Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Brian Kennedy's Op-Ed on What a Single Nuke Could Do

After having read the Claremont Institute's Brian Kennedy's Wall Street Journal piece on electromagnetic pulses and nuclear weapons, let me just say that I'm positively euphoric that my dad decided to buy a Honda generator several years ago. (Much good it'll do me way out in sunny California.)

All kidding aside, why do we allow any of the Iranian top leadership to exist? Surely we could place a bounty on each and everyone of them and use targeted assassinations, if necessary.

Of course, now that the Democrats control Washington we are less likely to see any kind of resolve. Not that we saw any when the Republicans ran things either. They granted an avowed enemy of the United States, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a visa, but denied one to Narendra Modi, a free-market loving minister of India because of the pressure of such terrorist-supporting groups like C.A.I.R.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

That's a scary article in the journal. Let's all hope that Obama's appointees have the huevos! -ElGuapo

David said...

"All kidding aside, why do we allow any of the Iranian top leadership to exist? Surely we could place a bounty on each and everyone of them and use targeted assassinations, if necessary."

Because assassination, especially of civil officials of a sovereign nation, is not a tool of the civilized: "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." That's Section 2.11 of Executive Order 12333 -- written by your hero Ronald Reagan, no less.

I find it astounding how willing you can be to cite law when it comes to free speech and yet can be so glib when it comes to federal laws and international standards governing our actions abroad.

Charles Johnson said...

Contrary to popular perception, Reagan is not my hero and I disagree with the whole concept of executive orders.

I think it's laughable to think that international law can be applied to what are effectively rogue states that so characterize the entire concept of human rights, that they effectively negate it.

But then again I think the concept of international law is rather silly in the first place.

Of course I think laws that were passed by the people of the U.S. ought to govern the U.S. I don't understand your point in the slightest.

generic said...

When the vast majority of the world is vehemently opposed to America's foreign policy, does that qualify the US as a rogue state? And does that then justify someone assassinating its leaders? You make a good point indeed.

Anonymous said...

Agreed with generic. What if other nations don't agree with us and we are viewed as a rogue state? Does that justify them assassinating our leaders? Or is this just a one way street, where the US can do as it sees fit?
-Brian

CitizenX said...

Generic,

Normally I would agree that "let's assassinate their leaders" is both shockingly naive and disturbingly amoral, but what you have to understand is that Charles was raised mostly around the turn of the 20th century.

Isolationism is in his blood, Genny. It's in his blood.