I have no reason to disagree with the statement that “And many of the detainees were people picked up off of the street around the world without so much as a hearing into whether they were even the people the government hoped to grab …”. However, whether Gitmo is more compassionate than the alternative, depends on from what “streets” they were snatched.

For example, if London, I suspect that British facilities are far more favorable than Gitmo. If Egypt or Afghanistan, Gitmo might be a the compassionate alternative.

Also, Gitmo detainees are assigned attorneys (who admittedly operate in less than ideal circumstances). Hearings are being held, with time out for the various appeal courts and Congress to determine what rights attach at those hearings. And, detainees are being released from Gitmo, albeit slowly. So no matter how modest the rights, they are being given rights, which is more than can be said for some of the world’s streets.

To assert rejection of checks-and-balances and seperation of powers and is a function of the left is absurd. In essence, this is what Goldberg is asserting and it is especially ironic given his support for the Bush administartion, whose concept of the “unitary executive” has it that all branches of government outside the executive branch are window-dressing. The right/left metaphor came from the French Revolution and basically means “right=tradition” and “left=change”. Authoritarianism can be used just as much to preserve a traditional order as it can for sweeping, revolutionary changes.

And many of the detainees were people picked up off of the street around the world without so much as a hearing into whether they were even the people the government hoped to grab, much less actually guilty of the conspiracies they are accused of. Abu Ghraib and similar camps house far more of the enemy combatants actually caught combating us.

Goldberg actually includes “compassionate conservatism” on his list of political ideas owing an intellectual debt to fascism. He clearly criticizes Bush for statements like “When people hurt, government has to move.”

There are some places in Germany where one might imagine Goldberg elaborating on his thesis and deal with an audience that would react about as well to being called “left” as a football hooligan would react to being called a supporter of a team he hates.

Thank you for the link. Considering the heavily edited nature of the interview, Goldberg came off better than I anticipated.

Though many Bush haters like to ignore it, he did push for an extension of drug benefits for seniors. He did push for what is essentially amnesty for illegals. He, with Kennedy, put NCLB into place. He is trying to put in place a democratic Iraq and Afghanistan, even if he was wrong to be there in the first place (which I don’t think he was). After some neglect, he threw money at Louisiania.

None of the above are per se ‘conservative’. All are big government programs, including the nation building he is engaged in (and which he pledged not to do in his 2000 campaign). All of the above are pretty well resented by the conservative base.

As to the “compassion” of Guatanamo, consider the alternative. Many of the detainees were subject to be shot on the battefield under existing international law. The Guatanamo alternative demonstrates some compassion, despite not extending the entire Bill of Rights to the detainees.

Jonah Goldberg