Why the Noise on Terrorists Who are also Prisoners, and the War in General?

Day after day, the domestic left attacks the administration over its handling of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The latest screed, from Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, compares American military men and women with Nazis, Communists, and the mad killers in Southeast Asia. Speaking on the Senate floor and referring to an email from an FBI agent, Durbin said:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

This follows New York Representative Charlie Rangel's allegation that the Iraq war is worse than the Holocaust (via Michelle Malkin):

"This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed. The whole world knew it and they were quiet about it, because it wasn't their ox that was being gored."

Abraham Foxman of the ADL demanded an apology from Rangel, but, true to form, the Congressman extended his anti-Semitic remarks:

"This is not the first time Abe Foxman has attacked me and other people of color," Rangel told ABC Radio's Sean Hannity. "He does more to cause friction between blacks and Jews than anyone I know."

He went on to claim that Foxman "doesn't speak for the ADL." That's probably news to the membership of the organization Foxman leads.

Then there's Delaware Senator Joe Biden, who is concerned that the Gitmo terrorists might be held for the duration of the war:

Delaware Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden asked Deputy Associate Attorney General J. Michael Wiggins whether the Justice Department had "defined when there is the end of conflict."

"No, sir," Wiggins responded.

"If there is no definition as to when the conflict ends, that means forever, forever, forever these folks get held at Guantanamo Bay," Biden said.

"It's our position that, legally, they can be held in perpetuity," Wiggins said.

Biden was joined by his colleague, Vermont Senator Pat Leahy:

"Guantanamo Bay is an international embarrassment to our nation, to our ideals and it remains a festering threat to our security ... America, was once viewed as a leader in human rights, and the rule of law, and justly so. But Guantanamo has undermined our leadership, has damaged our credibility, has drained the world's goodwill for America at alarming rates," said Senator Leahy.

"So now I say, what is the administration's plan for Guantanamo Bay, assuming there is a plan; what does the administration intend to do with more than 500 detainees still imprisoned there; how many are going to be released and when; how many are going to be charged and tried?"

The comments by Biden and Leahy are carried in this story, by Aljazeera, and Leahy's words are prefaced by these:

Leahy admitted that Guantanamo prison has undermined the United States' credibility in human rights.

"Admitted" that America has no credibility on human rights? Then again, it seems churlish to complain that a hostile foreign news organization would use the opportunity handed to them so nicely by the likes of Leahy. Our anger should be directed to the good Senator himself, who surely knew that his words would be as ammunition in the hands of anti-American propagandists.

So what's up with all this? Why the outlandish comparisons, the overt anti-Semitism, the crude insults to the members of our armed forces?

I return to what has become an almost daily theme of this blog: intellectual bankruptcy. With the rise of the '60s generation to positions of power in academe and, later, the media and politics, the haughty, self-satisfied, narcissistic culture that marked the Age of Aquarius has been ensconced not only in those institutions, but in the brains of the historical actors themselves. Back in those heady days, argument -- defined as articulated positions based on knowledge and reason -- was dispensed with in favor of "authenticity," "feelings," and "honesty." Nothing wrong, per se, with those sentiments, but sentiments alone won't support a position in perpetuity. They are subordinate to, and the servants of, well-supported positions derived at through rigorous research, a knowledge of history, a moral imagination, and an appreciation for the struggles of those who went before us.

Toss out that apparatus, however, and you're left with little more than emotion which, under contemporary events, has given way to hysteria. Vitriolic denunciations, ahistorical comparisons, and sneering insults may give the Charlie Rangels and Dick Durbans of the world warm feelings deep down inside. But they can't persuade the undecided, and they certainly won't support the contentions such hollow-chests try to hang from them.

So the next time you read Aljazeera, look for the appearance of the useful idiots from our side. Then ask yourself, who treats its prisoners better: the tyrants for whom the "journalists" at Aljazeera pine, or the American military? Which nation is known throughout the world as the freest? Where had you rather live, or be imprisoned? What kind of person would take up arms against America, especially as a terrorist with no military uniform? What does it say about a man that he would kill indiscriminately in the name of a fanatical ideology? And what would almost any other nation in history have done with such men had they been captured?

And then ask, what kind of politician would attack his own nation's military in a time of war, and why? What are their motives? What do they seek to achieve? And what does all this tell us about their characters, their intellects, and their suitability for high office?