Lex Libertas

Anti-War movement decries the failure of Allies to Show German Weapons of Mass Destruction
Warning: satire

After hearing an advertisement on the radio for the CBS Premier of “Hitler: The Rise of Evil,” I was struck by the similarities in rhetoric between America 2003 and America 1941. Deciding to investigate the matter further, I stumbled across thess two articles. (I know it’s a bit late now, I wrote this back in May, but the essence of the public debate over Iraq hasn’t changed much)

The Many Facets of the Anti-War Movement

Los Angeles, CA – Anti-War demonstrators are up in arms over the perceived march to war by the Roosevelt administration. “The administration has beat its drums of war ever since the December 7th attacks, with no respect for the international community or the German people,” explained one student activist leader.

Many people around the country, and the world, are disturbed by President Roosevelt’s proclamation of an “Axis-of-Evil” consisting of Germany, Japan, and Italy. “We shouldn’t just lump countries together and say they’re evil. That only makes enemies and pushes those others away from a peaceful settlement of conflicts,” added John Marshall, a senior member of the anti-war organizer A.N.S.S.E.R (Act Now to Support Stalinism and End the Republic). “Besides, he’s just standing up to American and British hegemony, and I like that.”

Echoing a common sentiment, protestors at the federal building shouted “No Blood for Coal,” a reference to the fact that Germany has huge coal deposits. Since the American economy is largely dependent on coal for its domestic energy needs, some argue that this is simply an imperialist war to gain exclusive control of these reserves.

In defense of the administration’s actions, Secretary of War Henry Stimson “In all honesty, Hitler declared war on us first, we’re just responding. After the December 7th attacks, he showed video of them non-stop on German television to a soundtrack of ‘The Reich is Great.’ Moreover, we have reason to believe that Germany is developing weapons of mass destruction that would cause global imbalance and lead Hitler to be able to easily dominate the European continent. Hitler has been rearming for close to a decade in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and several League of Nations resolutions, and he has aggressively invaded neighboring countries. But even if all that weren’t true, we would still have a moral obligation to enact regime change from fascism to democracy, and stop the atrocities being committed against the Jewish people within Hitler’s borders.”

Noted anti-war intellectual Norm Chomski responded handily to what he calls “the false imperialist pretenses” of the Roosevelt administration. “There is clearly no connection between the attacks of December 7th and Hitler, even the CIA has failed to fabricate any. Germany’s weapons of mass destruction don’t exist, and even if they did, so what? A sovereign nation has the right to defend itself. The Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations resolutions were documents meant to specifically harm the German people, and were immoral. Hitler’s ‘wars of aggression’ pale in comparison to the many wars the United States has fought, and unlike the U.S. or Britain, Germany has never had an empire to speak of. The democracy argument is a farce. Germany has a self-determined government. Look at the domestic legislation that has been enacted since December 7th, any objective observer can see we’re the real fascists! Lastly, what is this sudden gush of ‘compassion’ coming from the Roosevelt administration? Where was the U.S. in 1938 during Kristallnacht? If they didn’t care then, I don’t see why they care now.”

Some in the Pro-War camp have labeled the Anti-War movement as anti-Semitic. They point to claims that the Roosevelt administration is full of high-placed Jewish intellectuals, such as Henry Morgenthau, the Secretary of the Treasury, or Samuel Rosenman, Roosevelt’s official speechwriter. The Anti-War movement also seems to be inextricably linked to the pro-Palestinian movement. This faction decries the “Zionist-occupation” of part of the British Mandate referred to as Palestine. They want the U.S. to focus on the real problem of the Arab-Jewish conflict, and not some fictitious rhetoric of an “Axis-of-Evil.”

“The Europeans have devised a ‘roadmap,’ and the U.S. should be a part of it. In order to stop the tension, Britain has decided to halt Jewish immigration, sending any ships back to their countries of origin, where they will be given employment at ‘work-camps.’ Germany and France both agree that the solution to the problem is less Jews. Russia has always known this. Now why won’t the U.S. support the ‘roadmap?’ Don’t they care about peace?” asks Enrique Salvador, a Spanish shopkeeper. “The first step is to stop the Jewish settlements like Tel Aviv and Haifa.”

Some noted celebrities, like famous aviator Charles Lindbergh, have spoken out against this war. “What I fear most is the resort to unilateralism. I mean, when you look at who’s fighting, it’s the United States and the United Kingdom. That’s it. Where’s the rest of the world? Not even France is with us on this one,” related the American hero.

