Those are the terms of the deal between the Israeli government and Hamas, a bloodthirsty terrorist organization, the charter of which calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of every last Jew.

Hamas has agreed to return their Gilad Shalit, an Israeli sergeant who was captured in a deadly terrorist attack in 2006. In return, Israel has agreed to release 1,027 prisoners, many of whom have committed acts of indescribable horror. Promised justice for the killers of their loved ones, Israeli families are only now discovering that woman who groomed and chauffeured suicide bombers to playgrounds – the man who blew up a synagogue with their loved ones inside – the internet seductress who slits young boys’ throats for jihad – these people and many, many more just like them are going to be released to celebration and fanfare.

Never again let it be said that Israel does not care for human life. For one man – one – they are willing to defile the memory of their myriad slaughtered countrymen and risk the safety of every last living Israeli by releasing one thousand of the most dangerous fiends on earth to kill again.

This is a fanatical devotion to life at any – and potentially the ultimate – cost. The differences between Israel and Hamas could not be greater: one side grooms suicide bombers and rejoices in a cult of death – the bigger the body count, the greater the glory, with extra points for pregnant women – while the other will do the unthinkable to save one of their own.

Except it’s not unthinkable, not to the terrorists who have learned that crime does, indeed, pay.

Israel has a history of one-sided swaps, even going as far as to release convicted murderers in exchange for the bodies of Israeli dead, “information” regarding hostages, and (in Shalit’s case) 20 female prisoners simply for a video of him alive. There is every reason to believe that Israel’s history of negotiating with terrorists is only increasing the premium on the head of every one of its citizens.

So here we are: celebrations for released murderers (“heroes”), renewed grief and disbelief for the families of the slain as they watch the killers walk free, the increased confidence among would-be terrorists that Israel’s harshest punishment lasts only until the hostage is taken.

We’ve reached that ubiquitous moment in the movies where the villain mocks the hero’s naïve devotion to saving lives. “It will be your undoing!” he gleefully cackles, as the hero, seeing a hostage, slowly lays down his weapon.

Everyone knows what happens next – the hero buys time, comes up with a plan, and the villain is defeated in a dramatic scene.

But this is real life, where the villain simply smiles and shoots you both.

“…Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always.”

At long last, the same can now be said to those attempting to evade justice for their horrific crimes. Thanks to the dramatic raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound, terrorists and their sympathizers all over the world will be unable to ignore the reality that they will be hunted to the ends of the earth – be it a cave in Waziristan or  posh compound in the foothills – and they will be eliminated. They must face the frightening reality that there is out-of-bounds, no state of limitations on this hunt, and that it does not end at a border crossing or under a loophole in international law. The hunt will continue, and they must be lucky not merely now, but always.

=====

The raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound was a spectacular display of planning and resolve the likes of which we have not seen in decades. Indeed, while this may well go down as one of the most famous operations in modern history, the only missions that are its peers in terms of success are likely to never see the light of day. In the intelligence world, that’s considered to be pretty prestigious company.

Now, the operation was certainly not perfect, and there are of course things I would like to have seen done differently  – for example, I find it counterproductive to announce the size and scope of intel discovered in the raid – but perhaps that is designed to flush the terrorists out, just as we may have announced the death of a son when he could quite possibly be in U.S. custody (Pakistan fought to retain the daughter, so announcing the son as “dead” would allow us to bring him back). Some Republicans may make an issue out of the 16 hours Obama spent in thought before issuing the go-ahead, but given that the mission was not time-critical (there was no reason to believe Osama would be moving anytime soon), and given the range of possible disastrous outcomes (including Pakistan detecting and responding to foreign attack vehicles violating their sovereignty), I’m willing to let this one slide.

Yes, President Obama is getting a great deal of credit for this dramatic success. Yes,  he largely deserves it. As Michael Barone noted, the steps leading to Osama’s capture included virtually everything the president campaigned against – using information obtained from waterboarded detainees, domestic wiretapping, an assassination order and specially-trained government “kill team” (to avoid any sort of “trial” that might go with capture), unilateral action without involving Pakistan, violating another country’s sovereignty, the list goes on.

Even as we speak, Obama’s transformation into a more serious figure in the war on terror is ongoing. Contradicting previous statements, the White House has announced that it will NOT show the photographs of Osama bin Laden, because it could be inflammatory (remember, this is the same president who initially campaigned to release photos of Abu Ghraib detainees being tortured).

