Image courtesy of John Kivus under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
“He addressed the matter of prizes taken at sea by American privateers, and gave all possible attention to the vexing issue of what to do about American prisoners of war held by the British and those British prisoners taken on the high seas who were being held in France. The commissioners hoped for an exchange but were frustrated by British insistence that captive Americans were traitors and thus not conventional prisoners of war.”
Mr. McCullough’s excellent book was recently awarded the Pulitzer Prize, and is cited to demonstrate the ease at which arrogant government can label people and then proceed unchecked with tyranny.
In my recent column, along with columns written by others, reference was made to the imprisonment of Jose Padilla, comparing his treatment to a victim of Hitler’s Gestapo. I also pointed out the treatment of approximately 1,100 visa violators who are being interned by “American” government. In doing so, we have drawn the ire and resultant commentary attack by Mr. Jonah Goldberg, editor of National Review Online.
In his June 19th piece, “The Nazis aren’t coming,” Mr. Goldberg expresses his contempt for illogical thinkers such as I for daring to express an opinion that is contrary to his vision of patriotic reasoning, as well as one which is contrary to that desired by the state.
Such renunciation of my views by Mr. Goldberg, who is obviously Jewish, is more so for that very reason. He offers: “As a conservative columnist, I hear this all the time and, frankly, I find it offensive, not the least because no one likes being called a crypto-Nazi [sic] It demeans not only the United States but the Holocaust as well.”
But permit me to introduce my ethnic qualifications: I am a first generation American, a Protestant, and both my parents were German citizens who fled Hitler’s Nazis and their communist opponents prior to the burning of the Reichstag.
It is now I who am offended by Mr. Goldberg’s employment of the Jewish trump card, implying that only Jews are qualified to interpret Nazism and the Holocaust. When non-Jews opine, they insult Mr. Goldberg. Yet he reserves for himself the right to also judge those who employ German Protestant Martin Niemoller’s historic lament [First they came for the communists…].
His column starts by identifying Jose Padilla as “an enemy combatant.” According to my dictionary, a combatant is someone who engages or takes part in combat. Padilla was doing neither, and had no weapons when arrested. He implies that actual combatants, captured members of al-Qaida, are not only the enemy, but should not be considered as troops. Finally, Mr. Goldberg throws into that collection of anti-American misfits, the visa violators, some of whom have been held captive by the American state for four or five months without being allowed to call family, friends or lawyers, and without being charged with a crime.
All of these practices of the Bush administration come on the heels of the unconstitutional Patriot Act. Simply because Bush didn’t come out and say habeas corpus was suspended, which is certainly the case, Mr. Goldberg is satisfied. I cited the Constitution by Article, section and clause pertaining to both habeas corpus and the fact that we are not at war because it wasn’t declared.
Therefore, Mr. Goldberg is wrong when he states “I made a good case.” I made a better one, which he cannot refute. I specifically cited the Constitution – he merely loosely refers to it. Admitting that his effort was “hardly definitive or exhaustive,” he reaches his defining conclusion: “But that doesn’t really matter.” It matters to the people wrongly imprisoned Mr. Goldberg! How will they arrange for a hearing, military or civil, to review their case?
But most insulting is his calling us “profoundly ignorant” using simple analogies such as: “To me it is like saying Hitler built highways, and FDR built highways; ergo, FDR was like Hitler. Or, Nazis used tanks in World War II, and Britain used tanks in WW II; ergo, there’s no difference between Britain and Germany.” No question here; these analogies are indeed absurd. But I didn’t make them.
If relevant comparisons are needed, then I respectfully suggest he start by reading Mr. McCullough’s book to familiarize himself with the principles of self-government our Framers intended. He should then look into Ruby Ridge, Waco, Wounded Knee, etc. He’s a conservative? Precisely what is it he’s trying to conserve?