Issuing a statement from the newly relocated capital of Vichy, the French government condemned any American intervention because of the collateral damage that would occur. “We didn’t give up Paris to the Nazis to see it blown to pieces. An American naval landing could cause millions of dollars in damages to French property and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of French citizens,” exclaimed the Foreign Minister in a press conference on Tuesday.

Others in the Anti-War camp have focused their criticism on the domestic ramifications of the war. “Look at the state of our economy,” related Sarah Hampton, a union negotiator. “We’re forced to ration! How can the president be given any respect when he can’t even bring us out of this depression we’ve been in for over a decade. How dare he ask us to make sacrifices so we might ‘help’ out people in foreign countries? I don’t care about what happens in other countries, I only care that I have a living-wage job.” Law student Michael Hendrickson pointed out the infringement on civil liberties. “What is this about ‘War Crimes Tribunals?’ Everyone should have a trial out in the open, with 12 jurors. I don’t care if they are foreign citizens who tried to kill American civilians and want a government without a Bill of Rights. We should bring them back over here and give them all the amenities of our Constitution, even if it is at taxpayers expense.”

The Anti-War movement shows no signs of letting up. Many organizers boast that this is the fastest mobilization of protests in history. It has happened even before any troops have been committed. As John Marshall notes, “public sentiment will turn against the president much faster when Americans start dying and we have to institute a draft.”

War Criticized as a Failure

Washington, D.C. – The war with Germany officially ended a week ago, but already critics are calling it a failure. “It was the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7th, not the Germans. This whole war was a huge distraction from the war on the Japanese. Great, now we have finished this and wasted lives, dollars, and equipment, but the Japanese are still as dug in as ever. Why? Just so we could claim some coal and do an imperialist ‘regime change’ to have one more puppet. The people of Germany are living on less than 1,000 calories a day, and crime is on the rise. Where is all the aid we promised when the war was over? Even if Hitler was a bad guy, at least he had police and kept order,” related California representative Nanci Peloso.

Military officials defended the administration by saying that the war was a necessary step to destroy the “Axis Powers.” In response to criticisms of the war’s slow pace, they spoke of the fierce determination of some of the Emperor’s supporters. Many in the pro-War camp have decried the use of Japanese Air Force suicide bombers and wondered how we could stop such an enemy. Human Rights groups replied by pointing out that Japan was essentially decimated by Western Imperialism, and that with their inferior technology the only way of fighting back was to use themselves to blow up their enemies.

I’m not sure how people are feeling out there, but my gut reaction tells me the woman is right, and Kobe forced himself on her. I really can’t say why I’ve come to this opinion, but I find it hard to believe a man who three weeks ago told me nothing happened, and now admits to “consentual sex.” If he lied then, why should I believe he’s telling the truth now? Furthermore, H.L. Menken offers a slight variation on that theme, “It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.”

What really infuriates me is how he might get off based on a “dark secret” about his accuser. A few months before the incident, she overdosed on some sort of pills. Some of her friends think it was an accident, and others think it was intentional. Apparently she had been going through some horrible things at the time, her high school sweetheart cheated on her while she was away at school and a good friend died. So whatever, it in no way means that she gave consent the night in question.

If anything, in her “emotional anguish,” it would have been easier for Kobe to take advantage of her, requiring a lesser amount of force than normal to overcome her weakened willpower. Kobe messed up big, and he’s going to have to pay for it. I hope that this piece of irrelevant info doesn’t influence people’s decisions against her.

In short, even if he didn’t rape her, he’s in a situation now where it’s very hard to believe anything Kobe says. And that is squarely his fault. She offered, but he accepted. It’s his responsability alone. Some might say she shares part of the blame because she’s a “tramp, slut, skank, etc.,” but the blame is all on Kobe. Whatever happened, he knew the possible consequences, and he did it anyways. One more vicitm of our “responsability-disinclined” culture.

WMOB is a site for anyone who thought the mob was a cut above the rest of us.

“In the course of a federal racketeering investigation, FBI agents and prosecutors received court authorization to wiretap the home telephone of Federico “Fritzy” Giovanelli, a Genovese crime family soldier. The feds hoped to hear Fritzy discussing mob business with fellow New York wiseguys, conversations that would then form the basis for a RICO prosecution against Giovanelli and Co.