His political views aside, his actions here were the right ones. At the end of the day, people will be talking about politics and re-election, but this one was personal. I believe the President did what he had to do to keep a promise to the country, even if it meant abdicating many of the stances he previously took. How he will fare in the polls remains to be seen, but right now, let us be happy that this deadly game of hide-and-seek is over.

?

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”

This single statement, regarding “acceptable” limitations on free speech, has been co-opted, twisted and selectively edited on a daily basis, and almost exclusively for the purpose of justifying new prohibitions on expression. [In fact, there is an incredible column on that here.]

The single most important element of that thought is the worse “falsely,” yet you will never hear it. Indeed, if a theater is on fire (or if you reasonably believe it to be), you have an obligation to alert the patrons – even if that means yelling.

It’s been a refuge of choice for those willing to suggest limiting, say, the despicable and offensive speech of Terry Jones. Prosecutors in Michigan, attempting to portray Jones’ planned protest as inciting violence, fell back on that trope of the intellectually dishonest:

“Just because we have the first amendment doesn’t mean you can say anything or do anything at any time,” argued the prosecution, the tell-tale wind-up for misquoting Holmes, which he did immediately after.

The one ray of hope here is that not everyone is crazy. The ACLU, as well as constitutional law professors, found this to be a gross miscarriage of justice. For a man be jailed – without even having done anything yet – is a frightening perversion and destruction of whatever freedoms we still have left. Indeed, he was preemptively banned from the mosque for 3 years, before even attempting to go there.

So what about Jones makes his speech bannable? Well, the prosecutors filed an argument that, because terrorists had placed a bounty on his head (for his speech), and because there had been death threats made against him, his speech could be silenced.

The prosecution argues, in essence, that you have a right to speech only until a foreign or anonymous terrorist threatens you, at which point allowing you to speak is too dangerous. The current ruling abdicates rule-of-law to the whims of terrorists – we can say only what they allow us to say, by veto-of-death-threat.

There is a reason that CAIR has condemned this decision, and why even the most ardent opponents of Jones – such as lawyer Majed Moughni, who burned Jones in effigy last year – suddenly find themselves in the position defending his right to hateful speech against a censorious government.

Jones wanted to prove that Muslims control Dearborn. This is simply not the case – as illustrated by the strong wave of Muslim groups supporting his rights to speak. The true case is that Dearborn is controlled by an altogether more frightening group – activist politicians and judges willing to burn not the Koran, but the Constitution.

-Andrew McCarthy

It’s a terrible beat for a variety of reasons: societies suffering under totalitarian theocracies, unimaginable violence and disregard for human life, the inevitable slaughter of moderate figures, genocidal blood-feuds and few happy endings.

Indeed, we don’t bring up the region unless there is an issue of paramount importance. The motto of In Session Magazine is threefold: “Politics, Perspective, Progress.” We care about your profits, not your prophets.

But there are times – like today – when the politics of the region is of profound importance. Times when the very foundations of our liberties are put to the test.

I recently wrote about an angry little man in Gainesville. He calls himself a pastor, but preaches a a very un-christian brand of hate. The details of his life and small congregation are irrelevant – as were, by the way, his burning of a Quran.

Yes, irrelevant.

Protest burnings happen all the time. Indeed, the very flag I used to pledge allegiance to is lit in the news so many times one wonders if the Middle East is the lifeblood of the US flag industry. Were we to still  be in the business of selling our own flags (an industry long ceded to the Chinese), we could pay off our entire deficit from just a few “Death to America” marches.

I am usually proud of my country, and would go to war kinetic-military-action to protect it. That is why I cannot fathom – or forgive – those who would surrender it and its values without a fight. People like General David Petraeus, whose response to the bloodshed in Afghanistan has been to condemn Jones while simultaneously placating Afghan Muslims (among whom walk a mob of murderers) to a degree that would make Chamberlain blush.

“In view of the events of recent days, we feel it is important on behalf of ISAF and NATO members in Afghanistan to reiterate our condemnation of any disrespect to the Holy Quran and the Muslim faith.

We condemn, in particular, the action of an individual in the United States who recently burned the Holy Quran.

We also offer condolences to the families of all those injured and killed in violence which occurred in the wake of the burning of the Holy Quran.

We further hope the Afghan people understand that the actions of a small number of individuals, who have been extremely disrespectful to the Holy Quran, are not representative of any of the countries of the international community who are in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people.”

Unlike the media, which equivocates terrorism with self-defense to appear impartial, Petraeus doesn’t even bother with the moral-ambiguity route. The message is clear: Jones is the monster, the Quran is Holy (x4), and America  needs to apologize, as demanded by the country that did the head-severing.

