So I was never very good at word problems, but here’s a simple brain teaser even an idiot like me can solve. What’s worth saving: thousands of innocent people, or one evil jackass?
The answer….
It’s a trick question, and unicorns rule.
But if you asked a British judge, he would choose the evil jackass.
This week, a tribunal ruled that the leader of an al-Qaeda terrorist cell that tried to blow up British citizens won’t be deported – because then his human rights would be violated. He wasn’t charged with anything, so he’s free to go, but not home – because he may get roughed up by Pakistan’s security services.
Now, the judge made this call despite the fact that Abid Naseer still poses a deadly threat. And here lies the comedy: Justice Mitting said that even though it would be “conducive to the public good that [Naseer] should be deported,” the risk of him being tortured back home was just too great.
So, having to choose between the public and the fiend putting the public in danger, the judge chose the fiend. He put the human rights of terrorists above the human rights of their targets.
Now I can almost hear the defense. “Look, we can’t send this man to a torture chamber. We shouldn’t lower our standards because our enemies lower theirs.”
But why not.
This is war. And in war, you protect the innocent, and eliminate the enemy.
But these days, the war on terror is soaked in the rhetoric of tolerance – now defined by a circus of bureaucrats struggling to find the correct terms for this misunderstood group of angry men. We want to win their hearts, while they just want to impale ours.
And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist homophobic Arizonan.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.