… Listening to them talk, the pair’s mutual love and camaraderie is clearly evident. A conversation doesn’t pass without one telling the other, “I love ya” or “I miss you.” One could almost forget that Frank and Fritzy are career criminals, racketeers who belong to an organization that uses murder as an enforcement tool.”

These telephone conversations are truly entertaining, and eerily humanizing. The intimate interaction between Franky and Fritzy strikes a chord, and quite frankly reminds me more of the average working joe than some rich elites. I highly recommend this site as a glimpse of levity in the personal lives of some of the most cold blooded people around. Perfect for a psych dissertation idea.

Conventional wisdom claims that the Democrats are the purveyors of all that is kind, gentle, and caring in the world. So why is it that when blatantly anti-homosexual things are said by Democrats, it receives neither coverage nor censure. Case in point, the press coverage of the contentious House meeting today.

Notice that in both these articles (1 and 2), the headline deals with the idea of a turbulent meeting, completely glossing over the exceedingly homophobic comments of one Democrat.

Only one line in the Washington Post article mentions it, “one Democratic member of the panel called a Republican colleague “you little fruitcake” in the midst of the standoff.” It’s coverage in the Reuters version doesn’t even identify the speaker in any way, most likely leaving one to assume Republican authorship. This isn’t the first time in the past year that Democrats have played the Homophobia card.

During the 2002 election in Montana, the Democratic candidate ran an attack ad against his Republican opponent insinuating that he was a gay hairdresser back in the 70’s and 80’s.

In South Carolina, the same tactic was used by another Democrat:

… Attacking him for his closeness to former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, a fellow Republican.
“We all admire what (Giuliani) did after 9/11,” Sanders said during a television debate. “But Giuliani is an ultraliberal. He supports gay rights. He supports banning all handguns. He supports abortion. His wife kicked him out, and he moved in with two gay men and a Shih Tzu. Is that South Carolina values? I don’t think so.”

Say some (stupid, but) meaningless pleasantries to an old (really old) man on his birthday and you’re a bigoted rascist who deserves to be stripped of all political power. Call an opponent a “fruitcake,” and you just got a little carried away while fighting the good fight against the evil, repressive, heavy-handed Republican regime.

Somehow, I just keep forgetting that we are an Imperialist power thirsty for blood and oil - eager to oppress any minorities we come across. Then I walk across campus at UCLA and see all the chalk and spraypaint decrying “this rascist war.” Here’s an article from the San Francisco Chronicle, talking about the feelings of our “oppressors” on the ground in Iraq.

Pfc. Jason Ring stood next to his Humvee. “We liberated Iraq. Now the people here don’t want us here, and guess what? We don’t want to be here either,” he said. “So why are we still here? Why don’t they bring us home?”

That pretty much sums it up. We don’t like being in countries far from home being shot at. We’d much rather take out a threat quickly and be home by the next major holiday. When we say that we don’t want to be occupiers, and that we’ll leave as soon as possible, we mean it. Somehow, our critics seem to think they know our motivations better than we do.

What we don’t hear from these troops is “yeah, I shot me an Iraqi today, woo-hoo! Lemme see if I can’t rob, pillage, and rape this country into the ground.” Nor is that message conveyed in the actions of our troops. All things considered, I’d rather not pay a billion dollars a month and lose a soldier a day to build infrastructure in another country, but it’s necessary. If we want to have an ally in the region, and provide a decent life for 25 million Iraqis, we have to stick it out.

I’ve got to hand it to him, Jerry Springer is good. On his webpage he has three little video clips that sum up his “I’m for the little guy against the big wigs in Washington” campaign philosophy. Being a conservative, I’m obviously sympathtic to the “F*** the Federal Government” argument, but the problem here is that Jerry can’t possibly mean it. He’s a democrat, he wants the government to be invasive in our lives, especially economically. That’s not too far off from classical populism - fiscally liberal, but conservative on social issues - but he doesn’t fit the social part. Even though he’s trying to sell it differently, Springer is nothing more than a traditional democrat.

I am afraid, however, that his campaign speeches will touch a cord will average people, they do with me. It’s easy to say “we ought to help the poor,” it’s harder to understand how to do it. We all want to have the best society possible. Seeing as how I live on about $10,000 a year, I’m not exactly rich, but I do support fiscal conservatism because its the only thing that produces wealth for all to share. Liberal economic policies amount to nothing more than steal from the rich, give some to some of the poor, and pocket the rest for yourself and your cronies. Conservative economic policies say “keep what’s yours and do with it what you will.” That’s such a radical concept that it is still not widely accepted to this day by many.

