there such a thing as a proportionate response to murder and mayhem? Maybe those critics should consider the following, unlikely, and extreme scenario.

Mexico, sharing a long common border with the United States, finally decides it wants to “take back” its long lost states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. To this end it allows a private well funded and armed (from Cesar Chavez) army to form on the southern side of the Rio Grande River. This band of terrorists sneaks across the border to kill a few of the U.S. Border agents, kidnap an additional number, and start shooting rockets into Texas endangering many of the cities in the southern part of the state. What would be the “proportionate response” by the American government? Would it sit around waiting for the United Nations, the European Union, the Arab League, and similar organizations to talk the matter to death before taking action? Or would the U.S. take immediate military action defending our country and making sure it would not happen again? The answer is obvious, and all those countries belonging to those world bodies would do the same. Would their actions be “proportionate?”

But, they condemn Israel’s actions as being “disproportionate.” Could it be because Israel doesn’t have any oil and the Arab countries do?

Timing is everything

Letter to the Lake Charles American Press

Dear editor:

The recent defeat at the polls of the proposed parish wide sales tax and bond issue is the combination of well meaning ideas by Calcasieu/Lake Charles leadership and poor timing. Evidently this leadership brought forth their plans without realizing what is presently on the minds of the populace and doomed their needed projects as a result.

It is a shame that the mayor and police jury did not see or consider: 1) After the personal, costly cleanup from Hurricane Rita people are not in the mood for additional spending; 2) With gas prices and utility costs going through the roof everyone is trying to stretch their income to cover basic needs; 3) Polls have shown that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the continuing loss of American lives are of primary concern; 4) The fear of a spread of the Middle East war between the illegal, terrorist Hizbullah and the State of Israel is on everyone’s minds, and; 5) The beginning of a new hurricane season is upon us.

Even though the needs of the sheriff’s office are real, and Mayor Randy Roach’s plans for a revitalization of downtown Lake Charles might be beneficial to the city, they have failed to realize the pulse of the parish’s citizens. In fact, their timing, to say the least, has a bad odor about it.

Change the law?????????

Letter to the Washington Post

Re: Hill Battle Looms Over Tribunals (July 13, 2006)

Dear editor:

There's an old song with the line, "When I'm not near the girl I love, I love the girl I'm near."

Evidently the Republican Congress and the president feel we as a nation should use this type of convoluted thinking and apply it to the recent Supreme Court decision outlawing the military tribunals for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Evidently they want to change the line to, "When I'm not near the law I love, I change the law I'm near." This is a democracy governed by a constitution and laws? What a sad joke.

Reserves on the Border

There are news reports today that less than 1,000 reserve troops have been detailed to our border with Mexico to help the U.S. Border Patrol keep out or catch illegal aliens and smugglers who try to enter our country. The president promised to send 6,000 troops to help secure our border as the first step in solving the growing problem of illegals entering the United States.

How come so few have been sent? It seems that many of the states involved have refused to send enough soldiers and some are just asking for volunteers to go. Volunteers are hard to come by due to the fact that so many have been on active duty for so long with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and serving along the Gulf Coast due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

I’m confused.

True, I have always been against our costly (in money and lives) pre-emptive war in Iraq, but I don’t remember the president “asking” for volunteer reservists to serve in this conflict. He has the power to order reserve units into active duty and can federalize National Guard Units. So why isn’t he taking action to send 6,000 troops to secure our porous borders? Evidently he is worried about alienating voters in the midterm elections which will happen this fall. Once again, politics first.

Does that make this another “mission unaccomplished?”

Constitutional Law

News item on the Supreme Court’s decision against the Bush Administration in its dealings with legal proceedings for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay:

A senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity seemed to hint at the potential political implications in Congress. “Members of both parities will have to decide whether terrorists who cherish the killing of innocents deserve the same protections as our men and women who wear the uniform.”

It seems to me that our men and women who wear the uniform would be more interested in knowing whether or not America’s justice system would be the same for all, no matter what their crimes are. That is what they are fighting for, as they swore to “defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.” That Constitution does not say that liberties and the right to a fair trial applies only at certain times and under certain conditions, but rather all the time, no matter what the conditions. That’s what makes our country great and powerful. They know that no president and no administration has the right to toss those guarantees of a full and fair trial by jury out the window when they so desire, or when it seems to be politically correct. Without those guarantees we are no better than the killers we are fighting.