Reward the behavior that you want to see.
A 24-year-old Malian immigrant who hid a group of hostages during a terror attack at a kosher supermarket was awarded French citizenship Tuesday in a ceremony that showcased his courage and selflessness.
…[Lassana Bathily] stepped slowly to the podium. “People tell me I am a hero. I am not a hero. I am trying to stay myself,” he said, visibly moved. He expressed his desire to see and help his family back home. He received a standing ovation when he finished with: “I am very happy. Long live liberty! Long live friendship! Long live solidarity! Long live France!”
I can only hope that, if I’m ever in similar circumstances, I can act as clear-headedly and effectively as Monsieur Bathily did. I wish the man good luck in his new country and new life.
This is getting remarkable. We’re seeing some possibly unexpectedly hostile reactions to the administration’s decision not to send anybody to participate in France’s anti-terrorism unity march:
- Mike Lupica: “Everybody knows how complicated this country’s relationship with France has been, in war and in peace. Certainly there have been times when the leaders of France could have done better by us. We should have done better by them on Sunday. Only you couldn’t find us.”
- Jake Tapper: “I say this as an American — not as a journalist, not as a representative of CNN — but as an American: I was ashamed.”
- Michael Tomasky: “Look, it’s just my opinion, but extraordinary event; it’s our fight too. I, as a citizen, feel underrepresented.”
- Fareed Zakaria: “Fareed Zakaria, host of CNN’s “Global Public Square,” called the absence of top U.S. officials a mistake… France is the United States’ “deepest ideological ally,” he said, and it would have been a meaningful image to have a senior administration member, or the President, standing shoulder to shoulder with other leaders.” (via Gateway Pundit, who is doing his own round-up.)
- The New York Daily News (endorsed Obama for President): “The United States of America, Barack Obama, President, was inexcusably absent from one of the most critical turning points in the war between radical Islam and the West since 9/11.”
Continue reading Barack Obama’s Harriet Miers moment. Seriously.
There is a very simple explanation for this: “President Barack Obama will not join other world leaders at Sunday’s Paris march in tribute to the victims of this week’s Islamist attacks in France, a US official told AFP.” Basically, President Obama legitimately and genuinely does not understand why it is necessary for him – or a sufficiently dignified surrogate* – to represent our country at an activity such as this. From Obama’s point of view, since no American was attacked, no American was killed, and no American was involved he clearly thinks that our involvement in this matter is thus unnecessary. And since the formal solace and condolences from foreign dignitaries would offer no comfort to him in similar circumstances, Barack Obama apparently feels that offering his own detached sympathies would be essentially equally pointless. Continue reading So, President Barack Obama skipped the French anti-terror unity march.
Via @PhilWillSays comes this report of Islamist* terror in Paris: “Armed men stormed the Paris offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on Wednesday morning, killing 11 people and injuring more, French President François Hollande said. The men opened fire inside the magazine’s offices using automatic AK-47 rifles before fleeing, a police officer said.” The ‘Islamist’ bit is not yet confirmed; but, given that this isn’t the first time that the magazine has been violently attacked (not to mentioned threatened, criticized, and sued), and given that every other time it’s been over Charlie Hebdo’s willingness to ‘draw Mohammad’ – well, it’s a well-traveled road at this point, no?
The French actually do not suffer as many attacks like these as one might expect, given how often their banlieues riot. And I fully expect that the French anti-terror domestic security apparatus will be doing quite a bit to make sure that future attacks of this sort are discouraged. That’s a polite, bloodless way of saying “Roughly several hundred people involved in radical Islamism will be snatched off of French streets in the next few weeks, and then tortured** for information. Many will not survive the process.” I don’t think that this is actually a superior way to handle things – frankly, it reeks of a colonialist mindset that has plagued Europeans for the last six decades – but it is very much a French way of handling things.
In the meantime, our prayers and thoughts for the people attacked and murdered.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
*Note suffix. That is not a request, by the way.