I think we’d do wrong to dismiss Jerry Springer. He’s got the built in name recognition, and cult status. He’s very well-spoken, and has a good story behind him. He also has taken a strategy that’s been proven to work, employed most recently by Bush. The message of “little people vs. Washington,” is one that could draw moderates away from the Republicans over to Springer. I’m anxious to see what Voinovich will counter with. Personally, I’d like to see him out-populist Springer. Republicans have more ideological overlap with populism at its core.

Fun with Google

Try this soon, I don’t know how long these two sites will stay number one.

1) Go to Google.com;

2) type in (but don’t hit return): “weapons of mass destruction”;

3) Hit the “I’m feeling lucky” button, instead of the normal “Google search” button;

4) Read what appears to be a normal error message carefully.

Now…after you finish, type in “French military victories” (without the quotation marks) and hit i’m feeling lucky….

Also, check out the Star Wars Kid.

Howard Dean is calling for US military intervention in Liberia.

Dean argued his position on the use of force is not out of line with his opposition to the war in Iraq.
“The situation in Liberia is significantly different from the situation in Iraq,” he said.

His first contention is built on the faulty assumptions of his second contention. The situation in Liberia is indeed very different from that in Iraq. There were a hell of a lot more reasons to invade Iraq.

1. WMDs
2. Humanitarian
3. Sanctity of International Law
4. To draw out terrorists
5. Provide a democratic model in the Middle East
6. Give support to Iranian democratic movements
7. Deny safehouse and funding to terrorists

There is really only one, maybe two reasons to put troops in Liberia.

1. Humanitarian
2. Some sense of stability for the region

Given a world of scarcity, where we can only deploy in a limited number of places, Howard Dean would pick option number two. Thank God he is not in charge of evolution. This man clearly does not know how to allocate resources. I’m not saying we shouldn’t put troops in Liberia, I’m pretty much in favor of that. What I am saying is that to justify military intervention in Liberia while denying it in Iraq is not only stupid, incoherent, and contradictory, it is also immoral.

Please let this man be the Dems candidate.

Isn’t this cartoon the truth.

The eyeranian has a post denouncing the California Recall as undemocratic. At first, this struck me as the exact opposite of everything I ever learned. Wasn’t the recall an invention of the Progressives to make politics more democratic? Upon further reflection, I found that my initial reaction was perfectly correct. A recall is democratic, and a good idea to boot.

I’m going to talk now about the abstract concept of the recal. Reasonable people can disagree about particular recalls and whether or not they are a good idea, but I’ll deal with those who make the blanket claim that recalls are always bad, as asserts the eyeranian.

sometimes politicians are forced to make hard choices and explore options that may not be appreciated immediately. Just imagine if politicians started making every decision based on whether it is popular or not. How effective can they be when tough choices need to be made? Will they make the right choice, or the popular one, even if it is wrong? This is what this idiotic recall invention (not including provisions for any physical or mental incapability or legal convictions) brings to any political undertaking.

There you have the gist of his argument. With a recall, politicians will cater to the public will, and that’s bad. The inherent assumption is that politicians shouldn’t cater to the desires of the people. Unfortunately for the eyeranian, that is exactly what democracy is - civilized mob rule. Were he complaining that the recall is unrepublican, his argument would have more standing, but it’s clearly democratic.

His main concern is that politicians won’t make the tough choices. There are always going to be controversial decisions to be made, and the politician must come down one way or the other. Whatever he does, he is sure to anger some portion of the population. If he does not act, however, he will anger the entire population. A good way to check that is the recall. In debate-land, we call this a “turn.” The eyeranian’s arguement is not only wrong, the truth is the exact opposite. I’ve “turned” it to my side. Without a recall, politicians can pander to special interests, making decisions without the majority’s interests in mind. With a recall, if the politican fails to take responsability and act, he will piss off everyone, and be thrown from office. For example, if a politican fails to deal with a $38 billion budget deficit, both parties will be fed up and kick him out.

With Issa holding the office, should the Democrats start a petition to recall him as soon as he makes some unpopular choice? Where would this all end?

Next point, it will just be recall after recall. First of all, it’s not historically accurate. We’ve had the recall for almost 100 years, and how often can you remember it happenning? Second, the electorate is politically mature enough to not throw a temper tantrum when their candidate doesn’t win office. It’s part of the responsability attached to the privilege of living in a free society.

