I suggest you read the following excerpt from the Wall Street Journal's editorial on Nov. 3.
According to the six-year narrative of the press and political class, the Bush Administration's counterterrorism policies fall somewhere between the Spanish Inquisition and the Ministry of Love in "1984." So it was something of a shock to read a remarkable front-page story in the New York Times yesterday, the abridged version being: Never mind.
In their 1,600-word dispatch "Next President Will Face Test on Detainees," reporters William Glaberson and Margot Williams discover that, gee whiz, many of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay really are dangerous terrorists. The Times reviewed "thousands of pages" of evidence that the government has so far made public and concludes that perhaps the reality is more complicated than the critics claim.
Lo and behold, detainees are implicated in such terror attacks as the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. Those with "serious terrorism credentials" include al Qaeda operatives Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh and the so-called "Dirty 30," Osama bin Laden's cadre of bodyguards. The Times didn't mention Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11, though he's awaiting a war-crimes tribunal at Gitmo too.
For example, at least 60 detainees have been cleared for release or transfer but no other countries will accept them. If Gitmo is no longer a prison, some U.S. facility would have to house the remaining men while they await habeas hearings and trials. Yet no politician has offered up his state or district as an alternative -- and none will. Further: If military commissions are cashiered altogether, how will prosecutors protect classified information and intelligence sources and methods in open civilian criminal court?
...After a few harrowing threat briefings, maybe the new Commander in Chief won't rush to undo Mr. Bush's programs.
But give the Times credit for leading the revisionist pack. More such media revelations on the Road to Damascus -- or Baghdad, Tehran and Khartoum -- are no doubt on the way, especially if Mr. Obama is elected today.
Tell me, how you would apply Catholic Social Teaching to the above situation (other than shouting, "don't torture")?
One more thing: Until you are willing to confront the papacy for its selective application of its own norms (such as John Paul II and Benedict XVI distributing the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians in Italy or refusing/failing to discipline malfeasant and miscreant bishops), then I'll take you seriously.
On 9/11 I could look out from my office window in the NASA building 3rd ST SW in DC, and see the plume of smoke rising from the Pentagon. I passed by the wreck of the Pentagon everyday going to and from work. On that day I stopped being tolerant, and having a live and let live attitude. If bad guys are tortured, and it protects me and my family, and they are my first and primary obligation, I'm all in favor of it.
We are at war, and the enemy is militant Islam wherever we find it.
Bravo, Thomas!
Let me amend that to say that the real enemy is Islam itself. It is a religion that enslaves and turns its more fanatical adherents into murderers for The Greater Glory of Allah. The world has had ample evidence of this. Unfortunately, the Church chooses to ignore that evidence -- most of it coming from Middle Eastern Christians in communion w/Rome!
The principle of al taqiyah means that a Muslim can lie in order to promote Islam. In essence this means that if someone says "My version of Islam doesn't accept that interpretation," I can point to the Koran, and say, "But your holy book says you can lie, so how can I trust what you say at all."
Since we have the great commission, we have an obligation to at the very least pray for the genuine conversion of the Islamics.
RIGHT ON, THOMAS! Would that the Church (especially the corrupt hierarchy) realize what you say.
Father I agree with what a lot of what you said.
However John mcCain risked his political hide on the Catholic Social Justice of the decade (immgration reform) and barely got kudos fot it from the more liberal leanign Catholic SOcial Justice advocatse. I supported that as a Republican and took arrows. Senator Sma Brownback on was not on their radar either.
Ditto on what McCain and other have been saying on torture and other matters. Heck McCain and Obama have the same postion on GITMO and you barely note it from the press. I am afraid before we can pressure the parties we have to get our own house in order
Father I agree with what a lot of what you said.
However John mcCain risked his political hide on the Catholic Social Justice of the decade (immgration reform) and barely got kudos fot it from the more liberal leanign Catholic SOcial Justice advocatse. I supported that as a Republican and took arrows. Senator Sma Brownback on was not on their radar either.
Ditto on what McCain and other have been saying on torture and other matters. Heck McCain and Obama have the same postion on GITMO and you barely note it from the press. I am afraid before we can pressure the parties we have to get our own house in order
With all due respect, JH, the bishops' position on "immigration reform" is a de facto open borders policy. Yes, their rhetoric mentions the necessity of realistic border controls and national sovereignty but their activism says something quite different, to put it mildly.
Quite frankly, the bishops don't give a damn about how many people cross illegally -- or how many innocent people in this nation will be affected by their presence.
Then again, that's why I have no respect for the bishops' pronouncements. Like the Pharisees of old, they place unreasonable burdens on the people and don't do a thing to lift them (let alone practice what they preach).
I have no problem with immigration. What I have a problem with is people who enter illegally, and then demand services from the country, or who say that we stole their territory.
All that I ask for is that people come in legally, work hard at legal jobs, that they treat me with a little respect, and that they buy into the American concepts of democracy and toleration.
Father Rob, How on earth would Catholic politicians listen to a Congressional Catholic Caucus when they won't even listen to the Holy Father. They spin Church teaching for political advantage. The USCCB document was created to be spinable, and most of our bishops were silent during this election. Maybe it is time to give up the tax exempt status and preach the Gospel without fear. Maybe it is time for our bishops to be shepherds with the eternal salvation of their people first, and Democrats second. I believe that if bishops boldly preached the truth about abortion, and instructed their priests to do likewise, Catholics would be shocked into listening, and hopefully into understanding Church teaching. Voting was not a Faustian Bargain for me. It was simple. I chose life. There will never be the "perfect" candidate or "perfect" party in this fallen world and this diverse democracy. But President Bush has put through many pieces of pro-life legislation, and John McCain would have at least not reversed that. Now, may the Lord have mercy on us.
Father Rob,
I couldn't agree more with your analysis. Good priests like Fr. Corapi unrealistically characterized this election as a referendum on the Culture of Death, meanwhile pro-life Catholics voted for McCain and were somehow able to ignore the fact that a vote for McCain was a vote for liberalized stem-cell research.
Doesn't anyone remember our horror of Communist regimes which would torture and imprison people indefinitely without cause? I was against it there then, we should against it here, now.
It's time to free ourselves from the manipulations of our politicians and their sympathizers.
who say that we stole their territory.
Well, we did. But that's the way expansion has historically occurred (not always - Louisiana Purchase - but often).
How on earth would Catholic politicians listen to a Congressional Catholic Caucus
I thought Catholic politicians would make up the bulk of the Caucus. They would listen to themselves. The problem is they probably won't know what they are saying. We would likely end up with the worst of both - the Republican Catholics compromising on abortion and gay marriage in exchange for the Democrats compromising on war and torture.
Commenting by HaloScan
