posted August 17, 2006 12:44 PM            

The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated.
– Robert Jackson, chief U.S. prosecution counsel at the Nuremberg Tribunal

When World War II ended, German police arrested that nation's Nazi leadership and they were tried in German courtrooms, correct? No, of course not. They were arrested by the Allies and taken back to their home countries where they were tried under the criminal justice system there.

No, you say that's not correct either? Well, good for you. The Allies convened the Nuremberg Tribunal and tried the individuals responsible under an amalgam of international law, convicted the bulk of them, sent some to jail and executed others.

Why did we do it that way? Read again the opening quote from Mr. Jackson:

"May it please Your Honors,

"The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power ever has paid to Reason." (Read the full address.)

We did it that way because it was necessary for civilization to survive. We did it for "crimes against the peace of the world." In today's self-inflicted multicultural "paradise," such a concept is beyond the intellectual grasp of the great bulk of the West's leftists. The idea that one culture could possibly be superior to another violates what passes for the leftist conscience: Tolerance.

Therefore, a culture that leaves little baby girls to die in the ditch, while it values and cares for little baby boys, cannot possibly be judged superior to a society that cares for both equally. A culture that denies women education is simply "different" than one that provides educational opportunities for all. A culture whose government is based on graft, corruption, intimidation and violence is no better – or no worse – than one whose government is based on laws that treat all citizens equally and fairly, and which punishes graft and corruption.

And a culture that promises rewards to an individual who straps a vest laden with explosives, nails and ball bearings – then walks into a crowded public space and detonates it – is no better or worse than the culture being attacked. To judge one against the other violates the modern liberal conscience. (If you have any doubts about where this leads, examine the staged photos coming out of Reuters and the Associated Press.)

Yet the modern liberal conscience is capable of judgment: It has judged that the war on terror is unnecessary and those prosecuting it are evil. Why? Because they have violated the liberal conscience. For this reason – violation of the liberal conscience – those defending the West against murderous Islamic assault and violent imposition of an Islamic theocracy must be prosecuted for their "crimes against humanity." Try Rumsfeld for war crimes; bow down five times a day to bin Laden and maybe he won't hate us so much.

When I read that police are arresting Islamic terrorists for plotting to blow up airliners full of innocent people, I know that the war on terror is nearly over. The vermin that began World War II were not arrested by police, read their Miranda rights, and then assigned an ACLU attorney and a court date in the nation's criminal justice system. They were held in prisoner of war camps and tried under what international law the Allies saw fit to grant for "crimes against the peace of the world."

Likewise, the Islamic terrorist vermin plotting mass murder to impose an Islamic theocracy that will consume the entire world need to be removed from the nation's criminal justice system, interred in prisoner of war camps for the duration of the conflict, and when the conflict is over tried, found guilty and executed for their "crimes against the peace of the world." Any pronouncements issued by the U.S. Supreme Court may be safely ignored, inasmuch as the Constitution gives them no authority to issue any decisions or pronouncements affecting the president's conduct of a war. Congress can stop such pronouncements and power grabs by forcing the court to adhere to its constitutional mandate; surely separation-of-powers raids into the executive's turf is bad judicial behavior and as such warrant impeachment.