Arguments of the type posed by the eyeranian are fundamentally based on the idea that the public is stupid, and that they don’t know how to handle tough decisions. This type of thinking is the foundation for aristocracy, monarchy, and communism just to mention a few, but it is most certainly not the foundation of democracy. When faced with understanding that politican will not always make the decision we like, the eyeranian thinks that the average person will act immature, pout, and demand a recall. I have a different take. I think people can comprehend the complexities of life, and government. We often vote for a candidate we don’t agree with one hundred percent, and we’re not going to demand he leave office when he acts on one of his platforms we didn’t like.

The eyeranian seems to want a patrician representative system where our leaders throw feed to the pigs to get elected, and then lead a cloistered life for several years, without any concern for the public (remember, they shouldn’t cater to our desires), and at the end of their term, they can come back and tell us how great they were.

A great part of the reason why I’m conservative is that I believe that people can govern themselves, and they can deal with the intricacies of the political sphere. The popular decision is usually the right one, and the politician should be trying to please the electorate - the principle of decision by majority. And we’re not going to try for a recall simply because our candidate didn’t win. Please, have faith in the common person, our founders did.

Socialism Keeps France out of Heaven

I can’t help but fisk this article. First, here’s a good general rant against socialism by a blogger who echoes my own heart on a great range of subjects. Oddly enough, this is just the latest loose tongue screw-up in Europe. They sure do get in a fit over nothing. Imagine if they had to deal with someone like Newt Gingrich, they’ll all gasp for air in shock and keel over … hmmm, note to self ….

“France is not yet on the road to heaven, only in purgatory, since we still have Socialists,” Mr. Raffarin said [French Prime Minister]

Sounds reasonable to me. After all, it is the country that invented the separation of powers, brought modern rule of law and freedom of religion to Europe, and Laetitia Casta. They at least deserve purgatory. They were doing pretty well until they became shaded pink, from about the Paris Commune on till now.

“Mr. Raffarin no longer deserves the title of prime minister of the Republic,” said Jean-Marc Ayrault, the leader of the Socialist Party caucus in the National Assembly.

Of course you don’t like that title, you’d much prefer “General Secretary.” By the way, am I the only one who freaks out when he hears the words National and Socialist that close together in the same sentence?

In a scheduled debate in Parliament on Wednesday on whether to censure the French government for its overall policies, Francois Hollande, the secretary general of the Socialist Party

See, I wasn’t even kidding when I made that reference to the title of the leader of the Soviet Union.

“You even have considered Socialism a sin bad enough to deprive our country of attaining access to heaven,” Mr. Hollande said

It’s really more sad than anything when a country that is considered 90% Christian to this day, and has produced some of the greatest theological minds, commits such huge faults in basic Theology. All sins are the same in size, it is not the combination of sins of varying degrees that deprives one of access to heaven; one simple sin is enough. But yeah, Socialism, e.g. the rape and pillage of a society for the benefit of those in power, while under pretenses of equality, is a bad enough sin.

“The majority is prostrating itself once again to the pseudomoral and intellectual terrorism of the left.” said Jean-Marie Le Pen, the leader of the right-wing National Front party

This is one of the few times I actually agree with Le Pen. They say he’s right wing, but they forget to mention that he is also superracist, and a Holocaust denier, and that he took second place in France’s presidential elections. This must be how the Anti-War crowd feels when they find out that Pat Buchanan is on their side.

Mr. Raffarin accused the Socialists of “demotivating France,” adding, “They seem to prefer their party to their country.”

Naturally. Being good socialists, they don’t believe that the country is owed their alleigance, that belongs to their ideology. The reference point is socialism and its global spread, not France.

His verbal blunders — as well as his sweet and sometimes meaningless aphorisms — are so numerous that there is a name for them: “Raffarinades.” … “When I succeed, I’m a supercommunicator; when I fail, I am a bumpkin from the provinces.” said Raffarin

Sounds a lot like Bush. Think back to the pre-9/11 days when Bush was considered to have ushered in the era of bipartisanship and his “victories” in unity such as the education bill and prescription drug care.

Once again, terror struck the streets of Moscow. Two suicide bombers blew themselves up at a music festival outside Moscow. One was believed to be a twenty year old girl. I suppose that, combined with the appearance of female suicide bombers in Israel, is proof of Islam’s gender equality.