There is not even a cursory mention of the bloodthirsty mob that went on to murder dozens of innocent people. Petreaus’ peaceful world is one where the hypersensitivity of extremists dictates what freedoms we may exercise. To him, it is the threat to their sensitives – and not their murderous nature – that constitutes the true injustice.

There is no excuse for this absolution of the murderers. There is no moral equivalence between insult and slaughter. To see this coming from a top General repulses me in ways far stronger and deeper than the left’s Bush-era “Betray-us” smears could convey.

So while the UN flag flies at half-mast for the dead, we’ve raised the white. Now that we own it, I expect to see a lot more of it.

On TV.

Being burnt.

Well, he gets tired of waiting and goes ahead with his brazen book barbecue. For weeks, nothing happens, then after Friday prayers, a UN outpost in Afghanistan is attacked, and various UN workers are murdered, some beheaded. This is not an front-outpost in a war, and these were not members of some jihadist extreme movement; these were ordinary residents of a city that was the pristine model for peaceful transition, so enraged by word of this action that they were driven into a murderous frenzy.

As expected, the air is already thick with “I-told-you-so”s. Jones claims that the violence affirms his message, while others lay responsibility for the massacre directly at his feet.

The New York Times will soon be humming with editorials on why we can all blame the twisted little preacher in Florida, but giving Jones his own mock trial is as pointless as trying to blame him for this, and here is why:

What they will say:

What Jones did was designed to provoke a reaction, and is equivalent to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.

Why they are wrong:

A reasonable person can expect a panic if he shouts fire in a theater. [And a reasonable person in the theater can be expected to panic].

There is no reason to suspect that Jones’ exercise of speech could inflame a rational person to commit atrocious murders of random, innocent people. Indeed, the Middle East’s constant demand for fresh American flags to burn probably keeps the industry (now outsourced to China) in business, yet we don’t run frothing in the street beheading people.

In order to claim that this was foreseeable, you must posit that this audience is comprised of irrational, ideological, easily excitable and potentially murderous extremists – and not in small numbers.

Liberals commentators are blaming Jones for these “foreseeable” consequences while simultaneously attempting to paint the crowd as peaceful. This is an ideological check only the most bankrupt commentators can bounce, yet they manage to wear the contradiction with confidence.

What they will say:

Of course he can! He knew they were lunatics (the euphemism “sensitive” may be employed here, but don’t be fooled – sensitive people cry and buy lots of ice cream – they don’t decapitate the local expat bar clientele) and he provoked them, knowing full well what they were prepared to do!

Why they are wrong:

To cede the full extent of our freedoms is to lose them. Are we to let the lunatics dictate to which extent we can express ourselves? To cite threats of violence as justification to suppress speech is to provide silent assent to such tactics.

What’s more, to give ground on this point is to abandon western values entirely. Some will kill westerners because we are burn books, other will do it because they believe we have a decadent culture. Threats of violence have had their effect on our passive society – we have ceded freedoms in academia, in our speech, even our cherished taboo-smashing institutions.

[Now they are going after beauty pageants.]

When any instance of self expression is met with threats of violence, you are no longer dealing with a freedom to speak, but a dire obligation. To do less is to abandon, piece by piece, our very humanity.

Today’s New York Daily News editorial distributes the blame equally with Jones and the mob.

“…freedom of speech regarding Islam and the Koran must be exercised with due responsibility – and defended to the hilt. Courage will be required,” reads the editorial, as it goes on to explain why freedom of speech regarding Islam must not be exercised at all and is indefensible.

The last defense is probably the most honest one, which is why you will hear it least; It is the one the government used to initially talk Jones out of his plan. It goes something like this:

“Even if it wouldn’t be your fault, and even if acquiescing to the pressure and death-threats will set a dangerous precedent on the limits of speech and further encourage such methods of censorship in the future, you should still not do it because it will put our soldiers at risk.”

This, I can at least understand on principle. This is a naked entreaty – stripped of the contradictions and the pretense.

But what renders this last, best plea moot is the underlying assumption that if Jones doesn’t burn the Koran, our soldiers will be safer. This is simply not the case.

To paraphrase Voltaire, “If there were no Terry Jones, it would have been necessary to invent him.”

And invent him they have. People have been ready to riot and murder over Koran desecration that never happened, and when some Imams in Denmark couldn’t ferment a bloodthirsty riot with a few cartoons of Mohammad, they faked some to move things along.

The crazies don’t need to wait around for Terry Jones to be their excuse to detonate a daycare center.

