ISIS is Not a Criminal Enterprise
It's almost enough to make you feel sorry for them. Members of the administration of are repeatedly put in a position of going along with the obvious "never say Islam and terrorism in the same sentence" rule that has been laid down by the president. The hapless John Kerry is the latest to have to go out in public and say dopey things, twisting himself into a verbal pretzel to avoid speaking facts. Unfortunately, he has to say these things in front of foreigners.
On Feb 8th, he was speaking at the Munich Security Conference in Germany when he said,
"The second major test facing the United States, Europe and indeed the entire civilized world today is, of course, the rise of violent extremism...Today, we are witnessing nothing more than a form of criminal anarchy, criminal anarchy, a nihilism which illegitimately claims an ideological and religious foundation."
The expression "criminal" relates to a departure from a set of laws. When John Kerry and Barack Obama say “criminal”, they mean a departure from the laws of the United States. ISIS does not recognize our laws as being legitimate, nor do they feel these laws apply to them. In this, they are correct.
Our laws have nothing to do with either encouraging or deterring Islamic terrorist conduct, it is irrelevant to the justification of their conduct. It is therefore totally inappropriate to submit an ISIS member, or any other Islamic terrorist to our civilian justice system. Similarly, we do not recognize the validity of Sharia law (not yet anyway). We cannot adjudicate them by that standard. You can't drag Mrs. O'Leary's cow into court and charge it with arson.
"Anarchy" indicates an absence of law. This is also not the case for ISIS, they do recognize laws. If it's in the Koran, it's OK. There is nothing “illegitimate” about this “ideological foundation.” Not only is "criminal anarchy" a contradiction in terms, it doesn't apply to Islamic terrorism. "Nihilism" means you don't believe in anything, which is also clearly not applicable and is further a word rarely used in American parlance. These convoluted expressions just serve to show how desperate our administration is to describe what they will not say. It's like trying to describe a football game without saying "football".
This posture of referring to Islamic terrorists as criminals is more than merely embarrassing, it is dangerous. When Obama took office, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) declared his own guilt and was asking to be executed so he could be martyred.
"Mohammed not only confessed, but bragged about his heinous deeds. Beyond that, a mountain of evidence supports an astonishing 169 overt acts that led to mass murder that terrible day.
So overwhelming was the proof, Mohammed and his four co-defendants advised the commission’s trial judge they would all confess in open court and plead guilty. They would admit the details and depravity of their acts in order to proceed directly to sentencing."
Eric Holder and Barack Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and set the world's longest delay of justice in motion. Every day is Christmas for lawyers of Gitmo guests, and the American taxpayer is paying for the gifts.
Our justice system of police, courts and public defenders is laughable as a response to Islamic imperialist intent. We need to deal with ISIS, Al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, etc. without any of these trappings because they are not criminals; the depravity of their routine atrocities calls for a standard of punishment beyond judicial due process. Here's how it should go:
- If they can be captured alive, they need to be aggressively interrogated and indefinitely detained.
- If they cannot be captured alive, all the better.
The goal of Islamic terrorism is to subjugate, or preferably kill, all of us because we are squatters on their property. They are all in. Only their death will stop them. So be it. We can't take Mrs. O'Leary's cow to court, but we can turn it into hamburger to be sure it doesn't happen again.