**No, I don’t mean water-boarding. I mean the stuff that you don’t want to think about too much.
‘Terrorist-led’ being the opinion of the United States government, by the way.
There are two problems with this.
Mohammad Al Ahmady, the Yemen director for Geneva-based NGO Al Karama, was expected to brief Reps. Alan Grayson (D., Fla.), Barbara Lee (D., Calif.), and Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.) the morning of the Nov. 19, according to press release from Grayson’s office.
Several Al Karama officials have faced terrorism allegations. Al Karama’s founder and current president Abdul Rahman Naimi was designated as a terrorist and al Qaeda supporter by the U.S. Treasury Department in December, along with the group’s Yemen representative Abdulwahab Al-Humayqani. Al Karama’s legal director, Rachid Mesli, is currently wanted for terrorism charges in Algeria.
Continue reading Alan Grayson (D, FL), Barbara Lee (D, CA), & Jan Schakowsky (D, IL) tried to consult with terrorist-led group on drone strikes.
Details are still sketchy:
Security officials say a powerful explosion has caused serious damage to Libya’s Foreign Ministry building in the heart of the coastal city of Benghazi.
The early Wednesday morning blast also damaged the building next door housing the Benghazi branch of the Libyan Central Bank.
…and there’s no word yet whether this bombing was specifically done in commemoration of last year’s 9/11 al-Qaeda attack on our consulate (and murder of four Americans, including our Ambassador) in Benghazi, or whether it was done in commemoration of 2001’s 9/11 al-Qaeda attack on the WTC and the Pentagon. Although it’s certainly reasonable for us to embrace the power of ‘and,’ here.
Continue reading Libya Foreign Ministry building bombed by terrorists, 9/11/2013.
I’d like everybody to pay close attention to this Tweet:
It’s from back in October of 2012, when – as Legal Insurrection very helpfully notes – Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts (D) (now running against Gabriel Gomez in a special election for MA-SEN) was doing his level best to convince the world that there was absolutely no reason at all to believe that the attack in Benghazi that murdered four Americans (including our Ambassador) was due to a preplanned terrorist attack – and that any suggestion that the White House was covering things up was some sort of bizarre theory promulgated by conservatives. That’s October of 2012. Now let’s go to May of 2013: Continue reading Ed Markey: foolish on Benghazi. Foolish on the Boston Marathon bombing, too?
I can think of at least three arguable, intellectually coherent reasons for being against the death penalty; I do not share that position, but I can do a death penalty opponent the elementary courtesy of treating his or her opinion with respect. So I don’t get upset when somebody says No death penalty, even for scumbags – and means it.
I do get upset when a politician abandons principle for raw political expediency. Like, say, Boston mayor (and Democrat) Tom Menino.
…Mayor Tom Menino, in an uncharacteristic turn, called for the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
“I have never supported the death penalty but I will say in this one I might think it’s time this individual serves his time with the death penalty,” Menino said.
Via AoSHQ. That’s just obscene: if you don’t believe in the death penalty, then don’t believe in the death penalty. But don’t switch your beliefs just because it’s suddenly politically expedient. It’s cowardly (in a tough-guy way), hypocritical, cynical, and – depending on how you read Article I, Section 10’s prohibition of ex post facto laws – actually unconstitutional, to boot.
Seriously, why is even this a question?
What’s a good doctor to do when a villain hobbles into the emergency room?
Repeat after me: necromancy doesn’t work. A living terrorist can talk; a dead one is mute, pretty much by definition. So you patch the son of a bitch up, get him stable, and then you hand him over to the appropriate authorities for interrogation. See? Ethical dilemma solved. I’d ask what they were teaching kids these days, except that the author is almost certainly older than I am (he’s got an unhealthy obsession over Richard Nixon that is kind of diagnostic*)…
Via Hot Air Headlines. Continue reading Wait, what? Of *course* a doctor should treat a terrorist that shows up in the ER.