I used to be sympathetic to the Chechen cause, but now I’ve lost it all. First the bombings in Grozny, then the theater in Moscow, and now this. It’s unacceptable. I will be studying in St. Petersburg all next year, and whatever my political feelings are, they change the moment I might be blown up in a cafe.

A friend of mine judiciously warned me to stay away from people looking like this, but I think that stubble, a bini cap, and a sad look will be all the rave during winter in St. Petersburg, so racial profiling won’t work too well for me.

I get my hair cut regularly in a salon staffed by Soviet expatriates, and today was no exception. After informing my Georgian stylist about the news, she proceed to vent on why this religion was so dangerous and terrifying, and why these Chechen rebels were idiots for wanting independence. Apparently, terrorism like this doesn’t make people more favorable to one’s cause or one’s religion - big surprise there. This might seem a bit bizarre coming from a Georgian, whose country declared independence, but it was a separate Soviet Socialist Republic. Chechnya has always been an actual part of Russia.

This touches a little close to home, and makes me glad I’ll be in St. Petersburg - several hundred miles from Moscow. Hopefully that extra drive we be dissuasive enough to keep me safe.

Berlusconi, in response to accusations of his unfitness to take over Europe’s rotating Presidency, told a German member of Parliament that he could well play the part of a Nazi concentration camp leader. Now the two countries have issued statements saying the other was acting childish. I haven’t seen fights of this sort since grade school. Just more proof that Europe is not the ‘mature grown up’ it claims to be. And further dispells the myth of “Europe.” There is no unified continent, and there won’t be for a while.

Instead of a United States of Europe, the more reasonable description seems to be “A Federation of Nation-States.”

“The Bush administration suspended all American military assistance to 35 countries today because they refused to pledge to give American citizens immunity before the International Criminal Court.”

We have every right to request exemption before giving aid to countries participating in the ICC. The intricacies of international law have yet to be worked out, and we do not want to put our soldiers in risk of prosecution because of their role in helping other countries. What’s interesting is some of the countries on the list. Most importantly is Colombia, where we are quite active in training and providing weapons for use against FARC and the drug trade. This removal could only prolong the war, and help FARC take an even more proactive stance. Hopefully Colombia will realize what it has to lose and sign the exemption.

US concerns about the ICC are well founded. Ruth Wedgewood gives excellent analysis as to its shortcomings. The realistic possibility of frivolous lawsuits has been proven by Belgium’s case against Powell and Rumsfeld stemming from “human rights abuses” during the first Gulf War. There are no provisions for due process or any of the protections in our Bill of Rights, and the prison conditions in many of the participating nations are appalling.

The ICC is far from perfect, and until some of the gravest concerns are dealt with, we will abstain from any action in a country where the ICC’s jurisdiction could ensnare us. This is a loss for humanity as a whole. For example, under the current ICC format, Yugoslavia could have brought us to trial based on NATO bombings during the Kosovo campaign. Unless immunity is agreed to, the next time a country slaughters its own, we will be forced to sit the sidelines.

“A federal appeals court ruled today that the Americans held in Iran for more than 400 days beginning in 1979 cannot receive damages from Tehran because the agreement that freed them barred such lawsuits. ”

I fully support this decision. First of all, we should feel lucky we even got these hostages back. Considering the mood of Tehran circa 1979, and especially after a failed rescue attempt, it wouldn’t have been a surprise were they all killed. If part of the deal was to relinquish any monetary claims, that was well worth their lives. I understand that the situation must have been pure hell, and I’m not saying it was a weekend jaunt. But that the Iranians eventually traded them back is proof of our negotiators’ skill, and the hostages ought to thank them profusely, not second-guess their bargain. I’m sure that given the opportunity themselves, they would have gladly forgone any future lawsuits in order to secure their freedom.

Second, it would set a horrible precedent for the United States to go back on a deal made in good faith. This would significantly erode America’s standing in eveyone’s eyes, especially those of another group of radical extremists that we are trying to deal with right now - Palestinian terrorists. Were Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Al Aqsa to see us renege on a deal, any prospects for an agreement brokered by us would be finished. International relations are based on only two things, force and trust. For other nations to lose faith in our word, we would pay a hefty price in standing, prestige, and effectiveness.

In short, the Iranian hostage crisis was a low point in our history, and it was a nightmare for those involved. I am ecstatic that they got to come home unharmed, but given the circumstances, they were wrong in attempting to file suit.

PS: In doing this post, I not only learned how to properly spell renege, but also that it and renegade came from the same root - to deny. Kinda neat.