So if Jones is not at fault, can we place all the blame squarely on the monsters who beheaded the innocent civilians sent there for the soul purpose of improving the lives of their killers?

No.

There is more blame to go around. Ironically, it lies with the New York Daily News. To condemn Jones’ exercise of speech is to broadcast the message that terrorism works. Any company, any publication, any individual who surrenders to such threats is taking an active role in legitimizing the tactic.

Perhaps, if the rioting individuals lived in a society where the murder of innocents was met with something other than a “condemnation” soundbite from some foreign leaders, they would be less inclined to react in such a manner. At the very least, it should be understood that murder will not be rewarded with compliance. Was Jones’ action reprehensible and hateful? Yes. But on this point, Jones’ hands are infinitely cleaner than the press.

“I have written an extensive legal memorandum with the help of a group of legal scholars who are sort of a stable of people, the best-known constitutional scholars in America, because for 17 years I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee…I asked them to put together [for] me a draft, which I’m now literally riding between towns editing, that I want to make clear and submit to the Untied States Senate pointing out the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran. And I want to make it clear, I want it on the record, and I want to make it clear, if he does, as chairman of the foreign relations committee and former chair of the judiciary committee, I will move to impeach him.” – Joe Biden, New Hampshire, 2007

[It is worth noting that, with Biden's "17 years" on the Judiciary Committee, he had not yet learned that only the House - not the Senate - can move to impeach a President.]

In a later follow-up, Biden re-announces his intent to push impeachment for action without congressional approval, vowing it will be so that “no Republican wonders if I mean what I say.” Nothing echoes as loudly as hollow words, and Biden has indeed put to rest any confusion over his sincerity.

Updated content, essential perspectives, stimulating discussion and a new editor to tie it all together. That would be me – Daniel Lee.

We haven’t always been there for commentary – oil rigs have burst, tsunamis have hit, terrorists have attacked, foreign countries have rioted, and our president and his administration have forged new ground in broken promises – but In Session Magazine endures, and we will make it up to you.

Finally: a promise we can all believe in.

Axelrod equated the programs facing potential cuts to defense programs and took a hawkish stance in favor of spending.

Not one to mince words, Axelrod leveled his criticisms quite plainly, stating that “this isn’t a prescription for economic growth; this is a prescription for surrender. We can’t do that.”
Can’t surrender? This administration surrenders a thousand times a day. We surrender when we announce a phased withdrawal to the terrorists (only we don’t call them “terrorists,” we call them “man-caused disasters”), we surrender when we invite foreign heads of state to insult us from our capital (and cheer). We surrender when our president embarks on international apology tours to demean our country overseas. We surrender when we legitimize acts of indescribable atrocity by negotiating with the perpetrators. We surrender when our president prostrates himself before any power – foreign or domestic. We surrender when our president downplays and rejects the notion of American exceptionalism. We surrender when we cede the borders of our country to murderous drug cartels and address the issue not with law enforcement, but with signs that warn of America’s tenuous sovereignty over its own land. We surrender when we pressure our only true ally in the middle east to accept the preconditions of terrorist entities which refuse to acknowledge even their right to exist. We surrender when we abandon our allies in Europe to a lean and hungry Russia.

Most importantly, we surrender when we, with all our might and the responsibility that comes with being the world’s foremost superpower, see evil being prepared on a global scale…and do nothing.

Surrender is the defining theme of this administration; Axelrod cannot will it differently. I, for one, eagerly await November 2012, when the current administration will make its final surrender – its first and only concession to the American people.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler explained the reasoning behind such a decision. While arguing that the policy should be repealed, Schmaler simulataneously stated that it is their job “to defend federal statutes when they are challenged in court. The Justice Department cannot pick and choose which federal laws it will defend based on any one administration’s policy preferences.”

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs put it similarly, stating that “the Justice Department is charged with upholding the law of the land, even though the president believes that that law should be repealed.”

This dramatically damaged Obama’s relationship with the gay community. The November elections are nearly here and faith in his party is at an all-time low. What’s a politician in chief to do?

Well, in a complete about-face, it seems that the Obama administration is now comfortable with choosing which laws to enforce and which ones not to.

The Justice Department has not yet issued an appeal to a California judge’s ruling on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (another anti-gay policy signed by Clinton). There is talk that they may choose not to defend what is currently federal law.

On another front, the Administration is relaxing enforcement on the estimated 10 million illegal aliens within our borders.

Regardless of your politics, such stances are antithetical to the charges of the presidency.

More disturbing than any individual stance our president has taken is his apparent comfort with picking winners and losers for his enforcement duties.