BALDWIN: Pre-Racial Strike

Mar 032003
Authors: Shannon Baldwin

Did you hear about the recent terrorist-related arrest?

No, I don’t mean the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged Sept. 11 mastermind. Naturally, you’ve heard about that. The only news that would top that would be the confinement of Osama Bin Laden himself.

I’m talking about the other arrest that happened just last month in Washington (State, not D.C.). The arrest of two people for sending (and intending to send) top-secret government information to terrorist groups. Information which involves chemical, nuclear and biological-warfare strategies. Information that, according to the FBI, posses a huge threat to the security of the United States and is worth millions on the black market.

Didn’t hear about that, huh? Weird. Seems like that is the sort of thing that would make big news nowadays.

Maybe it’s because the suspects do not have a decidedly Arabic last name. Rafael Davila, 51, and his ex-wife, Deborah Cummings Davila, were taken into custody last month. Rafael had served for years as an Army intelligence officer and was a decorated Vietnam special-forces veteran. Deborah is a schoolteacher. You can’t get more American than that.

Federal prosecutors allege some of the secret materials they possessed were intended to go to white supremacists and anti-government radicals. Oh. White supremacists. Not Al-Qaeda. Well, no wonder we didn’t hear about it! I know, for a second I had you reaching for your duct-tape.

So, you can go about your business. They may be supplying avowed anti-government radicals with sensitive information, but at least those radicals are good-old homegrown American Caucasians. It’s not like they’re even close to the Axis of Evil. The loss at the Oklahoma City bombing was only 168. That’s peanuts compared to the losses on Sept. 11.

White may not make right, but it doesn’t make news, either.

The Case for Pre-Emptive Strike

For those loyal readers who are familiar with my usual politics, the above heading may seem a little contradictory. But, I’m willing to admit it when the facts are too clear to ignore.

“Preemptive war is justified by an imminent threat of attack, a clear and present danger that the country in question is about to attack you. In such a case a preemptive attack is recognized as justifiable,” says Joseph Cirincione, Director of the Non-Proliferation Project of the Carnegie Endowment.

Think about that.

For the past year the Bush administration has made it clear that we are going to war with Iraq. (Excuse me, we will instigate ‘policing action’ against Iraq, as only Congress can declare war.) He’s petitioned the support of our allies, and, if failing that, has made it clear that we will use unilateral force. It seems no matter what the inspectors find, what Saddam agrees to, or what the public has voiced, war is inevitable. Talk about an imminent threat of attack.

Then, of course, there is the massing of troops along the Iraqi border. The constant deployment of an ever-steady supply of our enlisted who have only to wait for the word to invade.

And how about our present negotiations to buy out Turkey for support and strategic placement of our troops? Remember how nervous we got when Cuba went communist because that country is only 90 miles away? We certainly considered that a clear and present danger.

It seems clear that there is certainly an undeniable case for pre-emptive strike. Iraq would seem completely justified in hitting us first. The only reason they don’t attack our threatening troops is because they know we would completely annihilate them in a vicious and blinding retaliation, and we wouldn’t think twice.

Might doesn’t really make right either, but who’s going to argue?

Oh, I mean besides the French.

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.